SACW | Nov. 21, 2006 |

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | November 21, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2320

[1]  Pakistan-India: Demilitarise Siachen Glacier (Tapan Kumar Bose)
[2]  India:  No quotas, please (Arif Mohammed Khan)
[3]  India:  Darkness at noon (Jayant Narlikar)
[4]  USA: Declaration In Defense of Science and Secularism
[5]  India: Remembering 1857 should be free of revenge (Rudrangshu Mukherjee)
[6]  India: Attack most foul - Minorities must be 
protected (Edit., The Tribune)
[7]  Book Review: In defence of secularism (Ranjit Hoskote)
[8]  News Papers on Health (Cehat) 

____


[1] 


Kashmir Times
21 November 2006

DEMILITARISE SIACHEN GLACIER
SAVE THE LIVES OF HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS
By Tapan Kumar Bose

Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Indian Foreign Minister in 
a recent interview has said that the dispute over 
Siachen Glacier could be solved, "within hours". 
Asked about Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid 
Mehmood Kasuri's statement that the Siachen 
dialogue had reached a stage where the issue 
could be resolved in a few days, Mr. Mukherjee 
told the Hindustan Times: "If we all agree, then 
anything can be resolved in a few hours. Why do 
we need a few days?" Mr Mukherjee also expressed 
satisfaction that the Foreign Secretary level 
talks had gone along "expected lines."
This is the most encouraging news for thousands 
of Indian and Pakistani soldiers and their 
families. The settlement of the dispute over 
Siachen glacier will not only reduce one of the 
roadblocks in the path of peace between India and 
Pakistan, it will stop a terrible waste of the 
Indian and Pakistani soldiers who have been 
posted on the world's highest battle field. For 
nearly two decades these soldiers were posted in 
a region where the temperature goes down to minus 
60 degrees and oxygen is very thin. More soldiers 
have died because of cold and pulmonary oedema 
than because of fighting. Hundreds of soldiers 
have lost their fingers and limbs to frostbite.
According to information, on an average, the 
harsh weather of Siachen claims the life of one 
Pakistani soldier every fourth day, while one 
Indian soldier is killed every other day. Over 
1,300 Pakistani soldiers have died on Siachen 
between 1984 and 1999. It is estimated that while 
about 2000 Indian soldiers have lost their lives 
and limbs in Siachen, this operation has cost 
India over Rs. 5000 crores. Almost all of the 
casualties on both sides have been due to extreme 
weather conditions.
The Siachen glacier is an icy wasteland of 
doubtful strategic value. Since 1984, the 
"snow-warriors" of India and Pakistan have been 
locked in a battle for the control of Siachen 
glacier. The world's highest battlefield, for 
over a decade India and Pakistan have fought at 
altitudes of over 22,000 feet in minus 60§C 
temperatures. Siachen is the world's largest 
non-polar glacier, and thus is sometimes referred 
to as the third pole. It is 78 km long and 
situated at an altitude of 5,400 meters above sea 
level. The Siachen glacier is the great Himalayan 
watershed that demarcates central Asia from the 
Indian sub-continent, and that separates Pakistan 
from China in this region.
Siachen lie on the non-demarcated western side of 
the Line of Control (LoC) beyond the map 
coordination point known as NJ9842. The 78 km 
long Siachen glacier is situated between the 
Saltoro ridge to the west and the main Karakoram 
Range to the east. The Saltoro ridge originates 
from the Sia Kangri in the Karakoram Range. Its 
height ranges from 18,000 to 24,000 ft. The major 
passes on this ridge are Sia La at 20,000 ft and 
Bila Fond La at 19,000 ft.
Before 1984 neither India nor Pakistan had any 
permanent presence in the area. In the 1970s and 
early 1980s Pakistan permitted several 
mountaineering expeditions to climb high peaks on 
this glacier. This was to reinforce their claim 
on the area as these expeditions arrived on the 
glacier with a permit obtained from the 
Government of Pakistan.
This triggered a reaction for the Indian side. 
Operation Meghdoot, named after the divine cloud 
messenger in a Kalidas's famous play, was 
launched on 13 April 1984 when the Indian Army 
and the Indian Air Force went into the Glacier. 
Pakistan quickly responded with troop deployments.
As the Indian Army controls these heights, it has 
the tactical advantage of high ground. The 
Pakistanis cannot get up to the glacier, while 
the Indians cannot come down. Presently India 
holds two-thirds of glacier and commands two of 
the three passes. Pakistan controls Gyong La pass 
that overlooks the Shyok and Nubra river Valley 
and India's access to Leh district. The battle 
zone comprised an inverted triangle resting on NJ 
9842 with Indira Col and the Karakoram Pass as 
the other two extremities.
It is not clear as to how many troops are 
deployed on the glacier. The estimates of 
soldiers vary between 3500 and 10,000. It is said 
that while Pakistan maintains three battalions on 
the glacier, India has amassed about seven 
battalions on Siachen. The Pakistanis are able to 
supply most of their posts by road and pack mule. 
However, with the forward positions, located at 
the height of 21,000 feet, the Indians have to 
use helicopters to supply their troops.
It seems that the Indian army is not yet ready to 
demilitarize Siachen. On November 11, 2006, at a 
press briefing held at the Kumar Forward Logistic 
Base, Near Siachen Glacier senior Indian army 
officer told the press that the Ladakh region 
could be threatened if the glacier and its 
surrounding heights are vacated. According to a 
news report published in The Hindu on November 
12, 2006, the army officer of the 102 Infantry 
Brigade claimed that, "The power which controls 
the Siachen region would have military advantage 
since it looks over the Shyok and Nubra valleys 
of Ladakh". The Army reportedly said that 
maintaining a full-scale presence in the Siachen 
Glacier - wedged between Shaksgam Valley (China) 
and Baltistan (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) - could 
govern future boundary talks with China on the 
Shaksgam Valley. "It projects our military 
strength and capability in operating in such a 
difficult terrain. It also shows our national 
resolve to protect national sovereignty and 
territorial integrity," the army said.
The briefing just two days before the beginning 
of the Foreign Secretary level talks in New Delhi 
was obviously aimed at influencing the discussion 
of demilitarization of Siachen. While I do not 
want to go into the military and strategic merits 
or demerits of Indian presence on the Saltoro 
ridge, I am worried by the mind set of the Indian 
army which does not seem to appreciate the value 
of confidence building measures like the proposed 
agreement on Siachen as a step towards peace 
between India and Pakistan. According to the 
terms of the agreement under discussion, both 
sides will pull; back their troops after making 
their current positions on the map. Both sides 
will also agree to not occupy these positions 
again. The only sticking point it seems is 
Pakistan's reservation that India might use the 
markings to legitimize their claim on those 
positions.
In 1949 Karachi agreement and in 1972 Simla 
Agreement, Siachen glacier was left 
un-demarcated. While Pakistan had allowed a few 
mountaineering expeditions in the late seventies 
to the glacier, in 1984, India mounted a military 
operation to occupy the heights. In the Simla 
Agreement both sides had agreed not to mount 
military operation on the LoC. Both sides had 
agreed to respect each others stated positions. 
Operation Meghdoot might not have violated the 
Simla Agreement in technical terms as the area 
was not demarcated. But it certainly was an 
action against the spirit of the Simla Agreement 
which bound both sides to resolve all disputes 
through non-military means. We hope the political 
leaders of Pakistan and India have discarded the 
mind set which endorsed Operation Meghdoot and 
Kargil War. By placing our soldiers on these 
heights, we have incurred the loss of more than 
3000 lives to the harsh weather of Siachen. Such 
a cost should be unacceptable to any nation, 
particularly in these days when technology can do 
the job of monitoring and watching equally well. 
I hope our present day political leaders will do 
the humanitarian deed- bring our boys back home. 
Let not one more India or a Pakistani life be 
lost in the old desert of Siachen glacier.


