------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/MCfFmA/SOnJAA/E2hLAA/nJ9qlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
South Asia Citizens Wire | 21 April - 5 May, 2005 [This issue of SACW is dedicated to the memory of two world citizens, public intellectuals and activists Andre Gunder Frank and Jugnu Ramaswamy, whose recent deaths are a great loss for many on this list. ] [1] The State of Sectarianism in Pakistan (International Crisis Group) [2] Press Statement re Indo Pak Peace Process (Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India) [3] Indo Pak Peace Process - How irreversible is 'irreversible'? (M B Naqvi) [4] India Vacillates On Nepal: Don't compromise with despotism (Praful Bidwai) [5] India: Secular Spirit (Edit., The Telegraph) [6] India: Sangh goes on air, indirect to home (Hemendra Singh Bartwal) [7] India: Manipur- An Incendiary Script (Pradip Phanjoubam) [8] India: Art can't be supressed by fundamentalists: Punjab artistes [9] India: Space science in the lord's hands (G.S. Radhakrishna) [10] Announcements: Upcoming conference on "Political Hinduism" (Los Angeles - May 6-7, 2005) -------------- [1] International Crisis Group - Asia Report No. 95 18 April 2005 THE STATE OF SECTARIANISM IN PAKISTAN Executive Summary And Recommendations Sectarian conflict in Pakistan is the direct consequence of state policies of Islamisation and marginalisation of secular democratic forces. Co-option and patronage of religious parties by successive military governments have brought Pakistan to a point where religious extremism threatens to erode the foundations of the state and society. As President Pervez Musharraf is praised by the international community for his role in the war against terrorism, the frequency and viciousness of sectarian terrorism continues to increase in his country. Instead of empowering liberal, democratic voices, the government has co-opted the religious right and continues to rely on it to counter civilian opposition. By depriving democratic forces of an even playing field and continuing to ignore the need for state policies that would encourage and indeed reflect the country's religious diversity, the government has allowed religious extremist organisations and jihadi groups, and the madrasas that provide them an endless stream of recruits, to flourish. It has failed to protect a vulnerable judiciary and equip its law-enforcement agencies with the tools they need to eliminate sectarian terrorism. Constitutional provisions to "Islamise" laws, education and culture, and official dissemination of a particular brand of Islamic ideology, not only militate against Pakistan's religious diversity but also breed discrimination against non-Muslim minorities. The political use of Islam by the state promotes an aggressive competition for official patronage between and within the many variations of Sunni and Shia Islam, with the clerical elite of major sects and subsects striving to build up their political parties, raise jihadi militias, expand madrasa networks and, as has happened on Musharraf's watch, become part of government. Like all other Pakistani military governments, the Musharraf administration has also weakened secular and democratic political forces. Administrative and legal action against militant organisations has failed to dismantle a well-entrenched and widely spread terror infrastructure. All banned extremist groups persist with new labels, although old names are also still in use. The jihadi media is flourishing, and the leading figures of extremist Sunni organisations are free to preach their jihadi ideologies. Leaders of banned groups such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Sipahe Sahaba and Jaish-e-Mohammed appear to enjoy virtual immunity from the law. They have gained new avenues to propagate their militant ideas since the chief patrons of jihad, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), have acquired prominent and powerful roles in Musharraf's political structure. The Islamisation of laws and education, in particular, graphically illustrates the Sunni sectarian bias of the Pakistani state. General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamic penal code, retained by General Musharraf, is derived entirely from classical Sunni-Hanafi orthodox sources. The same is true of "Islamic" textbooks in public schools and colleges. The Shia minority -- and, in some cases, even the majority Sunni Barelvi sect -- is deeply resentful of this orthodox Hanafi Sunni bias in state policies. Within Sunnism itself, the competition for state patronage and a share in power has turned minor theological debates and cultural differences into unbridgeable, volatile sectarian divisions. After decades of co-option by the civil-military establishment, Pakistan's puritanical clergy is attempting to turn the country into a confessional state where the religious creed of a person is the sole marker of identity. Except for a few showcase "reformed" madrasas, no sign of change is visible. Because of the mullahs' political utility, the military-led government's proposed measures, from curriculum changes to a new registration law, have been dropped in the face of opposition by the MMA (Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal) and its madrasa subsidiaries. Instead, financial and political incentives to the mullahs have raised their public profile and influence. The government's approach towards religious extremism is epitomised by its deals with extremists in the tribal areas, concluded through JUI mediation after payment of bribes to militant leaders. The anomalous constitutional status and political disenfranchisement of regions like the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Northern Areas have turned them into sanctuaries for sectarian and international