SACW | 3 Nov 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  3  November,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net
[1] US Elections:  A result we know already (M B Naqvi)
[2] India - UP:  "Guns for sterilization" Forced Down (Editorial, Telegraph)
[3] India's Far Right Drops Its Mask  (J. Sri Raman)
[4] Religion, Identity and Democracy (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[5] India: Verdict Maharashtra: 2004 - Defeat of Communal Forces (Ram Puniyani)
[6] India: The Police and Censorship of Plays (A G Noorani)
[7] India:  Ayodhya Babri Mosque Demolition Case:
- Advani may face new mosque charge
- Final hearing in Ayodhya case on Dec. 16
[8] India - Retrial of Gujarat riots cases:
- Key India riot witness backtracks
- Zaheera's charges a pack of lies, says Teesta Setalvad
[9] Publication Announcement: Gendered Violence 
In South Asia: Nation And Community In The 
Postcolonial Present > Cultural Dynamics, Sage 
Journal. Volume 16, Issue 2 & 3
[10] Upcoming Film Screenings:
"Final Solution" /  "Muslims or Heretics?" (Salt Lake City, November 6, 2004)


--------------
[1]
The News International
November 03, 2004
A RESULT WE KNOW ALREADY
M B Naqvi
It is too early to know the actual result of 
American Presidential and parts of parliamentary 
elections; in our parts, these results will start 
coming in early this Wednesday (today). No 
matter, we can be sure of, some of the results. 
Whether George W. Bush retains his job or Kerry 
makes to the White House, there is no difficulty 
in discerning the broad thrust of policies that 
will be pursued by Uncle Sam.

Thus, the Iraq war is not about to be wound up. 
It will be pursued with renewed zeal. If Kerry 
flies past the winning post he will try to rope 
in a few other nations to share the human cost of 
American occupation. Bush will muddle on and 
favoured sectors of Corporate America will go on 
rolling in profits. The US has meant to reshape 
the Middle East; that may change marginally but 
not substantially; but keeping Iraq under 
occupation for larger American purposes is not 
likely to be affected.

In the Arab-Israeli dispute no change need be 
expected from either contender to the 
Presidential gaddi. In a way, it is possible to 
say that the real winner on Nov 2 will be Ariel 
Sharon's Israel no matter if American President's 
name on Nov 3 is Bush or Kerry. Depending upon 
Israeli politics, Sharon's plans will go on being 
supported by American government. The much 
betrayed Palestinians had better make themselves 
ready for whatever final Solution Sharon has in 
mind of the Palestine Problem. The US is sure to 
go along with it.

Logically, no significant change can be expected 
in the US policy towards Afghanistan. Here too 
this or that Karzai will be kept in 'power'. 
Pakistan will continue to be asked 'to do more' - 
regarding both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Islamabad 
may expect more money from the US for specific 
purposes like reforming religious curricula or 
for better tackling of terrorism or for carrying 
out CBMs with India, especially in Kashmir.

But the Afghans are unlikely to see the departure 
of American troops, not that NATO can extricate 
its troops easily. US cooperation is for 
unlimited period, irrespective of the state of 
security or stability of the political system 
there. Ergo occupation of the four or more 
Pakistani bases by the US will go on. The network 
of American bases in the ME, the fleets in 
Persian Gulf and Pakistan bases are meant to be a 
solid rear for US forces in Central and other 
parts of Asia, now thinly spread out.

America inevitably has a lot of business to 
transact in Caucasus and Central Asia: Oil, other 
minerals, chances of investments, likely military 
purchases by some former Soviet republics beckon 
and of course there are the strategic purposes. A 
lot of possible geopolitical action would seem to 
impend in Russia, China, Korean Peninsula, and 
South China Sea. It is good to be well placed 
with good supply lines. South Asia and 
Afghanistan have an enabling role to sustain the 
US while it engages in its myriad chores of a 
hyper power. Bush or Kerry the work will be the 
same.

One thing is also certain, no matter who wins the 
US Presidency on Tuesday: either contender will 
go on working hard to forge an ever expanding 
military cooperation with India; that is what a 
strategic relationship comprises. But the course 
of love, war and strategic relations never run 
smooth; hurdles and hiccups can be expected. But 
no breakdown seems likely. Pakistanis, important 
enough for their assigned role and location, will 
have to adjust to it. The recent sense of urgency 
in President Musharraf's campaign of making 
Pakistanis think outside the box on Kashmir may 
be related to America's own roadmap for Asia. It 
will stay the same for Bush or Kerry.

Of particular interest to Pakistan is the near 
certainty of the US making non-proliferation of 
nuclear weapons the mainthrust of its declaratory 
policies. The AQ Khan story is not dead; it will 
continue to be used to keep Pakistan in line. It 
is likely to prove a good lever to pressurise the 
country. As for non-proliferation campaign is 
concerned, it is shot through and through with 
contradictions: the US is constantly engaged in 
proliferation, vertical as well as horizontal: 
new nuclear ammo for bunker busting and that son 
of Star Wars, the anti-ballistic missile defence. 
It is aggressively selling this new defence 
against missiles to Tokyo, Taipei and New Delhi. 
The basis of American power is the largest 
stockpile of nuclear weapons, making these the 
currency of power and influence. Why should other 
deny themselves of what is kosher for America of 
both Bush and Kerry?