______


[2]

The Times of India
20 Nov, 2006

NO QUOTAS, PLEASE
by Arif Mohammed Khan

The release of the Sachar committee report has 
prompted many including the prime minister to 
express concern over the dismal presence of 
Muslims in public services and call for some 
corrective action.

One of the suggestions made is to make provisions 
for reservation on the lines of scheduled castes 
and scheduled tribes.

I wonder if those who are advocating reservation 
for Muslims in services are aware of the fact 
that Muslim groups are already covered under 
reservation as scheduled tribes.

In addition, since 1991, Other Backward 
Communities covered under Mandal commission 
constitute about 70 per cent of the Muslim 
population. In fact, benefit of reservation is 
available to almost the entire Muslim population 
except the creamy layer.

The figures produced by Sachar committee, 
however, prove that despite reservation available 
to almost 70 per cent of the Muslim population 
things have not improved and Muslim presence in 
public services is far from satisfactory.

Now envisage a scenario where notwithstanding the 
constitutional bar against reservation on the 
basis of religion, Muslims are recognised as 
backward and benefit of reservation is extended 
to them as one community.

  This will mean inclusion of the creamy layer 
which in the first instance will go against the 
Supreme Court ruling and then will make things 
even more difficult for the really needy among 
Muslims.

They would have to compete with the Muslim creamy 
layer when today they find it hard to contend 
with depressed sections of other religious 
denominations for jobs and education.

The problem of Muslim backwardness and 
under-representation in public services goes back 
to colonial times. In 1878, Syed Ahmed Khan had 
said, "Muslims had derived least benefit from 
European sciences and literature".

In 1882, appearing before the Education 
Commission of the Central Legislative Council, he 
presented voluminous evidence to show almost 
negligible Muslim presence among the graduates of 
Calcutta University. According to his memo there 
was no Muslim among postgraduates in law.

Among the bachelors and licentiates of law there 
were eight out of 705 and five out 235 Muslims 
respectively. Likewise in engineering and 
medicine there was not a single Muslim graduate. 
In MA courses there were five Muslims out of 326 
and in BA there were only 30 out of 1,343.

The memo pointed out that based on the population 
covered by Calcutta University the number of 
Muslim graduates should have been 1,262 whereas 
there were actually just 57. On the basis of 
these figures Syed Ahmed pleaded not for job 
reservation but government help in initiating 
programmes for their educational betterment.


  It is worth noting that this memorandum was 
presented just 24 years after the formal collapse 
of uninterrupted Muslim rule for almost 800 years.

Before presenting these figures to the commission 
it was pointed out that in 1824 when government 
decided to start a Sanskrit College in Calcutta, 
Hindu leaders met under the leader-ship of 
Rammohun Roy and demanded that they did not want 
a Sanskrit college but wanted English colleges.

