SACW | June 21-22, 2008 / Migration / Descent Into Chaos: Ahmed Rashid / Pakistan: Patriarchy / India: Emergency; Hindutva Terror /

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | June 21-22 , 2008 | 
Dispatch No. 2528 - Year 10 running

[1] Migration Matters in South Asia: 
Commonalities and Critiques (Sanjay Barbora, et 
al.)
[2] Pakistan:
   (i) Swat accord  (Editorial , Dawn)
   (ii) "Descent Into Chaos": Ahmed Rashid on How 
the US Aid to "War on Terror" Ally Pakistan is 
Aiding the Taliban
  (iii)  A state of suspended disbelief (Afiya Shehrbano Zia)
[3] Bangladesh: Militants regrouping again? (Editorial , Daily Star)
[4] India: Wounds heal, scars remain (Kuldip Nayar)
[5] India: Don't Imprison Voltaire (Nayantara Sahgal)
[6] India: 2 Editorials in Response to Call by 
Bombay's Fascist for creation of 'Hindu' suicide 
squads
[7] India: Terror's new face (Editorial, Herald)
[8] USA: [Gov. Bobby Jindal and] Louisiana's 
Latest Assault on Darwin (Editorial, New York 
Times)
[9] Upcoming Event:
Amnesty International India's Round Table 
Consultation: Counter Terror With Justice, Not 
Torture (New Delhi, 26 June 2008)

______


[1]

Economic and Political Weekly
Vol 43 No. 24 June 14 - June 20, 2008   


MIGRATION MATTERS IN SOUTH ASIA: COMMONALITIES AND CRITIQUES

by Sanjay Barbora , Susan Thieme , Karin Astrid 
Siegmann , Vineetha Menon , Ganesh Gurung

Migration within and out of south Asia has been a 
practice steeped in historical processes. This 
article identifies commonalities such as the 
significant macroeconomic role of migration and 
similar main destinations for south Asia's mobile 
populations. It critiques popular themes in the 
discourse on migration, like the focus on 
economic benefits of moving populations and the 
nation state as a reference point. The article 
questions the existing views of what it means for 
people to move from their homes, many times (but 
not only) across international borders.

http://www.epw.org.in/epw//uploads/articles/12356.pdf

______


[2]  PAKISTAN:


(i)

Dawn
June 22, 2008

Editorial

SWAT ACCORD

WHILE every effort ought to be made to salvage 
the peace deal struck with the Swat militants on 
May 21, Maulana Fazlullah and his men cannot be 
allowed to dictate terms. After all, only a month 
has passed since the accord was signed while Swat 
has been wracked by militancy for years. The writ 
of the state is still being established in the 
district's more troubled regions and it is naïve 
to demand that all army troops be pulled out on 
short notice - by next Tuesday to be exact. What 
the militants should accept, and the state must 
concede not an inch more, is a phased withdrawal. 
If troops left the area en masse, who would 
ensure that the Swat Taliban are indeed living up 
to their side of the bargain? The police and 
local administration? Highly unlikely, given the 
latent firepower of the militants. At best, local 
officials can monitor the situation but they are 
in no position to enforce the terms of the deal: 
no private militias, no obstruction in the way of 
girls' education and polio vaccine campaigns, 
cessation of attacks on barber shops and music 
outlets, a ban on the display of weapons and 
manufacture of explosive devices, dismantling of 
suicide squads, etc. For these and other reasons, 
a military presence is essential in the short 
term. Under no circumstances can the Taliban be 
allowed to regroup, recruit and otherwise 
strengthen themselves, which is precisely what 
happened after the September 2006 deal with 
militants in North Waziristan.

Enforcement of Sharia law in Swat is also not as 
straightforward as the Taliban make it out to be. 
True, the government accepted this demand on May 
21 but the modalities of the new legal system 
need to be worked out and that will naturally 
take time. Dispensation of justice cannot be 
summarily handed over to the Taliban - it has to 
remain within the framework of the state 
irrespective of the changes being mulled. The 
release of militants captured by security 
personnel is a relatively simpler process, but 
there too a case-by-case review is perhaps in 
order.

It also needs to be asked why the Swat militants 
are in such a hurry. Does their urgency have 
anything to do with the ongoing surge in Taliban 
activity on the other side of the Durand Line? 
The militants must realise that laying down arms 
and making peace with the government is not only 
in the interest of Pakistan but also their own. 
If they resort to violence yet again, the 
military will be left with no option but to 
launch another crackdown. Worse, outside forces 
may take on the job without anyone's permission.

o o o

(ii)

Democracy Now

June 10, 2008

"DESCENT INTO CHAOS": AHMED RASHID ON HOW THE US 
AID TO "WAR ON TERROR" ALLY PAKISTAN IS AIDING 
THE TALIBAN

Veteran Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid 
explains how the US ally Pakistan has armed and 
financed the Taliban after the US invasion of 
Afghanistan; how the CIA pays Pakistan to arrest 
al-Qaeda operatives, but Pakistan uses the money 
to fund the Taliban resurgence in northwest 
Pakistan; and how the US and NATO's failure to 
deal with Afghan civil society has led directly 
to the huge rise of the opium trade that funds 
the Taliban. [includes rush transcript]

Listen to the audio:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/june/audio/dn20080610.ra&proto=rtsp&start=08:51

o o o

(iii)

Economic and Political Weekly
June 7, 2008

A STATE OF SUSPENDED DISBELIEF

by Afiya Shehrbano Zia

Being thankful that the debate about whether 
Pakistan would be a "free sex zone" is not high 
on the list of the powers that be and presuming 
that sexual freedom enables the death of 
patriarchy and the consequent empowerment of 
women, this note raises a number of issues 
concerning the women's movement in Pakistan and 
its relationship with the state.

