South Asia Citizens Wire | April 28, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2396 - Year 9 [1] Pakistan: Alert for Action - against right wing campaign [and the 'Moderately enlightened' Fraud] - Stop The Campaign To Terrorize Theatre Group In Pakistan (Madeeha Gauhar) - Govt's double retreat in NA: Minister backs demand for curbs on burqa play (Raja Asghar) - Ajoka blames 'burqa brigade' for ban, vows to go to court - Appeasement (Editorial, The News) [2] India / J and K: A perilous path - Arrests of Hurriyat (G) leaders are beyond logic (Edit, Kashmir Times) [3] Betraying "Democracy" in Burma (J. Sri Raman) [4] India: Judicial indecency and the moral brigade - Kissing sense goodbye (Editorial, Indian Express) - Kissing Episode, Part II (Editorial, The Telegraph) [5] India: Looking backward (Dipankar Gupta) [6] India: Scientist Narlikar slams Vastushastra, Feng Shui at rationalists conference [7] The UN gives in: Protecting the belief at the expense of the believers (Agnes Callamard)
____ [1] South Asia Citizens Web 27 April 2007 http://www.sacw.net/FreeExpAndFundos/Ajoka27042007.html Request for action against right wing campaign - State should not cave in to pressure from fundamentalists STOP THE CAMPAIGN TO TERRORIZE THEATRE GROUP IN PAKISTAN 1. The pro-Taliban elements and their political patrons have made an issue of an Ajoka play "Burqavaganza', which was staged in Lahore in March 2007. Five MMA MNAs submitted an adjournment motion in the National Assembly, which was discussed on 26 April 2007. MMA members used extremely provocative language against the writer/director of the play and director of Ajoka, accused them of ridiculing Islamic injunctions and demanded action against them under blasphemy laws. Although several MNAs from Government and Opposition including women MNAs wanted to speak on the motion but the speaker did not allow them. The Minister for Culture Mr. G.G. Jamal announced that the Government had banned the play and further action will be taken after a report from the Punjab Government is received. 2. "Burqavaganza" is a satirical play, which uses Burqa as a metaphor for double standards and cover-ups in the society. The play shows all characters (men and women) wearing burqas, including politicians, terrorist leaders and policemen. Issues addressed include gender discrimination, religious extremism, terrorism, love marriage and media programmes promoting intolerance. It had been made very clear in the brochure of the play and before and after the play that the theme of the play was not critical of any one's religious beliefs or dress preference, but about the hypocrisy and double standards and the feudal mindset. The audience loved the play and it got very good press reviews. The play had been staged in collaboration with the Lahore Arts Council and the Executive director of the Council greeted the cast at the end of the play. On great public demand the play was again staged on 18 April at the Panjpani Indo-Pak Theatre Festival at Arts Council, Lahore. 3. The capitulationist stand taken by the Government in the face of MMA onslaught is very disappointing and disturbing. Instead of telling the fanatic MMA members not to intimidate theatre groups and the arts councils, he arbitrarily announced a ban on the play and promised further action. The speaker did not prevent the members from using defamatory language against two leading theatre practitioner Shahid Nadeem and Madeeha Gauhar. Reporting of the remarks can incite fanatics to further harass Ajoka, Arts Council and other artists in the country. It is disturbing that the Government of President Musharraf is taking a weak-kneed and apologetic stand on the continuous challenge by the pro-Taliban elements. The Government inaction over Jamia Hafsa stand off, Islami Jamiat attacks in Punjab University and moral policing in the NWFP have not only damaged government's credibility and ability to establish its writ, it has also emboldened the fanatics to spread their tentacles. The Government has totally failed to punish those who are challenging its writ and intimidating students and artists. It has also miserably failed to protect those are being intimated and attacked by the pro-Taliban elements. 4. Ajoka is an independent and non-commercial theatre group committed to the cause of social change since 1984. It has addressed social issues boldly but artistically. It is determined to promote a culture of peace and enlightenment. As the Government of Pakistan has failed in its duty to protect the rights of freedom of expression and paid only lip service to the concept of "enlightened moderation' , we appeal to the democratic governments and international human rights and development organizations to support us and urge the Pakistan Government to fulfill its obligation to protect its citizens rights and take effective measures against the Talibanist who are terrorizing the people of Pakistan. 