SACW | April 28, 2007 | Pakistan: Defend Ajoka against the Burqa brigade / Arrests in Kashmir / Betraying Burmese democrats / India: Judicial indecency; Caste in Stone; Vastushastra, Feng Shui nonsense / UN restricts Free Speech
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Apr 27 22:25:59 CDT 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | April 28, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2396 - Year 9
[1] Pakistan: Alert for Action - against right
wing campaign [and the 'Moderately enlightened'
Fraud]
- Stop The Campaign To Terrorize Theatre Group In Pakistan (Madeeha Gauhar)
- Govt's double retreat in NA: Minister backs
demand for curbs on burqa play (Raja Asghar)
- Ajoka blames 'burqa brigade' for ban, vows to go to court
- Appeasement (Editorial, The News)
[2] India / J and K: A perilous path - Arrests
of Hurriyat (G) leaders are beyond logic (Edit,
Kashmir Times)
[3] Betraying "Democracy" in Burma (J. Sri Raman)
[4] India: Judicial indecency and the moral brigade
- Kissing sense goodbye (Editorial, Indian Express)
- Kissing Episode, Part II (Editorial, The Telegraph)
[5] India: Looking backward (Dipankar Gupta)
[6] India: Scientist Narlikar slams
Vastushastra, Feng Shui at rationalists conference
[7] The UN gives in: Protecting the belief at
the expense of the believers (Agnes Callamard)
____
[1]
South Asia Citizens Web
27 April 2007
http://www.sacw.net/FreeExpAndFundos/Ajoka27042007.html
Request for action against right wing campaign -
State should not cave in to pressure from
fundamentalists
STOP THE CAMPAIGN TO TERRORIZE THEATRE GROUP IN PAKISTAN
1. The pro-Taliban elements and their political
patrons have made an issue of an Ajoka play
"Burqavaganza', which was staged in Lahore in
March 2007. Five MMA MNAs submitted an
adjournment motion in the National Assembly,
which was discussed on 26 April 2007. MMA members
used extremely provocative language against the
writer/director of the play and director of
Ajoka, accused them of ridiculing Islamic
injunctions and demanded action against them
under blasphemy laws. Although several MNAs from
Government and Opposition including women MNAs
wanted to speak on the motion but the speaker did
not allow them. The Minister for Culture Mr. G.G.
Jamal announced that the Government had banned
the play and further action will be taken after a
report from the Punjab Government is received.
2. "Burqavaganza" is a satirical play, which uses
Burqa as a metaphor for double standards and
cover-ups in the society. The play shows all
characters (men and women) wearing burqas,
including politicians, terrorist leaders and
policemen. Issues addressed include gender
discrimination, religious extremism, terrorism,
love marriage and media programmes promoting
intolerance. It had been made very clear in the
brochure of the play and before and after the
play that the theme of the play was not critical
of any one's religious beliefs or dress
preference, but about the hypocrisy and double
standards and the feudal mindset. The audience
loved the play and it got very good press
reviews. The play had been staged in
collaboration with the Lahore Arts Council and
the Executive director of the Council greeted the
cast at the end of the play. On great public
demand the play was again staged on 18 April at
the Panjpani Indo-Pak Theatre Festival at Arts
Council, Lahore.
3. The capitulationist stand taken by the
Government in the face of MMA onslaught is very
disappointing and disturbing. Instead of telling
the fanatic MMA members not to intimidate theatre
groups and the arts councils, he arbitrarily
announced a ban on the play and promised further
action. The speaker did not prevent the members
from using defamatory language against two
leading theatre practitioner Shahid Nadeem and
Madeeha Gauhar. Reporting of the remarks can
incite fanatics to further harass Ajoka, Arts
Council and other artists in the country.
It is disturbing that the Government of President
Musharraf is taking a weak-kneed and apologetic
stand on the continuous challenge by the
pro-Taliban elements. The Government inaction
over Jamia Hafsa stand off, Islami Jamiat attacks
in Punjab University and moral policing in the
NWFP have not only damaged government's
credibility and ability to establish its writ, it
has also emboldened the fanatics to spread their
tentacles. The Government has totally failed to
punish those who are challenging its writ and
intimidating students and artists. It has also
miserably failed to protect those are being
intimated and attacked by the pro-Taliban
elements.
4. Ajoka is an independent and non-commercial
theatre group committed to the cause of social
change since 1984. It has addressed social issues
boldly but artistically. It is determined to
promote a culture of peace and enlightenment. As
the Government of Pakistan has failed in its duty
to protect the rights of freedom of expression
and paid only lip service to the concept of
"enlightened moderation' , we appeal to the
democratic governments and international human
rights and development organizations to support
us and urge the Pakistan Government to fulfill
its obligation to protect its citizens rights and
take effective measures against the Talibanist
who are terrorizing the people of Pakistan.