terrorists and centres of the arms and drugs trade. Parallel legal and judicial systems, which exist in many parts of the country with the blessing of the state, undermine the rule of law. The reform of discriminatory laws and procedures has, at best, been cosmetic -- they remain open to abuse by religious fanatics. Bereft of independence, the judiciary is unable to check the rising sectarian violence. Subjected to political interference, an inefficient police has become even more incapable of dealing with sectarian terrorism. President Musharraf's lack of domestic legitimacy has forced the military to rely on alliances of convenience with the religious right, based on the politics of patronage. In the absence of international support, moderate, secular and democratic parties will remain in the political cold. The choice that Pakistan faces is not between the military and the mullahs, as is generally believed in the West; it is between genuine democracy and a military-mullah alliance that is responsible for producing and sustaining religious extremism of many hues. Given the intrinsic links between Pakistan-based homegrown and transnational terrorists, the one cannot be effectively contained and ultimately eliminated without acting against the other. The government's unwillingness to demonstrate political will to deal with the internal jihad could cost it international support, much of which is contingent upon Pakistan's performance in the war against terrorism. The U.S. and other influential actors have realised with regard to their own societies that terrorism can only be eliminated through pluralistic democratic structures. Pakistan should not be treated as an exception. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Government of Pakistan: 1. Recognise the diversity of Islam in Pakistan, reaffirm the constitutional principle of equality for all citizens regardless of religion or sect, and give meaning to this by taking the following steps: (a) repeal all laws, penal codes and official procedures that reinforce sectarian identities and cause discrimination on the basis of faith, such as the mandatory affirmation of religious creed in applications for jobs, passports and national identity cards; (b) repeal the Hudood laws and the blasphemy laws; (c) disband privately-run Sharia courts in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and take action against religious organisations operating them; (d) do not use zakat or other sources of government funding to finance the activities, educational or otherwise, of any sect; and (e) purge Islamic Studies textbooks of sectarian material that promotes or undermines specific sects. 2. Disband, in furtherance of Article 256 of the constitution, all private militias, including those organised for sectarian and jihadi causes. 3. Make curbs on sectarian leaders and extremist groups more effective by: (a) publicising the evidence for banning jihadi groups; (b) implementing the laws against hate-speech and incitement of communal violence; (c) taking legal action against the administration of any mosque or madrasa or religious leader responsible for verbal or written edicts of apostasy; (d) taking legal action against the administration of any mosque or madrasa whose leader calls for internal or external jihad; (e) cancelling the print declarations (licences) of jihadi publications and prosecuting the publishers; (f) closing down madrasas run by sectarian and jihadi organisations; and (g) ending registration of new madrasas until a new madrasa law is in place, and registering all madrasas under this new law, including those currently registered under the Societies Act. 4. Appoint prayer leaders and orators at mosques and madrasas run by the Auqaf Department (the government department of religious endowments) only after verifying that the applicant has no record of sectarian extremism, and dismiss those sectarian leaders who are employees of the Auqaf Department. 5. Review periodically the activities of all government appointed clergy and strictly enforce the ban on loudspeakers used in mosques other than for permitted religious activities. 6. Implement police and judiciary reforms, including the following: (a) ensure institutional independence and guarantees against political interference; (b) guarantee the physical security of judges presiding over cases of sectarian terrorism; and (c) end the political and policing role of intelligence agencies and establish parliamentary oversight of their activities. 7. Use federal prerogative to veto the MMA's Islamisation agenda, including the Hasba Bill. 8. Provide constitutional and political rights to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Northern Areas by: (a) doing away with their special status and deciding on a final constitutional and legal status after negotiations with their directly elected representatives; (b) granting decision-making powers and local administrative and legislative authority to the Northern Areas Council; (c) setting up and linking courts in these areas to Pakistan's mainstream judicial institutions; and (d) ending the practices of raising tribal lashkars and paying bribes to militants. 9. Regulate the arms industry in FATA to prevent the proliferation of weapons countrywide. To the United States and the European Union: 10. Press the Musharraf government to carry out its commitment of introducing a madrasa registration regime and instituting a regulatory authority in conformity with international conventions on terrorism and extremism. 