South Asia Citizens Wire | 24-25 April, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2240 [1] Nepal's Popular Revolt for Democracy: (i) The Triumph of the People (Tapan Bose) (ii) This is no rah-rah revolt (Tariq Ali) (iii) Standing behind the despot on the wrong side of history (Isabel Hilton) (iv) Statement In Solidarity With The Democratic Uprising In Nepal [2] Sri Lanka: Government Must Respond to Anti-Tamil Violence (Human Rights Watch) [3] India: Still A Matter of Shame - sexual abuse does not address sexual rights (Tarunabh Khaitan) [4] Book Review: Memories of [Begum] Akhtar by Partha Chatterjee [5] Pakistan: Karafilm Festival - Call for Entries
___ [1] NEPAL: THE TRIUMPH OF THE PEOPLE The people of Nepal have triumphed. Last night (April 24, 2006) Nepal's dictator, King Gyanendra gave in to their demands. Bowing to the pressure of the mass movement the king declared his acceptance of the roadmap to peace drawn up by the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists. He proclaimed the reinstatement of the parliament which was dissolved on May 22, 2004. He called, upon "the Seven Party Alliance to bear the responsibility of taking the nation on the path to national unity and prosperity" Till the early hours of this morning Nepalese people were dancing and singing. I doubt if any one slept at all. Now they are out on the streets again to celebrate the victory. The leaders of the Seven Party Alliance were meeting in the house of G. P. Koirala this morning. Thousands of vigilant pro-democracy activists patiently waited outside to hear what the leaders would decide. It was a replay of the same scene of April 22, when the people had gathered outside Koirala's house to tell the leaders to reject the king's invitation to name a Prime Minister. Today they were to make sure that the leaders did not deviate from the roadmap drawn up by the 12 Point Agreement. The leaders of the Seven Party Alliance did not disappoint the people. At the conclusion of the meeting they informed the people who were waiting outside that "The announcement of Constituent Assembly elections will be the main agenda of the reinstated parliament," Calling on the Maoists to support the revived parliament the Seven Party Alliance has reiterated their commitment to the 12 point agreement. The Alliance spokesperson added, "The people will take their decision through constituent assembly elections." The Seven Party Alliance should recognize that this is not the "Parliament" of the old. It is a revolutionary stage erected on the sacrifice of the masses. This stage is painted with the blood of the martyrs. Those who will sit on this stage must be aware that they have been put on the pedestal by the toiling masses of Nepal to fulfil the unfinished task of the revolution. A movement that the Maoists of Nepal began with guns has been transformed into a peaceful mass movement for social and economic justice, political freedom and a true democratic polity. The people who made the sacrifice are waiting for justice. The seven political parties must make a public pledge today. They must pledge to work together as a united group, shunning their partisan identities. The "Interim Government" that they will form has its mandate from the people and it is to the people that they must remain answerable. The monarchy of Nepal has been consigned to history. We salute the people of Nepal. Tapan Kumar Bose South Asia Forum for Human Rights Kathmandu 12.30 P.M. April 25, 2006 o o o The Guardian April 25, 2006 THIS IS NO RAH-RAH REVOLT Nepalese have lost their fear of repression and are making a genuine, old-fashioned revolution Tariq Ali There is something refreshingly old-fashioned taking place in the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal: a genuine revolution. In recognition of this, the US has told citizens except for "essential diplomats" to leave the country, usually a good sign. Since April 6, Nepal has been paralysed by a general strike called by the political parties and backed by Maoist guerrillas. Hundreds of thousands are out on the streets - several have been shot dead and more than 200 wounded. A curfew is in force and the army has been given shoot-to-kill orders. But the people have lost their fear and it is this that makes them invincible. If a single platoon refuses to obey orders, the Bastille will fall and the palace will be stormed. Another crowned head will fall very soon. A caretaker government will organise free elections to a constituent assembly, and this will determine the future shape of the country. The lawyers, journalists, students and the poor demonstrating in Kathmandu also know that if they are massacred, the armed guerrillas who control 80% of the countryside will take the country. This is not one of those carefully orchestrated "orange" affairs with its mass-produced placards, rah-rah gals and giant PR firms to aid media coverage, so loved by the "international community". Nor does the turbulence have anything to do with religion. What is taking place in Nepal is different: it is the culmination of decades of social, cultural and economic oppression. This is an old story. Nepal's upper-caste Hindu rulers