SACW | August 5-6, 2008 / NWFP and the Bomb / Terror and Communal Politics in India
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Tue Aug 5 23:44:57 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 5-6, 2008 |
Dispatch No. 2547 - Year 10 running
[1] SAARC: retreat from trade corridors to terrorism
[2] Pakistan's Frontier Revives Nuclear Fears (J. Sri Raman)
[3] India: Terror Attacks - Is There Any Way Out? (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[4] India: India: Communal Fire Rages on in Jammu
- It's not Jammu or Kashmir (Balraj Puri)
- A country in 40 acres (Pratap Bhanu Mehta)
- This is not a contest between victims (Edit, HT)
[5] India:
- Inquiry demanded on Ahmedabad and Surat blasts
- Concerned Citizens of Gujarat Statement on The Recent Bomb Blasts
[6] Bringing Mayawati Down To Earth: The limits
of the BSP's politics (Praful Bidwai)
[7] UK: Defending secular spaces (Pragna Patel)
[8] Announcements:
(i) Hiroshima & Nagasaki Day events (Bombay, 7-9 August 2008)
(ii) Public Discussion: Crimes Against Women:
The Communal Violence Bill' (Chennai, 8 August
2008)
______
[1]
Daily Times
August 05, 2008
Editorial: SAARC: RETREAT FROM TRADE CORRIDORS TO TERRORISM
In 2007, the 14th summit of the South Asian
Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) had
resolved to build trade corridors in the region;
but in 2008, just in one year, the 15th summit
has become defensive: it wants to fight terrorism
as its priority number one. Such is the hypocrisy
of the states that the eight members have piously
pledged to end terrorism as if it was coming from
outer space. India's series of blasts have been
blamed on Bangladesh and Pakistan; acts of
terrorism in Pakistan have been blamed on India,
and so on. The Indian prime minister, Dr Manmohan
Singh, who was the driving spirit behind the idea
of trade corridors last year, has beaten a
retreat.
The SAARC leaders signed a "legal co-operation
pact" on Sunday to combat terrorism. They have
also decided to set up a "food bank". Both are
emergency measures and reflect the political and
natural impediments in the way of the maturation
of the SAARC ideal of a free trade area (FTA) or
a common market. Reports say: "The forum of eight
nations made little progress on trade, the
central theme of the group". As a sidelight,
Pakistan is reported to have offered a defence
pact to Sri Lanka!
The unspoken message is that the two major
players India and Pakistan are once again locked
in their traditional game of tit-for-tat
"signalling" through acts of violence. Terrorism
is nothing new in the region. Pakistan has been
accused of it in the past and India in 2001-02
even brought its army to the borders after an act
of terrorism in India was blamed on Pakistan.
Bangladesh, too, became engulfed in "Islamist
violence" by reason of the involvement of its
citizens in the Afghan war. The idea was to
overcome the passion for private wars by engaging
the populations in trade and trading corridors.
But war is once again on the verge of trumping
trade.
Escape into the familiar is safe policy. But the
innovation of the last summit, the 14th, has had
to be rolled back to achieve this self-deception.
The idea of a multi-mode transport corridor, put
forward by Dr Singh last year, had found
"instant" favour among member countries. The
SAARC Secretariat had then commissioned a
consultant to prepare a detailed feasibility
study, which was discussed in detail by the
experts and later at the secretary-level talks.
The study had suggested building a network of
6,540-km railroad and 11,844-km road corridors.
The roadmap also included construction of 10
ports, two inland waterways running into 2,757
km, and 16 airports. It also included
construction of 10 regional roads and five rail
corridors. With Afghanistan joining as the 8th
member in 2007, it was to be connected to the
transport grid, meaning that, just as Bangladesh
and Nepal had to be connected with the other
economies of the region, including that of India,
Afghanistan too would find a proper trade
corridor towards the east and beyond Pakistan.
The plan was expected to expand and facilitate
trade between Afghanistan and India. However, so
far the arrangement is that Afghan dry fruit is
brought in trucks to Wahga border in Lahore but
no return trade is allowed overland for India.
Pakistan has increased its items of import from
India across Wahga to offset the disadvantage of
re-labelled "via-Dubai" trade, but under the
SAARC programme it would have offered access in
return for access to other SAARC states through
India.
The model would have evolved from this one
example. The study recommended immediate
construction of over 2,000km of highways from
Lahore to Agartala in Bangladesh as the first leg
of the project. The road would have passed
through Delhi, Kolkata and Dhaka. It had also
recommended a bilateral agreement between India
and Bangladesh for the movement of vehicles and
goods across the border. No confidence-building
device could have succeeded better than this. But
today the South Asian imagination has
back-tracked in the face of terrorism.
There is a most blatant abuse of language in the
summit's resolve to "abolish borders when it
comes to exchange of information and judicial
processes related to crime and terrorism".
Knowing full well that the vision of SAARC is the
abolition of "actual" borders through free trade,
the framers of the summit statement have used the
expression for the transmission of information
which they know will never take place. Wanted
terrorists have not been handed over in the past
and are not likely to be handed over in the
future. The only thing commendable was the
back-slapping camaraderie of the summit leaders.
They looked like old friends arrived for a
mindless reunion. The people of South Asia should
rejoice only because the summit was not postponed.
______
[2]
thruthout.org
4 August 2008
PAKISTAN'S FRONTIER REVIVES NUCLEAR FEARS
by J. Sri Raman
photo
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)
Ten months ago, the threat of a political
accident causing a nuclear calamity raised
considerable alarm in South Asia and among the
region's would-be remote controllers in
Washington. Fears over a similar threat are being
revived, even if fewer talk about it now.
In November 2007, General Pervez Musharraf
proclaimed martial law in Pakistan, which he and
his camp preferred to call an emergency. The
declaration instantly raised fears of the
country's destabilization - and a nuclear
disaster. The situation appeared, especially to
Washington and Western observers, a tailor-made
opportunity for Pakistan's nuclear weapons to
fall into terrorist hands or those of warring
groups.
Truthout was among the very first to take
note of these fears (see Nuclear Fallout from
Imploding Pakistan?, November 6, 2007). We then
pointed to the perceived opportunity for al-Qaeda
and to the added possibility (according to some
experts) of nuclear thefts in view of faintly
visible rifts in Pakistan's army.
We also mentioned that some observers saw
"the threat enhanced by the armed ethnic
conflicts raging in the country's tribal areas,
which supply about a quarter of Musharraf's
soldiers." The current fears are connected to the
same conflicts.
Those who voice these fears cite, among other
things, a statement made by a leader of
Pakistan's ruling coalition on July 26. Maulana
Fazlur Rahman, chief of the Jamiat
Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F), one of the four
constituents of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza
Gillani's coalition government, said: "'The
North-West Frontier Province (or the NWFP, the
province and political base of Rahman) is
breaking away from Pakistan. That is what is
happening. That is the reality."
The statement caused serious consternation
among observers who believe the tribal NWFP to
hold most of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The
province has been associated with the country's
nuclear-weapon program ever since it was
reportedly started in 1974 with a project located
at Wah, next to the Pakistan Ordnance Factories,
and close to Peshawar, capital of the NWFP. Since
2006, the province has witnessed suicide bomb
blasts aimed (according to a semi-official
suggestion) at "facilities providing regional
security for Pakistan's nuclear program."
The NWFP's place on Pakistan's nuclear map
has not been established. Nor, however, has
Islamabad considered it important to allay the
apprehensions.