5. We will appreciate if you could contact the Pakistan Government expressing your concern at the harassment of Ajoka and urge the Government to ensure that Ajoka is able to carry out its work as a theatre group freely. Please address the letters to: General Pervez Musharraf President of Pakistan President House Constitution House Islamabad, Pakistan Fax: +92 51 922 1422, 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835 Email: ( http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/WTPresidentMessage.aspx) Please copy the letters to the following: 1. Mr Shaukat Aziz Prime Minister of Pakistan Prime Minister Secretariat Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Mr G.G. Jamal Federal Minister for Culture Ministry of Culture Pakistan Secretariat Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Mr Pervez Elahi Chief Minister Punjab Chief Minister House Lahore, Pakistan Email: (http://www.chpervaizelahi.com/writemsg.asp ) 4. Lt General Khalid Maqbool Governor Punjab Governor House Lahore, Pakistan Fax: +92 42 9200023 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. Copy for information to; Ajoka theatre 24-B Sarwar Road, Lahore Cantt Pakistan. Fax: 9242-666 5021 Thank you for your support, Madeeha Gauhar 27 April 2007 Artistic Director Ajoka Theatre o o o Dawn April 27, 2007 GOVT'S DOUBLE RETREAT IN NA: MINISTER BACKS DEMAND FOR CURBS ON BURQA PLAY by Raja Asghar ISLAMABAD, April 26: The National Assembly on Thursday tasted a Taliban-like move taking a summary cultural toll as the government seemed making a double retreat -- over a drama featuring the burqa (veil) and in a row with the opposition over the country's judicial crisis. While its seeming appeasement of religious militants seeking to enforce their brand of a Taliban-style religious code in Islamabad has aroused concern among both its friends and foes, the government told the lower house it had immediately stopped any more shows of the drama produced in Lahore, bowing to demands from burqa-clad members of religious parties who said the production made in Lahore was contrary to Quranic injunctions. Both protests and cheers across party lines greeted the announcement by Culture Minister Ghazi Ghulam Jamal, who said he had called for video cassettes and CDs of the play 'Burqavaganza' produced by Lahore's Ajoka Theatre and that the Punjab provincial government had been told "not to allow any more shows (of the drama) until we have examined it" to decide if its contents were objectionable on religious or cultural grounds. The charge, rejected by the drama's producers with a vow to fight it out in a court of law, came up in a call-attention notice from five MMA women members before it emerged that the government would avoid a debate promised for Thursday on its own resolution moved on Wednesday to condemn the opposition for allegedly trying to politicise and divide the judiciary through demonstrations. The opposition parties accused the government of running away from the debate for which they said they were prepared, though Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Khan Niazi said the resolution had become the property of the house and could not be withdrawn and, in an apparently non-serious move, Law and Justice Minister Mohammad Wasi Zafar came back to the house towards the fag-end of the proceedings after a considerable absence to deny the charge. MMA member Liaquat Baloch said he had moved an amendment to the government's resolution that would instead condemn the presidential action and call for a withdrawal of the reference. It was not clear whether the debate would be held on Friday, which had also been set for taking up seven opposition adjournment motions seeking a debate on punitive notices issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to some private television channels over their coverage of the protests by lawyers and opposition parties against the presidential reference. All opposition parties and journalists covering the session also staged token walkouts over the Pemra actions. NO BURQA FUN: Responding to the MMA call-attention notice, Culture Minister Jamal, elected to the National Assembly from Fata, said burqa was part of 'our culture' and nobody could be allowed to make a fun of it, and even threatened that the government could permanently ban the concerned drama and cancel the licence of its producers. (But Ajoka artistic director and Burqavaganza producer Madeeha Gauhar told Dawn by telephone from Lahore that there was nothing un-Islamic in her musical comedy that she said was produced in response to a threat of Talibanisation posed by clerics of Lal Masjid and their madressah followers. She said her group was supporting President Musharraf's policy of 'enlightened moderation' in Islam but regretted the latest government move against the drama after only five shows, saying she would go to a court of law to challenge if a government notice was received by Ajoka. "It is unacceptable.") o o o Daily Times April 28, 2007 AJOKA BLAMES 'BURQA BRIGADE' FOR BAN, VOWS TO GO TO COURT Staff Report LAHORE: The Ajoka theatre group in a press conference on Friday denounced the ban on the play Burkavaganza, saying the ban was imposed because of pressure from the 'burqa brigade'. It also said the ban had proven that the government's enlightened moderation policies were a farce and that it would challenge it (the ban) in court. Madiha Gauhar alleged that the ban on the play was another in a series of events encouraging the Talibanisation of the country. "Such moves give extremist elements in society more room to continue their subversive activities," she said. Madiha called the ban a crude attempt to terrorise artists and writers struggling to highlight social evils. She said allegations by Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal MNA Razia Aziz were baseless and that her comments reflected the intellectual mediocrity of minds incapable of understanding metaphors and satire. She said creative minds drew inspiration from society and exposed its evils, and in their own way worked to spread tolerance and enlightenment. In light of this, banning the activities of artists was astonishing. She said the act reflected a moment of sudden panic on part of the government, which would embolden extremist elements. Madiha said Ajoka refuted the misinterpretation of religion projected by