South Asia Citizens Wire | June 17-18, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2420 - Year 9 [1] Pakistan-US: The General in his Labyrinth (Ahmed Rashid) [2] Buddhist nationalism behind Sri Lanka's violent surge (Mian Ridge) [3] India: Prominent citizens reject proposed Communal Violence Bill, 2005 [4] India: Release Dr Binayak Sen, Repeal Chattisgarh Act (intellectuals statement released by PUDR) [5] India: It's a Long Wait to Revolution, Mayaji (Meera Nanda) [6] India: Superstition, Feudalism and the Media (Mukul Dube) [7] India: Fraud scientist takes RSS for a ride down Adam's bridge (Shishir Gupta) [8] Book Review: Highway to heaven? (I.A. Rehman) [9] Announcements: (i) Public Rally for the Restoration of Democracy and Justice in Pakistan (New York, 22 June 2007) (ii) Call For Entries - Film South Asia '07 (deadline 30 June 2007)
______ [1] THE GENERAL IN HIS LABYRINTH America's Bad Deal With Musharraf, Going Down in Flames by Ahmed Rashid (Washington Post, June 17, 2007; Page B01) LAHORE, Pakistan Pakistan is on the brink of disaster, and the Bush administration is continuing to back the man who dragged it there. As President Pervez Musharraf fights off the most serious challenge to his eight-year dictatorship, the United States is supporting him to the hilt. The message to the Pakistani public is clear: To the Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops everything, and that includes democracy. The crisis began on March 9, when Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief justice of the supreme court, who bravely threatened Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, which were met by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide, looking like penguins in their courtroom black suits and white shirts, braved police batons and the heat to lead marches. They were joined by women's groups, journalists and the opposition. For the first time in two decades, Pakistan's civil society has taken to the streets. The roots of the crisis go back to the blind bargain Washington made after 9/11 with the regime that had heretofore been the Taliban's main patron: ignoring Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al-Qaeda and cut the Taliban loose. Today, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that bargain is in tatters; the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda's senior leadership has set up another haven inside Pakistan's chaotic border regions. The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American officials say that, for the first time in U.S. history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience is working in the South Asia bureau of the State Department, on State's policy planning staff, on the National Security Council staff or even in Vice President Cheney's office. Anne W. Patterson, the new U.S. ambassador to Islamabad, is an expert on Latin American "drugs and thugs"; Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, is a former department spokesman who served three tours in Hong Kong and China but never was posted in South Asia. "They know nothing of Pakistan," a former senior U.S. diplomat said. Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department. No one in Foggy Bottom seems willing to question Cheney's decisions. Boucher, for one, has largely limited his remarks on the crisis to expressions of support for Musharraf. Current and retired U.S. diplomats tell me that throughout the previous year, Boucher refused to let the State Department even consider alternative policies if Musharraf were threatened with being ousted, even though 2007 is an election year in Pakistan. Last winter, Boucher reportedly limited the scope of a U.S. government seminar on Pakistan for fear that it might send a signal that U.S. support for Musharraf was declining. Likewise, I'm told, he has refused to meet with leading opposition figures such as former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf has exiled. (Boucher says he has met with "people across the full political spectrum of Pakistan" during his nine visits there, from government parties to Islamic radicals to Chaudhry's lawyer.) Meanwhile, Boucher's boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, demands democracy and media freedom in Venezuela but apparently deems such niceties irrelevant to Pakistan. With Cheney in charge and Rice in eclipse, rumblings of alarm can be heard at the Defense Department and the CIA. While neither agency is usually directly concerned with decision-making on Pakistan, both boast officers with far greater expertise than the White House and State Department crew. These officers, many of whom have served in Islamabad or Kabul, understand the double game that Musharraf has played -- helping the United States go after al-Qaeda while letting his intelligence services help the Taliban claw their way back in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and the CIA have been privately expressing concern about the lack of an alternative to blind support for Musharraf. Ironically, both departments have historically supported military rulers in Pakistan. They seem to have learned their lesson. It's a pity that those calling the shots have not. What is at stake? Quite simply, the danger of a civil war or the country unraveling