One criticism of the literature emerging from the 
Pakistani women's movement has been that it is 
pre-eminently state-centred in its focus. In that 
respect, Haris Gazdar's 'No Longer Worried about 
Becoming a 'Free Sex Zone'' (April 19) suggests a 
different approach to overcoming patriarchy. In 
looking for new opportu- nities to challenge 
tradition, he proposes the circumvention of a 
patriarchal state and flooding the country with 
lady health visitors and strengthening of service 
delivery.

Gazdar's arguments may be partially understood by 
looking at his source - the World Bank (WB) 
country study. This report was unanimously and 
publicly rejected by women's groups and political 
activists in Pakistan, such that the government 
could not endorse it.1 The WB report was 
critiqued for "blaming the victim" and for basing 
the source of all women's issues on culture and 
tradition, rather than a militarised state that 
was supported by the international community and 
the WB.2 That Gazdar should legitimise the report 
by quoting it in his article merely affirms the 
disconnect between social policy advocates and 
the political women's movement in the country. On 
a personal level, it is a revealing analysis on 
how (sensitised) men see women's issues in 
Pakistan today.

Patriarchy's impact on Women There are a couple 
of methodological issues in his article that bear 
noting, including his separation of  "high" 
politics with presumably "grounded" service de- 
livery and a social policy that would, in his 
view, "subtly challenge patriarchy" in the 
country. That is not a novel conception for the 
second wave women's movement that has spent 
nearly three decades directly and "subtly" 
confronting the state and religio-cultural norms. 
This romanticisation of a grassroots gender 
revolution is not new either. Many male heads of 
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have 
historically mocked (usually surreptitiously) 
bourgeois women activists.  Women activists have 
been targeted for either fragmenting the class 
movement with their preoccupation with women- 
specific politics, or for the westernised 
feminist training projects that the "women NGOs" 
corner. Other liberal men, more savvy or 
genuinely sensitised, have joined the bandwagon 
and are experts themselves on gender issues - 
after all, gender is about both, feminine and 
masculine identities.

That is where Gazdar's analysis floun- ders. 
While he makes relevant observations on the 
quantitative aspects of gender discrimination in 
the health and social sectors and political 
decision-making, I would challenge his 
understanding of the impact of patriarchy on 
women, sociologically. Anecdotal reference to 
"burqa clad" women in Karachi taking the veil as 
a deterrence (against male attention) is 
contestable. Not just methodologically but also 
in terms of analysis. Certainly we have observed 
a growing and dangerous rise in the tide of 
social conservatism escalating over the past 
decade and recognise that this dates further back 
to general Zia ul Haq's regime of Islamisation. 
How- ever, what needs to be acknowledged is that 
today, universally but particularly in Muslim 
contexts, the veil can no longer be analysed as a 
one-dimensional tool of  oppression or 
"liberation". Whether we like it or not, the veil 
can be simultane- ously a symbol of patriarchy as 
well as that of defiance and resistance, both 
cultural and very political.

Certainly women do not want to deal with the male 
gaze as they negotiate their way into labour 
market but not because they want to "remain 
cheerful through their day" as he says. Rather, 
it is an offen- sive expression of potential male 
violence and a threatening reminder of the power 
that men assert on women in public life. 
Gazdar's reasoning that harassment limits women 
to home-based work and prevents their equal 
access to the market is also contestable when 
read against earlier studies by his colleagues.3 
The research shows that most home-based workers 
are married women who combine household chores 
with waged work. In other words, unequal access 
to markets is not just because of harassment but 
primarily due to women's double burden of domes- 
tic responsibilities as determined by patriarchal 
norms. Will social policy tackle such obstacles 
within the "private" realm and how will it do so 
without the state's involvement?
Further, sexual harassment in only part of a more 
structural and material reason for the deliberate 
creation of a dual-labour market in capitalist 
economies. Relegating women and minorities to the 
secondary, more fragile and career limited one, 
privileges male workers as it benefits capita- 
lists. Harassment is merely then an insurance 
policy to maintain these deliberate divisions in 
labour and in the market.  Hence, merely flooding 
the market with lots of trained women may be 
symbolically and personally empowering and 
quantitatively relevant.

However, it does not challenge the quality of the 
market nor male attitudes, particularly not with 
regard to sexual harassment. Social policy needs 
to change market structures rather than 
attempting to push through reform by evading 
patriarchal behaviour or avoiding the state.

state and culture

That is why the state cannot be ignored.  Gazdar 
attempts to understand violence as a patriarchal 
norm with reference to Nafisa Shah's doctoral 
work on honour killings in interior Sindh. He 
quotes an example from the study on how 
patriarchal violence is strengthened when men 
from marginalised groups gain social parity with 
neighbours, by inflicting violence on "their own" 
women. However, he is incorrect in suggesting 
that this is some sort of a privatised cultural 
expression of violence whereby women can 
hopefully struggle out of this bind through 
education or employment.