The Washington-led West voiced anxiety over
the security over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
immediately after 9/11. Within two days of the
tragedy, the Musharraf regime was reported to
have carried out relocation of the weapons to six
"secret locations." We heard of the subject again
in August 2007, when Washington and the Pentagon
let it be known through an American television
channel that they knew of the locations. Some
experts then speculated that the "leak" might
have led to a fresh relocation of Pakistan's
"crown jewels" to other sites, including mines
and tunnels. The terrain of the NWFP does offer
sites of such description.
Rahman's statement came just days before
Gillani's visit to Washington, where he came
under intense pressure to ensure effective action
against militants thriving in the tribal areas
with the connivance of Pakistan's security
agencies, according to many accounts. The
pressure campaign provoked Pakistan's Interior
Minister Rehman Malik to accuse India of attempts
to "destabilize" the tribal belt. This was the
first such public charge by the Gillani regime.
Perception of such destabilization attempts
in Pakistan - which India's hawks are not trying
hard to discourage - can lead to a dangerous
situation. Not without relevance here is a report
on the region - and what is really the biggest
threat to it - by two Italian nuclear physicists,
released in January 2002. After a visit to
Pakistan on the eve of an India-Pakistan military
standoff, which brought South Asia to the brink
of nuclear war, Paolo Cotta-Ramusino and Maurizio
Martellini of the Landau Network, an arms control
institution, talked of Pakistan's "four nuclear
thresholds."
Quoting Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai of
Pakistan's nuclear Strategic Planning Division,
the report spoke of "spatial, military and
economic thresholds," all three referring to
provocations from India that would prompt
Pakistan to "use nuclear weapons as a last
resort." The fourth threshold would be crossed,
it added, if India pushed Pakistan into
"political destabilization or creates a
large-scale internal subversion there."
The six-year-old report should sound a
warning, as India-Pakistan relations continue to
deteriorate by the day ever since the blast at
the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7. Indian
adversaries of the "peace process" between the
nuclear-armed neighbors, talking of Pakistan's
hand in the terrorist strike, openly advocate a
policy of "paying them back in their own coin"
and a resumption of India-backed serial blasts of
the eighties across the border. "And now, a war
of the consulates?" wonders Pakistan's Daily
Times editorially, as it notes a blast at the
Pakistani consulate in Afghanistan's Herat.
We must wait for the answer. What we must
know is this: a proxy war between India and
Pakistan on Afghan soil, which can spill all too
easily into tribal terrain, will pose not much
less of a nuclear threat than the one that South
Asia survived in 2002.
______
[3]
TERROR ATTACKS - IS THERE ANY WAY OUT?
by Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective August 1-15, 2008)
It is often maintained and rightly so that it is
very difficult to define terrorism as ones
terrorist is others freedom fighter. But in our
case there is no such ambiguity. These people
whatever they call themselves Indian Mujahidin or
something else, there is no doubt that they are
terrorists pure and simple. It is great insult of
the word mujahid as mujahid is one who struggles
for higher causes, for humanity, for justice and
is most compassionate to others suffering. No one
can be termed mujahid who kills innocent people,
women and children and in case of Ahmedabad even
those of sick and injured. Let alone mujahideen
they cannot claim to be human beings. A mujahid
does not seek revenge. Qur'an condemns seeking
revenge and describes Allah as ghafoorur Rahim
i.e. a Pardoner and Merciful. Murderers cannot
pass themselves as mujahideen in any case.
In history it has been common that we legitimize
our actions by religious verbosity or religious
rhetoric. I would appeal my country people not to
be misled by any ones religious rhetoric. In our
country the Hindutva forces too use such rhetoric
for their own political purposes. The issue of
Ram temple raked up by BJP and the rath that Shri
Advani rode was noting else but to play with the
devotional sentiments of Hindus towards Lord Ram
in order to come to power.
In modern day democracy there are gross
injustices of all kind and to cover up those
injustices our politicians are very apt at
invoking religious rhetoric. Mr. Narendra Modi
exploited to the hilt the Godhra train incident
to romp home to power on 2000 corpses using
strong Hindutva rhetoric. After bomb blast in
Ahmedabad on 26th July when 19 bombs exploded in
that unfortunate city.
Just 24 hours before after Bangalore blasts
Narendra Modi had boasted while speaking at
Chetpur, Saurashtra that terrorists may attack
Jaipur or Bangalore but they dare not step into
Gujarat and next day BJP state President while
speaking in Virpur village of Kheda district had
said that as long as Narendra Modi is there in
Gujarat, no terrorist dare attack. Earlier during
election campaign also Narendra Modi had boasted
that it needs 36" chest to face terrorists which
Congress does not have. And Ahmedabad had such
terrible terrorist attacks and next day even
Surat had 18 bombs placed in diamond hub area
which fortunately did not explode due to tactical
glitch. What face Modi can have now?
He summoned army within half an hour and appealed
for peace. One wishes he had shown such behaviour
after Godhra train burning. Godhra train burning
was as condemnable as the bomb blasts in
Ahmedabad in which 49 innocent people lost their
lives. But Mr. Modi's behaviour was greatly
different after bomb blast. After train incident
he was worried about coming elections and after
this bomb blast he already had won elections few
months ago.
If Modi had employed his Hindutva rhetoric as he
did after train incident one shudders to think
what would have happened. How many more innocent
people would have lost their lives. Of course
credit goes to the people of Ahmedabad that they
maintained peace and bore such tragedy with great
patience and fortitude. And I am sure the people
of Gujarat would have borne the Godhra train
tragedy with equal degree of patience and
fortitude had Modi not let loose his murdering
hordes on innocent Muslims.
It is such a sad commentary on our 21st century
secular democracy that it runs on the blood of
innocent people and corruption as we witnessed
the other day in Parliament on voting for or
against the confidence motion. Democracy is based
on principle of partnership of people in
governance has been hijacked by powerful vested
interests who use democratic rhetoric but do
exactly opposite, it manipulate people through
murder and corruption.
Terrorism is a political response to a political
situation. It would be futile to look for its
roots in any religion. As Hindutva is not product
of Hinduism but that of politics of rightwing
Hindu party, jihadis are not product of Islam but
of politics of rightwing Muslim political
outfits. In principle our secular democracy
should keep religion at a distance from
governance and politics should be based on
secular issues pertaining to people and people
alone.
However, in all countries of the world including
western countries and much more so in countries
of Asia and Africa religion often determines
direction of political events. It is indeed a sad
commentary on our modern day democracy and the
role of powerful vested interests. The communal
politics played in our county since nineteenth
century resulted in vivisection of India and we
are still facing consequences of division of our
country. Earlier we understand better it is for
us.
Other experts are discussing failure of our
intelligence agencies and other factors
responsible for such terrible blasts. These are
all very important and must be thoroughly
discussed. But here I am more concerned with its
political side. How far our politics is
responsible for such terrorist violence or
communal violence or Naxalite violence for that
matter. The causes may be different for communal,
terrorist or Naxalite violence but the common
thread is violence and terrorist violence at that.
No such violence would take place without
political failures and gross political
injustices. Even after independence and
vivisection of our country we never shed communal
outlook and communal politics. Our politicians
were hardly made of secular democratic stuff. Our
administrative machinery was hardly any
different. Majoritarianism was seeped through our
political nerves. We had no will to secularise
our education system. Gandhiji, Nehru and Zakir
Husain had painstakingly emphasized structural
change in our education system and to thoroughly
purge it of its colonial overtones. But we
continued with it.
Our administrators were also products of same
education system and neither politicians nor
administrators were willing to take stern action
against those who provoked and executed communal
violence. We did not even solve our ethnic
problem in north East. The mainstream politicians
came from North India and they were simply not
sensitive to problems of people of North East.
Thanks to our insensitivity the North East also
exploded and AASU and later ULFA resorted to
violence to focus attention. Though AASU by
itself did not resort to violence but soon
communal forces hijacked its agenda and there was
so much bloodletting in Neli in Assam. Today
whole of North East is on fire.