5. We will appreciate if you could contact the
Pakistan Government expressing your concern at
the harassment of Ajoka and urge the Government
to ensure that Ajoka is able to carry out its
work as a theatre group freely. Please address
the letters to:
General Pervez Musharraf
President of Pakistan
President House
Constitution House
Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 922 1422, 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835
Email: ( http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/WTPresidentMessage.aspx)
Please copy the letters to the following:
1. Mr Shaukat Aziz
Prime Minister of Pakistan
Prime Minister Secretariat
Constitution Avenue
Islamabad, Pakistan
Email: primeminister at pak.gov.pk
2. Mr G.G. Jamal
Federal Minister for Culture
Ministry of Culture
Pakistan Secretariat
Constitution Avenue
Islamabad, Pakistan
Email: minsiter at culture.gov.pk
3. Mr Pervez Elahi
Chief Minister Punjab
Chief Minister House
Lahore, Pakistan
Email: (http://www.chpervaizelahi.com/writemsg.asp )
4. Lt General Khalid Maqbool
Governor Punjab
Governor House
Lahore, Pakistan
Fax: +92 42 9200023
E-mail: governor.sectt at punjab.gov.pk
5. Copy for information to;
Ajoka theatre
24-B Sarwar Road, Lahore Cantt Pakistan. Fax: 9242-666 5021
Thank you for your support,
Madeeha Gauhar 27 April 2007
Artistic Director
Ajoka Theatre
o o o
Dawn
April 27, 2007
GOVT'S DOUBLE RETREAT IN NA: MINISTER BACKS DEMAND FOR CURBS ON BURQA PLAY
by Raja Asghar
ISLAMABAD, April 26: The National Assembly on
Thursday tasted a Taliban-like move taking a
summary cultural toll as the government seemed
making a double retreat -- over a drama featuring
the burqa (veil) and in a row with the opposition
over the country's judicial crisis.
While its seeming appeasement of religious
militants seeking to enforce their brand of a
Taliban-style religious code in Islamabad has
aroused concern among both its friends and foes,
the government told the lower house it had
immediately stopped any more shows of the drama
produced in Lahore, bowing to demands from
burqa-clad members of religious parties who said
the production made in Lahore was contrary to
Quranic injunctions.
Both protests and cheers across party lines
greeted the announcement by Culture Minister
Ghazi Ghulam Jamal, who said he had called for
video cassettes and CDs of the play
'Burqavaganza' produced by Lahore's Ajoka Theatre
and that the Punjab provincial government had
been told "not to allow any more shows (of the
drama) until we have examined it" to decide if
its contents were objectionable on religious or
cultural grounds.
The charge, rejected by the drama's producers
with a vow to fight it out in a court of law,
came up in a call-attention notice from five MMA
women members before it emerged that the
government would avoid a debate promised for
Thursday on its own resolution moved on Wednesday
to condemn the opposition for allegedly trying to
politicise and divide the judiciary through
demonstrations.
The opposition parties accused the government of
running away from the debate for which they said
they were prepared, though Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Sher Afgan Khan Niazi said the
resolution had become the property of the house
and could not be withdrawn and, in an apparently
non-serious move, Law and Justice Minister
Mohammad Wasi Zafar came back to the house
towards the fag-end of the proceedings after a
considerable absence to deny the charge.
MMA member Liaquat Baloch said he had moved an
amendment to the government's resolution that
would instead condemn the presidential action and
call for a withdrawal of the reference.
It was not clear whether the debate would be held
on Friday, which had also been set for taking up
seven opposition adjournment motions seeking a
debate on punitive notices issued by the Pakistan
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to
some private television channels over their
coverage of the protests by lawyers and
opposition parties against the presidential
reference.
All opposition parties and journalists covering
the session also staged token walkouts over the
Pemra actions.
NO BURQA FUN: Responding to the MMA
call-attention notice, Culture Minister Jamal,
elected to the National Assembly from Fata, said
burqa was part of 'our culture' and nobody could
be allowed to make a fun of it, and even
threatened that the government could permanently
ban the concerned drama and cancel the licence of
its producers.
(But Ajoka artistic director and Burqavaganza
producer Madeeha Gauhar told Dawn by telephone
from Lahore that there was nothing un-Islamic in
her musical comedy that she said was produced in
response to a threat of Talibanisation posed by
clerics of Lal Masjid and their madressah
followers.
She said her group was supporting President
Musharraf's policy of 'enlightened moderation' in
Islam but regretted the latest government move
against the drama after only five shows, saying
she would go to a court of law to challenge if a
government notice was received by Ajoka. "It is
unacceptable.")
o o o
Daily Times
April 28, 2007
AJOKA BLAMES 'BURQA BRIGADE' FOR BAN, VOWS TO GO TO COURT
Staff Report
LAHORE: The Ajoka theatre group in a press
conference on Friday denounced the ban on the
play Burkavaganza, saying the ban was imposed
because of pressure from the 'burqa brigade'. It
also said the ban had proven that the
government's enlightened moderation policies were
a farce and that it would challenge it (the ban)
in court.