In fact Shah's thesis points out clearly and 
damningly of the collusive role of the state in 
such cultural articulations of violence - 
ideologically, materially, legally and 
administratively. She identifies the local 
semi-judicial system of the 'jirgas' (tribal 
assembly of elders) as supported by the local 
administration, which further uses state 
structure and authority for enforcing decisions 
on whether a woman has dishonoured the 
community/tribe.  Then the "settlement" is 
decided usually materially or through rape or 
exchange of women. The state is routinely 
entrenched in and exploits gendered roles as 
defined by itself as well as cultural norms. 
Women are immobilised in this mutually beneficial 
patriarchal relationship and without the state 
playing any overt role in this systemic cycle of 
violence. The state is let off the hook, however, 
when this is blamed on traditional patriarchy and 
bad social policy.

In addition, sexuality is pivotal in hon- our 
crimes and suggesting that its a positive 
development that a liberal state discourse should 
side-step this debate, is akin to merely sweeping 
it under the carpet.  De-linking sexuality from 
the state's business and relegating it as a 
"private" issue does not pronounce the death of 
patriarchy. Further, this thinking puts the lady 
health visitors' scheme in grave policy danger 
because it may easily be perceived and accused 
for pursuing (a private and hence) anti-state 
agenda.

It is also important to remind Gazdar that while 
Nafisa Shah has earned her national assembly 
reserved seat and the women's movement supports 
her completely, there have been some 36,000 women 
councillors at local bodies level who have been 
politicised since the Local Government Ordinances 
2001, passed by the Musharraf government. While 
Gazdar may consider high politics a drama, surely 
these women warrant a mention within social 
policy recommen- dation. Their inclusion as local 
bodies representatives would only strengthen, if 
he likes, social reform at a "low" political 
level.

Revivalist islamic scholars

Gazdar holds responsible those Islamists who seek 
to modernise Islam and yet promote patriarchal 
tradition through progressive  interpretations. 
He argues that those such as "Maudoodi and his 
ilk are not the source of patriarchy in Pakistan" 
but they "provide intellectual and ideological 
props for the perpetuation of traditional 
patriarchal norms". Gazdar's point is well taken 
but his target mis- placed. Rather than 
Maudoodi's ilk, there is an entirely new crop of 
upper class revivalist scholars, some of them 
entrenched in elite educational institutions, 
such as the Lahore University of Management 
Sciences, defining the intellectual Islamic 
revivalist discourse.

In addition there is a host of post 9/11 
generation PhD students, churning out doctorates 
that seek progressive debates on social issues 
within the Islamic frame- work. Not only do they 
head departments and publish at local institutes, 
they even run programmes at south Asian centres 
around the world. In fact, many of these 
academics write consultancy reports for the WB 
and even the government, recom- mending social 
and economic policies. It would be naive to 
assume that the very porous boundaries of 
religious patriarchy have not, under neoliberal 
or progressive masks, managed to entrench 
themselves across all institutions in Pakistan. 
Gazdar accepts the power of state ideo- logical 
support in effecting changes in gendered division 
of space. But then goes on to suggest that 
therefore, the state should simply not "enforce 
the writ of the patriarch" and this will allow 
the "normal" course of social policy to follow. 
The depoliticisation of women's issues at state 
level with regard to their sexuality and mobility 
is for Gazdar a "blessing in disguise" for it 
allows the "resumption of nor- mal business" such 
as the lady health visitors and other such 
schemes.

This sterilised division between state debate and 
public discourse and the argument that temporary 
suspension of the issue will allow the women's 
agenda to flourish, is the kind of liberal male 
social  policy women have been challenging.

This is like the argument made by the  revivalist 
Islamic feminists who sug- gest that if women 
just depoliticised themselves and instead of 
confronting the patriarchal state, merely sought 
empowerment through social work and communicating 
directly with god with- out male mediators, they 
too would evade patriarchy and perhaps, beat it 
one day.

What Gazdar would do well to remember is that 
while the silent revolution  (presumably funded 
by the state) may be looking to lodge itself at 
the grassroots level, another one in the form of 
women veiled in black, armed with sticks and an 
ideology that also seeks women's empowerment,4 is 
knocking confrontationally on the doors of the 
state rather than waiting for the state to 
relinquish or suspend any debate. If they succeed 
because of their direct action and willing- ness 
to influence state discourse while we wait for 
the state to wither away, the   quiet revolution 
will not simply be silenced, but co-opted and 
reinvented beyond recognition.

Afiya Shehrbano Zia (afiyaszia [AT]yahoo.com) is 
a women's rights activist and researcher based 
in Karachi.

Notes

1 Pakistan: Country Gender Assessment 2005;
Bridging the Gender Gap, Opportunities and Cha? 
llenges, Tara Vishwanath, Ghazala Mansuri, Nistha 
Sinha, Jennifer Solotaroff, The World Bank, 2005.