Our politics was never based on social and
economic justice and the Naxal problem is outcome
of gross socio-economic injustices. We know that
either tribals or dalits constitute the core of
Naxal movement. They have suffered for centuries
injustices at the hands of political and economic
elite and caste system dehumanized poor low caste
Hidnus. Now modern communication system and
dangerous and murderous weapons have enabled them
to seek revenge and they feel time has come to
seek revenge. We think Naxal violence can be
solved through jackboots of our police and thus
we create more forces and equip them with more
weapons and Naxalite violence does not subside.
We are not ready to address their real problems
as we do not want to give up our privileges and
our hegemony over economic resources.
The terrorist violence is no different. Terrorism
can be fought simply by better intelligence and
better equipped police. It may help but only to a
very limited extent. The problem is much deeper.
Our police have failed to trace a single culprit
and more and more such terrorist attacks are
taking place. It is much more than failure of
intelligence. The deep rooted prejudices in our
administration and police force is the biggest
obstacle in solving this problem apart from our
political failure to do justice to minorities and
secure peaceful life to them.
All our police force has succeeded in doing is to
arrest poor helpless Muslim boys after every
terrorist attack and torture them into
'confessing' their role. It is happening
terrorist attack after terrorist attack. And
these boys when they get released on bail dare
not speak a word against the police for fear of
being arrested again and tortured. For our police
the only effective weapon available is torture
and torture hardly ever succeeds in bringing out
truth. Only a solid work in the form of hard
evidence and painstaking investigation with
unprejudiced mind can yield some result. Our
police is hardly made of such authentic stuff.
The greatest barrier for our police in reaching
truth is their own a priori assumptions and
prejudices.
There is social and political turmoil in our
neighbouring countries too and it has its own
impact on our country and society. The role of
ISI in Pakistan is beyond control of Pakistani
politicians. Recently there was announcement that
ISI has been given under control of Home Ministry
but soon it had to be taken back. The military
constituency has much deeper roots in Pakistani
politics and civil society does not enjoy real
autonomy, much less hegemony.
Thus one thing should be clear to all of us that
terrorist problem afflicting whole of
subcontinent today (as other parts of the world
including western countries) is basically
political and cannot be tackled merely as law and
order problem. Also both ruling and opposition
parties will have to cooperate in solving the
problem. We know very well this is not the
situation. These parties indulge in mudslinging
whenever any such attack takes place. The pet
theory of the BJP is to enact POTA like draconic
law. Let Mr. Advani answer a simple question
whether he has succeeded in solving problem of
terrorist attacks in Gujarat even after applying
POTA on 100 persons 80 of whom are still in jail
under POTA after Godhra train incident. Whether
they are guilty or innocent no one knows. They
are under POTA for last 6 years.
Such draconian laws cannot solve the problem. It
will only add to them and will enable police to
arrest more innocent people and torture them. It
can be a rightwing party agenda and not solution
to the problem. If we love our country let us not
politicize problem of terrorism and put our
efforts to solve it through sincere means.
------------------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai: - 400 055.
______
[4] India: Communal Fire Rages on in Jammu
Hindustan Times
IT'S NOT JAMMU OR KASHMIR
by Balraj Puri,
August 05, 2008
For over a month, the Jammu region has been
almost continuously on the boil. Initially led by
the BJP, the protest against the state
government's intention to revoke the transfer of
800 kanals of land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine
Board has gradually intensified. It has been
joined by 35 other organisations, under the
banner of Amarnath Shrine Sangharsh Samiti, that
have two main demands: that of recalling Governor
NN Vohra and the restoration of land to the
Shrine Board.
Meanwhile, the Muslim leaders of Jammu have lent
support to the agitation, a move appreciated by
BJP President Rajnath Singh, who along with Arun
Jaitley had visited Jammu. Samiti leaders had
also suspended the nine-day bandh and replaced it
by dharna and hunger strike.
I have met leaders of the agitation in Jammu. I
have also been to Srinagar where I met a
cross-section of political leaders. I got the
feeling that bridging the gap between the two
positions is not impossible. But no official
initiative is known to have been taken during
this period to work out a commonly acceptable
solution.
The situation in Jammu suddenly deteriorated
after Kuldeep Raj committed suicide on July 23
and his body was mishandled and dishonoured by
the police. By now, a number of leaders of the
Congress and many local parties and associations
have joined the popular protests. Incidentally,
the stand of these organisations and that of the
Congress leaders is not the same. The demands
raised in Jammu agitation range from the return
of land to the Shrine Board, end of 60 years of
perceived discrimination against Jammu and even a
separate Jammu state.
The state BJP President, on his part, has
declared that their aim is an equitable share for
Jammu in the state's political power. The
agitators have also blocked all supplies and
export of goods from Kashmir. Now that a majority
of the population have joined the movement, it is
difficult to identify a coherent leadership and a
concrete demand.
On the other hand the administrative measures on
the whole proved ineffective and in some cases
counter-productive. It is already clear that
imposition of Section 144 followed by curfews and
deployment of the Rapid Action Force and the Army
cannot contain the protests. Crackdown on the
media and a ban on SMS services were
constitutionally invalid and could not prevent
the flow of rumours and misinformation through
either alternative forms of media or just hearsay.
Despite offers of support of local Muslims to the
basic demands of the Sangharsh Samiti and the
declarations of the latter to maintain communal
harmony, anti-social elements who took no time in
joining the agitation, have attacked Muslims at
many places and communal clashes have taken place
in Muslim-majority areas. Jammu has ten districts
of which five have Hindu majority population and
five Muslim majority. The attacks on Kashmir
Valley-bound passengers and carriers of essential
goods would damage Jammu's role as a vital
geo-political bridge between the people of the
Valley and the rest of India.
Whatever grievances people in Jammu may have with
the leaders of Kashmir, common Kashmiris cannot
be penalised for that. Moreover, the violent
nature of the agitation should be replaced by
peaceful methods which in the long term are far
more effective. The people of Jammu need to
introspect in their own interest along these
lines.
Already, the Valley has reacted sharply to the
Jammu agitation. At a time when the separatist
movement and militancy are at its lowest ebb,
continuous regional and communal tensions would
help to revive them. However, this in no way
implies that the Jammu problem can be dismissed.
Nor can there be any solution to the Kashmir
problem without resolving regional tensions. Even
if the current agitation and all its demands are
met, these tensions could burst out whenever they
get any outlet in either of the two regions.
Unless and until the root cause of the problem is
tackled, ad hoc measures to deal with its
offshoots, which occasionally manifest in one
form or the other, would be of limited use.
Balraj Puri is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Jammu
o o o
Indian Express
August 06, 2008
A COUNTRY IN 40 ACRES
by Pratap Bhanu Mehta
On Amarnath we're in denial. Let's admit the
communal problem. Then learn the politics of
healing
Let us cut through the cant of our political
class. Amarnath has become a serious communal
issue. In an interview given to a Hindi daily,
Narendra Modi had, in a chillingly prophetic way,
described Amarnath as a second "Shah Bano".
Whether we like it or not, Amarnath has deepened
the Hindu-Muslim divide in many respects. It has
exposed the fact that possibilities for
intercommunity reconciliation are thinning daily
and revealed how every political party has huge
investments in a politics of divisiveness that
none is likely to divest. It has given the BJP a
peg on which to hang its faltering politics. It
has given Muslim fundamentalists a pretext to
wage war on the infidel. It has exposed the
limited capacity of the Indian state to quell
violence. It has brought out the ways in which
the Congress's myopia and lack of initiative set
the stage for a communal politics. And it has
revealed the dirty secret of all us
constitutional secularists: we are more
interested in having somebody to beat upon than
in creating the conditions for peace. As with
Ayodhya, the inability to find small compromises,
articulate meaningful gestures of reconciliation,
might haunt us for ever. Recognising that there
is a communal problem is a necessary step towards
solving it. Denying the problem merely shortens
the road to doomsday.