11. Urge the Pakistan government to repeal discriminatory legislation that targets women and minorities. Islamabad/Brussels, 18 April 2005 _______ [2] 21 April 2005 PRESS RELEASE The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), India, warmly endorses the establishment of bus links between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, the opening of cross-border trade routes between India and Pakistan, and the commitment by both sides to a peaceful resolution of the hitherto intractable 'Kashmir problem'. The peace process however, despite the formal declaration, is not "irreversible" but is itself hostage to the possible emergence of distrust and suspicion between the two countries in the future. In this context the CNDP registers its deepest disappointment and dismay that the India-Pakistan talks completely failed to take note of the possibility of a nuclear war which stares both the countries in the face, whether by deliberate action or unintentional slip. They failed to agree to any measures to reduce such risks and to eventually eliminate their respective arsenals. Hence, we once again urge both governments to take concrete measures to reverse the open-ended nuclear arms race that consumes scarce resources and sharpens animosities and tensions. Sukla Sen CNDP, India _______ [3] The News International May 04, 2005 HOW IRREVERSIBLE IS 'IRREVERSIBLE'? M B Naqvi The joint statement issued after Delhi's Indo-Pakistani summit described improvements in their mutual relationship as "irreversible" because of the sizeable peace lobbies in both countries. War mongering is no longer popular. But how irreversible is this peace process? Things are often deceptive in politics. Entrenched powerful groups in both countries do not want friendship between the two countries, not even trade and economic cooperation. They like freer cultural exchanges even less. The two bureaucracies, each excelling the other in rigid approaches and in being actually backward-looking, do not want to change. Bureaucracies are always meant to preserve a system. They cannot be expected to take significant initiatives "outside the box." It is not their job. That is the job of political leaderships, and they should make the bureaucracies implement their "out of the box" thinking which requires change. The two governments are a long way from settling down as friends and have still to build many bridges. Governments can always reverse their stances. There is the sudden reversal of India's policy over Nepal, for instance. Only a few months ago, India angrily condemned King Gyanendra's wrapping up the elected system by assuming total power himself on Feb. 1 last. It stopped military aid to the Nepalese Army. Now suddenly it has decided to send him armaments against the wishes of India's leftists. One goes beyond a mere notice of this instance of a reversal for a reason. The proffered reason was other countries would take advantage of the tiff between India and the Nepalese King and would start supplying arms to him. The "other country" in this case could either be Pakistan or China because America and the UK were on India's side against Gyanendra. Now China, in its own national interests, would never give an excuse to India, the US and the UK to unitedly oppose China's help to Gyanendra. As for Pakistan, it would never go against US and UK advice, all its gestures of independence notwithstanding. But even this flimsy threat of Pakistan establishing a relationship with Gyanendra was enough to unnerve the South Block. True, there could be a different reason. Maoist inroads in India itself demand that the Indian government should enable the Nepalese Army to prevent its Maoists from coordinating with their Indian friends. Doubtless, the Indian bureaucracy is stoutly fighting against Indian Maoists. However, this Indian iron fist has not stopped Maoists from spreading operations from the Indo-Nepalese border down to Andhra Pradesh. The logic of fighting the Maoists at home could impel India to cooperate with Nepal's anti-Maoists. But India's stoppage of military cooperation with Nepal had no links with the decades old insurgencies in India. Pakistan's fishing in Nepal's troubled waters could only be a minor threat. Another example is military exercises that India is about to hold near Jullundhur. Who would be the enemy to be vanquished in this exercise? The emotional underpinnings of such exercises make the enemy known: it is Pakistan. The Indian Army is for preserving Indian borders from Pakistan; the two are designated adversary states for each other. Three wars and many skirmishes have stabilised these enemy images. These inveterate enemies have recently gone nuclear. Pakistan's nuclear stance is India-specific. Thus reversing the enemy image is going to take time and much more than diplomatic bonhomie and sweet talk; something has to be shown to the people before they change their inimical attitudes. The feel good factor created by the many "permitted" cultural exchanges cannot long be sustained on sweet words alone. There has to be evidence of inter-state free trade, economic cooperation and a credible framework of a lot freer travel to permit cultural exchanges to do their magic. The Army patronises many other forces. Among them, two deserve notice: the first is the political forces that demonise the enemy. In India there is the Sangh Parivar and parties like Shiv Sena that are anti-Pakistan and, up to a point, anti-Muslim. The Bharatya Janata Party represents their political interests. The second group associated with the armed forces (and the bureaucracies) comprises publicists. Whole battalions of them are embedded in the military establishments as well as civilian ones. Governments need special media persons to be properly guided by intelligence agencies; arrangements to this effect are in working order in both countries. This is reality. Despite professed recent governmental desires of being friends hard progress has been slow and halting. A tribute to Americans is due for bringing India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. This has had a