Then there are three special cases of Israel, 
South Korean experiments and of what India has 
been doing. Contrast American attitudes to those 
three with its stance vis-�-vis the Axis of Evil: 
Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Libya has done a 
South Africa and has become respectable. Iraq was 
severely punished for a crime it had expatiated 
for under IAEA's urgings sometime ago. Israel 
remains the darling of the US and its nuclear 
stockpiles - thought to be larger than Britain's 
or France's - apparently cause no worry to any 
democratic - read white - country. The US 
protection of it, despite its horrible 
transgressions of Palestinians' human rights and 
proliferation, remains the cornerstone of US ME 
policy. Some hold that the whole US foreign 
policy is being driven by concern for Israel. 
Kerry has no new list of priorities that vitally 
differs from Bush's.

But apparently some sins cannot be atoned for. 
One such is being committed by North Korea and 
another is sought to be committed by Iran. Here 
the US shows a different face, though there is no 
realistic likelihood of American preventive 
action; its cost will be too high and success may 
not be assured through a short, sharp 
intervention. North Korea is too complicated a 
case, in any case: nobody knows how Russia and 
China will behave if the US mounted an invasion. 
But an adequately rearmed Japan - an apparent 
objective of US policy being propagated by US 
media - can be relied upon to tackle that. What 
is the difference in the approaches of Bush or 
Kerry for solving these Crises?

China is a resurgent power; it largely remains an 
unknown factor. Bush or Kerry, the present mix of 
US policy is unlikely to change soon. Strategic 
moves apart, China is to be integrated into the 
world economy and US wants a share in the cake of 
the huge profits to be had from the Chinese 
market. The US cultivation of Taiwan and Tokyo's 
going nuclear - the American media's prescription 
- may be for 'just in case'. But the American 
moves in Northeast Asia as well as Central Asia 
are well worth watching and none of these are 
likely to be affected by the Nov 2 election.

Needless to say the broad outlines of US policies 
vis-�-vis the third world are likely to stay the 
same; that is a near certainty. As for Pakistan, 
the ruling establishment need not worry. The need 
for bases in this country, thanks to its 
location, will keep it in power - and money. But 
its track record is not good in American eyes. 
That is because of Pakistani rulers' obsession 
with Kashmir; it is prone to go on squabbling 
with India. Which may be the reason why Gen 
Musharraf is going flat out for a permanent 
settlement with India quickly. That will cement 
Pak-US ties. In any case, Musharraf has some 
leeway because the US need for Pakistan's 
cooperation is unlikely to go away, Bush or Kerry.

What we do not know is how America's domestic 
issues will fare under Bush or Kerry. Even here 
there are some semi-certainties. Economic 
paradigm of low taxes and pruning of social 
sector expenditures is unlikely to be ended even 
under Kerry, though there will be a lot of talk 
about changing some aspects of Social Security, 
health and education sectors. But lack of support 
in Congress is likely to stymie him while Bush is 
a known category. Strong continuation can be 
expected on domestic security; there can be no 
let up on that. Only style and rhetoric are 
likely to change with Kerry. American economy's 
health is being debated; so far no one seems to 
have a panacea for its ills. Kerry may also show 
greater awareness of the outside world.

There are also few moot issues: Kerry, if 
elected, may try to make US adhere to Kyoto 
accord of 1997. There may be renewed rhetoric on 
the need for more anti-missile defence if Bush 
returns to White House. Kerry can be suspected to 
start talking of some nuclear disarmament with 
Russia, though not with anyone else in Europe, 
Israel or China - Pakistan may be the main 
exception among known nuclear powers. But that 
will be superficial - for political purposes. 
They used to say Kerry would care more for the UN 
and international law. But that was an unfounded 
expectation. Both scions of rich families will go 
on deferring to special interests that will have 
helped put one of them in power.


______
[2]
The Telegraph
November 03, 2004 |      Editorial
FORCED DOWN
Sterilization already carries an ugly historical 
baggage in India. But in the country's largest 
and most populous state, population control has 
become another means of reinforcing existing 
forms of social oppression. Both the sexes are 
victims in different ways, and in an 
inconceivably massive scale. Medical officials in 
three districts of Uttar Pradesh have recently 
announced a "guns for sterilization" policy. 
According to this, a single-barrel shotgun could 
be obtained against two men sterilized, a 
revolver licence against five. Almost 
immediately, this policy has become a vehicle for 
feudal oppression. A rich farmer has allegedly 
had five of his farm labourers forcibly 
sterilized at a clinic in order to obtain a gun 
licence. A range of criminal methods, from 
deception to coercion, was used to sterilize 
these poor and illiterate men. All five have 
lodged complaints with the police and registered 
a case with a lawyer, but to little avail. UP's 
sterilization target this year is 930,000, and 
the means of meeting this increasingly involve 
practices that dispense with even the most 
rudimentary elements of reproductive health as 
well as human rights.

Poverty, backwardness and caste oppression, 
together with political apathy, massive 
corruption and a complete lack of governmental 
accountability, provide the background to the 
horrors of coercive sterilization in UP. A 2003 
report on the state's health services, based on 
government data, shows that 35,000 women were 
dying every year from maternity-related causes, 
without any reaction from the government. Around 
40,000 women go through childbirth every year 
without trained attendants; 15,000 women become 
pregnant every year because of sterilization 
failure. Only 3.2 per cent women had been visited 
by any health-worker in a year's time, and 4.4 
per cent of pregnant women received complete 
check-up during pregnancy. The conditions in 
which men and women are sterilized are also 
uniformly appalling, and there is almost no 
pre-counselling or follow-up. The concept of 
reproductive choice is alien to such a scenario. 
And this must be compounded by the failure of 
literacy programmes in the state in which 
literacy among women is 42.98 per cent, and in 
some places as low as 21 per cent. In the absence 
of all mechanisms of accountability, invasive and 
potentially coercive methods of birth control 
become particularly dangerous means of oppression.