Most politicians hide behind mendacity. This is a
problem of nationalism, not of religion.
Therefore it is not a communal problem. This is
nonsense. Most problems of communalism in India
are related to nationalism, not to disputes over
faith. The creation of Pakistan was about
competing visions of nationalism, not faith, as
have been the ravages of identity politics since.
The idea that locating a conflict's source in
nationalism does not make it communal is a form
of self-delusion we should shed. Both nationalism
and communalism are also integrally linked to the
politics of territoriality. Omar Abdullah's
ridiculously feted speech exemplifies this
perfectly. When he made the claim that opposing
the land transfer was a case of fighting for
one's land, he made the link between communalism
and territoriality. Implicit were two explosive
links: first, that only one particular community
has any claim to land in Kashmir. Even granting
Kashmir's special status, the acceptance of this
foundational principle is a massive concession to
communalism. Second, he lent credence to all
those who exaggeratedly believe that a mere 40
acres is a prelude to colonisation by some
"alien". Of course Muslims have for centuries
facilitated the yatra. But that deep cultural
fact is then used as a shield to elevate a minor
matter to gigantic political proportions; a
hard-won cultural interface sacrificed on the
altar of that innocent sounding phrase,
nationalism.
Equally, there is an investment in exaggerating
the implications of withdrawing the order by
self-declared defenders of Hinduism. The fate of
the yatra has after all never been in question.
No, this 40 acres, like Ayodhya, has become for
one community the sign of a dangerous
majoritarianism about to gobble it up. For
another community, it has become the sign of an
intransigent minority, not willing to allow even
the smallest concession for what the majority
holds dear.
But there are other deeper registers of
communalism. Take the morally obnoxious way in
which we keep an account of parity between
communities. The Congress started this trend
during the '80s: one concession to community A,
so another one to community B. The result is an
insidious entrenchment of competitive group
politics that now extends to victimisation.
Leaders cater to the victims only of their
communities, and rush to pile up competitive
narratives of victimisation. There are those who
will focus on the suffering in Jammu and those
who will focus on the blockade of the highway.
There are no leaders who have credibility across
community lines and there is almost no space to
imagine the predicament from each other's point
of view. Gandhi was right: the radical test of
our ability to coexist would not be the ability
to parrot principles. It would be the ability to
understand each other's anxieties and fears.
Which politician really understands the
accumulated alienation our politics produced
inside the Valley? Who really understands that if
you were in the Valley there would be more than
good reason to fear the Indian state? And if we
do not understand these histories, we will keep
repeating the same mistakes. Conversely, which
Valley politician can now credibly look at the
Kashmiri Pandits in the eye, or can argue 40
acres might help heal a rift, rather than
represent the road to more colonisation? The
politics over Amarnath is squarely a product of
this almost unbridgeable chasm.
As Hazari Prasad Dwivedi once said, jab dil bhara
ho, aur dimag khali ho, then all urging of
principle seems beside the point. We can talk of
bureaucratic decisions, the flip-flop of
political parties, technical points in the law,
the need to disentangle the state from all
religion. But these all seem so unmeaning. In the
end, the possibilities of a solution depend upon
mutual trust, not the other way round. And trust
cannot be legislated or conjured out of this air;
it has either to be assumed, or daily recovered
through the hard work of politics. But trust
enhancing gestures are now impossible to imagine.
Every dimension of social existence, what rights
people have, what territory they can claim, what
kinds of institutions they can run, what justice
they will get, is increasingly suffused with
communal categories. The state has exacerbated
this trend by getting tangled in religious
affairs in so many contexts that it now has no
language in which to articulate a sense of common
citizenship. Communalism has now seeped into the
consciousness of all our politicians so deeply
that they exemplify it even when they mean to
deny it. But perhaps Gandhi was right. We need a
politics that is more therapeutic in character,
that can help us confront our unconscious
slippages and exaggerated fears. For in the
absence of this kind of politics, the Amarnath
Yatra, instead of marking the passage from Ashada
purnima to Shravana purnima, will seem more like
a long dark night towards communal carnage. No
wonder the lingam is melting, propped up by
artificial means. Any self-respecting God ought
to have abandoned this suffocating madness long
ago.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
o o o
Hindustan Times
August 05, 2008
Editorial
THIS IS NOT A CONTEST BETWEEN VICTIMS
For over a month now, Jammu and Kashmir have
stopped even cosmetically appearing to be a
single state. This time round, there are no
'outsiders' to blame. The tensions manufactured
by former J&K Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad
when he first allotted land to the Sri Amarnath
Shrine Board - in a bid to reach out to an
electorate beyond the Valley before the winter
Assembly polls - has taken up a nasty life of its
own even after Mr Azad was forced to cancel the
allotment. People have already died in police
firing in Jammu and there have been deaths in
Srinagar. The Centre has been bewilderingly
silent, perhaps fearful of letting another
boulder loose to take its own violent course.
But as the Centre mulls over what to do next -
even as it meets today to build consensus by
talking to 'all parties' - two things must be
immediately done to bring both Jammu and Kashmir
- not to mention J&K - back from the brink. One,
the so-called 'popular' blockade targeted against
the Valley must be lifted. If Muslim-majority
Kashmir is indeed an integral part of India, the
Union government should pull out all the stops to
ensure that the Valley and its adjoining areas
are not 'cut off'. Two, law and order must be
restored at the earliest in Jammu and in
Srinagar. What should have been a banal matter
involving who is to be in charge of a piece of
land that, for two months every year, plays host
to travelling Amarnath pilgrims, has turned into
an ugly dispute that bears a serious potential of
becoming uglier. Till now, National Conference
leader Farooq Abdullah has come up with the most
sensible plan. His suggestion is to return the
land to the Shrine Board - but with the important
change of making only locals members of the Board.
There will be opponents to this pragmatic scheme.
But these voices will continue to make grating
noises from both sides of the Jammu-Kashmir fence
in a bid to proclaim that they are the 'bigger
victims' than the other. The Centre must realise
fast that there are only one set of victims here:
the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
______
[5]
Press Release, 4 August 2008
Memorandum
Independent and objective inquiry demanded in Ahmedabad and Surat blasts
- Pray, terror does not touch Gujarat. C.M. Knows
state's anti-terror machinery is cracking' warned
Times of India on 16th May, 2008.
- Is Ahmedabad safe under new Commissioner of
Police O.P. Mathur? Prashant Dayal asked on 27th
May, 2008 and onwards in serial articles in Times
of India.
Yet instead of reconsidering the appointment of
Police Commissioner Gujarat Government allowed
SEDITION COMPLAINT being registered against Times
of India Resident Editor Bharat Desai and
reporter Prashant Dayal on one hand and made
several statements after Bangalore blast one was
by Minister of States for Home affairs Amit Shah
in Dhoraji (Rajkot District) on 25th July, 2008.
Second by BJP State President Purshottam Rupala
at Virpur (Kheda District) on 26th July, few
hours before the first blast in Ahmedabad took
place. Over and above Chief Minister himself
saying in Jetpur (Rajkot District) making a
statement that if the terrorist dare to do what
they did in Bangalore I shall hunt them down to
death. (Patal Mathi Pan Sodhi Ne Emne Kabrastan
Ma Pahochadi Daish, Saaf Kari Nakhis). He earlier
had told a public meeting in Mumbai of similar
kind and off course Gujarat remembers him
boasting during election meetings. Chest as wide
as 56", claimed earlier to fight terrorism is now
nowhere in the scenario.