have institutionalised ancient customs to preserve their own privileges. Only last year was the custom of locking up menstruating women in cowsheds declared illegal. The Nepalese monarchy, established more than two centuries ago, has held the country in an iron grip, usually by entering into alliances with dominant powers - Britain, the US and, lately, India - and keeping them supplied with cheap mercenaries. It is a two-way trade and ever since the declaration of the "war on terror", the corrupt and brutal royal apparatus has been supplied with weaponry by its friends: 20,000 M-16 rifles from Washington, 20,000 rifles from Delhi and 100 helicopters from London. Meanwhile, half the country's 28 million people have no access to electricity or running water, let alone healthcare and education, according to the UN. In 2005, King Gyanendra suspended all civil liberties and outlawed politics. To deal with a problem that was essentially structural, but which in the global context of neoliberalism could not be solved through state intervention, he decided on mass repression: physical attacks on the poor, concerted attempts to stamp out dissident political organisations and blanket social repression. The chronicle of shootings, beatings, imprisonments, purges and provocations is staggering. The sheer ferocity of his assault took the tiny middle class by surprise and isolated the politicians. Will the triumvirate - the US, the EU and the UN security council - try to keep the king in power? If it does, it will have to add Kathmandu to a growing list of disasters. Recent newspaper editorials indicate that the west fears the disease may spread to neighbouring India. A top-level summit between the Naxalites and civil servants after the defeat of the BJP government revealed a remarkably pragmatic Maoist leadership: all it wanted was for the government to implement the constitution and pledges contained in successive Congress manifestos. What the uprising in Nepal reveals is that while democracy is being hollowed out in the west, it means more than regular elections to many people in the other continents. The Nepalese want a republic and an end to the systemic poverty that breeds violence and to achieve these moderate demands they are making a revolution. · Tariq Ali is an editor of New Left Review o o o The Guardian April 24, 2006 STANDING BEHIND THE DESPOT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY Only democracy can end the crisis in Nepal, but the US, EU and India back the king and his attempts to crush the Maoist uprising Isabel Hilton In the rapidly moving crisis in Nepal, a few lines are clear. King Gyanendra, with the desperation of the failing despot, tosses a small concession from his leaking boat. On the streets, the democracy movement reacts with contempt and a renewed determination to be rid of him. In the hills, the Maoists watch, alert for signs of betrayal by the seven political parties with whom they signed an agreement last November to push for a constituent assembly and a democratic constitution. Nepal - the world's only Hindu kingdom, with a population of 28 million people - is on the edge of a collapse, with far-reaching implications for the entire region. And in the shadows, the external powers, India, the US, China and Europe, are pulling strings, trying to exert leverage on this complex situation. So far, their intervention has been inglorious. In India there is a growing outcry at the part played by the prime minister and his special envoy, Karan Singh. Dr Singh was not an accidental choice. The son of the last maharajah of Kashmir, he had to flee his own royal palace as a boy. His wife is a member of the Rana family, until 1960 Nepal's corrupt and despotic hereditary prime ministers. And her niece, Devyani Rana, is the woman for whom Nepal's crown prince massacred most of his family in 2002. Dr Singh was sent to talk sense to a king intent on hiding from the anger of his people behind the guns of the Royal Nepal Army. Gyanendra's Friday night statement, in which he offered to hand over some power to a prime minister and council of ministers, was the result. He did not apologise for his power grab last February, or the brutality of his armed forces. Nor did he offer to restore parliament or give up his control of the army, and he made no mention of a constituent assembly. Gyanendra offered, in short, a return to the situation of late last year, when, having dismissed parliament, he ruled through an executive whom he could dismiss at will. India brokered the November agreement between the Maoists and the democratic opposition, so it came as a surprise when Dr Singh and the Indian prime minister immediately welcomed the king's move. In Kathmandu, the ambassadors of the US, Sweden, France, Britain and Germany went to the home of Girija Prasad Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress party, to try to persuade the leaders of the seven-party alliance to accept. As the ambassadors cajoled the politicians inside, thousands of protesters outside chanted their opposition. The democratic leaders did not accept, recognising that the deal would leave them powerless but facing renewed