benign effect so far. It is for India and Pakistan to go further than the Americans want. They should go much beyond a mere normalisation of relations. They have tried hard to make the Composite Dialogue, agreed in 1997, productive. Despite many rounds, it has so far yielded no solution to any of the eight propositions. The two states have fixed a "normal" relationship as their goal, though the Composite Dialogue has so far refused to move forward. Both are still at the starting point. However, many agreements on Confidence Building Measures, some along the LoC in Kashmir, may have been agreed upon, there needs to be some concrete agreements on disputes. These CBMs are welcome. But they are reversible. Can the bus between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad not be stopped? Can the Munabao-Khokhrapar line not be postponed again? The two Consulates General in Bombay and Karachi can be made to wait more years. The fact is the two bureaucracies are micro-managing the relaxation process. Each action is under strict control. No state is ready to give the citizens of the other the freedom of movement in its own country. The Indians in Pakistan are supposed to pose unexplained security threats. Similarly, Pakistanis loafing around Indian cities constitute an equally serious threat to India. The two bureaucracies remain unreconstructed and unaffected by new impulses. The two countries are fated to keep going round the mulberry bush if their aim is no more than normalisation. Normalisation is a vague concept. It can mean Peru's relations with Mongolia. It can mean, at the other extreme, relations between France and Germany. We must know what kind of relations we want. There have to be common aims before relations can stabilise and start growing into a friendship. It is common objectives that hold the key. One recommends the goal of peoples' reconciliation between India and Pakistan from grassroots up. It has to be complete reconciliation that should be reinforced with the aims of common economic and cultural objectives. Today India is desperate for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Here is Pakistan, supposedly working to be friends with India, openly campaigning against India being elevated. Nothing could be more absurd than the present sets of antithetical approaches. Why can't Islamabad think holistically whether it wants to change or remain in the comfort of old notions: India is the enemy. Why cannot a situation be visualized in which India and Pakistan would invite each other to enrich themselves culturally and economically through cooperation and trade? Here is an exciting goal: let the two jointly undertake to ensure that each Indian and Pakistani citizen becomes entitled to social security in his or her own state -- a minimal but progressive one. And it can be created at the cost of their military budgets, if necessary. That will deepen the friendship, especially if combined with cultural cooperation. _______ [4] Praful Bidwai Column May 2, 2005 INDIA VACILLATES ON NEPAL: DON'T COMPROMISE WITH DESPOTISM By Praful Bidwai Did India lose in two days in Jakarta the tremendous goodwill it earned over three months in Nepal, by agreeing to meet King Gyanendra and resume the arms supply it blocked since the Royal usurpation of power of February 1? India is certainly in serious danger of doing so-notwithstanding the King's reported assurances about not extending the state of emergency beyond April 30. The King quickly publicised the Indian offer and gloated that "Š we have got assurances that [the arms supplies] will continue." This gave New Delhi an opportunity to go public about the King's "roadmap" for restoring democracy and thus hold his feet to the fire. India squandered that chance and revealed utter confusion in its Nepal policy. This looks especially stark after the arrests of former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and others. Whether or not India's weapons offer is conditional, and whether or not it's limited to releasing a consignment already in the pipeline, a shift has doubtless occurred in New Delhi's stance. It has been in the making for many weeks and became apparent at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last month, when India, with the United States and Britain, blocked a worthy and tough resolution reprimanding Nepal and appointing a Special Rapporteur. The "troika" offered the King an escape route under a mild procedure only asking for "technical cooperation" (Agenda Item 19). India seems to have diluted its principled stand against the Royal takeover for four reasons. First, there is the hyped-up fear in New Delhi that Nepali Maoists would infiltrate into India, aggravating the Naxalite problem. Second, the King pleaded that the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) is running out of the ammunition it badly needs to control the insurgents. Third, there was the fear-especially after the Chinese Foreign Minister's recent visit to Kathmandu-that China and Pakistan would occupy the space of influence vacated by India. And fourth, problems of mutual concern like water, environment and economic development would persist if India continued with its strong stand against the coup. Remarkably, none of these considerations has anything to do with Nepali realities: most of the 3,000 prisoners taken under the coup continue to be detained; draconian operations remain in force, including Tora Bora-style helicopter attacks that kill more civilians than insurgents; the media remains stifled by censorship. On the very day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met the King, the Royal government plucked out from a plane three Nepalis, including a former Supreme Court justice and the Bar Association president, who were leaving Kathmandu to attend a conference in