______

[3]
www.truthout.org
3 November 2004
INDIA'S FAR RIGHT DROPS ITS MASK
By J. Sri Raman
    What does the far right do, when the people 
reject it in an election? The question may be of 
current interest to curious - and optimistic - 
Americans. Very distant and vastly different, 
India may still suggest an answer.

    The larger answer from India is that the far 
right takes from its trouncing exactly the 
opposite of the lesson the people sought to teach 
it. It becomes more assertive and aggressive. It 
opts to assert its unmasked identity. It does so 
on the assumption that this will pave the way for 
its return to power.

    The answer, of course, has taken an Indian 
form. No one ever considered George W. Bush a 
mask that concealed the US establishment's 
megalomania and militarism.

    The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the 
political front of the far-right 'family' (or 
'parivar'), on the other hand, has dropped its 
'mask' by dumping former Prime Minister Atal 
Bihari Vajpayee as its decorative head. Former 
party ideologue N. Govindacharya, in a moment of 
clarity and candor, once called Vajpayee 'our 
mask,' and the label has stuck. Former Deputy 
Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani is the face - 
real, revealing and reassuring, according to the 
party - that has replaced the 'mask.'

    Vajpayee has served as the mask the party 
puts on, in power or in proximity to it. He has 
played to near-perfection the pretended role of a 
consensus-seeking politician in a coalition 
regime or a broad alliance bidding for power. 
Ever a loyal member of the parivar, he has still 
acquired a liberal image thanks to persistent 
efforts by powerful interests. The efforts have 
aimed at deceiving India into believing that, 
with him at the helm, the BJP and the motley 
combine it headed presented a safe bet for the 
country, including its minorities.

    They have continued to call him 'the right 
man in the wrong party,' though he has been fully 
at home in it for four decades now. As Prime 
Minister, he proclaimed India a nuclear-weapon 
state, but they have continued to praise him as 
an apostle of peace. He presided over the parivar 
offensives against Muslim and Christian 
minorities. He watched on benignly as Gujarat 
chief minister Narendra Modi waded through blood 
to the State-level throne. And still they hail 
Vajpayee as the voice of sanity and even 
secularism in the BJP.

    The media came to believe in his 
plaster-saint image, one largely of its own 
making. It succeeded in selling the image to a 
section of the middle class. The masses as a 
whole, however, have preferred to judge Vajpayee 
by his deeds rather than by his verbal jugglery.

    Advani, in contrast, has for two decades been 
assigned the function of the party's true face, 
to be revealed whenever the 'mask' is needed no 
more. Whenever, indeed, as now, the party feels 
the need to doff the 'mask.' He acquired his 
image as the spearhead of the Ayodhya agitation, 
which culminated in the crumbling of the Babri 
Mosque in 1992, and its bloody aftermath. The 
revanchist campaign yielded the party rich 
political returns, making it the main opposition 
in India's parliament.

    Advani was declared the BJP president, for 
the third time in his political career, on 
October 19. The event has raised expectations in 
the party of a repetition of the post-Ayodhya 
reversal of the BJP's fortunes. In almost all 
other quarters, it has also raised apprehensions 
of more Ayodhyas, in the sense of socially 
divisive and destructive agitations.

    Advani may have led the rabble-to-rubble 
Ayodhya agitation, but he enjoys the backing of 
BJP intellectuals, including editors and 
journalists of dubious eminence. While venting 
scorn at vandal campaigns of the kind, they have 
always voiced unabashed admiration for the master 
tactician who can thus mobilize mass support for 
militarism along with 'market reforms.' The same 
opinion-makers can be counted on to lend a 
similar legitimacy to the coming Advani campaigns.

    Advani has announced no campaign so far. He 
is, however, trying to rake up the Ayodhya issue 
again, promising a Hindu temple in the place of 
the razed mosque if the BJP returns to power. It 
may take a while for the party to revive the 
issue. A more immediate threat, meanwhile, is an 
incendiary campaign against 'demographic 
invasion' from neighboring Bangladesh (coupled 
with a 'jihad' against Indian Muslims allegedly 
conspiring to outgrow the Hindu population!).

    Sections of the populace do see the need to 
counter such campaigns, but they lack political 
support. If the Congress Party, heading the 
coalition government in New Delhi, feels any 
concern over the coming far-right offensive, it 
is a closely guarded secret.

    It is not only the BJP that would seem to 
have drawn the wrong lesson from the election 
results. The Congress has also, apparently, drawn 
the conclusion that it fended off the far right 
only by avoiding an ideological fight. It will be 
for the people to drive home the lesson that both 
the parties are anxious to disregard.

______
[4]
Secular Perspective
Nov. 1-15, 2004
RELIGION, IDENTITY AND DEMOCRACY
Asghar Ali Engineer
Most of the countries of the world are now 
becoming multi-religious thanks to faster means 
of transportation and employment opportunities in 
western countries and oil rich Middle Eastern 
countries. The western countries were mostly 
mono-religious until early twentieth century. It 
was in the post-colonial society that migration 
from former colonies began towards metropolitan 
countries that these countries became 
multi-religious. Most of the European countries 
were Christian (Catholic or Protestant) in 
medieval ages. Only languages were different.

Later on the nation states came into existence on 
the basis of languages and most of the countries 
with few exceptions became monolingual as well in 
Europe. Thus the European nation states were 
quite homogenous.  The USA was mainly populated 
by the Europeans and had common religion i.e. 
Christianity. But they were speakers of the 
different languages. However, Anglo-Saxon group 
was dominant and English became the national 
language and other linguistic groups from Europe 
adopted English and America became linguistically 
also homogenous. Thus the problems of religious 
and linguistic identities did not arise in most 
of the western countries.