- The central agencies, according to Minister of
State for Home Affairs in the Union Government,
Shakeel Ahmed, had given warnings about high
terrorists threat to Gujarat. High alert was
advised but Narendra Modi chose to ignore, as if
it was weather forecast and decided not to act,
Why?
- Is it not too much of coincidence that Surat
bomb detonators has been traced to Government
factory in Dholpur, in Rajasthan a BJP ruled
state and Ammonium Nitrate trail in Nagpur where
the RSS headquarter is situated ?
- All the Muslim organisations and leading
individuals from the Community have condemned the
serial blast in Ahmedabad, they have demonstrated
against and asked for independent probe while
Hindu organisations have preferred not to do so.
Why ?
- A total of 27 live bombs were recovered in
Surat in places like Varachha, Kapodara,
Mahidharpura and Umbra in four days after the
Ahmedabad blasts. The bombs were recovered
through the local people and not by Surat police
or any crime detection agencies. How this fact is
explained?
- Why there are long pending vacancies for five
Superintendent of Police, 9 Inspectors and 40 %
post of lower level staffers in Intelligence
branch resulting in non-availability of
intelligence report from bordering districts like
Kutch and Banaskantha.
- It is beyond anybody's comprehension that all
the live bombs in Surat did not explode while in
Ahmedabad most of them did. The bomb disposal
squad diffused the explosive without any safety
gear and with smiling faces, even they
by-standards showed no fear as they watched the
bombs being diffused. Did they know that bombs
were not to be exploded?
- Surat bombs were planted as high as on
hoardings and tree tops which had to be brought
down with the help of crane. Are we to believe
terrorists were planting the bombs with the help
of cranes which Surat police did not know?
- What is the evidence or information available
against the survivors of Gujarat carnage 2002,
who suffered personal losses six years ago that
they are being targeted for the blasts? Or is
this the new theory that the Sangh and the
administration is selling us?
- Was it true that Pota detainees had called
Rasool Party in Pakistan, if so, what action has
been taken against the Sabarmati Jail
authorities? Are we to believe prisons in Gujarat
are the hide outs of terror cells?
- Why the CCTV cameras installed at the state
border and in Ahmedabad hospitals failed on 26th
July when the blast took place yet no action
seems to have taken against them nor anyone is
held responsible for the failure?
- Former deputy Prime Minister and leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha
L.K. Advani downwards in saffron brigade are
demanding Pota and Gujco like laws but they do
not seems to know that baring two provisions Pota
is existing in Gujarat in the form of Prevention
of Unlawful Activities Act. Moreover terrorist
attacks on Parliament House, Red Fort, Akshardham
in Gandhinagar and Jammu Mandir had taken place
when POTA law was in operation. Any law can help
in penalizing those who are arrested but law by
itself does not arrest anybody or prevent any
crime.
All the above points are either gross and serious
failure by Gujarat Home Department or the State
Police or it was a case of criminal complacency
in either case an independent inquiry should be
held by CBI or by a commission headed by sitting
judge of Supreme Court of India.
Is it not true that direct evidence is available
against the Sangh Parivar outfits in the
following terror attacks/ bomb blasts: Nanded
Bomb blast case, Tenkasi terrorist attack, Thane
bomb attacks in the theatre, Nagpur attack on the
RSS office?
Why the intelligence agencies at the centre
ignoring this evidence and why these
organizations not banned so far?
Is it not true that Bal Thackrey said that Hindu
Suicide squads should be formed and Hindu terror
should be unleashed? Also that the bombs planted
in Thane should have been stronger? 'It is time
to set up Hindu suicide squads to ensure safety
of the Hindu society and to protect the nation'.
Why he was not arrested? Why Shiv Sena not banned after this statement?
Why RSS, Bajrang Dal have not been banned?
Is it not true that in 2002 bombs were used to
blow up mosques and dargahs and residences? Who
made them?
Is it not true that various outfits of the Sangh
are giving arms training to their cadre?
We the undersigned demand:
Independent inquiry into the bomb blasts in
Ahmedabad and Surat by CBI or by a commission
headed by sitting judge of Supreme Court of India.
An inquiry in to the role of RSS, Bajrang Dal and
other Sangh Parivar organizations in various
terror attacks.
Suspension of Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad.
Dr Asghar Ali Engineer- All India Secular Forum
LS Hardenia- Editor, Secular Democracy
Jyotsna Shukla- Executive Quami Ekta Samiti
Digant Oza- People's Movement of India
Shabnam Hashmi- Anhad, Delhi
o o o
(ii)
August 4, 2008
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF GUJARAT STATEMENT ON THE RECENT BOMB BLASTS
We, the Concerned Citizens (some of us
representing groups / organizations / networks)
condemn in no uncertain terms, the recent bomb
blasts in Ahmedabad and Bangalore.
We do believe and reaffirm that violence and
terror in any form have no place in a
law-governed, justice-seeking and humane society
and do not serve any real or imagined purpose.
We express our deep heart-felt sympathy and
solidarity with all those killed or injured in
these blasts. We condole with all our sisters and
brothers who have lost their near and dear ones.
May the departed souls rest in peace.
We pledge to do all we can, both as individuals
and groups, to respond to the immediate needs of
those affected; be it in ensuring that proper
medical care is given; be it in the care of their
children who have been orphaned or any other long
term measures for their full and just
rehabilitation.
We call upon the State and Central Government to
provide just and adequate relief and compensation
to all those who are affected and to ensure that
this reaches the victims without any kind of
discrimination and without any bureaucratic
delays or hassles. We commit ourselves to render
all assistance to them in securing all relief and
compensation declared by the Government.
We earnestly appeal to all those involved in this
violence or any other acts of violence to stop
this madness immediately. Let them realize that
all of us irrespective of our caste, creed or
language are capable of joint struggle for just,
equal and better society and none of these
violent or terrorist acts will deter us or
deflect us from our path of seeking justice by
all democratic ways. We are fully aware that
there are several issues which need to be
resolved, that there are flagrant violations of
human rights and there are gross abuses of law
and denial of justice, but people's democratic
struggle is the answer, not violence or senseless
terrorism.
We strongly oppose and condemn all mischievous
attempts by vested interests and government
authorities to communalize the whole issue, to
target and to terrorize one community and to
frighten another community with a feeling of
insecurity. We are deeply distressed and
anguished by the widespread harassment and
illegal detention of the members of one community
only, in order to cover up the police and
intelligence failures in detecting and preventing
the terrorist acts. This is nothing but the
denial and violence of the basic human rights
guaranteed by our Constitution and assured by the
International law of Human Rights. State
terrorism is no answer to private terrorism. We
promise all innocent people who are sought to be
harassed or detained by the police that their
human rights will be protected.
We have no doubt that the series of blasts in
Ahmedabad in a well-orchested manner demonstrate
the total failure of our intelligence system
which is unfortunately politicized to serve the
interests of the ruling party. We fail to
understand as to how the anti-terrorist squad,
much boasted about can collect every small piece
of information of conspiracy to kill our Chief
Minister (C.M) and other dignitaries but is
stunned and did not have any information about a
well and executed series of bomb blasts in
different parts of the city at regular intervals
of 10 to 15 minutes. The people would like to ask
as to how the other C.M (viz. Common Man) failed
to get the same assistance from our Intelligence
Bureau. Is it that only the Chief Minister's life
is valuable, but not the life of a Common Man?