New Delhi. Fears about the "Maoist factor" are, to put it mildly, exaggerated. The Naxalite movement is indigenous. Less than a fifth of the 175 districts affected by it are anywhere near Nepal. Indian arms are likely to be used by the RNA to grossly repressive ends. Between February 17 and 23, the RNA conducted a massacre in Kapilavastu district and then flogged the dead bodies in front of TV cameras in the presence of Nepali ministers. India should not worry much about China and Pakistan becoming Nepal's substitute arms-suppliers. Pakistan is playing a small game, and has no major influence in Kathmandu. Neither Pakistan, nor more importantly China, would like to lose the greater benefits of peace with India for tiny potential gains in Nepal. India and China could well have issued a joint statement appealing for Nepal's re-democratisation during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to Delhi. This chance was missed. Finally, issues of India-Nepal bilateral concern would best be resolved if there is a representative regime in Kathmandu. However, the weightiest reason why India should not dilute its stand against the King's usurpation of power is the Nepal situation itself. The coup has aggravated the crisis of governability and the monarchy has discredited itself. Nepal's political parties were thrown into disarray after the King unleashed a wave of repression. But now, they are recouping and planning to launch a focused agitation for the restitution of multi-party democracy. At a convention in Delhi on April 23, all major parties but one pledged themselves to a Republican order. As a minimum demand, they all agreed on a Constituent Assembly. The Nepali people have tasted democracy for 15 years and won't be easily cowed down by the King. Nepal's politicians may not be South Asia's most competent, coherent or clean leaders. But as Nepali editor and commentator Kanak Mani Dixit says, "they do shine when compared to the monarchy's 30 years of misrule" until 1990. Since the RNA's Unified Command took over under the monarchy in November 2001, Nepal has accelerated its march towards state failure. All its institutions, including the judiciary, are in trouble. The state's writ doesn't run in 70 percent of the territory. The law-courts don't function in the 19 hill districts. The number of police stations has decreased from 1,500 to 350. The healthcare system has collapsed. Growth has come to a standstill. Since the coup, the number of people being killed daily has risen almost three-fold. The number of "disappeared" persons is now 1,619, according to the Human Rights Commission. More than half of the budget of the country, 42 percent of whose people live below subsistence, is financed by external aid. The King's takeover had little to do with "safeguarding democracy" or even fighting the insurgency. Rather, it was a reaction to the decentralisation and redistribution of power that has occurred under Parliamentary democracy. Power has increasingly devolved to regional groups and ethnic minorities outside the Kathmandu Valley. As Dixit says, a "doubling of the rural roads network, spread of telecommunications, and the opening up of overseas employment" has made Nepalis more "confident in challenging authority." The Royal coup was a reaction to this momentum towards democratisation-a desperate attempt to roll it back. It was profoundly reactionary. The King has acquired a new instrument of coercion through the high-powered Commission on Corruption Control, which is being used to intimidate and harass political leaders, dissidents, even judges. Community radio, in which Nepal is a world leader, is being destroyed. King Gyanendra's record thoroughly falsifies the grandiose promises he has made, including that of restoring normalcy in 100 days. He has done his utmost to promote the interests of a narrow rapacious elite that thrives on the peoples' poverty. Just before leaving for Jakarta, he passed on his mantle to his dreaded son Paras in a special ceremony organised by the World Hindu Federation. Opposing the King does not amount to strengthening the Maoists. Indeed, it can encourage long-overdue reform, including land reform, and further decentralisation. The Maoists' methods can be criticised, but not their political platform-a representative, radicalised, democracy. Their violence fades into insignificance beside the excesses of the RNA, which is responsible for a majority of the 11,000 people killed since 1996. India, with the US and Britain, did great harm to the cause of Nepali democracy and pluralism a year ago, when it sent its ambassador (present foreign secretary Shyam Saran) to persuade a multi-party "Anti-Regression" initiative to call off a major agitation for restoring multi-party rule. The agitation might have pre-empted the coup. It's India's moral and political responsibility to rectify this blunder. India must now revise its standard formulation emphasising the "twin pillars"- Constitutional monarchy, and multi-party democracy. She must squarely side with the popular forces fighting for democracy. The King is a despot. He has shown no intention of reforming his ways. Even if he lifts the emergency, he is unlikely to release prisoners, bring errant soldiers to book, restore media freedom, or install a broad-based multi-party government. The issue of lifting the emergency is a red herring. It's not good enough that Nepal return to the pre-February status quo. It must go further. India has been seen as a bulwark of support by the Nepali people. It must not let them down by legitimising the King's authoritarian rule. A larger issue arises. What role should India as an aspirant to Great Power status and a Security Council seat play? This cannot be separated from India's potential contribution to making the world, especially its