However, Asia in general and South Asia in 
particular was always multi-religious and 
multi-lingual.  As the politics in the medieval 
ages was based on feudal system and feudal system 
depends on monarchical and dynastic power and 
hence non-competitive, no problems arose. All 
religious and linguistic groups were loyal to one 
or the other dynasty. The politics in colonial 
South Asia with consolidation of the British rule 
became competitive. Different religious and 
linguistic groups, and particularly religious 
groups began to compete with each other for share 
in political power and government jobs.

Thus religion became a source of identity for 
political mobilisation and hence became a source 
of conflict. The power elites of Hindus and 
Muslims began to assert religious identities of 
their followers so that they may bargain for 
power on the basis of their respective numerical 
strength. Many groups among Hindus and Muslims 
had no clear religious identities being halfway 
between Hindus and Muslims. Hence purificatory 
movements like Shuddhi and Tablighi movements 
were launched to establish �proper identities�.

The electoral system introduced by the colonial 
powers proved more divisive. Political leaders 
began to generate religious identities to bargain 
for share in power. The South Asians stressed 
caste and regional identities before such as 
Bengali, Rajput, Pathan and so on. But the 
electoral politics in colonial India changed all 
this and Indians began to assert their religious 
identities such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian or 
Sikh.

On one hand, our freedom fighters were trying to 
forge a sense of common nationhood and unite 
various religious and linguistic groups for 
common struggle against colonial powers and on 
the other, the power elite from these religious 
groups were trying to divide on the basis of 
religious identities.  Thus the efforts to form a 
common nationhood in a multi-religious society 
was quite challenging. The British rulers, on the 
other hand, were creating more fissures between 
Hindus and Muslims so as to consolidate their 
colonial rule. The British rulers and the Indian 
political elites thus reinforced each other in 
widening the gap between the two communities.

Thus it will be seen that communal politics was 
borne not on account of religion per se but by 
use of religion for political ends.  Both Hindu 
and Muslim political elites invoked religious 
sentiments to further their own political 
interests. As the Hindus were in majority the 
Hindu communal leaders began to exploit 
majoritarian sentiments for creating Hindu 
Rashtra and a section of the Muslim leaders began 
to invoke minoritism and that led to two-nation 
theory.

Thus religious identities became powerful force 
in democratic politics and religious identities 
are posing a great challenge even today in all 
the South Asian nations. Our sub-continent was 
divided into three countries thanks to politics 
played by the power elites on the basis of 
religion and language. All the three countries 
have religious majorities and religious 
minorities and despite the division the problem 
continues.

In fact religion and democracy are not 
incompatible with each other if both function in 
their well -defined spheres. Religion is a 
spiritual force and democracy a political one. 
But serious problems arise when religion 
transgresses its limits to interfere with 
politics and democracy transgresses its limits to 
use religion for political ends. Religion should 
be used for spiritual growth and for inner needs 
of the soul.

Democracy should address the problems of the 
people and solve their worldly issues in a 
participative spirit. Both can benefit from each 
other in a positive sense. Democracy can infuse 
into itself the moral values provided by religion 
and religion can imbibe democratic spirit as 
religious leaders also tend to be quite 
authoritative.  However, our experience shows 
that when religion is used only for identity 
politics and democracy only for power politics. 
It results in confrontation between the religious 
communities.

In the modern globalised world one cannot have 
mono-religious societies and one has to live with 
multi-religious and multi-lingual nations. Thus 
religion as a basis of nationhood will never 
create a peaceful society. It would lead to 
confrontation between different religious 
communities real people�s problems will always be 
sidelines. It should also be noted that 
majoritarianism is very negation of democratic 
spirit.

A true democratic country would ensure equal 
rights to all irrespective of religion, caste and 
creed. Religion, ethnicity or linguistic origin 
should not come in the way of fundamental rights. 
The rightist forces in all countries try to 
create religious chauvinism and equate 
majoritarianism with democracy. Majoritarianism, 
as pointed out above, is very negation of 
democracy. Not only that democracy has no place 
for majoritarianism but, on the contrary, a true 
democracy ensures additional rights to religious 
and linguistic minorities to protect their 
religious and cultural traditions. The Indian 
Constitution, for example, ensures these rights 
to minorities through articles from 25 to 30.

However, the communal and majoritarian forces 
call enactment of such provisions in the 
constitutions as �appeasement� of minorities and 
try to incite religious feelings of the majority 
community. The BJP in India is wedded to the 
concept of Hindu Rashtra and through its 
chauvinistic propaganda creates basis for 
removing these articles from the Constitution. 
And makes minorities feel quite insecure. It is 
as a result of such aggressive majoritarian 
politics that Gujarat like situations arise. 
Gujarat carnage is a great shame for a liberal 
democracy like that of India.

India was the first liberal democracy in whole of 
Asia and it produced a model constitution 
ensuring rights to all sections of society 
despite well-entrenched social hierarchies and 
age -old horizontal differentiations. But the 
Jansangh now renamed as the BJP closely wedded to 
the RSS ideology is bent upon destroying the very 
spirit of liberal democracy. Religion, in a 
liberal democracy, cannot become the basis of 
governance. In fact majoritarianism does not 
benefit entire majority community; far from it. 
It benefits only a section of the community.