In contrast, in 1835, when Muslims came to know 
that government intended to start English 
teaching in all schools, they submitted an 
application signed by 8,000 moulvis of Calcutta 
to stop it.

Muslims vehemently opposed the new system of 
education believing that the philosophy and logic 
taught in English was at variance with the tenets 
of Islam. They looked upon the study of English 
as little less than embracing of Christianity.

Later, at the time of starting a committee for 
diffusion of knowledge among Muslims, Syed Ahmed 
said, "It was a matter of deep regret that 
Muslims considered their religion which was so 
great and enlightened, weak enough to be 
endangered by the study of western literature and 
science".

If after 1857 the clergy's opposition to English 
and modern education pushed Muslims into 
backwardness, after 1937 the politics of 
Partition created a negative environment that 
hampered an effective and meaningful 
participation of Muslims in national life.


Maulana Azad on October 23, 1947 warned, "There 
is no use recounting the events of past seven 
years, nor will it serve any good.

Yet, it must be stated that the debacle of Indian 
Muslims is the result of colossal blunders 
committed by Muslim League's misguided 
leadership. Now that Indian politics has taken a 
new direction, there is no place in it for Muslim 
League".

Those who are suggesting reservation of jobs do 
not realise that the remedy suggested will prove 
worse than the disease. The remedy lies in 
compulsory universal education for every Indian 
child including Muslims.

Modern education will help in not only correcting 
the present imbalances but will liberate Muslims 
from obscurantist clergy and communal politics. 
But political parties in power feel no 
compunction in using Muslim clergy for mobilising 
political support at the time of elections.

They will use the Sachar committee report only to 
heighten the sense of insecurity and deprivation 
among Muslims and then expect the community's 
backing during elections.

The writer is a former Union minister.


______



[3]

The Times of India
18 Nov, 2006

DARKNESS AT NOON
by Jayant Narlikar

When someone accosts me as an astronomer and asks 
my view on whether planets govern our destinies, 
I am dismayed. The questioner is usually not an 
illiterate villager; he is a mobile-touting, 
educated citizen of India. Is he unaware that 
scientists no longer take astrology seriously?

The idea that planets rule human destinies seems 
to date back to Babylonian and Greek cultures. 
There is no reference to planetary astrology in 
the Vedas, by the way.

Night-sky watchers had noted that across the 
well-regulated, celestial framework of stars a 
few bodies had motions that seemed irregular, 
sometimes going backward, sometimes forward.

The Greeks called these bodies planets, in their 
language wanderers. Why did planets wander? 
Scientifically inclined observers followed 
Aristotle and tried to place planetary motion in 
a geometrically defined framework that would 
reveal the pattern behind the wanderings.

Those who were not in this select group assumed 
that planets wandered on account of their will 
power. From that assumption, they concluded that 
the will power of planets was also exercised on 
mortals on earth. This belief blossomed into a 
large system that came to be called astrology.

It spread far and wide, and found a very positive 
reception in India. The scientific approach went 
through several hiccups, but eventually the works 
of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler discovered the 
real pattern behind planetary motions.

Kepler's findings in the first half of the 17th 
century led Isaac Newton to the discovery of the 
law of gravitation. Today, we know why planets 
wander. They do not have any will power. Rather, 
they are inert systems that move in 
mathematically determined orbits round the sun.

  Today, space technologists can launch spaceships 
that rendezvous with planets at the precisely 
calculated times and at precisely calculated 
places.

So, not only has the mystique surrounding the 
planets disappeared, but they are studied as 
physical objects which form part of our solar 
system. Given this background, it is bizarre that 
people should raise questions on planetary 
influence on human affairs.

Astrology is as deeply rooted in the Indian 
mindset as the caste system. I have travelled to 
more than 40 countries and delivered talks on 
astronomical topics. India is the only country 
where, after my talk, one of the questions asked 
is invariably about astrological beliefs.

Although newspaper columns in many countries 
carry forecasts related to the zodiac signs, it 
is only in India that these forecasts are taken 
seriously. When should you move from your old 
house into a new one? What is an auspicious time 
to undertake travel?

Is the present period alright for buying a car or 
a two-wheeler? Whether it is matching horoscopes 
to decide on marital compatibility, or a chief 
minister arranging the swearing-in of the 
cabinet, planets become a point of reference.

One could argue on behalf of my questioners that 
there might exist an unknown physical link 
through which planets control different human 
beings selectively according to when they were 
born. After all, modern science never claims to 
know everything at any given time.

Even if one grants this possibility, one can 
still do an empirical study of the claimed 
planetary influences. Scientists have carried out 
controlled experiments of this kind, only to find 
no positive signal supporting the hypothesis that 
planets influence humans.

  Look at the astrological forecasts given by 
different newspapers of the same date. They will 
not agree with one another. Science progressed 
because it adopted a rational approach towards 
hypotheses or theories. For a theory to be taken 
seriously, its predictions must be consistent 
with all the observed facts.

A theory may fulfil this criterion today, but may 
fail to explain some new fact in the future. In 
that case the theory will have to be modified or 
replaced by a new one. This protocol, which has 
worked so well for the progress of science, can 
be followed in everyday life by all of us, even 
if we are not scientists.