neighbourhood, a better place. India must help South Asia become a more open, democratic, plural, just and equitable society at peace with itself. Leadership is not only about economic clout, military muscle or political power. It's about the purposes of power. These will be legitimate only if they promote universal principles and values. Taking one-fourth of humanity, which lives in South Asia, out of poverty and backwardness undoubtedly constitutes a universal good. India must contribute to it. The case for doing so in Nepal is all the greater considering India's special relationship with it, the 1,700 km-long open border, their citizens' right of residence and work in each other's countries, as well as historic ties of culture. A failing state and a deeply convulsed, troubled and disintegrating society in Nepal cannot be in India's interest. The King is the surest guarantee of disaster. He must be opposed-on principle and in practice.-end- _______ [5] The Telegraph April 25, 2005 | Editorial SECULAR SPIRIT Other-worldly aspirations never went against worldly acquisitions - any well-to-do temple in India would stand witness to that. Managing the wealth of the houses of worship is a complicated job, and the Supreme Court does not think that it need be left to believers alone. This is suggested by its response to a petition challenging a Kerala high court ruling, brought by the president of the Guruvayoor temple protection committee and a Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader. The petition objects to Marxist ministers nominating members to the temple committees as Marxists are against religious practice. The Supreme Court has made two points in its judgment. It has said that to be a Hindu a person need not go to a temple or follow particular rituals. This statement makes an incisive distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. Its second, and equally important, point is that management of a temple has nothing to do with religion, it is a secular task and should be conducted in the same manner as the administration of any other institution. That is, when the state has taken over the job of managing the worldly affairs of a temple, as in the case of Guruvayoor or of many of the temples in Tamil Nadu, the system of ministers nominating members to temple managing committees should not be affected by the faith or political ideology of the government in power. The Supreme Court's clarity is in contrast to the murky tussles concerning temple management that must lie behind the petition. Whatever might have been this petitioner's primary concern, it would seem that, generally, faith is hardly the core issue. The sphere of temple management offers an arena for tourneys for power and less metaphysical prizes, with the aura of sanctity as a useful screen behind which such profane struggles can continue undetected. The lurid tale of the Kanchi math is a good recent example. So while the Supreme Court has made the relevant clarifications, it is also necessary to take the question further. A secular state can be secular only by divorcing itself strictly from the functioning of the various religions of its people. Its "tolerance" need not be exhibited in the organizing and subsidizing of pilgrimages or ceremonies for all faiths. Neither should its leaders try to curry favour with the electorate by displaying their deep respect for the spiritual heads and holy men of different religions. But such a divorce is impossible if the state takes over the administration of places of worship. A government in a secular state does not provide the places of worship; there is no reason why it should look after them. As it is, the notion of secularism is a deeply troubled one. A secular state administering temples is likely to confuse perceptions further. ______ [6] Hindustan Times May 3, 2005 SANGH GOES ON AIR, INDIRECT TO HOME Hemendra Singh Bartwal New Delhi, May 2, 2005 The Sangh Parivar soon won't be cribbing about its leaders being 'misquoted' by 'biased' news channels with the launch of 'Sudarshan TV'. Floated by a dedicated swayamsewak, the channel is expected to project the Sangh's Hindutva ideology and viewpoint. And though the Sangh is not going to be directly involved in the channel's operations or funding, it has certainly welcomed it. Incidentally, the resemblance of the soon-to-be launched channel's name to RSS chief KS Sudarshan is purely coincidental, or that's what its promoters would like everyone to believe. Whatever the case, Sudarshan - who bitterly complains about the "biased" Indian media dominated by what he calls "Macaulay-putras and Marx-putras" - is definitely looking forward to not to being 'misquoted' on the channel. Sources say the Rs 100-crore project has been granted clearance by the I&B Ministry. Coming at a time when the Sangh is under heavy attack from various quarters, Sudarshan TV is expected to come in handy when Sangh leaders want to counter what they call "distorted and malicious propaganda" with their own 'version' of news and views. "This will be an aggressive channel... Other channels make goats out of the youth while we will turn them into roaring tigers," declared its chairman Suresh Chavhanke, a Pune-based business magnate. Admitting he is an active swayamsewak, he denies Sudarshan TV will be directly influenced by the Sangh, saying that it is a commercial venture that will be run on professional lines. "It is a patriotic channel whose mission is nation-building. It will be guided by the objectives of dev, desh and dharma," he said. Chavhanke maintains that the channel's name refers to the mythical 'Sudarshan chakra' wielded by Lord Krishna in the Mahabharata. Besides, in Hindi, Sudarshan also means "good viewing", he adds. ______ [7] Outlook Magazine Web | April 26, 2005 MANIPUR- AN INCENDIARY SCRIPT The