extremists. She also vowed to take legal action against the ban and the allegations that the play had infringed upon the Blasphemy Law. She said extremists had violated constitutional and moral norms of society by taking violent measures to impose their ideology on others. Citing the example of Mullah Omar, who made a getaway by donning a burqa, she said violent and exploitive elements were abusing and denigrating the burqa. "This raises questions in the minds of the masses," she said, adding, "People are using the burqa as a refuge and weapon to threaten and impose their ideology forcefully." Madiha later told Daily Times that if extremists, who were not many but were politically charged, were allowed to impose their narrow-minded views on the people and the 'enlightened government' kept retreating and refusing to enforce its writ, the situation would worsen and result in bans on poetry, painting and other art forms. Samia Mumtaz, Ajoka executive, said the burqa was a non-issue, which had been politicised by extremist elements. The real motive of the play Burkavaganza was to highlight the misuse of the burqa by presenting a satire on the double standards prevalent in society, she said. Rebutting objections that the play failed to portray its real meaning to the audience, she said the aspersions of extremists were baseless, as they had not even seen the play. "Audiences highly praised the play," she added. o o o The News April 28, 2007 Editorial APPEASEMENT According to the culture minister who spoke on this issue before the National Assembly on Thursday in response to a call-attention notice by five women MNAs of the MMA, a play by the name of 'Burqavaganza' was staged by the a well-known Lahore-based drama company earlier this month at a theatre festival in the city. The minister told the house that the "burqa was part of Pakistani culture" and that "no one will be allowed to ridicule our culture". He said that for now the play had been banned but a final decision would be taken after the ministry reviewed CDs of its performance. Thankfully, one member of the ruling PML-Q, MNA Mehnaz Rafi, had the courage to criticise the ministry's decision (the PPP's ever-vocal MNA, Sherry Rehman, joined her) saying quite rightly that "a few people" should not be allowed to dictate to the majority. What one saw on display from the minister on Thursday smacks of nothing more than hypocrisy. For starters, the job of the culture ministry should be to promote and encourage all manifestations of Pakistani culture and to facilitate the arts. And the best way to do the latter is to allow creative people to come forward and produce plays, music, sculpture, paintings and so on. Furthermore, it is in the nature of artistes to be creative, rebellious and critical of what they see happening around them in their immediate surroundings in particular and society in general. It is more than likely that the play in question was a response (as its director has herself said) to the country's rapidly increasing Talibanisation, and this is best encapsulated by the government's appeasement of the Lal Masjid clerics and the Jamia Hafsa vigilantes. If one were to see the play in this context and not as an act of wilful "blasphemy" as alleged by one MMA MNA, then the objectives of those behind it will become clear. Besides, the statement that the burqa is part of Pakistan's culture to the extent that any artistic performance on it must be banned is something that will be seen as debatable by many rational Pakistanis. The other problem, as manifested by the words of the culture minister before the National Assembly, is that very often those who sit at the helm of culture ministries take it upon themselves to become the guardians and arbiters of public morality and national culture. They assume the role of chief censors deciding what the general public should and shouldn't see. That defeats the very purpose of promoting culture. Also, this happens quite often when the state is close to being or is actually a totalitarian one. It is best left to people to decide what they want to watch rather than the government deciding for them (another characteristic typical of a totalitarian state). From what the culture minister said on Thursday, his ministry should be rechristened the ministry of moral virtue and elimination of vice. It seems the government is not about to reverse any time soon its myopic policy of appeasing the religious right. And then it has the gall to tell ordinary Pakistanis to resist extremism and Talibanisation. ______ [2] Kashmir Times April 28, 2007 Editorial A PERILOUS PATH : ARRESTS OF HURRIYAT (G) LEADERS ARE BEYOND LOGIC The government seems to have tread on a perilous path by arresting the leaders of Hurriyat (G) on Thursday while they were addressing a press conference in Srinagar, close on the heels of the mammoth rally addressed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The ailing leader himself was placed on house arrest on Friday. The arrests are condemnable not only for the fact that these are based on fabricated charges but also for the fact that they symbolize the ugly repression of the state. The unprecedent manner in which Geelani has been placed under house arrest without allowing him to meet visitors and the way the other Hurriyat leaders were picked up by police personnel who barged inside during a press conference are a clear manifestation of this repression. The entire episode is reminiscent of the days of Governor rule under Jagmohan which demonstrates the crude irony of the hollowness and contradictions of the peace process. On the one hand this week witnessed the third round