If we are told to believe in certain ideas just 
because tradition so dictates, we should rebel 
and investigate any factual evidence in support 
of those ideas. This is scientific temper. 
Astrology examined with a scientific temper does 
not survive.

In his Discovery of India, Jawaharlal Nehru 
advocated scientific temper. He deplored the fact 
that we were overwhelmed by tradition, and that 
critical faculties of intelligent people often 
cease to function. His hope that political 
freedom would change all that has been belied.

Six decades after Independence, ignorance and 
superstition continue to flourish. Recall the 
irrational response to the news that Ganesha 
idols were drinking milk. It is only in India 
that TV channels reporting on international 
cricket present tarot-card readers with veteran 
players to predict the outcome of a match.

Belief in astrology, miracles of godmen and vastu 
shastra is on the rise, rather than decline as 
Nehru had hoped. Nehru's vision of scientific 
temper has fallen by the wayside. Do we live in 
the 21st century or the 18th?

The writer is an astrophysicist.

______


[4]

http://www.cfidc.org/

DECLARATION IN DEFENSE OF SCIENCE AND SECULARISM

November 16, 2006

The Center for Inquiry, affiliated with the 
Council for Secular Humanism, has organized this 
petition in defense of secular and scientific 
public policy:

We are deeply concerned about the ability of the 
United States to confront the many challenges it 
faces, both at home and abroad. Our concern has 
been compounded by the failure exhibited by far 
too many Americans, including influential 
decision-makers, to understand the nature of 
scientific inquiry and the integrity of empirical 
research. This disdain for science is aggravated 
by the excessive influence of religious doctrine 
on our public policies.

We are concerned with the resurgence of 
fundamentalist religions across the nation, and 
their alliance with political-ideological 
movements to block science. We are troubled by 
the persistence of paranormal and occult beliefs, 
and by the denial of the findings of scientific 
research. This retreat into mysticism is 
reinforced by the emergence in universities of 
"post-modernism," which undermines the 
objectivity of science.

These disturbing trends can be illustrated by the 
push for intelligent design (a new name for 
creationism) and the insistence that it be taught 
along with evolution. Some 37 states have 
considered legislation to mandate this. This is 
both troubling and puzzling since the hypotheses 
and theories of evolution are central to modern 
science. The recent federal court decision in the 
Dover, Pa., case has set back, but not defeated, 
these efforts. Moreover, the resilience of 
anti-evolution movements is supported not only by 
religious dogmatism but also by the abysmal 
public ignorance of basic scientific principles. 
Consider these facts:

     * A recent poll by the Pew Research Center 
revealed that 64% of Americans are open to the 
idea of teaching intelligent design or 
creationism in public schools.
     * Some 42% totally reject evolution or 
believe that present forms of life existed since 
the beginning of time.
     * 38% would teach only creationism instead of evolutionary theory.
     * Only 26% agree with the predominant 
scientific view that life evolved by processes of 
natural selection without the need for divine 
intervention.
     * The percentage of individuals who accept 
the theory of evolution is lower in the United 
States than in any other developed country, with 
the exception of Turkey.

Recent polls have illustrated other instances of scientific illiteracy:

     * 20% of Americans think that the Sun revolves about the Earth
     * Only 10% know what radiation is
     * Less than one-third can identify DNA as a key to heredity
     * In the U.S., twelfth grade students scored 
lower than the average of students in 21 other 
countries in science and math.

We think that these dismal facts portend a clear 
and present danger to the role of science in the 
U.S. In our view it is not enough to teach 
specific technical subjects-important as that 
is-but to convey to the public a general 
understanding of how science works. This requires 
both some comprehension of the methods of 
scientific inquiry and an understanding of the 
scientific outlook. The cultivation of critical 
thinking is essential not only for science but 
also for an educated citizenry-especially if 
democracy is to flourish.

Unfortunately, not only do too many well-meaning 
people base their conceptions of the universe on 
ancient books-such as the Bible and the 
Koran-rather than scientific inquiry, but 
politicians of all parties encourage and abet 
this scientific ignorance. It is vital that the 
public be exposed to the scientific perspective, 
and this presupposes the separation of church and 
state and public policies that are based on 
secular principles, not religious doctrine. Yet 
government legislators and executives permit 
religion, instead of empirical, scientifically 
supported evidence, to shape public policy. 
Consider:

     * Embryonic stem cell research, which 
promises to deliver revolutionary therapies, has 
been needlessly impeded by the misguided claim 
that the embryo and/or the first division of 
cells in a petri dish (blastocyst) is the 
equivalent of a human person. This is rooted in a 
moral-theological doctrine that has no basis in 
science.

     * The nation spends hundreds of millions of 
dollars on faith-based programs of unproven 
efficacy, including ill-advised abstinence-only 
programs in such areas as drug abuse prevention 
and sex education, which are more successful at 
promoting misinformation than abstinence.

     * Abstinence policies are advocated abroad 
and promotion of condom use rejected, heedless of 
the danger of AIDS and of the need for wise 
policies aimed to restrain rapid population 
growth.

     * Scientific evidence of global warming is 
dismissed and the destruction of other species on 
the planet is ignored, driven by the misguided 
view that the Earth has been given to the human 
species as its dominion.