Aggressive majoritarianism also leads to minority 
communalism and then both feed each other. 
Aggressive majoritarianism strengthens 
religion-based identity and mobilisation among 
the minority communities as well and both 
together seriously weaken foundations of liberal 
democracy. Religion becomes a powerful source of 
political mobilisation among majority as well as 
minority communities.

Since late eighties Ramjanambhoomi, a religious 
symbol, became a powerful tool for mobilising the 
Hindu masses in the hands of the Sangh Parivar 
and it exploited it to the hilt to come to power. 
The Sangh Parivar politics has also weakened 
traditional toleration found in Indian society. 
Modern democracies cannot work effectively 
without tolerance. One can say that tolerance is 
the very foundation of modern liberal democracy. 
The Sangh Parivar, using religious issues like 
the Ramjanambhoomi has systematically cultivated 
intolerance towards minority communities in India.

Common nationhood in a multi-religious society is 
not possible if Hindu Rashtra or Islamic or 
Khalistani states are made the basis of politics. 
In a democracy, religion should never become the 
basis of politics. If religion becomes the basis 
of politics it would lead to worst of both the 
worlds. Religion will become more and more 
sectarian than spiritual and democracy will tend 
to be vehicle of majoritarian rule. The common 
people will be the ultimate losers in this game 
of political power.

Those who have real regard for the sanctity of 
religion would never allow it to be politicised 
or ideologised.  Religion then ceases to be a 
morally and spiritually guiding force but becomes 
a powerful tool of power politics. As a result of 
this power politics Hinduism becomes Hindutva and 
Islam becomes a source of jihadi violence. Both 
Islam and Hinduism are sources of peace and 
non-violence.

Thus we should not allow religion to be 
politicised at any cost and democracy should 
remain a source of people�s participation in 
decision making and for welfare of common masses. 
One must understand the difference between 
religion as a faith and religion as a political 
ideology.

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai:- 400 055
Website:- <http://www.csss-isla.com/>www.csss-isla.com
______
[5]
[November 3, 2004]
Verdict Maharashtra: 2004
Defeat of Communal Forces
Ram Puniyani
Close on the heals Lok sabha (Parliament) 
elections, the results of Maharshtra elections 
have come as a big blow to BJP and its allies, 
Shiv Sena in case of Maharashtra. In the keenly 
contested elections in Maharashtra, BJP coalition 
initially tried to test the waters of emotive 
issues. Tiranga, Savarkar, Bangladeshi immigrants 
and to its dismay found that these issues are no 
longer able to rouse the passions of average 
people the way similar issues did few years ago. 
Than they were left with no option but to talk of 
worldly issues of the people but as average 
people have already seen their performance during 
the period of 94-99 it did not wash and they were 
trounced at the hustings. It is also to be 
remembered that the �Mumbai chauvinism� displayed 
by Shiv Sena, like the attitude towards, Non 
Marathi speaking could not be forgotten by the 
electorate. The campaign of Mee Mumbaikar with 
its xenophobic tone, the beating up of Non 
Maharashtiran boys by Shiv Sainiks was too fresh 
in the minds of people.

As far BJP, the Gujarat has been a big blow to 
the sensibilities of the �aam adami� (common 
man), the whole carnage on the pretext of Godhra 
and the post carnage humiliation and intimidation 
of minorities and the Supreme Court injunctions 
against Gujarat Government have an indelible 
impression on the minds of people. The 
dis-investment of the major properties in Mumbai, 
Centaur Hotel, at throw away price and the petrol 
pump allotment to the RSS coterie by previous 
govt., revealed a lot about this political outfit.

During Lok Sabha elections (mid 2004) also the 
emotive issues failed to click, the high fi 
�shining India� campaign was perceived as an 
insult by the deprived masses and the highly 
confidant BJP electoral machine had to bite the 
dust. It seems, gradually the electorate has 
realized over a period of last one decade that 
the divisive politics promoted in the garb of 
religion is dangerous to society�s amity and the 
poor and marginalized suffer much worse during 
BJP regimes. It is their concerns, which get 
pushed back to promote the interests of the 
handful of elite and �shining Indians� of the 
society. It is the Adivasis, dalits, workers, 
minorities and women who suffer much worse during 
such Governments.

So is it that it is the end of road for the BJP 
type religion based politics, the Shiv Sena type 
sectarianism? Is it the end of the cycle of 
ascendance, which began with Advani�s Rath Yatra 
in the year 1990, the campaign which was meant to 
distract the social attention for the Mandal, the 
need for addressing the issues related to social 
justice? One Recalls that these parties 
propagating their politics in the garb of 
religion Were able to create a mass hysteria 
around Ram Temple to begin with. This increased 
their electoral strength by and by to the extent 
that they could come to power in the Center. When 
this emotive appeal began to decline, the Godhra 
happened and the clever projection of threat of 
terrorism did the trick and Gujarat could be won 
back with bigger majority by BJP�s Narendra Modi, 
under whose supervision the biggest massacre of 
21st Century has taken place. While this helped 
the BJP to have immediate gains, in the medium 
term it has become and albatross in BJP�s neck 
and has been working against its political 
ambitions.

So is it the end of road for communal politics? 
Is it that we can Breathe easy and ignore the 
threat of RSS and its progeny? It will be 
suicidal For democratic values to think in those 
terms. The votes-polled in favor of these parties 
is substantial. One has to know that the communal 
poison sown by this outfit has reached far and 
wide. One should know that RSS trained 
swayamsevaks have infiltrated in most of the 
walks of our society, educational, cultural and 
media. Its penetration into bureaucracy and other 
wings of state structures has been phenomenal. By 
now it must have hundreds of front organizations 
which are spreading hate against minorities in 
particular and against weaker sections of society 
in general. Its funding by the NRIs must be 
incalculable.