even more dramatically than it did when it lost Bangladesh in 1971. The establishment that has sustained four military regimes is deeply divided. The judiciary and the legal system are out in the streets, demanding an end to military rule. They are backed by the country's gleeful federal bureaucracy, which resented being shunted aside by Musharraf, and joined by civil society organizations and opposition parties. The protesters' ranks have also been swelled by poor people protesting increases in the price of food and other necessities and shortages of electricity during an already blistering summer. These dissenters have been joined by an increasingly influential media. Under military regimes, the media always grow in stature as they act as the conscience of the people and give voice to political opposition. For the first time, the public can watch demonstrations live on private satellite-TV channels -- something that has bewildered the army's Orwellian thought-control department. On the opposing side stand Musharraf's remaining allies. The most important is the powerful, brooding army. On June 1, its top brass issued a strong statement of support for Musharraf that dismissed the protests as a "malicious campaign against institutions of the state, launched by vested interests and opportunists." But on live TV talk shows, pundits are lambasting the army for the first time, shocking many viewers. Such withering criticism has forced younger officers to question whether the entire military establishment should risk the public's wrath to keep one man in power. Musharraf is also supported by the business community, which has experienced economic stability and rising investment from the Arab world during his regime. He also retains -- for now -- the backing of a motley group of politicians who came to power after the military rigged elections in 2002, although many of them are considering jumping ship or ditching Musharraf. Running parallel to this domestic political crisis is the growing problem of radical Islam; the Taliban and al-Qaeda are now deeply entrenched in the tribal border belt adjacent to Afghanistan. These groups gained political legitimacy last year when Musharraf signed a series of dubious peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban. They are now coming down from the mountains to spread their radical ideology in towns and cities by burning down DVD and TV shops, insisting that young men grow beards, forcibly recruiting schoolboys for the jihad and terrifying girls so that they won't attend school. The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism. Musharraf promised the international community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his security services and convinced the Bush administration that his philosophy of "enlightened moderation" was the only way to fend off Islamic extremism. But Pakistan today is the center of global Islamic terrorism, with Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar probably living here. Instead of confronting this threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power -- negotiating with extremists, letting radical Islamic students set up a base in Islamabad and so forth. Meanwhile, to spook the West into continuing to support him, Musharraf continues to grossly exaggerate the strength of the Islamic parties that he warns might take over his nuclear-armed country. In fact, the United States would be far safer if it pushed for a truly representative Pakistani government that could marginalize the jihadists, rather than placing all its eggs in Musharraf's basket. How will the current crisis end? It's unlikely to peter out; the movement has lasted three months now, despite Musharraf's intelligence services' prediction that it would end within days. And Chaudhry is a formidable foe -- not a mere politician (who, in Pakistan, are inevitably corrupt) but a judge perched above the political fray. The logical strategy for Musharraf would be to apologize to the nation for hounding the chief justice, bring all parties to a reconciliation conference and agree to early elections under a neutral interim government. If he still insisted on running for president, he would have to agree to take off his uniform first so that no matter who won, Pakistan would return to civilian rule. But how can a commando general carry out such a U-turn without losing face, especially when he is being publicly backed by the White House? A secretary of state with vision -- a James Baker or a Madeleine Albright -- could have recognized that Musharraf's time is up. Instead, we have Rice and Boucher and Cheney, who -- just as in Iraq -- can only reinforce a failed policy. Washington is doing itself no favors by serving as Musharraf's enabler. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy of sticking by Musharraf is fast becoming eerily reminiscent of the Carter administration's policy of sticking by the shah of Iran. Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, is the author of "Taliban." _______ [2] The Christian Science Monitor June 18, 2007 edition BUDDHIST NATIONALISM BEHIND SRI LANKA'S VIOLENT SURGE The island nation's government is receiving new support from an unusual political group. by Mian Ridge | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Colombo, Sri Lanka - As the war that has ravaged Sri Lanka for 25 years once again degenerates into widespread violence, the government is receiving new support from an unusual political group. They are orange-robed, barefoot Buddhist monks. But instead of extolling peace and harmony, they are employing the uncompromising language of military strength. "Day by day we are weakening the LTTE militarily," says the Venerable Athuraliye Rathana, a monk in Sri Lanka's capital, Colombo, as he spoke of the government's campaign to destroy the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, known as the Tamil Tigers. "Talk can come later." Sri Lanka's hard-line monks are at the frontline of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, which views Tamils as outsiders. In January, they joined the government's ruling coalition with their party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya, or National Heritage Party - pushing its narrow one-seat majority up to nine. Since 1983, the Tigers have been fighting for a crescent-shaped homeland, or "Eelam," in the north and east of Sri Lanka for the Tamil minority, which is Hindu and Christian. Tamils have suffered decades of discrimination by the Sinhalese Buddhist majority. Many observers say that a resurgence of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism has played its part in several recent human rights violations. The monks are arguing vociferously against any self-determination for the Tamils in the north, including even the measure of autonomy that most observers believe is necessary for peace. Nine seats is not many in a 225-seat parliament, but the monks wield greater power because they share their nationalist ideology with many other members of the government, says Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, who runs the Centre for Policy Alternatives, a think tank in Colombo. Despite enjoying a strong majority on the island nation, the presence of 50 million Tamils across the Palk Strait in southern India can rattle Sinhalese Buddhists. Buddhist nationalists are able to tap into deep fears that any territorial concessions to the Tamils would lead to eventual Indian subjugation. "I feel so sorry for the Tamils who are suffering," says a Sinhalese taxi driver in Colombo. "But giving them power in the north would not be good. They might try to extend their power." The monks have used their new clout to urge the president, Mahinda Rajapakse, to honor the vow with which he came to power in late 2005: to destroy the Tigers. The Tamil desire for a homeland is just an excuse for violence, says Mr. Rathana. "Sri Lanka was totally a Sinhalese kingdom and most people accept that." Western governments have long been appalled by the tactics of the Tamil Tigers, who terrorize both Sinhalese and Tamils with their bombings and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. Now, several governments have expressed horror over independent reports of government collusion in abductions and murders of civilian Tamils, particularly in the north and east. Earlier this month, the government rounded up more than 350 Tamils in Colombo and transported them by bus to the north and east - a move human rights groups described as a "pogrom." Sri Lanka's Supreme Court intervened to halt the evictions soon after they began. This was a "minor example," says Jehan Perera, executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, a group working for reconciliation. Throughout Sri Lanka, Tamils felt insecure and vulnerable, says Mr. Perera, who is Sinhalese. On the Jaffna Peninsula alone, the only part of the Tamil-majority north controlled by government forces, more than 300 civilians have been murdered in the past 18 months; many of them, it is suspected, by a paramilitary force with close ties to the military intelligence agency. Both Sinhalese and Tamils trace their presence in Sri Lanka back centuries. Until relatively recently, theirs was a harmonious coexistence. But in the 19th century, many Buddhist Sinhalese felt that the British, who then ruled Ceylon, gave the Tamils preferential treatment. At independence in 1948, a disproportionate number of civil servants were Tamils. In 1956, the Sinhalese made swift and brutal amends. Prime Minister Solomon Bandaranaike, an ardent Buddhist nationalist, launched a successful campaign to make Sinhalese the official language. He was heavily backed by the island's monks in a move that excluded many Tamils from educational opportunities and prestigious jobs. In 1970, university admission rules were changed to favor the Sinhalese. ______ [3] PUBLIC STATEMENT Released at the NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005 June 16, 2007, New Delhi The completion of three years of the UPA Government is an opportune moment to take stock of what the Government has achieved in terms of justice for communal crimes. The demand for a law on communal violence emerged from a brutal record of recurring violence in our country, the increasing occurrence of gender-based crimes in communal conflagrations, and complete impunity for mass crimes. The reasons are many - lack of political will to prosecute perpetrators, State complicity in communal crimes, lack of impartial investigation, and lack of sensitivity to victim's experiences. But