We cannot hope to convince those in other 
countries of the dangers of religious 
fundamentalism when religious fundamentalists 
influence our policies at home; we cannot hope to 
convince others that it is wrong to compel women 
to veil themselves when we deliberately draw a 
veil over scientific knowledge; we cannot hope to 
convince others of the follies of sectarianism 
when we give preferential treatment to religious 
institutions and practices. A mindset fixed in 
the Middle Ages cannot possibly hope to meet the 
challenges of our times.

Science transcends borders and provides the most 
reliable basis for finding solutions to our 
problems. We maintain that secular, not 
religious, principles must govern our public 
policy. This is not an anti-religious viewpoint; 
it is a scientific viewpoint. To find common 
ground, we must reason together, and we can do so 
only if we are willing to put personal religious 
beliefs aside when we craft public policy.

For these reasons, we call upon political leaders of all parties:
     * to protect and promote scientific inquiry
     * to base public policy insofar as possible 
on empirical evidence instead of religious faith
     * to provide an impartial and reliable source 
of scientific analysis to assist Congress, for 
example, by reviving the Congressional Office of 
Technology Assessment
     * to maintain a strict separation between 
church and state and, in particular, not to 
permit legislation or executive action to be 
influenced by religious beliefs.

Science and secularism are inextricably linked 
and both are indispensable if we are to have 
sound public policies that will promote the 
common good, not only of Americans but of the 
global community.

In-agreement signatures, for the Declaration in 
Defense of Science and Secularism

Baruj Benacerraf, PhD-Nobel Laureate (Physiology 
and Medicine), Dana-Farber Cancer Inst.
Paul Boyer, PhD-Nobel Laureate (Chemistry), Prof. 
Emer., Univ. of California-Los Angeles
Steven Weinberg, PhD-Nobel Laureate (Physics); 
Prof. of Physics, Univ. of Texas-Austin
Jo Ann Boydston-former exec. dir., John Dewey Foundation
Gwen W. Brewer, PhD-Prof. Emer., California State Univ.-Northridge
Stephen Barrett, MD-Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
Arthur Caplan, PhD-Chair, Dept. of Medical Ethics, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Elizabeth Daerr-Exec. Dir., CfI/Washington, DC
Daniel C. Dennett, PhD-Prof. of Philosophy, Tufts Univ.
Edd Doerr-President, Americans for Religious Liberty, Silver Spring, MD
Ann Druyan-author, producer; President, The Carl Sagan Foundation, Ithaca, NY
Martin Gardner-author and editor
Rebecca Goldstein, PhD-author, Visiting Prof. of Philosophy, Trinity College
Adolf Grünbaum, PhD- Prof. and Chair, Center for 
Philosophy of Science, Univ. of Pittsburgh
Peter Hare, PhD-Distinguished Prof. Emer. of Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo
James A. Haught-Executive Editor, The Charleston Gazette
David Helfand, PhD-Prof. of Astronomy, Columbia Univ.
Gerald Holton, PhD-Prof. of Physics, Harvard Univ.
Leon Jaroff-senior science editor (retired), Time and Discover
Donald C. Johanson, PhD-Dir., Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State Univ.
Stuart D. Jordan, PhD-Prof. Emer., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Barry Karr-Exec. Dir., Center for Inquiry/Transnational, Amherst, NY
Daniel Kelleher-entrepreneur, Kalispell, MT
Tom Knapp-Vero Beach, FL
Virginia Knapp-Vero Beach, FL
David Koepsell, PhD, JD-Exec. Dir., Council for Secular Humanism
Lawrence Krauss, PhD-Prof. of Physics and 
Astronomy, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, 
OH
Paul Kurtz, PhD- Prof. Emer. of Philosophy, SUNY 
Buffalo; Chairman, Center for 
Inquiry/Transnational
Ronald A. Lindsay, PhD, JD-Legal Dir., CfI-Office 
of Public Policy, Washington, DC
Jere H. Lipps, PhD-Prof., Museum of Paleontology, Univ. of California-Berkeley
Elizabeth Loftus, PhD-Dist. Prof. of Psychology 
and Social Behavior, Univ. of California-Irvine
Steve Lowe-Washington Area Secular Humanists
Kenneth Marsalek-founding member & past 
president, Washington Area Secular Humanists
Joe Nickell, PhD-Senior Research Fellow, CSICOP 
at Center for Inquiry, Amherst, NY
Matthew Nisbet, PhD-Asst. Prof. of Communications, American Univ.
Steven Pinker, PhD-author and Prof. of Psychology, Harvard Univ.
Elie A. Shneour, PhD-President and Research 
Director, Biosystems Research Inst., San Diego, 
Calif.
Peter Singer, PhD-Prof. of Philosophy, Princeton Univ.
Victor Stenger, PhD-Prof. Emer., Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Hawaii
Edward Tabash, JD-Chair, First Amendment Task Force
Lionel Tiger, PhD- Prof. of Anthropology, Rutgers Univ.
Toni Van Pelt-Policy Dir., CfI-Office of Public Policy, Washington, DC
Edward O. Wilson, PhD-Pellegrino University Prof. Emer., Harvard Univ.

*Institutions for identification only

______


[5]

The Telegraph
November 05, 2006

MORE THAN GRAVE
- Remembering 1857 should be free of revenge

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

Ravaged by the present

The revolt of 1857 has been stalked by silly 
controversies ever since it began. British 
officers in 1857 got misled into the controversy 
about the greased cartridges, which many of them 
believed in their delusion had caused the huge 
conflagration. One hundred years later, 
historians became embroiled in a needless debate 
about nomenclature, what to call the rebellion: 
mutiny, war of independence, what have you. 
Nearing the 150th anniversary, a controversy has 
been sparked off by the restoration of the grave 
in Delhi of John Nicholson, who led the British 
attack in 1857 to recover Delhi from the rebels.