2 In fact, women's groups took out an alterna- 
tive country report in protest against the World 
Bank report, titled, Pakistani Women in Context, 
A Companion Volume to the Pakistan Country Gender 
Assessment, 2005. Zia Awan, Rukhshanda Naz, Simi 
Kamal, Justice Majida Razvi, 2005.  Interestingly 
Gazdar choses his references from the "rejected" 
one.

3 Saba G Khattak and Asad Sayeed, 'Subcontracted 
Women Workers in the Global Economy: The Case of 
Pakistan', Sustainable Development Policy 
Institute Monograph Series #15, Islamabad, 2000;
'Women's Work and Empowerment Issues in an Era of 
Economic Liberalisation: A Case Study of 
Pakistan's Urban Manufacturing Sector', PILER and 
SDPI, 2001.

4 I refer to the women students of the Jamia 
Hafsa religious school or madrasa that was part 
of the Lal Masjid/Mosque in a posh location of 
the capital, Islamabad. These young women 
illegally occupied the premises adjoining the Lal 
Masjid in early 2007, in protest against the 
government's threat to demolish it and re- claim 
it as state land.  The women also alleg- edly 
kidnapped a woman from the neighbour- hood whom 
they accused of prostitution and only let her 
free once she "repented". Many of these students 
were killed in a state shoot-out in July 2007 to 
evict the masjid. The Jamia Hafsa women observed 
a complete black veil and carried bamboo sticks 
during their occupation of the mosque library. 
They continue to hold regu- lar protest rallies 
in Islamabad outside the state reclaimed mosque.



______



[3]

Daily Star
June 22, 2008

Editorial

MILITANTS REGROUPING AGAIN?
The threat perception must be taken seriously

AN investigative report published in this daily 
suggests that the threat of a come back by some 
factions of extremist groups hovers over the head 
of the nation because of the rather relaxed 
attitude of the law enforcing agencies. 
Intelligence agencies are of the opinion that the 
current passivity of the militants is a possible 
lull before regrouping and mounting attacks on 
targets. It is feared that the arrested leaders 
are keeping in touch with their followers from 
inside the jails and might issue orders to launch 
attack through the network.

In order to contain proliferation of militancy in 
the country the government had taken a 12-point 
decision that included carrying out massive 
anti-militancy publicity campaign by the Ministry 
of Information focusing on suspected localities, 
elements and religious institutes. But one year 
later it appears that little has been done to 
implement those measures to create greater social 
awareness against militancy. As a result, we 
fear, militants in jail or those still at large 
might take the slackened attitude of the law 
enforcing agencies as an opportunity to carry out 
their design with an ulterior motive. There is 
the additional fear that militants in jail might 
brainwash other inmates to join their bandwagon.

Historically, obscurantist elements could never 
contribute to the welfare of the people or to the 
development of science and technology to take the 
nation forward. Having their faces turned 
backward, they have only brought unending 
suffering for the people and death and 
destruction on themselves. A nation, therefore, 
must employ resources at its disposal to 
eliminate militancy and create the environment 
for democratic rule to find root.

We are worried at the possibility of beleaguered 
militant groups regrouping owing to the 
complacency on the part of the law enforcing 
agencies. It is crucial that they conduct 
periodic raids to flush out militants from their 
hideouts. Besides, motivational and awareness 
building programmes ought to be taken up to 
instill the non-violent spirit of Islam amongst 
the people throughout the country.

______


[4]

Dawn
June 20, 2008

WOUNDS HEAL, SCARS REMAIN

by Kuldip Nayar

IT was a conflagration - the emergency imposed by 
Mrs Indira Gandhi in June 33 years ago. In 19 
months, the period for which it lasted, every 
institution got scarred.

The constitution was mutilated. Personal freedom 
was forfeited. The press was gagged. The 
judiciary was shackled. Parliament had its tenure 
extended. The largest democracy in the world put 
more than 100,000 people under detention without 
trial. And, as the then attorney general said, 
the state could kill anyone with impunity.

The institutions have regained their health but 
the scars are still visible. What has probably 
been lost for ever is the people's sensitivity. 
They do not react to the abuse of power. I 
thought that those brutalities would never 
revisit the country. I see all of them coming 
back with a vengeance: false encounter killings, 
custodial deaths, kidnappings, violations of 
human rights and detentions under the security 
law.

What has probably happened to the people is that 
once Mrs Gandhi wiped out the thin line dividing 
right from wrong, moral from immoral they do not 
mind or feel where they stand. There is no 
compunction in hitting below the belt or 
committing even the gravest wrong. In fact, the 
wrong itself has undergone a change in meaning. 
It has become a relative term.

The Manmohan Singh government has five ministers 
whose hands are tainted with the excesses 
committed during the emergency. They are: Foreign 
Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Commerce Minister 
Kamal Nath, Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj, Minister 
for Heavy Industries Santosh Mohan Dev and 
Tourism Minister Ambika Soni. They should quit 
giving face to morality and ethics.

The judiciary has been the biggest casualty. Mrs 
Gandhi transferred 16 judges. President Pervez 
Musharraf when he clamped the emergency in 
Pakistan dismissed some 60 of them. But there had 
to be a difference between a military dictator 
and a civil dictator. Judges in India were 
restored to their positions. But in Pakistan the 
dismissed judges have become victims to the 
politics of behind-the-scenes bargains.