Madiha Gauhar alleged that the ban on the play
was another in a series of events encouraging the
Talibanisation of the country. "Such moves give
extremist elements in society more room to
continue their subversive activities," she said.
Madiha called the ban a crude attempt to
terrorise artists and writers struggling to
highlight social evils.
She said allegations by Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
MNA Razia Aziz were baseless and that her
comments reflected the intellectual mediocrity of
minds incapable of understanding metaphors and
satire. She said creative minds drew inspiration
from society and exposed its evils, and in their
own way worked to spread tolerance and
enlightenment. In light of this, banning the
activities of artists was astonishing. She said
the act reflected a moment of sudden panic on
part of the government, which would embolden
extremist elements.
Madiha said Ajoka refuted the misinterpretation
of religion projected by extremists. She also
vowed to take legal action against the ban and
the allegations that the play had infringed upon
the Blasphemy Law.
She said extremists had violated constitutional
and moral norms of society by taking violent
measures to impose their ideology on others.
Citing the example of Mullah Omar, who made a
getaway by donning a burqa, she said violent and
exploitive elements were abusing and denigrating
the burqa. "This raises questions in the minds of
the masses," she said, adding, "People are using
the burqa as a refuge and weapon to threaten and
impose their ideology forcefully."
Madiha later told Daily Times that if extremists,
who were not many but were politically charged,
were allowed to impose their narrow-minded views
on the people and the 'enlightened government'
kept retreating and refusing to enforce its writ,
the situation would worsen and result in bans on
poetry, painting and other art forms.
Samia Mumtaz, Ajoka executive, said the burqa was
a non-issue, which had been politicised by
extremist elements. The real motive of the play
Burkavaganza was to highlight the misuse of the
burqa by presenting a satire on the double
standards prevalent in society, she said.
Rebutting objections that the play failed to
portray its real meaning to the audience, she
said the aspersions of extremists were baseless,
as they had not even seen the play. "Audiences
highly praised the play," she added.
o o o
The News
April 28, 2007
Editorial
APPEASEMENT
According to the culture minister who spoke on
this issue before the National Assembly on
Thursday in response to a call-attention notice
by five women MNAs of the MMA, a play by the name
of 'Burqavaganza' was staged by the a well-known
Lahore-based drama company earlier this month at
a theatre festival in the city. The minister told
the house that the "burqa was part of Pakistani
culture" and that "no one will be allowed to
ridicule our culture". He said that for now the
play had been banned but a final decision would
be taken after the ministry reviewed CDs of its
performance. Thankfully, one member of the ruling
PML-Q, MNA Mehnaz Rafi, had the courage to
criticise the ministry's decision (the PPP's
ever-vocal MNA, Sherry Rehman, joined her) saying
quite rightly that "a few people" should not be
allowed to dictate to the majority.
What one saw on display from the minister on
Thursday smacks of nothing more than hypocrisy.
For starters, the job of the culture ministry
should be to promote and encourage all
manifestations of Pakistani culture and to
facilitate the arts. And the best way to do the
latter is to allow creative people to come
forward and produce plays, music, sculpture,
paintings and so on. Furthermore, it is in the
nature of artistes to be creative, rebellious and
critical of what they see happening around them
in their immediate surroundings in particular and
society in general. It is more than likely that
the play in question was a response (as its
director has herself said) to the country's
rapidly increasing Talibanisation, and this is
best encapsulated by the government's appeasement
of the Lal Masjid clerics and the Jamia Hafsa
vigilantes. If one were to see the play in this
context and not as an act of wilful "blasphemy"
as alleged by one MMA MNA, then the objectives of
those behind it will become clear. Besides, the
statement that the burqa is part of Pakistan's
culture to the extent that any artistic
performance on it must be banned is something
that will be seen as debatable by many rational
Pakistanis.
The other problem, as manifested by the words of
the culture minister before the National
Assembly, is that very often those who sit at the
helm of culture ministries take it upon
themselves to become the guardians and arbiters
of public morality and national culture. They
assume the role of chief censors deciding what
the general public should and shouldn't see. That
defeats the very purpose of promoting culture.
Also, this happens quite often when the state is
close to being or is actually a totalitarian one.
It is best left to people to decide what they
want to watch rather than the government deciding
for them (another characteristic typical of a
totalitarian state). From what the culture
minister said on Thursday, his ministry should be
rechristened the ministry of moral virtue and
elimination of vice. It seems the government is
not about to reverse any time soon its myopic
policy of appeasing the religious right. And then
it has the gall to tell ordinary Pakistanis to
resist extremism and Talibanisation.
______
[2]
Kashmir Times
April 28, 2007
Editorial
A PERILOUS PATH : ARRESTS OF HURRIYAT (G) LEADERS ARE BEYOND LOGIC
The government seems to have tread on a perilous
path by arresting the leaders of Hurriyat (G) on
Thursday while they were addressing a press
conference in Srinagar, close on the heels of the
mammoth rally addressed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani.