there is also, crucially, the glaring inadequacy of the law. Today, despite huge strides in international jurisprudence, India continues to lack an adequate domestic legal framework, which would allow survivors of communal violence to seek and to secure justice. The UPA Government's Common Minimum Programme (CMP) had promised to give the citizens of this country a 'comprehensive legislation' to fill this legal vacuum. We were promised a legislation that would strengthen the hands of the citizens in the struggle against communalism, and allow us to prosecute for mass crimes committed with political complicity and intent. While the country does need a strong law on communal violence, this present Bill is totally misconceived. What we have before us today is a dangerous piece of legislation called the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, which will not only fail to secure justice for communal crimes, but will actually strengthen the shield of protection enjoyed by the State, its political leaders and its officials for their acts of omission and commission in these crimes. It is a Bill, which conceives of communal violence as a 'one time' event rather than as a long-term politically motivated process, and seeks to prevent it only by giving greater powers to (often communally tainted) State governments. Further, it continues to perpetuate the silence around gender-based crimes. It is a travesty that a Bill of such fundamental importance in addressing the challenges posed to the secular character of our society and polity, was drafted by the Government without any real consultative process involving civil society. At this National Consultation on the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, we the undersigned, reject this Bill in its entirety. The assumptions of the Bill are so flawed that it cannot be remedied by amending a few components. We therefore reject this Bill and ask the Central Government to forthwith set up a Drafting Committee to formulate an entirely new bill on communal violence, with the active participation of civil society through an open, transparent, and public process. Eminent jurists, civil society activists, academics and legal experts who have engaged on the ground and in court rooms with communal crimes must be part of such a process. A statute which is sincere about addressing gaps in criminal jurisprudence, must base itself on the experiences of victims of communal violence over the last 60 years, the recommendations of various Commissions of Enquiries and international covenants to which India is a signatory. Endorsed by: Justice A M Ahmadi, former Chief Justice, Supreme Court Justice Hosbet Suresh, former Judge, Mumbai High Court Justice K K Usha, former Judge, Kerala High Court Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court Justice Sardar Ali Khan, former Judge, AP High Court Professor K.N. Panikker, former VC, Shree Shankaracharya University, Kerala Harsh Mander, Social Activist (Aman Biradari) Professor Rooprekha Verma, former VC Lucknow University Colin Gonzalves, Supreme Court Advocate, Delhi Dr. Ram Puniyani, Social Activist, Mumbai Professor Kamal Mitra Chenoy, JNU, Delhi Anil Chaudhary, PEACE, Delhi John Dayal, Senior Journalist & Social Activist, Delhi V.N. Rai, IPS, Lucknow K.S. Subramanian, former IPS, Delhi P.J.G Nampoothiri, former NHRC Spl Rapporteur, Gujarat Dr. Abdul Salam Zafar A. Haq, FFCL, Delhi M. Hilal, FFCL, Delhi Abid Shah Uma Chakravarti, Feminist Historian, Delhi University Hanif Lakdawala, Sanchetna, Gujarat Prasad Chacko, Action Aid, Gujarat Kavita Srivastava, Social Activist, Rajasthan Mehak Sethi, Lawyers Collective, Delhi Ajay Madiwale, HRLN, Delhi Avinash Kumar, Oxfam, Gujarat Ravindra, Lawyers Collective, Delhi Sophia Khan, Safar, Gujarat Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Delhi Usha Ramanathan, Senior Law Researcher, Delhi Madhu Mehra, Partners for Law in Development, Delhi Dr. Pratixa Baxi, JNU, Delhi Zakia Johar, Action Aid, Gujarat Niti Saxena, AALI, Lucknow Saumya Uma, WRAG, Mumbai N.B.Sarojini, SAMA, Delhi Soma K.P K.A. Salim Sharafudheen M.K. Jahnvi Andharia, Anandi, Gujarat Gauhar Raza, Anhad, Delhi Anjali Shenoy Asmita Asawari Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad, Delhi Gagan Sethi, Janvikas, Gujara Farah Naqvi, Delhi New Delhi June 16th, 2007 NATIONAL CONSULTATION ORGANISED BY ANHAD, DELHI With inputs from Justice Ahmadi, Farah Naqvi and Gagan Sethi (CSJ) ______ [4] PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS PRESS STATEMENT 16 June 2007 "Release Binayak Sen": Noam Chomsky The widespread campaign to release Dr Binayak Sen and repeal the Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act received a fillip today with one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, Professor Noam Chomsky, demanding that he be released. Noam Chomsky, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Arundhati Roy, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra, Habib Tanvir, and Rajendra Yadav and many other intellectuals, writers, and poets, issued a statement today, in which they said they were "dismayed at the continued detention in custody of Dr Binayak Sen, General Secretary of the PUCL, since 14 May". His arrest, their statement said, "is clearly an attempt to intimidate