The Shah Commission which went into the excesses 
during the emergency in India warned: "The state 
owes it to the nation to assure that this vital 
limb (the judiciary) of the government will not 
be subjected to strains which might even 
indirectly operate as punitive." But this has had 
little effect. Chief justices in India are vying 
with each other to oblige the government on 
transfers or, for that matter, appointments. 
Judgments are generally at the asking. The 
highfalutin phrases like the independence of the 
judiciary are primarily on paper. Corruption was 
inevitable once the standards came to be 
compromised.

Mrs Gandhi regretted 'certain mistakes', but 
never the emergency and brought back the officers 
who were instruments of tyranny during her rule. 
Not only did she punish those who had pursued 
cases of excesses against her and her son Sanjay 
Gandhi, who was an extra-constitutional 
authority, she divided the bureaucracy into 
'ours' and 'theirs'. The civil service is now a 
set of sycophants and supplicants who allow 
themselves to be used by politicians. There was 
one Sanjay Gandhi at the centre then. Now every 
state has a chief minister's son or a nephew 
emulating him.

And it was no surprise that she threw out even 
the recommendations by the National Police 
Commission to reform the force because the police 
were used by her indiscriminately. She preferred 
to stay with the Indian police system, structured 
on an Act of 1861 and rejected the draft bill 
which the Police Commission had recommended to 
release the force from the stranglehold of 
politicians.

Since the baby was thrown out with the bathtub, 
even the recommendations to make police 
accountable were not implemented. The Supreme 
Court has picked up the thread and made it 
obligatory for states to implement the 
recommendations. The states have not done so. 
What is seen in Kashmir, the northeast or 
elsewhere in the country is a cumulative effect 
of unbridled authority given to the force. It 
does not know, much less cares about normal, 
acceptable methods to deal with a situation.

The IB and CBI are loaded with assignments which 
are not really theirs. Keeping track of 
opposition leaders and critics of the government, 
intercepting their mail and taping their 
telephones is not what the two agencies should be 
doing.

The worst fallout of the emergency has been that 
the public servants have invariably become an 
instrument in the hands of ministers at the 
centre and in the states. The ethical 
considerations inherent in public behaviour have 
become generally dim and in many cases beyond the 
mental grasp of many of the public functionaries. 
Desire for self-preservation has become the sole 
motivation for their action and behaviour.

Manmohan Singh who has been a top civil servant 
should have devised some steps to retrieve them. 
Anxiety to survive at any cost forms the keynote 
of approach to the problems that come before 
public servants. The training academies live in 
an ivory tower because their elitist approach 
makes them too distant from the aam aadmi (common 
man). It should be obligatory for the trainees to 
work with NGOs at the grassroots. They may learn, 
if not imbibe, the qualities of humility which 
officials lack.

And there has to be a mechanism to punish the 
errant civil servants. None was even demoted or 
sacked for deliberately flouting laws and 
harassing those who were against the emergency. 
Some of them occupy key positions today: N.K. 
Chawla, the hatchet man and Lt. Governor Kishen 
Chand is a member of the Union Election 
Commission.

The journalists' role was pathetic. They were 
afraid to join issue with the government. L.K. 
Advani said aptly: You were asked to bend and you 
began to crawl. In contrast, the Pakistani media 
came out on the streets when restrictions were 
imposed on the telecast of the lawyers' agitation.

True, at present, there is no visible dictation 
in India. But it looks as if it is not necessary. 
The different pieces are beginning to fall into 
place without anyone making an effort. Already 
there is a tendency to go along and not to 
question. If without the emergency people start 
'behaving' there is something wrong with the 
system. Once the desire to act according to what 
is right goes, there may be no realisation of 
what is wrong. This is precisely what is 
happening.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

______


[5]


Outlook Magazine
June 30, 2008

DON'T IMPRISON VOLTAIRE
We will never progress if we allow the closed mind to take open charge ...

by Nayantara Sahgal

Here is a paradox: Mumbai is India's most modern 
city. It is also home to the Shiv Sena and 
various other senas. And I think this paradox 
accurately reflects our situation today. India is 
a mini-world with a multicultural population 
where people don't always see eye to eye. There 
should be room for competing ideas in a 
democracy-but if I cannot disagree with someone 
without vandalising his house or burning his book 
or bashing his head in, then this method of 
banning, unacceptable to me, amounts to 
terrorism. Mumbai has seen a lot of it. Other 
parts of India have seen it too, backed by 
religious sanction or government sanction. Its 
most hideous and extreme form calls itself honour 
killings when young couples-who have got married 
in defiance of caste or community, or simply the 
wishes of their parents-have been brutally 
murdered and the murders justified as honour 
killings. A debate becomes meaningless-merely an 
intellectual exercise-in a climate where mobs 
have made themselves the arbiters of right and 
wrong, moral and immoral.

The question has been asked: Can freedom of 
expression be absolute? Who draws the line 
between what is acceptable and what is not? Let 
me answer this in two ways. First of all, in 
matters of art and literature, there is a region 
regarded as aesthetic, within which works of art 
can be judged. Evidence of this is that so many 
works have long outlasted their banning to be 
regarded as classics because of their universal 
human value. Lady Chatterley's Lover is a case in 
point. Obviously, judges have to be those who are 
familiar with the subject and in a position to 
judge its artistic merit.