atrocious act of arson at the Manipur State Central Library where all of its more than 1,45,000 books were destroyed on April 13, 2005 is just the latest in the storm of revivalism blowing across the violence-wracked state. Pradip Phanjoubam A storm of revivalism is blowing across the valley districts of Manipur, spearheaded by an organisation that calls itself MEELAL (Meetei Erol Eyek Loinshillon Apunba Lup, or the United Forum for Safeguarding Manipuri Script and Language), and has culminated in the atrocious act of arson at the Manipur State Central Library where all of its more than 1,45,000 books were destroyed on April 13, 2005. MEELAL initiated its violent campaign to 'immediately' have the Bengali script replaced by the indigenous Meitei Mayek in written Manipuri, and to have all school text books written in this script from the current academic session. Presently, and for almost the last 300 years, the Bengali script has been the medium of written Manipuri. MEELAL activists have been going about visiting schools, snatching textbooks written in Bengali and burning them for almost two months now, with the Okram Ibobi led Congress government merely 'waiting and watching' - now very much its trade mark policy for 'tackling' crises - in the hope that the storm will eventually spend itself and pass. Regardless of numerous appeals from the government and a good section of the vocal public, MEELAL intensified its campaign and added an economic blockade of the state, over and above its textbook burning spree. Many freight trucks that entered Imphal against the blockade call ended up in ashes, in the heart of capital, in full public view and under the very nose of the government. At one stage, MEELAL even issued a diktat that all vernacular dailies should begin using Meitei Mayek by March 1. The newspapers initially refused to do so, provoking MEELAL's ire, with activists raiding newspaper distribution centres and intimidating hawkers, starting March 11, till the newspapers complied with their diktat. In the initial sweep, even local English dailies were not spared. In protest, newspapers in the state stopped publication for three days and journalists staged a sit-in protest against the intrusion on their freedom, until a settlement was negotiated under which MEELAL was to allow the distribution of newspapers if the vernacular newspapers reserved some space on the front page for news written in Meitei Mayek. The government continued its watching game. All except one daily complied with the agreement, but many were extremely compliant and even went the whole hog in using the entire front page for news written in the Meitei Mayek. However, these enthusiasts retracted their extreme gesture of support after they found no takers among their readers, and their circulations dropped. ______ [8] The Hindu, May 4, 2005 ART CAN'T BE SUPRESSED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS: PUNJAB ARTISTES Chandigarh, May 4 (PTI): Expressing concern that a handful of "fundamentalists" in the name of religion were out to harass them in a bid to curb their freedom of expression, theatre and television artistes drawn from various parts of Punjab and Chandigarh today resolved that they will keep highlighting the issues plaguing society despite all odds. "Nobody can gag our voice. If there are wrongs happening in our society we can't shut our eyes and look other way. It is our duty to convey to the people what is right by staging plays, through satire etc," veteran theatre artist from Punjab Gursharan Singh said during a press conference here. Theatre personality from Chandigarh G S Channi said, "No religion imposes any kind of censorship and it is only a handful of people who exploit religion for their vested interests." Chandigarh Sangeet Natak Akademi's chairman Kamal Tiwari said if an artist's right to highlight the social issues was snatched in the name of "religion or by fundamentalist elements then it will be very unfortunate". The artistes had gathered here to express their solidarity with famous satirist Jaspal Bhatti, who is facing a Court case here over one of his street performances in Chandigarh last year. Another artist Davinder Daman said that even first Sikh Guru, Nanak Dev and Saint Kabir used to "encourage people to think on scientific lines and shun rituals which did not have any scientific backing". Theatre and Film Artistes Association President Shavinder Mahal urged the artistes to unite on one platform. "We will unitedly fight against the individuals or organisations who will try to divide the artistes' unity and our audiences on communal lines," he said. ______ [9] The Telegraph - May 05, 2005 SPACE SCIENCE IN THE LORD'S HANDS G.S. Radhakrishna Hyderabad, May 4: If the rocket crashes tomorrow, blame Lord Balaji. Indian space scientists placed miniature replicas of the rocket that is set to blast off tomorrow morning from the Sriharikota spaceport and the two satellites it would carry at a shrine to the god for his blessings. The replicas were taken to the sanctum sanctorum of the reigning deity of the Tirupati Tirumala Dewasthanam and ordained as priests chanted Vedic hymns. Authorities of the temple in Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, where the spaceport is located, confirmed that 15 scientists from the Indian Space Research Organisation, led by its chief, Dr G. Madhavan Nair, came to the town yesterday to seek the deity's blessings. A temple spokesman quoted Nair as saying: "I am in Tirupati to offer prayers for the success of the launch." "I cannot believe they actually did this," said Prof. Ajay Sood, head of physical sciences at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. "For an individual, going to a temple may be an issue of faith, but to mix the space programme with religion is very wrong," said Prof. Kasturi