hostilities from the Maoists in a war that, as all serious observers agree, cannot be won on the battlefield. Accepting it would have ended all hope of a political settlement of the decade-long war, which has claimed more than 13,000 lives. It was a blueprint for greater bloodshed. In the Duwakot armed police barracks, where they languish in detention for defying the king's ban on peaceful demonstrations, a group of 20 eminent civil society leaders issued a powerful rebuttal of the ambassadors' position. In a letter smuggled out of their prison, the group, who include one of Nepal's most distinguished editors and two of the framers of Nepal's 1990 constitution, wrote: "[We] believe that your governments' welcoming response to Friday's address by King Gyanendra was based on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a misreading of the address itself ... Your reaction has needlessly delayed a peaceful transition in the country at a critical hour, when millions of Nepalis are on the streets agitating for an immediate return to democracy. This show of people's solidarity ... deserves more respect than has been accorded by the international community." The king's offer, they argued, would return Nepal to a state in which the king could dismiss the prime minister the next time the mood seized him. That, they said, would not be long coming: "We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the many times that the royal palace has played the game of deception with you, and to introspect whether King Gyanendra, retaining all the powers as head of state not responsible to a legislature, will allow any forthcoming government to act independently. Your attitude seems to be 'the king has given this much, take it and make the best of it.' " Why did India and the ambassadors get it so wrong? The king, as one of India's leading journalists wrote, is a despot on the wrong side of history. But there is one external power that does believe in a military solution to Nepal's Maoist uprising. After Gyanendra seized power, a procession of US "security experts" visited Nepal to urge the king and the army to step up the war. Many Indian commentators see in the Indian prime minister's apparent change of tack the results of the new strategic partnership between the US and India, in which the US will give India nuclear cooperation and India will become a US ally in Asia and the "war on terror". The newspaper Asian Age yesterday reported that "informed sources" said the Indian government "was acting along with the US that has also been very keen to isolate the Maoists and retain the king as a constitutional monarch". In Nepal, activists told the newspaper that New Delhi "must learn to listen to the people of Nepal instead of working out secret deals with the king and the Americans". It is a message that the EU would do well to heed. There is one way out of Nepal's crisis: the king must go and a full democracy that includes the Maoists must be established. o o o (v) URGENT ATTENTION URGENT ATTENTION Dear Friends, As you are aware, the situation in Nepal has become horrendous and the King has belittled the struggles of the Nepali people by the token gesture of offering an individual oriented, undemocratic solution to the issue. The Human Rights situation in Kathmandu, with the Royal Nepal Army targeting protesting civilians with 'shoot-at-sight', has become the worst in the history of the Himalayan country. We, the concerned friends, are worried about the situation and feel that it is high-time that citizens from other parts of South Asia, especially India, need to raise their voice in support of the people's struggle for democracy in Nepal. In this hour of crisis, we request you to kindly join us for a meeting to discuss the situation and plan adequate political action in Delhi and other South Asian cities. The meeting will be held at the Constitution Club Lawns , (VP House Compound), Rafi Marg (Opposite INS Building and near Krishi Bhawan), New Delhi at 5 pm on Tuesday, the 25th April 2006. Kindly do join us tomorrow and in future action With regards, Ravi Hemadri, Ram Narayan Kumar, Ashok Agrwaal, Haris Kidwai, Saurabh Bhattacharjee, Shahid Fiaz, Deep Ranjani, Tapan Bose, Vijayan MJ & other friends N.B. A draft statement, of solidarity to the people of Nepal, is copied below. IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE DEMOCRATIC UPRISING IN NEPAL The compromise proposed by King Gyanendra of Nepal on Friday, April 21st evening, which envisages his continuance as a constitutional monarch, is a last-ditch attempt to perpetuate the old order. It will not satisfy the demand for the establishment of a true democracy in the country, for the fulfillment of which the nation has risen in a spontaneous and mass revolt. We must recall that the pledge to go in for an elected Constituent Assembly had first been made through the Interim Government of Nepal Act, 1951, proclaimed by King Tribhuvan in February 1951. After a long period of democratic struggle, the political parties led by the Nepali Congress formed a coalition government in April 1990 and worked out yet another compromise with the palace. Their failure to elect a