The ailing leader himself was placed on house
arrest on Friday. The arrests are condemnable not
only for the fact that these are based on
fabricated charges but also for the fact that
they symbolize the ugly repression of the state.
The unprecedent manner in which Geelani has been
placed under house arrest without allowing him to
meet visitors and the way the other Hurriyat
leaders were picked up by police personnel who
barged inside during a press conference are a
clear manifestation of this repression. The
entire episode is reminiscent of the days of
Governor rule under Jagmohan which demonstrates
the crude irony of the hollowness and
contradictions of the peace process. On the one
hand this week witnessed the third round table
conference where a working group, earlier formed
in the previous RTC, forwarded suggestions about
release of political prisoners and on the other
hand, the state police was busy pressing charges
against Geelani and other leaders of his action
of the All Party Hurriyat Conference. The entire
case, echoes of which were heard also in the
parliament, seems to have been built on the
premise that Lashkar-e-Toiba militants were
present at the rally of Geelani on Sunday.
Consent is being manufactured on the foundations
of a misconception publicized through a section
of the media though there is no evidence of
presence of any banned militant outfit activists
at the rally. Even the police officials have
maintained that there was no presence of gun
wielding men or any objectionable material at the
rally but a case for airing anti-India slogans at
the rally has been made against the Hurriyat (G).
The case has been inspired by the presence of
masked men waving Islamic flags at the rally.
While the Islamic flags have been construed as
flags of the banned outfits, the masked men have
been deemed as militants. It needs to be
clarified that not all masked men, which is
either an expression of disenchantment with India
or used to evade unnecessary harassment, would
essentially be militants. Geelani, apparently,
has not stated anything new. In fact, his address
focused on calling upon the masses to continue a
peaceful protests against the occupation of
forces, which cannot be treated as an offence,
especially when a peace process is in place and
even the round table conference deliberations
have recommended soft posturing towards
separatists and political prisoners. This
contradiction exposes the hollowness of the
exercise of the ongoing peace process. Besides,
it also portends several dangers. Such
contradictions which betray the non-seriousness
of a process, that should have been associated
with a certain amount of sanctity, are likely to
not just arouse skepticism in the minds of the
alienated masses but also provoke them, creating
hatred and inspiring youth to take recourse to
guns and consequently increase the levels of
violence. If this entire episode of duplicity is
not without design, one can only pity the apathy
and ignorance of the authorities. But if the move
is deliberate the obvious intention is to disrupt
peace and provoke masses to turn violent. Both
the government and the Kashmiris need to rise up
to the occasion and think in a more pragmatic
manner instead of becoming rash. There is a need
to realise that vested interests would obviously
want the pot of violence to boil in Kashmir and
would leave no stone unturned to sabotage the
peace process. While the government needs to
maintain restraint and not indulge in the futile
exercise of making frivolous charges against the
separatist leaders, the people need to see
through the nefarious designs of the vested
interests and not fall into the trap of either
turning violent or fanning the fires of
radicalism. Both these things would ultimately
not be in the interests of the people of Jammu
and Kashmir, particularly the Valley. The action
against Hurriyat leaders needs to be condemned
and protested but only if these protests are
peaceful. Knee-jerk responses would be too
dangerous.
______
[3]
truthout.org
22 April 2007
BETRAYING "DEMOCRACY" IN BURMA
by J. Sri Raman
Monarchy may be on its last legs in two South
Asian countries, but it may stage a comeback in a
third. Nepal has overthrown its King Gyanendra
and is debating a referendum on becoming a
republic, and an aging ruler in neighbouring
Bhutan has agreed to hold elections of a
still-undecided scope. Burma, however, may see
the revival of a long-abolished monarchy before
the year is out.
That, at least, is the plan of the military
junta that renamed the country Myanmar in 1989
and has denied it democracy for close to two
decades. The bizarre plan of the bamboo-curtained
country's rulers has apparently received no
attention in high places that keep talking of a
holy crusade for democracy.
If all goes according to plans, the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC), as the
junta calls itself, will reincarnate itself as
the United Solidarity and Development Association
(USDA) and crown its leader Than Shwe as king by
December 2007. The details, according to
knowledgeable sources, are under discussion with
the outside world too, through diplomatic
channels. The only sticking point with the US-led
West would seem to be the place in the scheme of
things for Aung San Suu Kyi, the symbol of
Burma's struggle for democracy.
The West knows that the scheme will have
little credibility without Suu Kyi. It has all
along claimed to stand by her and for her freedom
from captivity of a length that puts her in the
league of living legend Nelson Mandela.