We also believe that the demand for POTA or
Gujarat Act is only a political demand to mislead
the people. Those leaders conveniently forget
that almost all stringent and draconian
provisions of the POTA except provision regarding
confession before the police and bails are
reproduced in the Prevention of Unlawful
Activities Act under which the police, if
willing, can effectively act. These leaders also
forget that terrorist attacks on the Parliament
and Akshardham in Gandhinagar and Gujarat Carnage
of 2002 took place when POTA was very much there.
Will they explain why they could not prevent
them, even though they were in power both in the
State and in the Centre?
We call upon the State Government to immediately
constitute a Judicial Commission under the
Chairmanship of a Sitting Supreme Court Judge to
investigate into the why, what and how of these
organized terrorist acts of bomb blasts in
Ahmedabad. It is necessary for the people to know
the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
however unpalatable it might turn out to be. We
strongly condemn all direct and subtle attempts
on the part of certain vested interests to make
one or the other community appears to be guilty
or blameworthy, instead of establishing the truth
by independent and impartial enquiry and
investigation agency.
These bomb blasts indiscriminately killing or
maiming common people of large parts of the city
open up a great opportunity for all of us
constituting the civil society to come together,
forgetting our differences and our past and to
challenge terrorism of all groups and of all
kinds and fight together to save our society, our
nation and our humanity. Only people living and
walking in harmony can alone defeat terrorism
from all sides. Let us stand one and united and
challenge all divisive forces out to destroy our
rich national heritage of pluralism and diversity.
Signed Ahmedabad 30th July, 2008
Girish Patel
Hiren Gandhi
Sophia Khan
Saroop Dhruv
Justice A.P. Ravani
Cedric Prakash
Hanif Lakdawala
Francis Parmar
Prof. J. Bandukwala
Rakesh Sharma
Prof. Nisar Ansari
Piyush O. Desai
P.K. Valera
Mukul Sinha
Ashok Vaghela
Sheeba George
Pushpa Iyer
Damayanti S. Parekh
Digant Oza
Nafisa Barot
Gautam Thaker
Shamshad Pathan
Savita Xalvo
Edwin Masihi
Gaurang Raval
Manisha Trivedi
Rohit Patel
Rupa Mody
Amrish N. Patel
Indu Kumar Jani
Abid Shamsi
Jwalant Mehta
Neha Khanna
Shabnam Hashmi
(and SEVERAL OTHERS)
______
[6]
Kashmir Times
August 4, 2008
BRINGING MAYAWATI DOWN TO EARTH
The limits of the BSP's politics
by Praful Bidwai
After the murky events culminating in the passage
of the motion of confidence in the Manmohan Singh
government, three clear trends are visible.
First, the United Progressive Alliance achieved
only a tarnished triumph thanks to brazen
horse-trading and weighty evidence of corruption.
The shrewd Dr Singh won the day, but gone is the
halo around him as a person who would assuredly
rise above political expediency and never stoop
low to conquer.
Second, the Bharatiya Janata Party has come a
cropper. It failed to muster the numbers needed
to defeat the motion despite offering bribes. And
its ploy to depict itself as an innocent victim
of the Rs one crore "cash-for-votes" scam hasn't
worked. Going by available reports, the
sting/entrapment footage, calculated to indict
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh, is
blurred and falls short of clinching evidence.
The BJP is utterly confused in its reaction to
the 7-member committee set up by Speaker Somnath
Chatterjee to investigate the scandal. As former
Home Minister, Mr LK Advani knew he should have
reported the scam to the police, Instead, he
tried to exploit it politically. He repeatedly
pressed TV channel CNN-IBN to air the sting
footage. But when CNN-IBN didn't oblige, the BJP
decided to boycott the channel-a form of
exercising pressure bordering on blackmail.
The BJP has petulantly announced that it won't
cooperate with the "illegitimate" UPA government,
even on shared economic agendas. Worse, Ms Sushma
Swaraj has plumbed the depths of low politics by
accusing the UPA of having stage-managed the
Bangalore and Ahmedabad bomb blasts-to divert
attention from the "cash-for-votes" scam, scare
the BJP, and reunite its divided Muslim base!
This is drawing ridicule.
Third, the Bahujan Samaj Party's Ms Mayawati has
been catapulted to the forefront of national
politics and become a new magnet for the United
National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) parties,
despite having just 17 Lok Sabha seats. Between
July 13-when Communist Party-Marxist general
secretary Prakash Karat drove to her residence-,
and July 23, the number of parties supporting her
has doubled. Of the old UNPA parties, the Asom
Gana Parishad alone has kept away from the
emerging grouping.
Ms Mayawati's high-profile entry into the
national arena has not only served to end the
near-isolation of the Left after Dr Singh
approached the International Atomic Energy Agency
Board of Governors in breach of his own solemn
commitments. More important, it has eclipsed the
BJP's Prime-Minister-in-waiting LK Advani from TV
and newspaper headlines.
Ms Mayawati is undoubtedly a rising star, whose
party has soared from strength to strength since
it was formed in 1984. In Uttar Pradesh, the BSP
relentlessly expanded its vote-share and
seats-from 9.4 percent and 11 seats in 1989, to
11.1 percent and 67 in 1993, to 19.6 percent and
67 in 1996, to 23.2 percent and 98 seats in 2002.
Last year, it bagged an even more impressive 30.5
percent of the vote and 206 of 403 seats to
became UP's first party to win an absolute
majority in 17 years.
The key to this dazzling success lay in the BSP's
garnering of non-Dalit votes across the board. It
fielded 139 upper-caste candidates, 86 of them
Brahmins, and mounted grassroots bhaichara
(social amity) campaigns. The biggest was the
Brahmin jodo abhiyan. The BSP also made
substantial gains among the Thakurs and OBCs and
broke into the SP's traditional Muslim base. Its
26 Muslim MLAs outnumber the SP's 21.
The BSP has decisively moved from a Dalits-only
to a Bahujan profile, and then on to a Sarvajan
(all social groups) platform. This is the first
time that a predominantly Dalit party has
acquired a broad base anywhere in India.
The BSP has over the years expanded in other
states, especially in the North. It has MLAs in
Bihar, Rajasthan, Chhhattisgarh, Haryana and
Uttarakhand. It now commands the fourth biggest
share (5.3 percent) of the national vote among
all parties-higher than the SP's 4.3 percent and
only slightly lower than the CPM's 5.7 percent.
Ms Mayawati is treated as a stellar figure by the
media also because she's a Dalit and a single
woman, who has fought against heavy odds,
including dire poverty and male prejudice.
Suddenly, the battlefield for India's Prime
Ministership has changed. Mr Advani and whoever
emerges as the Congress's nominee, we're told,
may have a contender in Ms Mayawati. During the
recent crisis, a prominent Left leader even
proposed that the UPA be replaced by a UNPA-Left
government "with outside support"-presumably from
the BJP!
But can Ms Mayawati become the core or centre of
gravity of a new Third Front? On the face of it,
the UNPA-Left has a respectable 20 percent of the
national vote and 94 Lok Sabha MPs-no mean
figure. And some of its constituents, like the
Telugu Desam Party, are likely to grow in the
next election. So hopefully, the Third Front may
well be in the reckoning.
However, this linear calculus is based on some
wishful thinking like the inclusion of the Left's
59 seats, which may not come about. It also
places abundant faith in the BSP's ability to win
over adversaries or poach on other parties.
Reality belies that faith. During the recent
crisis, the BSP could only engineer a minuscule
number of cross-votes. This wasn't for want of
readiness to use foul means, including money
power.
This speaks of a questionable political morality.
But let that pass. Let's analyse things
clinically. Crucial to the success of any party
in becoming the fulcrum of a new broad front are
three factors, besides its own numerical
strength: its ability to provide political
cohesion and ideological cement to alliances; its
role as a unique bridge between a strongly
ideology-driven current like the Left, and a
range of disparate parties with mainly regional
agendas; and ability to build mutually beneficial
coalitions with other parties.