Lal Chopra, president of India's Society for Scientific Values and former director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Tomorrow's launch is aimed at putting every Indian household on the map. One of the satellites, the 1.5-tonne CARTOSAT-1, mounted with two cameras for "stereographic" imaging, carries with it the ambitions of India's space programme. Once lodged into orbit 618 km above earth, the satellite can read images smaller than a motorcar by identifying features down to 2.5 metres across. The satellite will help urban and rural planning, land and water management, relief operations and environmental assessments. CARTOSAT-1, which represents the highest payload carried so far by a polar satellite launch vehicle, will also carry a 42.5-kg HAMSAT, a micro-satellite that provides amateur radio services. The scientists spent almost half an hour in the sanctum sanctorum and later took part in an elaborate ritual for another hour when priests showered ashirvachanam (blessings) of the deity on them. "Some of the scientists even put currency notes in the temple hundi (container) for the success of the launch," said the temple spokesman. Sources said the prayers followed astrological predictions that the launch could be delayed. This is not the first time space scientists have turned to god before an expedition into the distant heavens. Former Isro chief K. Kasturirangan, too, had invoked divine blessings before a launch. "This practice is in vogue since the days of Kasturirangan," said D. Narayana Rao, director of the MSP radar station at Tirupati who had organised the temple trip. Tomorrow's launch is scheduled for 10.19 am when the PSLV C-6 (picture on right) will take off from the newly-built second launch pad, 1.5 km south of the first launch pad in Sriharikota. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who has a scientific background, inaugurated the second launch pad today. ______ [10] [Announcements: ] CONFERENCE ON "POLITICAL HINDUISM" The Center for the Study of Religion, with additional funding from the Asia Institute and the Center for Modern and Contemporary Studies, and the assistance of the Department of History and the Colloquium on South Asian History and Cultural Studies, presents a major conference on "Political Hinduism" at the UCLA Campus, 6-7 May 2005. Venue: Haines 118 [Central Quad], 9- 6 PM both days (Friday, May 6 and Saturday, May 7). The conference is free and open to the public. Parking is $7 and available at Lots 2 and 3. Conference Director: Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brief Description: The political ascendancy of the Hindu right in India since the mid-1980s has been a subject of much scholarly inquiry. This conference is not intended to cover terrain that has already been well explored, but rather it seeks to open new lines of inquiry and bring cultural anthropologists, scholars of Hinduism, media and cultural studies practitioners, historians, and scholars of Indian culture more broadly into conversation with each other. The distinguished scholars who will be presenting papers at this conference will pose different kinds of questions, such as: What is the relationship between Hindu militancy and Hindutva to Hinduism on the ground? Have Hindu modes of worship and religious practices witnessed any dramatic changes? We have all heard much about 'Vedic science', but is the Hindi film also a barometer of these changes, and not only in the most obvious ways (increasing references to terrorism in Pakistan, for instance)? Again, we have heard (correctly or otherwise) a good deal about the elevation of the Ramacaritmanas into an allegedly hegemonic text under the aegis of Hindutva, but can we entertain broader considerations about how certain texts, religious practices, deities, and 'margas' have prospered while others have declined, been demoted, or have suffered from neglect? is it only the upper castes which have mobilized in the name of Hindutva, or have the lower castes done so as well? Can there be 'political Hinduism' that is something other than Hindutva? PROGRAM: ALL events will be held in HAINES 118 Friday, May 6 9 - 9:30 AM The Politics of Hinduism: Introduction to the Conference Vinay Lal (History, UCLA) 9:30 - 11 AM Tilak's Arctic Home Theory: Religion, Politics, and the Colonial Context Madhav Deshpande (Sanskrit and Linguistics, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor) 11:15 - 12:45 AM Vande Mataram: the Genesis and Power of a Song Julius Lipner (Divinity, Cambridge University, UK) 12:45 - 2:15 PM LUNCH 2:15- 3:45 AM Religious Categories, Translation and Everyday Life Veena Das (Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University) 4 - 5:30 PM C. Rajagopalachari and the Cultural Work of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Paula Richman (Religion, Oberlin College) Saturday, May 7 9 - 10:30 AM Making Hinduism Global: New Guru-Oriented Religious Movement as Confluent with or Counter to Hindutva? Joanne Waghorne (Religion, Syracuse University) 10:30 - noon Nationalist Nostalgias, Diasporic Desires: Identity and Tradition in an Era of Transnational Media Purnima Mankekar (Cultural and Social Anthropology, Stanford) Noon - 1:15 PM LUNCH 1:15 - 2:45 PM Ramdev and Ravidas: How Hinduism gets Political for Dalits Chris Pinney (Anthropology & Visual Culture, University College London) 2:45 - 4:15 PM Getting a Life: The "Hanumayana" as Emerging Epic Philip Lutgendorf (Hindi and Indian Studies, University of Iowa) 4:30 - 6 PM Patriotism and the Hindi Film Ron Inden (History, and South Asian Languages & Civilizations, University of Chicago) _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/ Sister initiatives : South Asia Counter Information Project : snipurl.com/sacip South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/