Next April, in fact, it will be a full 20
years since Suu Kyi returned home from her Oxford
home with scholar husband Michael Aris and
children to visit her critically ill mother - and
stayed on to fight for her people's freedom. From
then on, the junta placed her under endlessly
repeated terms of house arrest, making it
impossible for her ever to reunite with her
family. The junta would not let her even see
cancer-stricken Aris and sons Kim and Alexander
unless she promised never to return to Burma. She
put Burma above her family.
It all started with the elections of 1989,
conducted under the junta, which Suu Kyi National
League for Democracy (NLD) won by a decisive 80
percent majority. The junta responded by
declaring the results null and void. It has never
recognised the Burmese peoples' right to
representative government ever again.
The US-headed West claims to have taken
steps, including at the United Nations, to press
the junta for Suu Kyi's release and for some
advance towards democracy in Burma. The fact,
however, is that Burma has never really been
placed prominently on the agenda of the UN
Security Council. China, a member of the council,
has obliged by vetoing any anti-junta initiative
that seemed imminent.
The US administration, under President George
W. Bush, in its dealings with rulers in Rangoon,
has shown not even a semblance of its pretended
concern over democracy in Iraq or Iran. Observers
have noted (in regional media reports to receive
little attention in the West) that US and Western
diplomats have voiced exasperation over what they
consider an "uncompromising stance" on Suu Kyi's
part.
The alleged obstinacy of "the lady," as the
Burmese people refer to her, lies mainly in her
opposition to the objectives of the new
Constitution under the junta's draft. The West
also thinks that it is time she forgot about the
elections she won long ago and forsook her claim
to power on that basis. Some of the dissatisfied
diplomats also think that she can help by letting
"a new-generation leadership" emerge in the NLD.
Meanwhile, a "strategic partner" of the US in
South Asia has gone significantly further than
the discreet diplomats. The government of India,
which Bush has called upon to join the "crusade
for democracy," is making its support for the
junta less of a secret.
Recent Indian reports, obviously based on
official briefing, speak with warm approval of
New Delhi's drive to deepen and broaden economic
links with Burma under the junta - despite, it is
stressed - the wishes of the West. In December
2006, at a conference on India's foreign policy
in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) I met young
representatives of Burma's struggle for
democracy, and they were bitter about India's
unprincipled involvement in "development
projects" meant only to legitimize the military
rulers further. The recent reports speak in
particular of the ambitious project to link
India's eastern ports with Burma's Sittwe port.
Very few indeed would expect New Delhi,
pursuing a nuclear deal with the US with panting
eagerness, to adopt a line diametrically opposite
to Bush's on Burma. This consideration cannot but
lend credence to the view that Washington has
more on its mind than the merits or otherwise of
military rule in Burma.
The US would seem to be more concerned about
the "signals intelligence" constructed on Coco
Islands by China, north of India's Andaman
Islands, according to experts. By keeping the
junta happy, Washington and the Pentagon may hope
to acquire a similar facility in the region, as
apprehended by some strategic analysts.
If that happens, it will be yet another
instance of the "crusade for democracy " creating
yet another area of dangerous tension.
______
[4]
Indian Express
April 28, 2007
Editorial
KISSING SENSE GOODBYE
There's a Law Commission plan to deal with silly
litigants. Lower judiciary too must pass the test
Jaipur's additional chief judicial magistrate is
certainly in high Gere. His non-bailable arrest
warrant against Shilpa Shetty and Richard Gere
for committing an "obscene act", because of their
good-humoured clinch during an AIDS awareness
function some days ago, needs to be thrown out
with great force when it comes before a higher
court. By judging the Gere buzz as "highly
sexually erotic" and betraying a "tendency to
corrupt the society", the magistrate displayed
not just a gross lack of proportion, not just a
unsettling lack of confidence in Indian society's
ability to resist such "corruption", but a
disturbing arrogance in emerging as arbiter of
national morals. Such uninformed orders should
invite the scrutiny of the higher judiciary.
But our problem with this judgment is not just
with the narrow bandwidth of one magistrate. The
petition should not have been entertained in the
first place. Here was a litigant who, on watching
Shetty and Gere on television, decided that what
he saw was obscene and worthy of court
intervention. The country is not short of
individuals like him who ascribe unto themselves
the power to decide what constitutes "acceptable
behaviour". But should they be allowed access to
the court's time and attention? Absolutely not.
Our over-burdened institutions of justice should
be spared the zealous exertions of the morality
crusaders and other assorted eccentrics. The
litigant in this instance was what one who may be
termed as a habitual offender. He is believed to
have filed innumerable PILs in Rajasthan's courts.