Most often the reason we are given for banning a 
book or a film is that it will hurt national 
pride, or someone's religious sentiment, or 
endanger moral values. So, the second point I 
want to make is that in a huge multicultural 
country, someone's sentiments are bound to be 
hurt by something written or said or done by 
someone else. I believe it is absolutely 
necessary to hurt sentiments if the reason for 
doing so is the advancement of knowledge, or the 
betterment of the human condition. If we had been 
afraid to hurt sentiments, we would still be 
burning widows. The monumental Hindu Code Bill 
was opposed by those who considered themselves 
guardians of Hindu culture, who said it would 
destroy Hindu society. This kind of argument is 
usually voiced from the lunatic fringes, by 
people who claim to speak for many. If it is 
ignored, and the democratic process is allowed to 
go ahead, it finds its level, and in time becomes 
totally irrelevant.

During the McCarthy era in the United States, a 
number of books, including novels and plays, were 
banned as being "un-American" and therefore 
dangerous. That era has had its day, but the 
books live on. In England, Lady Chatterley's 
Lover was banned on grounds of obscenity, not 
only because of its explicit language, but 
because it was shocking and unacceptable that the 
lady's lover was her gamekeeper. But ideas 
change, and what was called obscene at one time 
makes no ripples at a later time.

Censorship assumes that society will never 
change, and under censorship it never will. Every 
country under any form of authoritarian rule is 
an example of that. Books and films and works of 
art act as agents of change. Shut them out and 
you stay as you are, breathing the same stale 
air. One great agent of change among us was Vijay 
Tendulkar, whose powerful plays made such a 
tremendous impact on theatre and jolted us into 
seeing ourselves as we are. I'd like to pay a 
tribute to his memory by quoting his advice to 
playwrights, but which applies equally to all 
writers and artists and filmmakers. He said: 
"Theatre is for the thick-skinned and the 
stubborn.Every effort is looked at as a possible 
offence. Offence against someone's good taste, 
against the good old norms of theatre, against 
society and the critics. You are, to quote 
Tennessee Williams, a cat on a hot tin roof. You 
must learn to relax as your behind gets scorched, 
if you want to be in this art."

In societies like ours which are in desperate 
need of change, the closed mind is a great 
danger. Because the issue in question is not just 
a book or a film, but an environment in which 
Indians can grow-intellectually, emotionally, 
artistically. A few brave souls-usually the same 
ones-speak out when this environment comes under 
attack. It needs an awakened intelligentsia, a 
groundswell of public opinion, to defend it.

______


[6] Editorials in Response to Call by Bombay's 
Fascist for creation of 'Hindu' suicide squads

(i)

Times of India
20 Jun 2008

Editorial

He Loves to Hate

Bal Thackeray has reminded us again that he is 
very much around. So is his brand of hate 
politics. His latest comments in an editorial in 
the Shiv Sena's mouthpiece, Saamna, are 
preposterous.

He suggests that Hindu suicide squads should be 
formed to counter the threat of Islamic 
terrorism. This is just one of the incendiary 
statements he has made while commenting on a case 
where two young men have been arrested by the 
Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad for allegedly 
planting crude bombs in auditoriums in Navi 
Mumbai and Thane recently.

Thackeray is not pleased that Hindus are, in his 
view, capable of planting only "low-intensity 
duds". He has called for "an equally strong Hindu 
terrorism movement" to "eliminate Islamic 
terrorists and protect India as well as the Hindu 
community".

Thackeray's comments could invite criminal 
proceedings under Section 153-A of the Indian 
Penal Code, since it amounts to promoting 
communal hatred.

It is welcome that the BJP and the Congress have 
condemned his statements, but it is unlikely that 
the administration will take any strong measures.

That's because moving against Thackeray raises 
the spectre of violence by his followers. Sadly, 
the inability of the political and police 
establishment to take on Thackeray over the years 
has led to a situation where he can do or say 
virtually what he likes.

Our society's ability to tolerate intolerance has 
also steadily, and sadly, increased. It's 
unfortunate, but true, that voices that argue in 
favour of liberal and democratic principles 
across the country are increasingly drowning in a 
cacophony of competitive identity politics.

Nowhere is this truer than in Maharashtra, 
especially in Mumbai. The metropolis that we once 
held up as a fine example of cosmopolitanism and 
inclusive public life is fast turning into a 
cauldron of animosities.

The Shiv Sena has, over the years, targeted 
migrants - south Indians, Gujaratis and Biharis 
to name a few - and Muslims.

It made its political fortune by adopting 
regional chauvinism and now others are following 
suit. Recently, we have seen Raj Thackeray and 
his men target non-Maharashtrians and NCP-backed 
organisations go on the rampage over perceived 
slights to Shivaji.

Politicians across the spectrum lack the will and 
wit to counter divisive politics because many of 
them indulge it in one form or another.

As we have repeatedly written in these columns, 
intolerance - religious or parochial - chips away 
at India's republican and democratic foundations.

We all stand to lose if we just let such extremism pass us by.