Constituent Assembly vitiated the promise of democracy. The vitiation resulted in the declaration of a People's War in February 1996. After a long period of State repression and political violence, all the democratic forces in the country are once again united on the core demand for an elected Constituent Assembly. The latest proposal of king Gyanendra to go back to the old order, after all the violence and turmoil the country has been through, appears to be senseless in not taking cognizance of the aspiration of the Nepali people to be masters of their own destiny. It is also bereft of any pragmatic value. As the inexorable effervescence of democratic uprising in the country demonstrates, the monarchical tyranny in the country does not fulfill even the minimal criterion of an effective regime with at least some semblance of legitimacy. Not only are the people of Nepal out on the streets, even the government officials, in growing numbers, appear to have joined the democratic uprising. It must also be pointed out that the international law forbids external interventions that go against the political will of a sovereign people. The consequences of any attempt to stem the tide of democratic uprising in the country with brutal force or political subterfuge can only be tragic and politically volatile. The international community of nations and the civil society, especially in South Asia, have an obligation to try to avert the repression of Nepal's democratic will through violence. It is their duty to recognize and support the arduous and peaceful struggle of the people of Nepal to attain a framework of rule of law that democratizes all important positions of authority within the State. The procedures and the politics of the constitutional process can vary but they cannot develop without respect for the idea of the sovereignty of people; the current state of democratic uprising being a powerful assertion of it. The struggle of the Nepali people to attain a democratic framework of rule of law has been going on for long. It has survived myriad betrayals and impediments since November 1950 when India first intervened to actively support the demands for a democratic constitution, fundamental rights, free and fair elections and brokered a compromise between the feudal and democratic forces. King Gyanendra terminated the incomplete experiment of democratic transition initiated by his brother in April 1990 by usurping all executive powers of State through a proclamation of Emergency made by him on 1 February 2005. Despite the reign of brutal military repression unleashed by the State, people of Nepal, in urban areas and more significantly in the countryside, have once again risen in massive numbers to defy tyranny and totalitarianism. Hundreds of thousands of people are disregarding the curfew, shoot at sight orders, killing, bludgeoning, torture and imprisonment to defy the monarchic tyranny and to demand true democracy and the rule of law. Yet, the international community of States has done little to support the democratic struggle. On the contrary, it has helped prop up the illegal regime with military hardware and political support, which it has been using implacably to defeat the democratic upsurge. This must stop. Nepal is in the danger of descending deeper into the world of violent anarchy, with irrevocable consequences for the stability and security of entire South Asia, unless the governments and the people of all the countries in the region speak in one voice against the current regression of the monarchic tyranny to its medieval mould. We are here to extend our support and solidarity. We appeal to the international community of States and the civil society in the region and outside to ensure that the extraordinary phenomenon of democratic uprising in the country in evidence today is not thwarted once again with repression, violence, political ruse and strategic manipulations. ----- [2] http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/25/slanka13262.htm SRI LANKA: GOVERNMENT MUST RESPOND TO ANTI-TAMIL VIOLENCE Security Forces Stand by During Mob Attacks in Trincomalee (New York, April 25, 2006) - The Sri Lankan government has failed to respond adequately to recent attacks by armed groups on ethnic Tamils and their homes and businesses in Sri Lanka's eastern Trincomalee district, Human Rights Watch said today. Police and other security forces reportedly stood by as Tamils were attacked on April 12 after an alleged Tamil Tiger bomb at a Trincomalee market killed five persons. Witnesses said that within 15 minutes approximately 100-150 ethnic Sinhalese men armed with clubs and long knives attacked Tamil businesses and homes in Trincomalee town and district. Sri Lankan human rights organizations reported that attacks from April 12 to 16 left at least 20 civilians dead (including seven women), among them Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese. Some 75 persons needed hospital attention for injuries. "The failure of the security forces in Trincomalee to protect the Tamil population should raise alarm bells at the highest levels of government," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The