table conference where a working group, earlier formed in the previous RTC, forwarded suggestions about release of political prisoners and on the other hand, the state police was busy pressing charges against Geelani and other leaders of his action of the All Party Hurriyat Conference. The entire case, echoes of which were heard also in the parliament, seems to have been built on the premise that Lashkar-e-Toiba militants were present at the rally of Geelani on Sunday. Consent is being manufactured on the foundations of a misconception publicized through a section of the media though there is no evidence of presence of any banned militant outfit activists at the rally. Even the police officials have maintained that there was no presence of gun wielding men or any objectionable material at the rally but a case for airing anti-India slogans at the rally has been made against the Hurriyat (G). The case has been inspired by the presence of masked men waving Islamic flags at the rally. While the Islamic flags have been construed as flags of the banned outfits, the masked men have been deemed as militants. It needs to be clarified that not all masked men, which is either an expression of disenchantment with India or used to evade unnecessary harassment, would essentially be militants. Geelani, apparently, has not stated anything new. In fact, his address focused on calling upon the masses to continue a peaceful protests against the occupation of forces, which cannot be treated as an offence, especially when a peace process is in place and even the round table conference deliberations have recommended soft posturing towards separatists and political prisoners. This contradiction exposes the hollowness of the exercise of the ongoing peace process. Besides, it also portends several dangers. Such contradictions which betray the non-seriousness of a process, that should have been associated with a certain amount of sanctity, are likely to not just arouse skepticism in the minds of the alienated masses but also provoke them, creating hatred and inspiring youth to take recourse to guns and consequently increase the levels of violence. If this entire episode of duplicity is not without design, one can only pity the apathy and ignorance of the authorities. But if the move is deliberate the obvious intention is to disrupt peace and provoke masses to turn violent. Both the government and the Kashmiris need to rise up to the occasion and think in a more pragmatic manner instead of becoming rash. There is a need to realise that vested interests would obviously want the pot of violence to boil in Kashmir and would leave no stone unturned to sabotage the peace process. While the government needs to maintain restraint and not indulge in the futile exercise of making frivolous charges against the separatist leaders, the people need to see through the nefarious designs of the vested interests and not fall into the trap of either turning violent or fanning the fires of radicalism. Both these things would ultimately not be in the interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly the Valley. The action against Hurriyat leaders needs to be condemned and protested but only if these protests are peaceful. Knee-jerk responses would be too dangerous. ______ [3] truthout.org 22 April 2007 BETRAYING "DEMOCRACY" IN BURMA by J. Sri Raman Monarchy may be on its last legs in two South Asian countries, but it may stage a comeback in a third. Nepal has overthrown its King Gyanendra and is debating a referendum on becoming a republic, and an aging ruler in neighbouring Bhutan has agreed to hold elections of a still-undecided scope. Burma, however, may see the revival of a long-abolished monarchy before the year is out. That, at least, is the plan of the military junta that renamed the country Myanmar in 1989 and has denied it democracy for close to two decades. The bizarre plan of the bamboo-curtained country's rulers has apparently received no attention in high places that keep talking of a holy crusade for democracy. If all goes according to plans, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), as the junta calls itself, will reincarnate itself as the United Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and crown its leader Than Shwe as king by December 2007. The details, according to knowledgeable sources, are under discussion with the outside world too, through diplomatic channels. The only sticking point with the US-led West would seem to be the place in the scheme of things for Aung San Suu Kyi, the symbol of Burma's struggle for democracy. The West knows that the scheme will have little credibility without Suu Kyi. It has all along claimed to stand by her and for her freedom from captivity of a length that puts her in the league of living legend Nelson Mandela. Next April, in fact, it will be a full 20 years since Suu Kyi returned home from her Oxford home with scholar husband Michael Aris and children to visit her critically ill mother - and stayed on to fight for her people's freedom. From then on, the junta placed her under endlessly repeated terms of house arrest, making it impossible for her ever to reunite with her family. The junta would not let her even see cancer-stricken Aris and sons Kim and Alexander unless she promised never to return to Burma. She put Burma above her family. It all started with the elections of 1989, conducted under the junta, which Suu Kyi National League for Democracy (NLD) won by a decisive 80 percent majority. The junta responded by declaring the results null and void. It has never recognised the Burmese peoples' right to representative government ever