The grave has been renovated by the British 
government, and this has provoked a public outcry 
because it has been seen as an affront to 
nationalist sentiments since Nicholson was 
responsible for the death of many Indians, some 
of whom were innocent of defying British 
authority.

Those familiar with the events of 1857 and its 
history will find nothing new in this kind of 
controversy. Kanpur was the site of three of the 
worst bloodbaths of the rebellion - on the river 
at Satichaura Ghat, where the rebels massacred 
the Britons who had been promised safe passage by 
boat to Allahabad, the killing of the survivors 
from Satichaura Ghat in an enclosed room called 
Bibighur and the subsequent vengeance of James 
Neill after the British recovered Kanpur. To 
commemorate the Britons who had been killed in 
the two massacres, the British erected a statue - 
Angel of Mercy - near the well into which the 
dead bodies had been thrown after the Bibighur 
killing. In the remembrance of the victors, the 
Indians who had been butchered by Neill needed no 
commemoration. Indians and non-Christians were 
not allowed to go into the enclosed area 
containing the well and the statue. On August 15, 
1947, people broke into the enclosed area and 
damaged the nose of the Angel of Mercy. The 
statue had to be removed and in its place now 
stands a bust of Nana Sahib, one of the leaders 
of the revolt in Kanpur. There took place a 
substitution of icons.

The removal of the statue in Kanpur had a bizarre 
prequel in 1927 in Madras, a city that had been 
left totally untouched by the revolt. On Mount 
Road, there was a statue of James Neill, and in 
August 1927, a Hindu and a Muslim youth tried to 
disfigure the statue. When arrested they admitted 
that they had actually wanted to destroy it after 
they had learnt of the atrocities perpetrated by 
Neill as he had led the counter insurgency 
operations between Allahabad and Kanpur. The 
matter would have ended there had not a man 
called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi entered the 
proceedings. He wrote in his journal Young India 
that "there seems to be no doubt that as national 
consciousness grows, the resentment over the 
insolent reminders, which statues are, of abused 
British prowess and British barbarity will grow 
in strength." Gandhi considered the statue to be 
an "insult to the nation" because it was an 
emblem of India's slavery. His objection was 
based on what he had read of Neill's activities. 
He was unwilling to accept that Neill was a hero 
because he had only successfully instituted a 
reign of terror in countering an insurgency. 
Gandhi said for reasons of national self-respect, 
the statue should be removed. But a resolution 
proposing the removal was defeated in the Madras 
Legislative Council.

What Gandhi, and many other Indians failed to 
recognize and admit was the fact that 1857 saw a 
level of violence on both sides that was quite 
unprecedented in the history of British rule in 
India. The rebels and the British had carried out 
acts of unbelievable cruelty. Following Gandhi's 
criterion of non-violence, it is difficult to 
remember any one, Briton or Indian, as a hero in 
1857. Nationalist myth-making has not always 
followed Gandhi's high moral standards. Thus the 
Angel of Mercy in Kanpur could be replaced by a 
statue of Nana Sahib who has to bear the moral, 
if not direct, responsibility for the killings 
that took place at Satichaura Ghat and the 
Bibighur.

One hundred and fifty years after the event, it 
is important for both Britons and Indians to 
accept that both sides had perpetrated terrible 
acts of violence. One side used violence to 
protect their possessions in India from a real 
and violent threat from those who had been 
conquered and dominated by the British. The other 
side used violence to defy the dominance and to 
break it. 1857 is not a moment of which either 
India or Britain can be proud. The year 
represents a common legacy of violence. 
Remembrance should thus be bereft of revenge.

The renovation of Nicholson's tomb highlights 
another aspect of the way we, as Indians, treat 
our heritage. All over India there are remains of 
the raj: graves, houses in which the former white 
rulers lived, monuments they built to commemorate 
their triumphs and even cities that they 
established. These sites cannot be ignored and 
left to the ravages of nature on the pretext that 
they are not part of our history. British rule in 
India, for good or for bad, is part of India's 
history and culture. We cannot deny or refuse to 
own the colonial heritage. Thus those who fought 
to preserve British rule in India are also part 
of India's history. If we neglect Nicholson's 
tomb by extending the same logic, we should 
ignore all of Lutyens' Delhi since it was built 
to represent the triumph of the British raj in 
India. But we have made New Delhi the capital of 
the republic. Nicholson's grave and other similar 
remains of the raj should be seen as part of 
India's rich and variegated past.

There is another associated problem. As a people, 
Indians are not very respectful towards 
historical monuments. My friend, Toby Sinclair, a 
London-born Scot who has made India his home, is 
a tireless traveller across India. Recently, he 
discovered in Ghazipur, in eastern Uttar Pradesh, 
a memorial to Lord Cornwallis. It is an exquisite 
marble monument set in manicured lawns that are 
fenced by well-clipped hedges. It is a little 
piece of England in eastern UP. Toby's surprise 
gave way to despair when he noticed a portion of 
the marble disfigured by a visitor who had found 
no other better place to express his feelings for 
the woman in his life (see picture). Such 
disfigurement of historical monuments is not an 
uncommon occurrence in India. In this context, 
both the Archaeological Survey of India and 
INTACH - two bodies engaged in the preservation 
and restoration of historical sites and monuments 
- perform a thankless task.