government has a responsibility to protect all Sri Lankans, no matter whether they are Tamil, Muslim or Sinhalese." Human Rights Watch called on the government to ensure a prompt, independent and impartial commission of inquiry into the violence and the security forces' response, with powers to recommend prosecution and compensation. The attacks destroyed some 100 homes and left more than 3,000 people homeless. According to the Trincomalee chamber of commerce, 32 businesses and shops were damaged, destroyed or looted. Police and armed forces stood by while the burning and killing occurred, waiting from 45 to 90 minutes before taking action. The alarm bell at the Hatton National Bank reportedly rang for two hours without response, while a policeman reportedly told a security guard at the Bank of Ceylon not to resist intruders. President Mahinda Rajapakse's response to the violence has been grossly inadequate. According to media reports, President Rajapakse sent high-ranking security officials and other senior officials to Trincomalee in the days following the reprisal attacks. However, Human Rights Watch is unaware of any strong public statements by the president or direct steps to increase security in the district. Some persons displaced by the violence reportedly did not receive emergency government assistance for four days. "Given continuing ceasefire violations and rising ethnic tensions, communal violence could spiral out of control unless there is a swift and strong government response," said Adams. "Yet in the days since mobs began targeting Tamils in Trincomalee for arson and murder, President Rajapakse has taken no decisive action." Human Rights Watch said that to bring the perpetrators to justice and to demonstrate to Tamils and others that it is committed to equality under the law, the government should ensure a prompt, independent and impartial commission of inquiry into the violence and the response and behavior of the police and armed forces before, during, and after the incident. The commission, which should have at least one international member to reassure the public of its impartiality, should have powers to recommend prosecution and compensation. Human Rights Watch also called for the prompt re-establishment of a fully functional Human Rights Commission to provide the necessary monitoring and leadership expected from this body since the outbreak of violence in Trincomalee. The organization also called on Sri Lankan authorities to improve security in Trincomalee district, particularly for vulnerable populations, and to facilitate greater communication and cooperation among the government and civil society groups, including Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim organizations. Human Rights Watch repeated its call to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the Tamil Tigers) to end all attacks on civilians. ___ [3] The Telegraph April 24, 2006 STILL A MATTER OF SHAME The new bill to protect children from sexual abuse does not address the issue of the sexual rights of a child, writes Tarunabh Khaitan Together apart The bill, on the whole, is a welcome measure. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been used until now to prosecute cases of child sexual abuse, is thoroughly inadequate and makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex. Nor does it give children the special treatment that they deserve. It is primarily a homophobic provision, mainly targeted against gay men, and its 'utility' in prosecuting such cases is incidental, inadequate and problematic. It symbolizes the Indian reticence on issues concerning sex in general and child abuse in particular . While there is widespread acknowledgement that child sexual abuse is rampant, we choose to sweep it under the carpet rather than talk about it. Even the attitude of parents is usually to cover up the issue and blame the child, rather than confront the offender. Thus, a separate legislation covering child sexual abuse was long overdue. Even if we assume that this proposed legislation will be accompanied by the repeal of section 377 of the IPC, which would have lost its residual legitimacy to exist on the statute book, the offences against children bill will create yet another provision which can be used to harass and penalize teenagers for victimless crimes, only to serve public morality. Let us consider a child aged 15 years, who has consensual sex with another child aged 17 years. Under this legislation, the 17-year-old would have committed a crime against the 15-year-old. If both of the children involved are under 16 years of age, technically they are both guilty of sexual assault, since neither of them is capable of giving a valid consent in the eyes of the law. The importance of protecting children from sexual abuse by adults cannot be over emphasized. However, to criminalize children under a legislation ostensibly meant to protect them solely on the basis of a prudish denial of child sexuality is simply moral policing. As Peter Tatchell puts it, "the question is not whether children should have sex but whether we should criminalize them for doing so." The hypocrisy of the law-makers is apparent