The Law Commission, having taken note of
innumerable Supreme Court judgments voicing
unhappiness over the filing of frivolous public
interest litigation, has even recommended a law
allowing the advocate general, or registrars of
the high court, or the persons against whom such
a case is filed, to move the courts to declare
such a person a 'vexatious litigant', who will
then be debarred from going to the courts. The
litigant in the Jaipur case certainly fits the
definition of a 'vexatious litigant'. Instead of
arresting Shetty and Gere, we suggest that
suitable action be taken against this individual.
o o o
The Telegraph
April 28, 2007
Editorial
KISSING EPISODE, PART II
Just as Indians were getting used to debating the
pros and cons of judicial activism, there has
cropped up now something called "judicial
indecency". It is a term that has been used by
senior members of the Indian judiciary to
describe the results of a rather curious set of
acts. Prompted by a public interest litigation
filed by a Jaipur resident, a magistrate of the
same city has been watching very closely a
videotape of the HIV/AIDS awareness gala for
truckers held recently in Delhi. He has been
concentrating, however, on those few moments that
evening when Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty went
on their spontaneous little kiss-on-the-cheek
caper, to the great delight of the few thousand
people gathered there. But this gentleman of the
law has admitted to finding what he calls "the
kissing episode" sequence "highly sexually
erotic", as much for the public nature of the act
as for Shetty's evident enthusiasm in
"co-operating" with Gere. This has been deemed
obscene and un-Indian, even anti-Indian. Hence,
Gere has been issued an arrest warrant, and
Shetty asked to appear in court with him early in
May, after being subjected to a severe round of
judicial admonishment for being such a brazen
woman. This follows a couple of other legally
registered protests in the country, together with
the usual breakings and burnings by sundry
bigots, mostly from the Hindu Right.
By now, the dreary regularity with which Shiv
Sainiks and their brethren get into such acts has
made it quite easy to ignore them. But what the
phrase, "judicial indecency", draws attention to
is the undermining of the dignity of the law that
such reactions cause. Quite apart from the
immense waste of time, the profoundly ridiculous
light in which this shows up the Indian judiciary
and society to the rest of the world cannot
really be taken lightly. And this is unfortunate,
for it forces people to treat something absurdly
unimportant as an issue of national prestige. It
is heartening to see, though, that most of India,
from the truckers to the Third Page, takes the
whole thing as nothing but an affront to sensible
people. One "writer" in Mumbai has remarked that
even if such a reaction is excessive, Gere and
Shetty should have been more careful about their
behaviour since they were at an HIV/AIDS event
aimed at the advocacy of "safer sex".
Such a remark - in its combination of bottomless
ignorance and displaced sexual resentment - sums
up what episodes like this reveal about certain
sections of Indian society. That such a mindset
fixes on HIV/AIDS to voice its fears is India's
great misfortune, for the grave danger of the
Indian campaign falling in the hands of ignorant
bigots, some of them invested with a good deal of
power, cannot be underestimated. The Indian
judiciary's public indignation at being banalized
in this manner is a perfectly justified reaction.
______
[5]
Hindustan Times
April 25, 2007
LOOKING BACKWARD
by Dipankar Gupta
Referring abusively to a person's caste
background is a crude kind of cultural
determinism and inherently divisive. While one
kind of determinism that is insulting to
Scheduled Castes is both outlawed and in
ostensible bad taste, the other kind of
determinism goes unchallenged. This second form
of cultural abuse is aimed at the so-called
'forward castes' and is considered to be in good
taste and par for the course in the political
firmament today. The first kind of determinism is
a caste slur that stigmatises the Dalits, while
the second is a kind of caste sneer that insults
the so-called upper-castes. Both suspend judgment
and derail rational discussion because culture
acts in such instances as a determining factor,
as if it had the same force as the law of gravity.
Only recently, a newspaper article, while
discussing Narayana Murthy's inept attempts to
wriggle out of his faux pas with the national
anthem episode, calmly added without context that
one cannot expect much from a Brahmin after all.
Now where did that come from? As if to explain
further, the journalist went on to remind the
readers that Narayana Murthy, the Brahmin, as a
Brahmin, also opposed reservation quotas. This is
clearly a caste sneer!
Now why don't Brahmins and members of the
upper-castes get points for supporting Mandal
reservations? Why don't we also acknowledge in
caste terms that forward castes of all stripes in
all parties support OBC reservation in
Parliament? Can anyone make a clear deterministic
argument linking caste backgrounds of MPs with
their endorsement of Mandal recommendations?
Obviously not! From Vajpayee to Advani to Anand
Sharma to the numerous Singhs who are Bhumihars
and Rajputs, not one 'forward caste' MP of any
significance has opposed OBC reservations. But no
caste comments are made about them because they
are the good guys on the right side. Caste sneers
are obviously reserved only for those who are
politically unacceptable to the current
dispensation. This makes it expedient to
culturally abuse them in a breathless, breaking
news sort of way.