It is sure to come up with more aggressive 
intimidating strategies in Due course of time. 
Already one of its progeny VHP is asserting that 
return To Hindutva is called far if they have to 
win elections. In the past we Have seen that 
communal violence, orchestrated in a very clever 
manner, so That it looks to have been initiated 
by the �others�, has been the major Weapon of 
consolidation of RSS ideology. One cannot take it 
easy that so much subjective power bend upon 
destroying the concept of Democratic Secular 
India and to bring in Hindu Nation is scattered 
all over. The need Today is to combat this 
poisonous ideology. The very notion of fraternity 
(community) has been mauled by the hate ideology 
dished out through shakhas and other outlets of 
RSS. We are witnessing the �mini Pakistans� and 
�borders� right in our cities and small towns. 
Surely no society Can progress under these 
circumstances. The need is that we try to build 
bridges between our communities at social level. 
The need is to celebrate our diversity, to have 
mutual respect for different traditions of the 
country. The defeat of BJP. Shiv Sena should not 
lull us into slumber. We can only think that this 
has given the secular democratic forces space And 
time to bring together communities, to bring back 
the social issues Back as the major concerns of 
our social and political polices.

______
[6]
Economic and Political Weekly
October 30, 2004
THE POLICE AND CENSORSHIP OF PLAYS
The Indian Constitution assigns matters of 
legislation related to 'theatres and dramatic 
performances' exclusively to state governments; 
this function, in some instances, has been 
delegated to the police with the enactment of 
several police acts. It is time that a separate 
statute is enacted establishing an independent 
machinery for censorship of plays.

A G Noorani
It is all to the good that the archaic and 
illiberal system of film censorship has begun to 
exercise the public mind. Few know, however, that 
the system of censorship of plays and dramas is 
far worse. Plays have an enormous impact on the 
public mind and require as much talent as films 
do. The veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah prefers 
plays. But how many know that censorship of plays 
is very much a police affair? This is because 
while "sanctioning of cinematograph films for 
exhibition" falls in the union list of matters 
for legislation by parliament alone, the 
Constitution assigns to the states exclusively 
'theatres and dramatic performances'. And how do 
the states deal with this power? By delegating 
the function of censorship to the police, as the 
Bombay Police Act, 1951 does; for instance in 
October last year the Delhi police denied 
permission for the staging of a play entitled 
Budhe Bajpayee ki Love Story (the love story of 
old Bajpayee). The PMO had raised no objection. 
But the Delhi police alleged that it cast 
aspersions on the then prime minister Atal Behari 
Vajpayee's character, a charge which the play's 
director Parmanand Panda, denied. But, the deputy 
commissioner of police, New Delhi district, M K 
Meena was not convinced. The Delhi government too 
had no objection to the play.

In Delhi, the DCPs go through the script and 
clear it for performance. Three officials are 
involved - the DCP, licensing department, DCP 
traffic and the DCP of the area in which the play 
is to be staged (The Statesman, October 24, 2003).

Earlier, on August 25, 2003, a theatre group, 
Sanlap Kolkata, was denied permission by the 
Chennai police to stage its play Hey Ram based on 
the Gujarat riots. It had been invited by the 
Madras Cultural Association. The police rejected 
the script. The play had won praise after its 
performance in 50 shows in various parts of the 
country, and had just been staged in Kolkata on 
August 18, 2002.

In 1972, in the case of Pandurang Sawalaram 
Dhurat vs C P Godse (77 Bombay Law Reporter p13), 
the Bombay High Court struck down as void Rules 
138 and 139 of the Rules for Licensing and 
Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other 
than cinemas) and Performance for Public 
Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960 
because they did not provide for a hearing before 
the Stage Performance Scrutiny Board orders for 
cuts nor for an appeal against the Board's 
decisions. The Rules were made under the Bombay 
Police Act, 1951, and absence of the two rights - 
of hearing and of appeal - made Rules 138 and 139 
unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental 
right to freedom of speech and expression 
guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the 
Constitution of India. The case concerned the 
famous play Sakharam Binder.

The court's decision was based on the Supreme 
Court's ruling in Khuraja Ahmad Abbas vs Union of 
India (AIR 1960 Supreme Court 554). The Supreme 
Court ruled that the fundamental right to freedom 
of speech and expression applied also to 
cinematograph films. More, it held that 
censorship rules must contain a positive 
direction for the presentation and promotion of 
art. There was no such direction in Rules 138 and 
139.

It is true, of course, that some states like 
Maharashtra, do provide for censorship by a board 
or an advisory committee appointed by the 
commissioner of police or the district 
magistrate. But why on earth are plays at all 
assigned to the police authorities? The police 
are a law enforcement agency and their duty to 
quell disorders extends to cinema theatres as 
much as to ones where plays are staged. The 
ambience matters. How many of the police acts 
enacted by states provide for safeguards 
stipulated in the ruling of the Bombay High 
Court. The Bombay Police Act, 1951 makes the 
Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay the 
licensing authority.

It is time that a separate statute is enacted by 
each state establishing an independent machinery 
for censorship of plays. It should make a 
qualified civil servant of rank as a licensing 
authority, lay down the qualifications of members 
of the scrutiny board and provide for appeal to 
an independent tribunal.

Here is a matter on which playwrights, producers 
and actors all over the country should come 
together, draft a sound model statute and agitate 
for its enactment by state legislatures.