when one compares this law with the age at which children can be held responsible for committing a crime. Under section 82 of the IPC, only a child up to seven years of age is incapable in the eyes of the law of committing an offence. Section 83 of the IPC recognizes that a child above seven years of age but below twelve years is capable of committing a crime if she/he has "attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion." Children above the age of twelve are treated at par with adults in their ability to commit an offence. Therefore, a 13-year-old can be held responsible for committing a murder and even rape, but is incapable of giving consent for sex with another person of the same age! This legal fiction is not only illogical but also unrealistic. What is the alternative? Can't the same doubts be raised for any arbitrarily determined minimum age of consent? The answer may lie in a flexible standard, as adopted under Swiss law. It fixes the minimum age of consent at fourteen years, but clearly provides that no child under the age of fourteen can be held criminally responsible for such behaviour. It further provides that if the child is over the age of fourteen, then she/he is not criminally responsible if the difference between his/her age and that of the other person involved is not more than three years. Therefore, a three-pronged approach is adopted under Swiss law: all adult-child sexual relationships are criminalized; no child aged below the age of consent can be criminalized; for those children older than the minimum age of consent, no criminal liability is imposed if the difference in age between the young people involved is not more than three years. This is a flexible standard, which allows a sexual relationship between a 14-year-old and a 17- year-old, but not with anyone older than that. Germany and Israel also have comparable flexible standards. This flexible standard is more realistic inasmuch as it acknowledges child sexuality without criminalizing it or turning a blind eye towards it. A further safeguard should include an express defence of a "mistake of age of consent" if the victim is close to the age of consent and the accused honestly believed that she/he was of the age of consent. Further, in other borderline cases, where the difference between the two people was four years instead of three, the law should provide clear guidelines to the judge to refer the young people involved to counselling on safe-sex and pregnancy rather than imprisoning or fining them. The shame culture that exists in India on every sexual issue has led to an ethos where everything is fine as long as we don't have to talk about it. This shame transforms into guilt, plaguing the family members, community and ultimately the child. Every effort is made to deny the abuse, and in the process, deny the sexual rights of the child. The proposed legislation only reaffirms this social attitude instead of challenging it. The worst sufferers of this new legislation would be homeless children who live on the streets and on railway platforms. With the privacy of a roof denied to them, it is difficult for them to hide their sexual encounters from the prejudiced eyes of the police who are ever willing to pick up these children on the slightest pretext. We are only making the most vulnerable of India's children even more vulnerable at the hands of the state authorities who have a well-documented history of abusing homeless children. This child's right over his or her body includes not only the right not to be violated by an adult but also the right to sexual experimentation with peers. Criminalizing sexual contact between children is the ostrich-like solution where we hide from the problems we don't want to confront. A more mature and reasonable response will be to ensure that the children understand that they are in control over their bodies and are empowered with the tools to act responsibly. Compulsory sex education in schools would be a good first step. Not filling up our badly-managed and already over-burdened juvenile homes with more children, that too for having consensual sex with other children, might be an equally good follow up measure. ____ [4] Literary Review / The Hindu April 02, 2006 BIOGRAPHY Memories of Akhtar by Partha Chatterjee The narrative does not follow a chronology and relies on a free association of recollections. Begum Akhtar: The Story Of My Ammi, Shanti Hiranand, Viva Books Pvt. Ltd., 2005, p. 168, price not stated. BEGUM AKHTAR (1914 - 1974), who shot to fame in her late teens as Akhtari Bai Faizabadi, was the last of the tawaifs or singing courtesans who had captured the imagination of the public since Mirza Haadi Ruswa published Umrao Jaan Adaa, said to be the first Urdu novel, in the late 1890s. Umrao Jaan, the eponymous heroine, was a rebel in a calcified society and Begum Akhtar, a reluctant victim in an essentially feudal one, which retained its character despite the two World Wars and the Partition of India in 1947. Full of praise Shanti Hiranand, her senior-most pupil, has written her biography, which is full of panegyrics. It is a matter of no small surprise that she, a staid, Gandhian