A historical site, be it an archaeological 
excavation, a monument, a grave, a cluster of 
temples and so on, is something more than its 
physical shape and presence. They are all 
repository of memories. Sometimes these memories 
are not kind and pleasant, yet they have to be 
preserved if India is to be mature and sensitive 
in the remembrance of things past. 
History-writing cannot perhaps ever be free of 
politics and ideology, but remembrance and 
commemoration can be, or should be.

_____


[6]

The Tribune
November 17, 2006

Editorial
Attack most foul
Minorities must be protected

IT is a matter of national shame that the 
poisonous weed of religious intolerance, which 
has already brought to India the ignominy of 
Graham Staines murder, is taking roots at the 
unlikeliest of places. Who would have thought 
that a Christian preacher would be thrashed in a 
relatively peaceful place like Yamunanagar in 
Haryana? While the priest, Mr A.M. Samuel, 
President of the N-W Region of Indian Pentacostal 
Church of God, and others say that they were 
there only to propagate the name of Jesus and to 
hold prayers, the angry mob allegedly consisting 
of BJP and Bajrang Dal activists insists that 
they were trying to convert Hindus to 
Christianity. Even if it is conceded, for 
arguments' sake, that such indeed was the motive 
of the congregation, still nobody had the right 
to take the law into his own hands.

What is all the more galling is the fact that the 
troublemakers were accompanied by a large number 
of local residents who do not owe allegiance to 
any militant organisation or group. Apparently, 
their feelings had been aroused with the help of 
vicious propaganda. That is highly disturbing. 
Only recently, 30 Hindu activists were arrested 
in Mohali for reportedly protesting against a 
programme being organised by the local church. 
Two months ago, an equally ugly incident had 
taken place at Loreto Convent in Lucknow. Such 
instances can by multiplied if one goes a little 
further back in time.

The situation demands that the police has to 
remain alert against the mischief-makers who are 
always keen to tread on minority rights. It 
should now immediately swing into action and 
bring the guilty to book. Only then would the 
apprehensions of the minorities be assuaged. 
Community leaders also need to ensure that the 
venom of religious hatred is not allowed to be 
spread. Fanaticism has no place in a plural and 
multi-cultural country like India. 

_____


[7]

Book Review / The Hindu


IN DEFENCE OF SECULARISM

by Ranjit Hoskote

Examines the claims of religion as a magisterium 
in the domain of knowledge and in public sphere


THE WRONGS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT -- Reflections 
on Science, Secularism and Hindutva: Meera Nanda; 
Three Essays Collective, P.O. Box 6 Palam Vihar, 
Gurgaon, Haryana-122017. Rs. 150.

The collapse of the Republican ascendancy earlier 
this month would seem to have brought the 
evangelical-expansionist juggernaut of Right-wing 
America to a halt, just as the electoral defeat 
of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) 
government may appear to have checked the march 
of Hindutva. But neither the United Progressive 
Alliance's (UPA) triumph in India nor that of the 
Democrats in the U.S. should blind us to the fact 
that both societies must continue to cope with 
the deep, indwelling and unstemmed current of 
reactionary intolerance flowing beneath the 
edifices of their modernity. This intolerance 
bases itself on the infallibility of judgments 
made in the name of religious belief; on the 
unquestionability of claims asserted by 
religiosity; and on the absolute primacy of a 
politicised religiosity.

Meera Nanda, who is currently a John Templeton 
Foundation Fellow in Religion and Science, has 
confronted this phenomenon courageously in her 
writings, especially in the excellent Prophets 
Facing Backward (2004). She has examined the 
claims of religion as a magisterium, both in the 
domain of knowledge and in the public sphere 
where the dramas of social change and political 
action are enacted. Nanda is particularly 
concerned with the manner in which the 
universally admired scientific knowledge is 
sought to be coopted by idioms of contemporary 
religiosity; and with the emergence of mystical 
populisms that threaten to coopt even legitimate 
popular mobilisations of resistance into the 
schema of reactionary politics.

The malaise

In the three passionate and closely argued essays 
- `Secularism without Secularisation?', `Hindu 
Ecology in the Age of Hindutva', and `Making 
Science Sacred' - that constitute The Wrongs of 
the Religious Right, Nanda offers a compelling 
diagnosis of this malaise, both in India and in 
the West. Her accounts remind us of the extent to 
which we, as postcolonial Indians, are held 
hostage by the hobbled, half-hearted attempt at 
modernisation that lies at the foundation of our 
nation-state. Ours is the tragedy of a society 
that was redeemed from imperial colonialism, but 
not from its own demons: we gave ourselves the 
lineaments of a democratic polity, but never 
purged our society and culture of their feudal 
contents, their capacity to sustain regressive 
attitudes, their structurally sanctioned 
oppression and violence.

Nanda states her central thesis succinctly: 
"Secularism, whatever the model, is only as 
strong as cultural secularisation is deep; no 
secularism without secularisation of the civil 
society... and unless the cultural habit of 
accepting authority based upon faith and/or 
non-sensory, mystical experiences gives way to a 
cultural habit of demanding good, falsifiable 
evidence, secularism will forever remain 
threatened by those who invoke metaphysical 
verities backed by God, sacred books and 
traditions."