(ii)

The Statesman,
21 June 2008

Editorial

RULE OF LAW

The Shiv Sena and its undisputed boss, Mr Bal 
Thackeray, may not tire of stirring the communal 
cauldron ever so often, but public patience is 
wearing thin. The latest shenanigan ~ calling for 
a Hindu bomb and Hindu fidayeen ~ fails to amuse 
in the least. What should ensue is prompt police 
action. There is enough inflammatory rhetoric in 
the Saamna editorial to warrant prosecution under 
a raft of charges, including perhaps waging war 
against the state, which incitement to terrorism 
undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, no government in 
India ~ and no political party or leader, for 
that matter ~ has the courage to take on such 
incendiary behaviour when it comes from a 
powerful person. No doubt, a number of excuses 
will be trotted out to explain inaction ~ 
pre-eminent among them will be the totally 
disingenuous plea that taking action against Mr 
Thackeray will prompt Shiv Sainiks to unleash 
mayhem in Maharashtra. That is a poor excuse ~ it 
amounts to the government virtually abdicating 
its role of maintaining law and order, one of its 
principal functions. Nothing, surely, prevents 
the law-enforcement agencies from resorting to 
widespread arrests to prevent people from 
breaking the law. This, of course, will not 
happen. We have seen in the past the government's 
failure to act when a Muslim lawmaker from Uttar 
Pradesh offered a reward for the beheading of the 
Danish cartoonist who had supposedly depicted 
Prophet Muhammad in an insulting manner. Nor did 
it act when a Hindu organisation announced a 
similar reward over some imagined insult. Both of 
these are, to say the least, incitement to 
murder, punishable, needless to say, under law.

If it were a simple matter of cowardice it would 
be one thing. But the problem is bigger. No 
government, party or leader wants to act to 
uphold the law in cases such as this because they 
fear something more than a law-and-order 
situation ~ what they fear is that they will lose 
votes of hardline elements. Their perspective is 
so skewed that they do not see that hardliners 
are a small minority in both communities and that 
by acting according to its remit no government 
can fail to attract the support of the majority 
of right-thinking people.

______


[7]


Herald, Panjim, 19 June 2008

TERROR'S NEW FACE

Editorial

The arrest of sevaks of the Sanatan Sanstha, a 
religious group that is behind the Hindu 
Janajagruti Samiti for planting bombs in theatres 
at Thane and Vashi brings a new dimension to 
terrorism. Seven people were injured when one of 
the bombs the sevaks planted exploded in the 
parking lot of Thane's Gadkari Rangayatan theatre 
on 4 June.

Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari, Mangesh Nikam, Santosh 
Angre and Vikram Bhave, the four bombers, are all 
full-time activists of the Sanatan Sanstha, 
living in ashrams run by the organisation. Their 
arrest at the end of a 10-day investigation by 
the Maharashtra Anti-terrorism Cell exposes what 
many have suspected for a few years now; that not 
all terrorists are Muslim, and there are Hindu 
terrorists too.

Police say that they had planted a bomb outside a 
mosque or dargah on the Pen highway last Diwali, 
to check its intensity, but it did not explode. 
Nikam had earlier set off a bomb in the house of 
a family in Ratnagiri that had converted to 
Christianity, and was on bail awaiting trial.
Ever since there was an accidental bomb blast at 
a flat in Nanded rented by Bajrang Dal activists 
a few years ago, there has been suspicion that 
extremist Hindu organisations were also carrying 
out terrorist attacks. However, police forces in 
India never seriously investigated this 
phenomenon, blaming the Malegaon blasts, the 
Mecca Masjid blast in Hyderabad, the blasts in 
the Jaipur dargah, etc, on 'Islamic terrorists'. 
Now, they need to have a fresh look, and see who 
was really responsible.

The Sanstha has said it had no knowledge of these 
activities and that the sevaks did it 'on their 
own'. But the police say it is very clear that at 
least one of the bombs was assembled in the 
ashram premises, though no bomb-making materials 
were found in Gadkari's room.

Protestations of innocence cannot be taken at 
face value, and the organisation must be 
investigated thoroughly. Its literature talks of 
'elimination' of 'evildoers', and though no doubt 
they will claim that the words are used in a 
figurative and not literal sense, the police need 
to rigorously look into its voluminous literature 
and check out its activities with a fine tooth 
comb.

This is because the Sanatan Sanstha and the 
Bajrang Dal, two Hindu fundamentalist 
organisations that are both linked to bomb 
blasts, are the main constituents of the broad 
joint front called the Hindu Janajagriti Samiti, 
which has been holding public meetings all over 
Goa claiming Hinduism is in danger, and making 
provocative speeches.

Besides, the leader of the Sanstha, Dr Jayant 
Athavale, lives mostly in Goa at Mangueshi, and 
directs the organisation's activities from this 
state.
What is especially troubling is the editorial 
written by Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray in 
yesterday's 'Saamna', his party's newspaper. He 
has advocated the creation of 'Hindu suicide 
squads', saying that the only way to counter the 
threat of Islamic terror is by 'Hindu terror'. 
This threat cannot be taken lightly. Terrorists 
typically target innocents, and with two 
varieties of terror 'taking on' each other with 
bombs, it is ordinary people who will be blown to 
bits.