daughter of a Lucknow businessman, was at all allowed to learn vocal music from the mercurial, sensual Akhtari who had only a few years ago married the barrister Ishtiaq Ahmed Abbasi, a widower and a Nawab from Kakori, Uttar Pradesh. The marriage no doubt gave her the respectability she craved for and access to high society as the wife of an aristocrat and not a paid entertainer. She had made with aplomb the transition from the mujra, patronised exclusively by the moneyed male aristocracy and the business class, to the democratic concert stage. The private soirees she graced post-marriage were attended by listeners from both the sexes. She became the most successful Hindustani light classical singer of her times, leaving behind Badi Moti Bai and Rasoolan Bai who lacked the necessary resources to escape from the sapping feudal milieu of Benares. Siddheswari (Bai) Devi was the one who did but had not the guile to flourish in the hypocritical middle class India that claimed to be at one with the modern world. Magnetic personality Those who had known or even seen and heard Begum Akhtar would vouch for her magnetic personality. She was not conventionally beautiful and in middle age looked ravaged. But her smile and the tantalising, changing light in her eyes made her desirable to every discerning male. She retained this quality of sensuousness till her last breath, as she did in her singing. The author's own temperament veers towards stodgy middle class respectability, which prevents her from being a really perceptive biographer. However, her sincerity is beyond question. The narrative does not follow a chronology and relies on a free association of memories. Dates do not figure with any degree of consistency in it. Shantiji has relied on the skills of her pupil Neeta Gupta to tell her story. But that does not in any way diminish her effort; to be sure, every incident, every idea in print is Shantiji's. There are, however, a few acts of omission in the book. Reading it, one would believe that she was the only pupil of Begum Akhtar's who stuck with her through thick and thin and that the others came and went. She is gracious enough to acknowledge Anjali Banerjee who became Begum Akhtar's pupil in 1954 and was the only other Gandabandh Shagird. There is no mention of Rita Ganguly (Kothari) who had learned for three years and featured on camera with Begum Akhtar as did Anjali Banerjee when Sudesh Issar made a documentary on the great vocalist for the Films Division of India. Also forgotten is Deepti Bose, the most gifted of all the pupils, of whom Begum Akhtar said, "yeh tum sab se aage nikal jayegi" (she will surpass all of you). What a pity she had to give up singing due to purely material reasons! Errors of perception Shantiji's craving for respectability often leads her into error. She thinks that certain incidents which occurred in her teacher's life are detrimental to her posthumous reputation. Taking a long view of events and people, it is quite unimportant really to know whether Shammo was Begum Akhtar's niece or daughter by a Maharashtrian Raja. Similarly, does it really matter if her protégé Madan Mohan, brilliant music director of Hindi films in the 1950s and 60s was her lover? Influence his music she did. Listen to his ghazal compositions, particularly those sung by Lata Mangeshkar or Talat Mahmood, and you will hear Begum Akhtar's echo. Just as her renderings have clearly discernable traces of K.L. Saigal, peerless creator of the modern raga-based ghazal. There is regrettably too little about Begum Akhtar's music in the text though there is mention of her singing style and what constituted it. Highly talented younger contemporaries like Shoba Gurtu and Nirmala Aroon could have been mentioned to give some idea of the light classical music scene in India in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when connoisseurs were still in existence and corporate sponsorship and its attendant vice, philistinism, not swamped the Hindustani music scene. ____ [5] ****** CALL FOR ENTRIES ****** The 6th KaraFilm Festival - the Karachi International Film Festival 2006 - is now accepting submissions of feature films, documentaries and short films. The deadline for submissions is August 15, 2006. Selection decisions will be made by the end of September. Submissions of screener VHS tapes or DVDs must be accompanied by a fully filled out and signed Entry Form (downloadable from our website), at least 2 stills from the film and a director's headshot. Incomplete submissions may be rejected. Please ensure that all submissions packages are clearly marked with "For Festival Purposes Only, No Commercial Value." Films may have been originally created in the following formats: 35mm, 16mm, DigiBeta, DV, Beta SP. Final screening formats include 35mm and 16mm (feature films only), DV or Beta SP. If your film is selected, the master must reach us by November 1. For more information on how to submit and requirements, please visit the KaraFilm website www.karafilmfest.com _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 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/ 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