______
[7]
BBC News
2 November, 2004, 17:29 GMT
ADVANI MAY FACE NEW MOSQUE CHARGE
The Indian opposition leader, LK Advani, could 
face criminal charges following a court ruling in 
the state of Uttar Pradesh.

It ruled that an earlier order which exonerated 
Mr Advani for his role in the destruction of a 
mosque at Ayodhya by a mob in 1992 should be 
reviewed. [...]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3975563.stm

o o o
The Hindu, November 3, 2004
FINAL HEARING IN AYODHYA CASE ON DEC. 16
LUCKNOW, NOV 2. In an Ayodhya-related case lying 
dormant for a few years now, the BJP president, 
L.K. Advani, and some other senior party leaders 
were issued notices today by the Lucknow Bench of 
the Allahabad High Court.

The notices were issued on a Central Bureau of 
Investigation revision petition challenging the 
dropping of proceedings against them by a Special 
Court in May, 2001.

Admitting the CBI's petition for hearing, Justice 
M.A. Khan issued notices to Murli Manohar Joshi, 
Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh, the former Uttar 
Pradesh BJP president, Vinay Katiyar, and 14 
other accused, including the Shiv Sena supremo, 
Bal Thackeray, and the VHP leader, Ashok Singhal.

The court fixed December 16 for the final hearing.
The CBI has prayed for setting aside the order of 
the then Special Judge (Ayodhya), S.K. Shukla, 
dropping the proceedings against the accused 
after the Lucknow Bench quashed the Uttar Pradesh 
Government's notification constituting the 
special court to try the case (crime number 
198/92). It was registered at the Ram Janambhoomi 
police station against Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi, Ms. 
Bharti, Mr. Katiyar and five others in connection 
with the Babri Masjid demolition.

If the court accepts the CBI's plea, the trial of 
Mr. Advani and other accused would start in the 
court of Special Judge (Ayodhya).

Though the CBI had filed the revision petition in 
2001, it was admitted only today.

The investigating agency has also sought 
direction to the Special Court for proceedings 
against all the 46 accused in the case.

No change in stance: SP
The Samajwadi Party said there was no change in 
its stand on the Ayodhya dispute and all parties 
should abide by the court verdict.

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mulayam Singh 
Yadav, said he could not comment on the Lucknow 
Bench decision "unless I go through its details." 
- PTI, UNI

`No order pronounced'
Our New Delhi Special Correspondent writes:
The Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson, Arun 
Jaitley, said that the Lucknow Bench had not 
passed any order and that what happened in the 
court today was a "procedural matter." The party 
would respond legally.

Mr. Jaitley added that during the tenure of the 
Vajpayee Government no effort had been made to 
interfere with the judicial process (the revision 
petition of the CBI was filed during the Vajpayee 
Government's tenure) or influence the CBI.

______
[8]
BBC News
3 November, 2004, 12:23 GMT
KEY INDIA RIOT WITNESS BACKTRACKS
Zahira Sheikh again says she fears for her life
The most high profile trial following the 
Hindu-Muslim riots in the Indian state of Gujarat 
two years ago has again been thrown into 
confusion.

A key witness in what is known as the Best Bakery 
trial says human rights workers threatened her 
into making false statements to the Supreme Court.
The case centres on accusations that a Hindu mob 
killed 12 Muslims when they set a bakery on fire.
After the original trial, the witness, Zahira Sheikh, admitted lying in court.
More than 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, were killed during the Gujarat riots.

Walking free
The Best Bakery trial has been mired in controversy since its outset.
In the original trial, Zahira Sheikh was one of 
several Muslim witnesses who were expected to 
testify against 21 Hindus accused of attacking 
the bakery.
But in court they all retracted earlier 
statements to the police, saying they did not 
recognise the accused.
The Muslims were burnt alive inside the bakery
The case collapsed and the 21 men walked free.
But she later appeared in Mumbai, in the neighbouring state of Maharashtra.

There she said she had lied in court because she 
had been threatened with her life by leading 
members of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata 
Party in Gujarat if she testified against the 21 
Hindu accused.

India's Supreme Court then reviewed the case and 
ordered a retrial in Mumbai after heavily 
chastising the judicial authorities in Gujarat 
for their handling of cases arising out of the 
riots.

Now the retrial has been thrown into confusion as 
Zahira Sheikh has for a second time said she has 
come under intimidation.

This time she has pointed the finger at the human 
rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace which 
has been giving her legal assistance.
Ms Sheikh, now back in her home town of Baroda in 
Gujarat, said on Wednesday that she had lied to 
the Supreme Court.

She had done so, she said, because she had been 
threatened by one of the staff of Citizens for 
Justice and Peace, Teesta Setalvad.
The group has angrily denied the charge.
Ms Sheikh alleged she had been forced to sign 
statements written in English, a language that 
she did not understand.
She also asked for police protection, saying she faced a threat to her life.
The BBC's Zubair Ahmed in Mumbai says it is not 
clear why she has suddenly gone back on her 
statements submitted to the court.
She was due to make her first appearance in the retrial in the coming days.

High-profile case
The Best Bakery case has often been cited by 
human rights groups as evidence that victims of 
the Gujarat riots had gained little justice.
Some of Zahira Sheikh's family owned and ran the 
bakery, and were among those killed.
The 2002 riots deeply divided Hindus and Muslims 
living in Gujarat and left a deep scar on the 
Muslim minority, many of whom still say they live 
in fear.

o o o o o
The Hindu - November 3, 2004 : 1900 Hrs
ZAHEERA'S CHARGES A PACK OF LIES, SAYS TEESTA SETALVAD
Mumbai, Nov. 3 (PTI): Teesta Setalvad, the head 
of an NGO which helped key witness in the Best 
bakery case Zaheera Sheikh, today dismissed as a 
"pack of lies" the charges made by Zaheera of 
being "pressured" (by Setalvad) to make 
statements and "naming innocent persons as 
accused during the ongoing retrial".