______


[8]


New York Times
  June 21, 2008

Editorial
LOUISIANA'S LATEST ASSAULT ON DARWIN

It comes as no surprise that the Louisiana State 
Legislature has overwhelmingly approved a bill 
that seeks to undercut the teaching of evolution 
in the public schools. The state, after all, has 
a sorry history as a hotbed of creationists' 
efforts to inject religious views into science 
courses. All that stands in the way of this 
retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal.

In the 1980s, Louisiana passed an infamous 
"Creationism Act" that prohibited the teaching of 
evolution unless it was accompanied by 
instruction in "creation science." That effort to 
gain essentially equal time for creationism was 
slapped down by the United States Supreme Court 
as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. 
State legislators, mimicking scattered efforts 
elsewhere, responded with a cagier, indirect 
approach.

The new bill doesn't mention either creationism 
or its close cousin, intelligent design. It 
explicitly disavows any intent to promote a 
religious doctrine. It doesn't try to ban Darwin 
from the classroom or order schools to do 
anything. It simply requires the state board of 
education, if asked by local school districts, to 
help create an environment that promotes 
"critical thinking" and "objective discussion" 
about not only evolution and the origins of life 
but also about global warming and human cloning, 
two other bêtes noires of the right. Teachers 
would be required to teach the standard textbook 
but could use supplementary materials to critique 
it.

That may seem harmless. But it would have the 
pernicious effect of implying that evolution is 
only weakly supported and that there are valid 
competing scientific theories when there are not. 
In school districts foolish enough to head down 
this path, the students will likely emerge with a 
shakier understanding of science.

As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. 
Jindal must know that evolution is the 
unchallenged central organizing principle for 
modern biology. As a rising star on the 
conservative right, mentioned as a possible 
running mate for John McCain, Mr. Jindal may have 
more than science on his mind. In a television 
interview, he seemed to say that local school 
boards should decide what is taught and that it 
would be wrong to teach only evolution or only 
intelligent design.

If Mr. Jindal has the interests of students at 
heart, the sensible thing is to veto this Trojan 
horse legislation.

______



[9] Announcements:


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA'S ROUND TABLE CONSULTATION
COUNTER TERROR WITH JUSTICE, NOT TORTURE:
POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

June 26, 2008 at India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi

10:00am- 10:30 am- Tea

10:30am-10:45am- Counter Terror with Justice: 
Mukul Sharma, Director, Amnesty International 
India

10:50am- 12:30pm- Session I- No Hiding Place for Torture
Rapporteur: Pranav

10:50am- 11:00am- Opening Remarks by the Chair- 
Dr. Usha Ramanathan, International Environmental 
Law Research Centre, New Delhi.

11:02am- 11:17am- The Politics and Practice of Terror: Dead End or A Way Out?

11:19am- 11:34am- IPC and Security Laws in the 
Region- Baggage of the Colonial Era
Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court 
of India and Trustee, Human Rights Law Network.

11:36am- 11:51am- Holding to Account: Impunity, Institutions & Investigations
Teesta Setalvad, Co-editor, Communalism Combat

11:53- 12:30pm- Q/A

12:30pm- 1:30pm- Lunch

1:30pm- 3:15pm- Session II: State and Dissent: 
National Security versus Human Rights
Rapporteur: Arnav Narain

1:30pm- 1:40pm-Opening Remarks by the Chair- 
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Professor in the School 
of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru 
University, New Delhi

1:42pm- 1:52pm- Insurgency in the North East and the State Response
Col. Gurinder Singh, Research Fellow, Institute 
for Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi

1:54pm- 1:59pm- Respondent: Mr. A. Bimol Akoijam, CSDS (to be confirmed)

2:01pm- 2:11pm- Non-State Armed Groups and Indian Response in Jammu and Kashmir
Representative from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

2:13pm- 2:18pm- Respondent: Sanjay Kak, Filmmaker

2:20pm- 2:30pm- The Maoist Menace- India's Response Counter Productive
Maloy Krishna Dhar, Former Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau

2:32pm- 2:37pm- Respondent: Prof. Nandini Sundar, Delhi School of Economics.

2:40pm- 3:15pm- Q/A

3:15pm- 4:45pm- Tea

4:45pm- 5:15pm: Keynote Address: Torture, Terror, 
Counter Terror: Beyond a Simplistic Theory
Prof. Ashis Nandy (Honorary Fellow, Centre for 
the Study of Developing Societies)
Moderator: Sana Das, Coordinator, Amnesty International India

5:15pm-6:18pm- Session III- Lessons Learned and 
Future Action Rapporteur: Ruhee Neog

5:15pm- 5:20pm- Chair: Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

5:20pm- 5:30pm- Lessons Learned Shubranshu 
Mishra, Programme Associate, Amnesty 
International India

5:30pm- 5:35pm- Chair of the First Session- Dr. Usha Ramanathan

5:35pm- 5:40pm- Chair of the Second Session- Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy

5:40pm- 5:45pm- Mukul Sharma

5:45pm- 6:00pm- Clarifications/Comments

6:00pm- 6:15pm- Future Action and Policy Implication, Vrinda Grover

6:15pm- 6:18pm- Vote of Thanks by Ruhee Neog


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

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: http://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

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