None of these holds true of the BSP. Its strongly
Dalitist or Dalit-centred ideology, even coupled
with social engineering, cannot provide the glue
necessary for a broad alliance, which can
sustainably unite parties as disparate as the
regionalist TDP or Mr OP Chautala's Indian
National Lok Dal, and ethnic sub-regionalist
outfits like the Telengana Rashtra Samiti or Mr
Ajit Singh's Rashtriya Lok Dal, leave alone the
ideologically fired Left.
In fact, the BSP lacks a wide-horizon ideology or
all-encompassing vision which has distinct
positions on matters like the present world order
and imperialism, economic policy, communalism and
secularism, priorities in respect of human rights
and security, and an appropriate development
model for India. The BSP is also deeply
compromised on the issue of communalism, having
allied not once, but three times, with the BJP in
UP.
This is also true of most UNPA constituents,
which had alliances or understandings with the
BJP in the past, and may well do so in the future
if that's expedient. Their desertion would reduce
the UNPA to an empty shell.
Nor can the BSP provide a unique bridge between
the Left and its UNPA allies. It has no special
affinity with the Left, which has always
criticised it for its "non-ideological" and
parochial approach, and for its corruption. It's
hard to characterise the BSP as a distinctly
Left-of-Centre force, with a compassionate,
humane agenda. Its notion of inclusiveness has
more in common with distributing patronage and
creating client-groups than with a shared
collective destiny.
Finally, the BSP is an unlikely candidate for
providing complementary alliances to its
partners, through which they mutually gain
without cutting into each other's vote-bases.
Most UNPA partners are strongly regional and have
mutually exclusive social bases. The BSP's own
strong base is confined to UP, with dispersed
support elsewhere. That support is about 3 to 5
percent in many Northern states, barring Madhya
Pradesh and Punjab, where it crossed a
significant 7 percent in the past. This makes it
a formidable spoiler in most states, but not an
easy winner.
Unlike the Congress or the BJP, the BSP cannot
anchor broad-based alliances with other parties
in a number of states. It can transfer its votes
to its allies, especially where it's strong. But
the reverse isn't true.
As for the BSP's prospects, it's certain to
improve its Lok Sabha tally, probably to 40-50
seats, even 60 seats on the optimistic side. But
it'll find it hard to replicate the UP model
elsewhere. The conditions that made the model
possible-including politicisation of subaltern
layers, a prolonged political impasse, and
upper-caste alienation from major national
parties-don't exist in Bihar, Andhra, Rajasthan,
Chhattisgarh or Haryana. Outside UP, the BSP's
gains are likely to be small.
One last word. The UNPA will have a future only
if the Left backs it. But the Left cannot ignore
the unsavoury past of many UNPA constituents, or
the monumental opportunism and corruption of Ms
Mayawati, and the personality cult she has built
around herself. Surely, all this, and the BSP's
lack of ideology, militate against whatever the
Left stands for.
______
[7] UK:
New Statesman
04 August 2008
DEFENDING SECULAR SPACES
by Pragna Patel
In the rush to be tolerant or sensitive to
religious difference, the space is created for
the most reactionary and even fundamentalist
religious leaders to take control
On 18th July 2008 at the High Court, Southall
Black Sisters (SBS) won an important legal
challenge affirming its right to exist and
continue its work. At stake was a decision by
Ealing Council to withdraw funding from SBS - the
only specialist provider of domestic violence
services to black and minority women in Ealing -
under the guise of developing a single generic
service for all women in the borough.
The council sought to justify its decision on the
grounds of 'equality', 'cohesion' and
'diversity'. It argued that the very existence of
groups like SBS - the name and constitution - was
unlawful under the Race Relations Act because it
excluded white women and was therefore
discriminatory and divisive!
The challenge succeeded in revealing that the
council had deliberately misconstrued and failed
to have proper regard to its duties under the
Race Relations Act in reaching its decision, and
it was forced to concede that it would have to
reconsider its position afresh.
Ealing Council's cynical use of the government's
confused and contradictory 'cohesion' agenda to
cut our funding has profound implications for the
human rights of black and minority women in
particular.
Specialist services like ours are needed not only
for reasons to do with language difficulties and
cultural and religious pressures on women.
Women turn to us because of our considerable
experience in providing advice and advocacy in
complex circumstances: where racism and religious
fundamentalism (the political use of religion to
seek control over people, territories and
resources) is on the rise in the UK and
worldwide; where legal aid is no longer easily
available; where privatisation of what were once
important state welfare functions is
accelerating; and where draconian immigration and
asylum measures are piling up.
These developments threaten our very right to
organise and challenge abuses of power by state
and community leaders. Secular spaces are
literally being squeezed out of minority
communities.
The SBS challenge to Ealing Council represents a
key moment for black and minority groups that
have organised politically to counter racism and
other forms of inequality based on gender, caste
and ethnic divisions between and within
communities in the UK.
While successful in forcing the council to
withdraw its decision and to re-think its policy
on domestic violence services in Ealing, our
experience has also sounded a warning bell to
secular progressive groups in particular.
The current drive towards 'cohesion' represents
the softer side of the 'war on terror'. At its
heart lies the promotion of a notion of
integration based on the assumption that
organising around race and ethnicity encourages
segregation.
At the same time, in the quest for allies, it
seeks to reach out to a male religious (largely
Muslim) leadership, and it thereby encourages a
'faith' based approach to social relations and
social issues.
This approach rejects the need for grassroots
self organisation on the basis of race and gender
inequality but institutionalises the undemocratic
power of so called 'moderate' (authoritarian if
not fundamentalist) religious leaders at all
levels of society.
The result is a shift from a 'multicultural' to a
'multi-faith' society: one in which civil society
is actively encouraged to organise around
exclusive religious identities, and religious
bodies are encouraged to take over spaces once
occupied by progressive secular groups and,
indeed, by a secular welfare state.
In the process, a complex web of social,
political and cultural processes are reduced by
both state and community leaders into purely
religious values, while concepts of human rights,
equality and discrimination are turned on their
head.
The problem with the state accommodation of
religion - even so called moderate religious
leaderships - is that they work against and not
for equality and justice.
Since 9/11, we have witnessed the rise of
religious intolerance in all religions, which has
in turn fostered a culture of fear and censorship.
The failure of the British state to de-link the
state from the Christian church - coupled with
its anti-civil liberties agenda and disastrous
foreign policies - has fuelled a faith based
politics of resistance amongst Muslims.
In the event, many have become ever more vigilant
in the protection of their religious identity, as
borne out by increasingly loud demands from
religious and even fundamentalist leaders within
black and minority communities. Such demands -
for blasphemy laws, for state funding for
separate religious schools, for female dress
codes, and for customary laws for family affairs
to name but a few - have nothing to do with
challenging racism or poverty, but everything to
do with ensuring that all state institutions
accommodate 'authentic' religious identity: an
identity which depends on the control of female
sexuality.
Such demands, by their very nature, deny the
numerous progressive religious and even secular
or feminist traditions that exist within minority
communities.
In this context, the sentiments recently
expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Lord Chief Justice concerning sharia law are very
telling: in the rush to be tolerant or sensitive
to religious difference, they create the space
for the most reactionary and even fundamentalist
religious leaders to take control of minority
communities, and they enable a climate which
allows religion to define our roles in both
private and public spaces.