Now, let us look at it another way. When members
of the so-called OBC communities go on the
rampage and commit atrocities against Scheduled
Castes, then a veil is thrown over the
perpetrators of the crime to hide their actual
origins. As it is politically incorrect to let
anybody know of OBC misdeeds, which are rampant
in rural India, and at the same time there is the
compulsion to report, an interesting subterfuge
is often adopted. Take, for instance, the recent
case of outrage against Scheduled Castes in
Karnataka. When the story appeared in the press,
the spin given to it was that "caste Hindus"
attacked Scheduled Castes. If one went through
the fine print, it was revealed that the crime
was committed not by "caste Hindus" but by
Okkaligas, who are OBCs. In the popular mind,
given the manner in which caste sobriquets are
tossed around, a "caste Hindu" connotes Brahmins,
Rajputs, Baniyas, et al, and not Yadavs, Kurmis,
Jats and Thevars, and, as in this case, the
Okkaligas.
Caste determinism works in other ways too.
Advocates of OBC reservation seem to believe that
once an OBC always an OBC. Many OBCs did
exceedingly well before the Mandal storm broke,
but our reservation advocates believe that they
are culturally incapable of sustaining their
'creamy layer' status without the reservation
prop. Such crude forms of identification should
have angered members of the OBC communities but,
strangely enough, they have not yet taken umbrage
at being labelled culturally inadequate.
Against this background, one must commend the
Supreme Court for contesting this kind of crude
caste determinism that has enthralled politicians
and the media. By consistently asking for a clear
set of criteria for including people in the OBC
category, the judges are trying to steer
politicians from taking a deterministic position.
This is a function that the courts intended the
notion of the 'creamy layer' to perform. They had
warned against "demonstrably perverse
identification of the backward classes" in the
1992 Indra Sawhney case and the latest judgment
in 2007 withholding quotas for OBCs builds on
this observation.
It is 'demonstrably perverse' to consider members
of certain castes incapable of doing well and
getting ahead even if they have the means and the
powers to do so. This is as much a cultorological
loaded argument as are the caste slurs against
the Scheduled Castes. By reminding the government
to take a second look at not just the number of
OBCs but also the principal of identification,
the Supreme Court was doing democracy a great
favour.
Caste identities seem non-problematic but they
are hardly so. Even in the 1931 census, the
Superintendent of the Census noted that certain
castes had different statutes in different
provinces. The Vaishya Bania for example, was a
"forward" caste in some areas, but "backward" in
what is Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa today. So the
caste name does not say it all. Yet Jats, whether
from Rajasthan or UP, are uniformly labelled by
Mandal activists as backward, regardless of their
actual circumstances on the ground. Again, with
cultural determinism at work, nothing else
matters but the caste name.
There are also castes that called themselves
Brahmins in 1931, but, like the Vishvakarmas,
would today be keen to be among the backwards.
This might also hold true for a few other
converts into that fold, such as the Archak
Brahmins, the Nayi Brahmin or the Kayastha Kati
Brahmins. How then would the principle of
exclusion from the OBC category work today if we
were to rely on the 1931 census? This is why the
Supreme Court warned against "demonstrably
perverse identification" of OBCs.
Caste determinism works against democracy, no
matter who the beneficiaries of this mindset
might be. It has worked against the Scheduled
Castes for centuries, necessitating the provision
of reservations for them in the Constitution.
These were designed to protect them and help them
generate socially valuable skills and assets that
were traditionally denied to them. The rationale
was that with time, members of the Scheduled
Castes would have sufficient confidence in
themselves to take the fight against casteism
forward and eventually extirpate this curse. No
caste determinism here, but a clear respect for
the downtrodden and in their capabilities.
But today, the protagonists of Mandal see the
matter differently. Casteism, they believe,
cannot be eradicated because even the OBC 'creamy
layer' is unable to handle its success. That this
is culturally degrading to the OBCs as a people
is calmly lost sight of. So, instead of seeking
to uproot caste, the Mandalites want to represent
it everywhere. This is why they're compelled to
resort to caste sneers and cultural determinism
so that their arguments are never put to a
rational test.
Crude determinism in all forms endangers
democracy. Economic determinism gave socialism a
bad name and eventually dismantled the mighty
Soviet Union. Even the charismatic intellectual
reputation of Marx was belittled by the dogmatic
material determinism of latter-day Marxists. By
the same token, let not caste slurs and sneers,
and a few tarnished pieces of political silver,
undermine our hard-won democracy.
Dipankar Gupta is Professor, Social Sciences, JNU
______
[6]
Pune Newsline
April 28, 2007
Sixth National Conference of Vivekwadi Mahasangh Takes Off
SCIENTIST NARLIKAR SLAMS VASTUSHASTRA, FENG SHUI
Express News Service
Pune, April 27: CONDEMNING the use of
Vastushastra and Feng Shui, renowned scientist Dr
Jayant Narlikar said it was wrong of literate
people to believe in a "science which had no
theory."
Speaking at the sixth national conference of
Vivekwadi Mahasangh organised by Maharashtra
Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti on Friday, Narlikar
said there was an increasing trend of literate
people following Vastushatra. "They force
architects to change building plans and construct
as per Vastushastra, even if that is
inappropriate for the building," he said.
He added that even newly constructed homes are
being reconstructed or modified to suit
Vastushastra.