Critique

She emphasises the salutary insight that 
reactionary attitudes are not the monopoly of 
formerly colonised nations, and that the apparent 
hypermodernity achieved by economic change does 
not automatically guarantee the dissolution of 
revanchist, anti-modernist dogmata. In her 
thoroughgoing critique of eco-spiritualities, 
Nanda draws attention to the dark side of the 
`alternative', whether at home or abroad: the New 
Age farrago of pagan revivalism, racialist 
doctrine, nature mysticism and the occult that 
passes for a philosophy of life in the absence of 
well-directed secular efforts, especially after 
the collapse of the orthodox Left internationally 
and the self-compromising of India's Centrist 
parties by their `soft Hindutva' gestures.

In such a situation, even well- meaning and 
compassionate religious approaches can be 
poisoned by the company they keep. As a key 
example, Nanda invites us to consider the 
cooption of an environmentalism premised on local 
conceptions of the sacred by the ideology of 
monolithic Hindu nationalism. Eventually, she 
points out, environmental movements must be seen 
as class-based political movements aimed towards 
securing their participants a better life, rather 
than as a defence of some mystical ideal of 
Nature. Movements that adopt mystical populism 
must eventually fail, or turn into monsters.

Nanda's is a sane and cautionary voice. She has 
no time for the muffling devices of tact; nor can 
we afford these at the present time. And yet, 
close engagement with extremists can leave one 
with an unrelenting extremism of one's own. 
Perhaps Nanda must exercise some vigilance 
against this tendency. For instance, she does 
Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha an injustice: 
in her critique of their ecological history, 
which emphasises sacred groves as traditional 
means of pursuing forest conservation and 
promoting bio-diversity, she manages to suggest 
that they are defenders of the caste system. This 
is to mistake description for prescription; she 
also dismisses the evidence that sacred groves 
were not confined to the upper castes, but were 
maintained by a wide variety of social actors, 
not all Hindu.

Also, institutions that may have guaranteed 
ecological stability and social consensus at one 
time could, in changed socio-political 
circumstances, have become ossified. Surely this 
should not prevent us from retrieving the best 
features of viable historical models, in what I 
would describe as an attitude of optimistic 
retrievalism?

`Optimistic retrievalism'

After all, Nanda has her own moments of 
optimistic retrievalism: she proposes Buddhism as 
a possible religion of reason that could serve 
the interests of a truly progressive India. In 
this, she pursues Dr. Ambedkar's approach towards 
the retrieval of Buddhism; and her understanding 
of Buddhism, like his, is a highly selective one. 
Following Dr. Ambedkar, Nanda extracts the more 
down-to-earth and practical Theravada strand from 
the Buddhist corpus and recasts it in a 
`practical ethics' mould - while ignoring such 
highly influential idioms as the Yogachara, 
Madhyamika and Mahasanghika, which are 
idealistic, even mystical, and resistant to 
rationalist revisionism.

I say this, not to diminish Nanda's admirable and 
indeed crucial engagement with Buddhism, but to 
indicate that the tendency towards optimistic 
retrievalism can never be wished away or 
abandoned, merely because it is so often eclipsed 
by its sinister twin, reactionary revivalism. 
Besides, the tendency to reify positivist science 
as the only guarantee of a life worth living can 
lead us into another pitfall: the espousing of an 
insatiable criticality that leaves little space 
for experiences of grace, doubt and wonderment, 
because it refuses to distinguish between the 
promotion of dangerous mass delusions and the 
necessary re-enchantment with the world.

______


[8] 


Dear All

We are pleased to announce that two new 
background papers have been posted online.

Tracing Human Rights in Health . This paper is an 
endeavor to situate the evolution of right to 
health in a historical context. It highlights the 
debates within the newly emergent discipline of 
Health & Human Rights. Paper has sections on 
genesis of public health & human rights, 
justifiability of health rights from the 
International Law point of view, human rights 
issues affecting the enjoyment of health right, 
experience of developing countries and India in 
implementing the health right. The conclusion 
reflects on the aspect of operationalizing right 
to health Movement. Download full paper

Identities in Motion; Migration and Health in 
India .  Human spatial mobility started about two 
decades ago for various systemic, economic and 
individual reasons, but there is a lack of 
systematic information and health risk assessment 
among the mobile population. This paper addresses 
the issue of migration and its public health 
implications within the human rights framework. 
Migrants have always been conceptualized as 
problematic in the context of policies both 
nationally and internationally. This mindset has 
led to complex public health issues posed by 
migration. Understanding migrants' health extends 
to capturing the underlying determinants 
including adequate nutrition, housing, healthy 
environment, and occupational conditions, access 
to health related education and information as 
well as access to health care and education. 
Healthcare of migrants has suffered due to the 
presence of divergent models of how and when 
nations are responsible for the health and safety 
of individuals. The most important factor that 
separates the rights from being realized is the 
gross underestimation of migrants both at origin 
and destination. Download full paper

Papers are also available on

http://www.cehat.org/newp.html


Regards

Gunjan

CEHAT (Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes)
Survey No, 2804-2805,
Aaram Society Road,
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
Mumbai 400055
INDIA


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

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.