Their sentiments appear contingent on the false
assumption that black and minority cultures are
intrinsically opposed to universal human rights
principles, and that they do not contribute to
the body of law based on such principles that now
inform the English legal system. In doing so,
they allow religious and cultural contexts to
become the overriding framework within which
those from ethnic and religious minorities are
perceived, inevitably drawing on very narrow
assumptions about religion and the role of women.
It is these political developments that have
compelled groups like SBS to defend ever more
vigorously the secular black anti-racist and
feminist spaces that we created in the late 70s
and which, until the 90s, we were able to take
for granted.
This is now our most important struggle in
addressing gender-based violence, in the face of
attempts by the state and religious leaders to
corral us into specific reactionary religious
identities in the name of 'coehsion', on the
assumption that we live in a post racist, post
feminist and classless society.
This is the significance of our successful
challenge to Ealing Council: it highlighted the
urgent need to develop a politics of solidarity
within and between communities which recognises
that what is at stake is no less than the fight
for secular, progressive, feminist and
anti-racist values - a fight which is embodied in
our name.
Pragna Patel is chairwoman of Southall Black Sisters
______
[8] Announcements:
(i)
Dear Friends!
On the occasion of Hiroshima & Nagasaki Day which
falls on 6th and 9th August, Peace-Mumbai
organizes 'Film Show' Dr. Strangelove' with the
cooperation of respective Colleges. It deals with
nuclear deterrent psychological warfare and
doctrine of mutual assured destruction during
cold war between the two antagonistic power
blocks. The film show will be held on 7th Aug, 08
at Vivek College of Commerce, Goregaon (W), at
10. A.M, Sophia College, on 8th Aug, 08 at 11.
A.M and on 9th Aug, 08 at TISS, Deonar at 11.A.M.
We request you all to participate in the film
show and discussion thereafter.
Thanks
Varsha, Jatin, Bhagwan and Asad
Mumbai
ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ
Dr. Strangelove, released on 29th Jan, 1964 is a
black comedy film Directed & Produced by Stanley
Kubrick which is based on Peter George's Cold War
thriller novel 'Red Alert'. Dr. Strangelove
satirizes the Cold War and the doctrine of mutual
assured destruction. It was nominated 4 Oscars,
and another 10 wins and 4 nominations. In 1989,
the United States Library of Congress deemed the
film 'culturally significant' and selected it for
preservation in the National Film Registry. Its
running time is 94 Minutes.
The story concerns a mentally unstable US Air
Force General Jack D. Ripper who orders a first
nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, and follows
the President of the US, his advisors, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and a Royal Air Force (RAF)
Officer as they try to recall the bombers to
prevent a nuclear apocalypse but Ripper refuses
to disclose the three letter code necessary for
recalling the bombers. He tells the personnel of
Burpelson Air Force Base that the US and the USSR
have entered into a 'shooting war'.. Although a
nuclear attack should require Presidential
authority to be initiated, Ripper uses 'Plan R'
an emergency war plan enabling a senior officer
to launch a retaliation strike against the
Soviets if the normal chain of command is broken
due to sneak attack.
In the War Room at the Pentagon, Air Force
General Buck Turgidson tried to convince
President Merkin Muffley to take advantage of the
situation to eliminate the Soviets as a threat by
launching a full scale attack. Turgidson believes
that the United States would destroy 90% of their
missiles before they could retaliate, resulting
in a victory for the U.S. with acceptable
casualties of 'no more than 10 to 20 million
killed. In the meantime over the phone Soviet
Premier, who is having a drunken party, reveals
to the Soviet Ambassador that their country has
installed an active Doomsday device which will
set itself off, can not be deactivated and will
automatically destroy all life on Earth if
nuclear weapons were to hit the Soviet Union.
At that time Dr. Strangelove, a former Nazi and
Strategy Expert recommended to the President that
a group of about 200, 000 people be relocated
into a deep mien shaft, where the nuclear fallout
can not reach them so that U.S. could be
repopulated afterwards. In the unfolding drama
the radio and fuel of B-52 got damaged by the
anti-aircraft Missile. It leads to the jams of
bay doors of B-52 and Aircraft Commander Forces
open and releasing one of the nuclear bombs, the
commander sitting on it whooping and hollering as
he plummet to the ground.
In the concluding scenes, a visibly excited
Strangelove bolts out of his wheelchair, shouting
'Mein Fuhrer' I can walk Seconds later the film
ends with a barrage of nuclear explosions
accompanied by Vera Lynn's famous World War II
song 'we will meet'.
(ii)
Discussion-Meeting on
Mass Crimes Against Women: The Communal Violence Bill
Date & day: 8 August 2008, Friday
Time: 4 p.m. 6 p.m.
Venue: Additional Library Hall,
High Court Buildings, Chennai 600014
The demand for a law on communal violence emerged
from a brutal record of recurring violence in our
country, the increasing occurrence of
gender-based crimes in communal attacks, and
complete impunity for mass crimes. The reasons
are many - lack of political will to prosecute
perpetrators, state complicity in communal
crimes, lack of impartial investigation and a
lack of sensitivity to victims' experiences. But
there is also, crucially, the glaring inadequacy
of the law. Today, despite huge strides in
international jurisprudence, India continues to
lack an adequate domestic legal framework, which
would allow survivors of communal violence to
seek and to secure justice. In addition, there
had been a historic neglect in making persons
accountable for mass crimes against women in
contexts of communal violence in India.
The UPA government, in its National Common
Minimum Programme issued in May 2004, promised to
enact a comprehensive legislation on communal
violence. While the country does need a strong
law on communal violence, the Bill - named
Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and
Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005 - drafted by
the government, is a dangerous piece of
legislation that would strengthen the shield of
protection enjoyed by the State, its political
leaders and its officials for their acts of
omission and commission in these crimes. In
particular, the Bill mentions sexual violence in
the context of communal attacks in a cursory
manner, without any acknowledgment of the fact
that sexual violence is increasingly playing a
fundamental role as an engine for mobilizing
hatred and destruction against religious
minorities.
After intensive pressure on the present
government through delegations, public meetings,
signature campaigns and a successful media
campaign that reflected the civil society's lack
support for the Bill, the government shelved its
version of the Bill and asked for a new draft
from members of the civil society who have been
active on the issue. A new draft was submitted to
the government on 24 January 2008, incorporating
important international standards, new concepts
and procedures that are absent in Indian law, in
order to make accountability of perpetrators of
communal violence a reality. The UPA government
is determined to pass a law on the issue during
its tenure, and hence the Bill is likely to be
introduced in the Parliament shortly.
This discussion-meeting, co-organized by Women
Lawyers' Association, High Court, Chennai and
Women's Research & Action Group, Mumbai, is
intended to
· Disseminate information on the present status
of this law and the contents of the new draft,
with a particular reference to issues of
gender-based and sexual violence;
· Build consensus and support among like-minded
lawyers, other individuals and groups to extend
solidarity to the issue; and
· Discuss and share strategies for advocacy initiatives in future.
The event will be chaired by Adv. Bader Sayeed,
(renowned women's rights advocate and activist)
and have speakers including Adv. Sheila
Jayaprakash (women's rights advocate), Ms. Vahida
Nizam (State Secretary of Working Women's Forum,
Chennai) and Ms. Saumya Uma (Advocate and
Co-Director of Women's Research & Action Group,
Mumbai, who has been engaged with the issue for
the past four years). Attached please find a
schedule of the event. We look forward to your
participation at this event. A line of
confirmation of participation to
iccindiacampaign at gmail.com would be appreciated.
In solidarity,
Mrs. K. Santhakumari Ms. Saumya Uma
Advocate & President, Advocate & Co-Director
Women Lawyers' Association Women's Research & Action Group
High Court, Chennai Mumbai
Posted by c-info at Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Labels: communal violence, Justice, Law, legislation
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the SACW
mailing list