again. The US-headed West claims to have taken steps, including at the United Nations, to press the junta for Suu Kyi's release and for some advance towards democracy in Burma. The fact, however, is that Burma has never really been placed prominently on the agenda of the UN Security Council. China, a member of the council, has obliged by vetoing any anti-junta initiative that seemed imminent. The US administration, under President George W. Bush, in its dealings with rulers in Rangoon, has shown not even a semblance of its pretended concern over democracy in Iraq or Iran. Observers have noted (in regional media reports to receive little attention in the West) that US and Western diplomats have voiced exasperation over what they consider an "uncompromising stance" on Suu Kyi's part. The alleged obstinacy of "the lady," as the Burmese people refer to her, lies mainly in her opposition to the objectives of the new Constitution under the junta's draft. The West also thinks that it is time she forgot about the elections she won long ago and forsook her claim to power on that basis. Some of the dissatisfied diplomats also think that she can help by letting "a new-generation leadership" emerge in the NLD. Meanwhile, a "strategic partner" of the US in South Asia has gone significantly further than the discreet diplomats. The government of India, which Bush has called upon to join the "crusade for democracy," is making its support for the junta less of a secret. Recent Indian reports, obviously based on official briefing, speak with warm approval of New Delhi's drive to deepen and broaden economic links with Burma under the junta - despite, it is stressed - the wishes of the West. In December 2006, at a conference on India's foreign policy in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) I met young representatives of Burma's struggle for democracy, and they were bitter about India's unprincipled involvement in "development projects" meant only to legitimize the military rulers further. The recent reports speak in particular of the ambitious project to link India's eastern ports with Burma's Sittwe port. Very few indeed would expect New Delhi, pursuing a nuclear deal with the US with panting eagerness, to adopt a line diametrically opposite to Bush's on Burma. This consideration cannot but lend credence to the view that Washington has more on its mind than the merits or otherwise of military rule in Burma. The US would seem to be more concerned about the "signals intelligence" constructed on Coco Islands by China, north of India's Andaman Islands, according to experts. By keeping the junta happy, Washington and the Pentagon may hope to acquire a similar facility in the region, as apprehended by some strategic analysts. If that happens, it will be yet another instance of the "crusade for democracy " creating yet another area of dangerous tension. ______ [4] Indian Express April 28, 2007 Editorial KISSING SENSE GOODBYE There's a Law Commission plan to deal with silly litigants. Lower judiciary too must pass the test Jaipur's additional chief judicial magistrate is certainly in high Gere. His non-bailable arrest warrant against Shilpa Shetty and Richard Gere for committing an "obscene act", because of their good-humoured clinch during an AIDS awareness function some days ago, needs to be thrown out with great force when it comes before a higher court. By judging the Gere buzz as "highly sexually erotic" and betraying a "tendency to corrupt the society", the magistrate displayed not just a gross lack of proportion, not just a unsettling lack of confidence in Indian society's ability to resist such "corruption", but a disturbing arrogance in emerging as arbiter of national morals. Such uninformed orders should invite the scrutiny of the higher judiciary. But our problem with this judgment is not just with the narrow bandwidth of one magistrate. The petition should not have been entertained in the first place. Here was a litigant who, on watching Shetty and Gere on television, decided that what he saw was obscene and worthy of court intervention. The country is not short of individuals like him who ascribe unto themselves the power to decide what constitutes "acceptable behaviour". But should they be allowed access to the court's time and attention? Absolutely not. Our over-burdened institutions of justice should be spared the zealous exertions of the morality crusaders and other assorted eccentrics. The litigant in this instance was what one who may be termed as a habitual offender. He is believed to have filed innumerable PILs in Rajasthan's courts. The Law Commission, having taken note of innumerable Supreme Court judgments voicing unhappiness over the filing of frivolous public interest litigation, has even recommended a law allowing the advocate general, or registrars of the high court, or the persons against whom such a case is filed, to move the courts to declare such a person a 'vexatious litigant', who will then be debarred from going to the courts. The litigant in the Jaipur case certainly fits the definition of a 'vexatious litigant'. Instead of arresting Shetty and Gere, we suggest that suitable action be taken against this individual. o o o The Telegraph April 28, 2007 Editorial KISSING EPISODE, PART II Just as Indians were getting used to debating the pros and cons of judicial activism, there has cropped up now something called "judicial indecency". It is a term that has been used by senior members of the Indian judiciary to describe the results of a rather curious set of acts. Prompted by a public interest litigation filed by a Jaipur resident, a magistrate of the same city