"I am astounded and shocked to hear what Zaheera 
has to say this about me. But I will not comment 
further as the case is sub-judice," she told 
reporters here.

Zaheera had yesterday filed an affidavit before 
Vadodara Collector seeking police protection and 
alleging that she was being forced by Setalvad to 
falsely identify innocent persons as accused in 
the re-trial being conducted in a Mumbai court.

Reacting to Zaheera's allegations, Setalvad said 
"I believe that the case in Mumbai court is still 
very strong and the prosecution has built up its 
case on the accounts of eye witnesses who have 
deposed till now."

To a query whether this development would have 
any bearing on the ongoing retrial of the case in 
Mumbai court, she said "Of course it may have 
some effect but I am confident that the case is 
still very strong."

Asked whether Zaheera and her mother had demanded 
money from her, as was being claimed by 
prosecutor Manjula Rao, Setalvad said she would 
not comment on this.

Earlier, Rao, who is conducting the retrial in 
Mumbai court, had told reporters that Zaheera had 
demanded money from Setalvad but did not 
elaborate further.

On Zaheera's plea that she had falsely deposed in 
the trial court in Gujarat due to fear, the 
Supreme Court had ordered retrial of the case in 
Mumbai. Setalvad had then stood behind Zaheera 
and helped her in moving the apex court.

_______
[9]
Announcement:
GENDERED VIOLENCE IN SOUTH ASIA: NATION AND 
COMMUNITY IN THE POSTCOLONIAL PRESENT
Cultural Dynamics, Sage Journal. Volume 16, Issue 2 & 3

Guest Editors: Angana P. Chatterji and Lubna Nazir Chaudhry
(http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalIssue.aspx?pid=105512&jiid=506463)
"This volume addresses how borders violently mark 
women's bodies in wars of direct and indirect 
conquest, and how women's agency is constituted 
in these times. How is gendered violence 
inscribed through the spectacular and in everyday 
life? What is the role of war or armed conflict 
in transforming women's spheres of agency? As we 
write about this issue, we are struck by the 
historical paradox that we women in/from South 
Asia inhabit. Anti-colonial struggles that 
achieved independence and formed postcolonial 
nation-states have consolidated themselves 
through prodigious violence that defined and 
divided communities, memories and futures. 
Promises betrayed reverberate across the very 
borders such violation enshrines. This violence 
was inscribed upon women's bodies in very 
specific ways, as they became, to borrow from 
Gayle Rubin, the "vile and precious merchandise" 
that was literally and figuratively exchanged as 
boundaries were imposed and enforced. Following 
911, the war in Afghanistan, and subsequently the 
invasion of Iraq by Empire, signified the 
rapidity with which violent events are 
encompassing women globally. As feminist 
scholar-activists, we have elaborated on the role 
of gendered and sexualized violence within South 
Asia in this collection, entering into disputed 
representations of gendered violence with small 
hope that knowledge itself, always partial and 
shifting, might act as an intervention to 
suffering."

ARTICLES:
ENGENDERING VIOLENCE: Boundaries, Histories and the Everyday by
Sukanya Banerjee,  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Angana P. Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies
Lubna Nazir Chaudhry, State University of New York at Binghamton
Manali Desai, University of California at Riverside and University of Reading
Saadia Toor, Cornell University
Kamala Visweswaran, University of Texas at Austin
BETWEEN REALITY AND REPRESENTATION: Women's 
Agency in War and Post-Conflict Sri Lanka
by Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake , Social Scientists' Association, Sri Lanka

INTELLIGIBLE VIOLENCE: Media Scripts, 
Hindu/Muslim Women, and the Battle for 
Citizenship in Kerala
by Usha Zacharias, Westfield State College, United States

WOMEN NEGOTIATING CHANGE: The Structure and 
Transformation of Gendered Violence in Bangladesh
by Meghna Guhathakurta, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

ADVERSARIAL DISCOURSES, ANALOGOUS OBJECTIVES: Afghan Women's Control
Saba Gul Khattak, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Pakistan
MAOIST INSURGENCY IN NEPAL: Radicalizing Gendered Narratives
by Rita Manchanda, South Asia Forum for Human Rights, Nepal
RECONSTITUTING SELVES IN THE KARACHI CONFLICT: 
Mohajir Women Survivors and Structural Violence
by Lubna Nazir Chaudhry, State University of New 
York at Binghamton, United States

DEMOCRATIZING BANGLADESH: State, NGOs and Militant Islam
by Lamia Karim, University of Oregon at Eugene, United States
THE BIOPOLITICS OF HINDU NATIONALISM: Mournings
Angana P. Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies, United States
______
[10]
http://www.amnestyusa.org/filmfest/slc/
Amnesty International Film Festival
Salt Lake City, November 3-7, 2004
Salt Lake City Public Library Auditorium
210 East 400 South
Osh Auditorium At The University Of Utah
Saturday 11/06
1:30pm, Salt Lake City Public Library Auditorium
FINAL SOLUTION
5pm, Osh Auditorium At The University Of Utah
AFGHANISTAN UNVEILED
MUSLIMS OR HERETICS?
Followed by a Questions and Answers Session with Naeem Mohaiemen.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
_______________________________________________
Sacw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net