Narlikar also flayed youngsters' dependence on
astrology, which he said was not an Indian
concept. "The concept of astrology came to India
via Greek thinkers' logic based on stars and
planets," he said, stressing the Vedas make no
reference to astrology. "Science should be
universal. However, in India astrology changes in
every state."
Narlikar also criticised youngsters for matching
horoscopes to fix a suitable spouse for
themselves.
Quoting former prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru that all problems of the country would be
solved once it was freed of financial and
economic burdens, Narlikar said that the earlier
generation did not believe in horoscopes.
"Currently, the trend of verifying horoscopes for
marital bliss has increased," he said.
Senior political leader N D Patil, who was also
present at the conference, censured the State
Government for delaying the approval of the
anti-superstition bill. Patil said that the
Legislative Council has been delaying the
sanctioning of the bill although it has been
passed by the Legislative Assembly. "It is
important to separate religion from State," he
said.
'No course in astrology'
The University of Pune's plan to introduce a
course on astrology came in for heavy criticism
by Jayant Narlikar. "I've communicated with the
University Grants Commission (UGC) not to allow
the university to start the course," he said.
______
[7] UN Restricts Freedom of Expression
PROTECTING THE BELIEF AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BELIEVERS:
Another post 9/11 legacy?
by Dr. Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director
It happened quietly. There was no uprising. No
emotional speeches. No angry debates. But on
March 30, 2007, the UN Human Rights Council
passed a resolution that violated international
standards on freedom of expression. A resolution
stating that freedom of expression may be
restricted "to ensure respect for religions and
convictions" was passed by 24 council members,
with 14 against and 9 abstentions. The resolution
was sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The
OIC could have made a wiser choice than to hand
over that responsibility to a country where still
people are put to death for blasphemy. The OIC
might have been given pause by China's support -
a country hardly distinguished by its commitment
to freedom of religion - or by Russia's, whose
treatment of religious minorities and religious
freedom stands as a negative example to all. But
perhaps, the OIC took its comfort in South
Africa's or Mexico's endorsement.
Human rights and freedom of expression activists,
on the other hand, can only be left wondering . .
. Can the human rights destruction waged by
President Bush's version of America, justify
undermining the human right that, ultimately, is
among the most effective recourse and instruments
against these abuses - the right to freedom of
expression?
Since 9/11, as too often this newsletter has had
to report, restrictions on and violations of
universal human rights have multiplied all over
the world, justified on the grounds of national
security. At the same time there is evidence of
growing intolerance and burgeoning discrimination
within established democracies, especially
vis-à-vis Muslims whether as residents or
foreigners. There is little doubt that a number
of governments have fed this intolerance through
policies and laws targeting explicitly or
implicitly Muslims.
In this environment, a resolution reminding the
international community of its obligations under
article 20 of the UDHR, particularly as far as
Muslims are concerned, could have been important
and timely. The proponents of the resolution
could have insisted on strengthening the
protection of all people's and each individuals'
rights to life, equality, and justice and on the
obligations of all states to protect minorities,
including religious minorities, against acts of
hatred, oppression, violence. But instead, states
chose to focus their efforts on protecting
religion itself:
NOT the believers and NOT freedom of religion.
For example, paragraph 10 of the resolution
distorts blatantly Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, by
quoting largely from it but then adding, without
acknowledgment a new "respect for religions and
convictions" ("le respect des religions et des
convictions") to the otherwise carefully defined
grounds that may justify a restriction on freedom
of expression. The resolution's frequent use of
the term 'defamation' also suggests wider
restrictions are being sought than are actually
permitted under international law. In particular,
while certain restrictions on speech are allowed
to protect reputation of individuals these are
not allowed in respect to religions, which cannot
be said to have a "reputation" as such and thus
cannot be said, under international law, to have
been defamed. While international law does not
entirely rule out restrictions on speech to
protect religion, it very carefully circumscribes
the scope of such restrictions.
Religious believers have a right not to be
discriminated against on the basis of their
beliefs, but they cannot expect their religion to
be set free from criticism, even in its harshest
or most sarcastic form. The equality of all ideas
and convictions before the law and the right to
debate them freely is the keystone of democracy.
As international human rights courts have
stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not
only to "information" or "ideas" that are
favourably received but also to those that may
offend, shock or disturb any or all of us.
In many ways, the Human Rights Council resolution
is in keeping with a trend that has resurfaced
with great strength in our post 9/11 world:
protecting the belief at the expense of the
believers, of all believers.
ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights
organisation that works around the world to
protect and promote the right to freedom of
expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
guarantees free speech.
For further information, contact Agnes Callamard,
tel: +44 20 7278 9292, e-mail:
agnes at article19.org, or ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Amwell
Street, London, EC1R 1UQ, U.K., tel: +44 20 7278
9292, fax: +44 20 7278 7660, e-mail:
Internet: http://www.article19.org
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), 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