has been watching very closely a videotape of the HIV/AIDS awareness gala for truckers held recently in Delhi. He has been concentrating, however, on those few moments that evening when Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty went on their spontaneous little kiss-on-the-cheek caper, to the great delight of the few thousand people gathered there. But this gentleman of the law has admitted to finding what he calls "the kissing episode" sequence "highly sexually erotic", as much for the public nature of the act as for Shetty's evident enthusiasm in "co-operating" with Gere. This has been deemed obscene and un-Indian, even anti-Indian. Hence, Gere has been issued an arrest warrant, and Shetty asked to appear in court with him early in May, after being subjected to a severe round of judicial admonishment for being such a brazen woman. This follows a couple of other legally registered protests in the country, together with the usual breakings and burnings by sundry bigots, mostly from the Hindu Right. By now, the dreary regularity with which Shiv Sainiks and their brethren get into such acts has made it quite easy to ignore them. But what the phrase, "judicial indecency", draws attention to is the undermining of the dignity of the law that such reactions cause. Quite apart from the immense waste of time, the profoundly ridiculous light in which this shows up the Indian judiciary and society to the rest of the world cannot really be taken lightly. And this is unfortunate, for it forces people to treat something absurdly unimportant as an issue of national prestige. It is heartening to see, though, that most of India, from the truckers to the Third Page, takes the whole thing as nothing but an affront to sensible people. One "writer" in Mumbai has remarked that even if such a reaction is excessive, Gere and Shetty should have been more careful about their behaviour since they were at an HIV/AIDS event aimed at the advocacy of "safer sex". Such a remark - in its combination of bottomless ignorance and displaced sexual resentment - sums up what episodes like this reveal about certain sections of Indian society. That such a mindset fixes on HIV/AIDS to voice its fears is India's great misfortune, for the grave danger of the Indian campaign falling in the hands of ignorant bigots, some of them invested with a good deal of power, cannot be underestimated. The Indian judiciary's public indignation at being banalized in this manner is a perfectly justified reaction. ______ [5] Hindustan Times April 25, 2007 LOOKING BACKWARD by Dipankar Gupta Referring abusively to a person's caste background is a crude kind of cultural determinism and inherently divisive. While one kind of determinism that is insulting to Scheduled Castes is both outlawed and in ostensible bad taste, the other kind of determinism goes unchallenged. This second form of cultural abuse is aimed at the so-called 'forward castes' and is considered to be in good taste and par for the course in the political firmament today. The first kind of determinism is a caste slur that stigmatises the Dalits, while the second is a kind of caste sneer that insults the so-called upper-castes. Both suspend judgment and derail rational discussion because culture acts in such instances as a determining factor, as if it had the same force as the law of gravity. Only recently, a newspaper article, while discussing Narayana Murthy's inept attempts to wriggle out of his faux pas with the national anthem episode, calmly added without context that one cannot expect much from a Brahmin after all. Now where did that come from? As if to explain further, the journalist went on to remind the readers that Narayana Murthy, the Brahmin, as a Brahmin, also opposed reservation quotas. This is clearly a caste sneer! Now why don't Brahmins and members of the upper-castes get points for supporting Mandal reservations? Why don't we also acknowledge in caste terms that forward castes of all stripes in all parties support OBC reservation in Parliament? Can anyone make a clear deterministic argument linking caste backgrounds of MPs with their endorsement of Mandal recommendations? Obviously not! From Vajpayee to Advani to Anand Sharma to the numerous Singhs who are Bhumihars and Rajputs, not one 'forward caste' MP of any significance has opposed OBC reservations. But no caste comments are made about them because they are the good guys on the right side. Caste sneers are obviously reserved only for those who are politically unacceptable to the current dispensation. This makes it expedient to culturally abuse them in a breathless, breaking news sort of way. Now, let us look at it another way. When members of the so-called OBC communities go on the rampage and commit atrocities against Scheduled Castes, then a veil is thrown over the perpetrators of the crime to hide their actual origins. As it is politically incorrect to let anybody know of OBC misdeeds, which are rampant in rural India, and at the same time there is the compulsion to report, an interesting subterfuge is often adopted. Take, for instance, the recent case of outrage against Scheduled Castes in Karnataka. When the story appeared in the press, the spin given to it was that "caste Hindus" attacked Scheduled Castes. If one went through the fine print, it was revealed that the crime was committed not by "caste Hindus" but by Okkaligas, who are OBCs. In the popular mind, given the manner in which caste sobriquets are tossed around, a "caste Hindu" connotes Brahmins, Rajputs, Baniyas, et al, and not Yadavs, Kurmis, Jats and Thevars, and, as in this case, the Okkaligas. Caste determinism works in other ways too. Advocates of OBC reservation seem to believe that once an OBC always an OBC. Many OBCs did exceedingly well before the Mandal storm broke, but our reservation advocates believe that they are culturally incapable of sustaining their 'creamy layer' status without the reservation prop. Such crude forms of identification should have angered members of the OBC communities but, strangely enough, they have not yet taken umbrage at being labelled culturally inadequate. Against this background, one must commend the Supreme Court for contesting this kind of crude caste determinism that has enthralled politicians and the media. By consistently asking for a clear set of criteria for including people in the OBC category, the judges are trying to steer politicians from taking a deterministic position. This is a function that the courts intended the notion of the 'creamy layer' to perform. They had warned against "demonstrably perverse identification of the backward classes" in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case and the latest judgment in 2007 withholding quotas for OBCs builds on this observation. It is 'demonstrably perverse' to consider members of certain castes incapable of doing well and getting ahead even if they have the means and the powers to do so. This is as much a cultorological loaded argument as are the caste slurs against the Scheduled Castes. By reminding the government to take a second look at not just the number of OBCs but also the principal of identification, the Supreme Court was doing democracy a great favour. Caste identities seem non-problematic but they are hardly so. Even in the 1931 census, the Superintendent of the Census noted that certain castes had different statutes in different provinces. The Vaishya Bania for example, was a "forward" caste in some areas, but "backward" in what is Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa today. So the caste name does not say it all. Yet Jats, whether from Rajasthan or UP, are uniformly labelled by Mandal activists as backward, regardless of their actual circumstances on the ground. Again, with cultural determinism at work, nothing else matters but the caste name. There are also castes that called themselves Brahmins in 1931, but, like the Vishvakarmas, would today be keen to be among the backwards. This might also hold true for a few other converts into that fold, such as the Archak Brahmins, the Nayi Brahmin or the Kayastha Kati Brahmins. How then would the principle of exclusion from the OBC category work today if we were to rely on the 1931 census? This is why the Supreme Court warned against "demonstrably perverse identification" of OBCs. Caste determinism works against democracy, no matter who the beneficiaries of this mindset might be. It has worked against the Scheduled Castes for centuries, necessitating the provision of reservations for them in the Constitution. These were designed to protect them and help them generate socially valuable skills and assets that were traditionally denied to them. The rationale was that with time, members of the Scheduled Castes would have sufficient confidence in themselves to take the fight against casteism forward and eventually extirpate this curse. No caste determinism here, but a clear respect for the downtrodden and in their capabilities. But today, the protagonists of Mandal see the matter differently. Casteism, they believe, cannot be eradicated because even the OBC 'creamy layer' is unable to handle its success. That this is culturally degrading to the OBCs as a people is calmly lost sight of. So, instead of seeking to uproot caste, the Mandalites want to represent it everywhere. This is why they're compelled to resort to caste sneers and cultural determinism so that their arguments are never put to a rational test. Crude determinism in all forms endangers democracy. Economic determinism gave socialism a bad name and eventually dismantled the mighty Soviet Union. Even the charismatic intellectual reputation of Marx was belittled by the dogmatic material determinism of latter-day Marxists. By the same token, let not caste slurs and sneers, and a few tarnished pieces of political silver, undermine our hard-won democracy. Dipankar Gupta is Professor, Social Sciences, JNU ______ [6] Pune Newsline April 28, 2007 Sixth National Conference of Vivekwadi Mahasangh Takes Off SCIENTIST NARLIKAR SLAMS VASTUSHASTRA, FENG SHUI Express News Service Pune, April 27: CONDEMNING the use of Vastushastra and Feng Shui, renowned scientist Dr Jayant Narlikar said it was wrong of literate people to believe in a "science which had no theory." Speaking at the sixth national conference of Vivekwadi Mahasangh organised by Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti on Friday, Narlikar said there was an increasing trend of literate people following Vastushatra. "They force architects to change building plans and construct as per Vastushastra, even if that is inappropriate for the building," he said. He added that even newly constructed homes are being reconstructed or modified to suit Vastushastra. Narlikar also flayed youngsters' dependence on astrology, which he said was not an Indian concept. "The concept of astrology came to India via Greek thinkers' logic based on stars and planets," he said, stressing the Vedas make no reference to astrology. "Science should be universal. However, in India astrology changes in every state." Narlikar also criticised youngsters for matching horoscopes to fix a suitable spouse for themselves. Quoting former prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru that all problems of the country would be solved once it was freed of financial and economic burdens, Narlikar said that the earlier generation did not believe in horoscopes. "Currently, the trend of verifying horoscopes for marital bliss has increased," he said. Senior political leader N D Patil, who was also present at the conference, censured the State Government for delaying the approval of the anti-superstition bill. Patil said that the Legislative Council has been delaying the sanctioning of the bill although it has been passed by the Legislative Assembly. "It is important to separate religion from State," he said. 'No course in astrology' The University of Pune's plan to introduce a course on astrology came in for heavy criticism by Jayant Narlikar. "I've communicated with the University Grants Commission (UGC) not to allow the university to start the course," he said. ______ [7] UN Restricts Freedom of Expression PROTECTING THE BELIEF AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BELIEVERS: Another post 9/11 legacy? by Dr. Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director It happened quietly. There was no uprising. No emotional speeches. No angry debates. But on March 30, 2007, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution that violated international standards on freedom of expression. A resolution stating that freedom of expression may be restricted "to ensure respect for religions and convictions" was passed by 24 council members, with 14 against and 9 abstentions. The resolution was sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC could have made a wiser choice than to hand over that responsibility to a country where still people are put to death for blasphemy. The OIC might have been given pause by China's support - a country hardly distinguished by its commitment to freedom of religion - or by Russia's, whose treatment of religious minorities and religious freedom stands as a negative example to all. But perhaps, the OIC took its comfort in South Africa's or Mexico's endorsement. Human rights and freedom of expression activists, on the other hand, can only be left wondering . . . Can the human rights destruction waged by President Bush's version of America, justify undermining the human right that, ultimately, is among the most effective recourse and instruments against these abuses - the right to freedom of expression? Since 9/11, as too often this newsletter has had to report, restrictions on and violations of universal human rights have multiplied all over the world, justified on the grounds of national security. At the same time there is evidence of growing intolerance and burgeoning discrimination within established democracies, especially vis-à-vis Muslims whether as residents or foreigners. There is little doubt that a number of governments have fed this intolerance through policies and laws targeting explicitly or implicitly Muslims. In this environment, a resolution reminding the international community of its obligations under article 20 of the UDHR, particularly as far as Muslims are concerned, could have been important and timely. The proponents of the resolution could have insisted on strengthening the protection of all people's and each individuals' rights to life, equality, and justice and on the obligations of all states to protect minorities, including religious minorities, against acts of hatred, oppression, violence. But instead, states chose to focus their efforts on protecting religion itself: NOT the believers and NOT freedom of religion. For example, paragraph 10 of the resolution distorts blatantly Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, by quoting largely from it but then adding, without acknowledgment a new "respect for religions and convictions" ("le respect des religions et des convictions") to the otherwise carefully defined grounds that may justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The resolution's frequent use of the term 'defamation' also suggests wider restrictions are being sought than are actually permitted under international law. In particular, while certain restrictions on speech are allowed to protect reputation of individuals these are not allowed in respect to religions, which cannot be said to have a "reputation" as such and thus cannot be said, under international law, to have been defamed. While international law does not entirely rule out restrictions on speech to protect religion, it very carefully circumscribes the scope of such restrictions. Religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs, but they cannot expect their religion to be set free from criticism, even in its harshest or most sarcastic form. The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy. As international human rights courts have stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received but also to those that may offend, shock or disturb any or all of us. In many ways, the Human Rights Council resolution is in keeping with a trend that has resurfaced with great strength in our post 9/11 world: protecting the belief at the expense of the believers, of all believers. ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For further information, contact Agnes Callamard, tel: +44 20 7278 9292, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], or ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Amwell Street, London, EC1R 1UQ, U.K., tel: +44 20 7278 9292, fax: +44 20 7278 7660, e-mail: Internet: http://www.article19.org _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. _______________________________________________ SACW mailing list SACW@insaf.net http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net