PUCL and other democratic voices that have been speaking out against human rights violations in [Chattisgarh]". They have demanded that that Dr Binayak Sen be released immediately; that harassment of other activists be stopped; that the Salwa Judum be disbanded; and that the Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2006 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 2004 be repealed. Their statement is attached. NAGRAJ ADVE, SHASHI SAXENA Secretaries PUDR Statement follows: RELEASE DR BINAYAK SEN, REPEAL CHATTISGARH ACT We, the undersigned, are dismayed at the continued detention of Dr Binayak Sen, General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), since 14 May. Dr Binayak Sen is also National Vice-President of PUCL, one of the oldest civil liberties organizations in India. Dr Sen epitomises a dwindling tradition in India of public health professionals taking health care to the poorest sections and most underdeveloped regions of this country. For the past 30 years, he has been promoting community rural health care centres. He was a member of the state advisory committee that piloted a community-based health worker programme in Chhattisgarh. He also helped establish the Shaheed Hospital in Dalli Rajhara, set up and operated by workers for over 25 years. We believe that the arrest of Dr Binayak Sen is a grave assault on the democratic rights movement in India. PUCL Chhattisgarh has been one of the foremost independent organizations to draw attention to the excesses committed by the Chhattisgarh government under its Salwa Judum campaign. The fake encounters, rapes, burning of villages and displacement of adivasis in tens of thousands and consequent loss of livelihoods have been extensively chronicled by several independent investigations. Dr Sen's arrest is clearly an attempt to intimidate PUCL and other democratic voices that have been speaking out against human rights violations in the state. In recent days, the targets of state harassment have widened to include Dr Ilina Sen, who for years has been active in the women's movement, Gautam Bandopadhyaya of Nadi Ghati Morcha, PUCL's Rashmi Dwivedi, and other activists of PUCL. Dr Sen has been detained under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2006 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 on charges that are completely baseless. Both these extraordinary laws have been criticized by numerous civil rights groups for being extremely vague and subjective in what is deemed unlawful, and for giving arbitrary powers to the State to silence all manner of dissent. As was feared, these undemocratic laws have been used to target Dr Sen and PUCL Chhattisgarh. We demand: 1. That all charges against Dr Sen be dropped and that he should be released immediately; 2. That the threats to and harassment of other activists be stopped immediately; 3. The immediate disbanding of the Salwa Judum; and 4. That the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2006 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 be repealed. SIGNATORIES 1. Professor Noam Chomsky 2. Professor Romila Thapar 3. Professor Irfan Habib 4. Dr Ashok Mitra 5. Habib Tanvir 6. Arundhati Roy 7. Professor Amiya Bagchi 8. Professor Prabhat Patnaik 9. Rajendra Yadav 10. Professor Sumit Sarkar 11. Dilip Chitre 12. Professor Jean Dreze 13. Professor Utsa Patnaik 14. Professor Namwar Singh 15. Shyam Benegal 16. Professor Jayati Ghosh 17. Anand Patwardhan 18. Professor Utsa Patnaik 19. Professor Imrana Qadeer 20. Dr Rama Baru 21. Dr Ritu Priya 22. Professor Tanika Sarkar 23. Anand Swaroop Verma 24. Sayera Habib 25. Professor Abhijit Sen 26. Geetha Hariharan 27. Professor Jasodhara Bagchi 28. Dr Uma Chakravarti 29. Professor Anand Chakravarti 30. Gopa Sen 31. Krishna Suman 32. Dunu Roy 33. Dr K. J. Mukherjee 34. Amar Kanwar 35. Vrinda Grover 36. Dr Mohan Rao 37. Professor K.R. Nayar ______ [5] Tehelka 16 June 2007 IT'S A LONG WAIT TO REVOLUTION, MAYAJI Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar figures large in Mayawati's campaign exhortations, but would the Constitution's founding father have applauded her politics? Meera Nanda imagines a post-electoral conversation between the two Lucknow, Sunday, May 13, 2007. It was past midnight, and Mayawati was tired. She had spent the day at the Governor's residence, taking the oath of office as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. It was quite a show, what with her team of fifty ministers tagging behind her, the milling crowds of admirers and the glare of all the cameras. Mayawati felt like a long-distance runner reaching the finish line: exhilarated but exhausted. She fell asleep the moment her head touched the pillow. It was then that Dr Ambedkar's statue, which she had garlanded earlier that evening in Ambedkar Park, came alive and began to speak, as statues sometimes do in dreams Ambedkar: It was wonderful to see you and so many of your comrades in the park today, Mayaji. It warms my heart to see my fellow Indians go to vote with such enthusiasm, such earnestness, such great hope. Mayawati: Pujya Babasaheb! What a shubh mahurat to have your darshan. (Bends to touch Ambedkar's feet). Ambedkar: (Steps back, folds his hands in a namaste) Please don't lower yourself before me or anyone else. And this reminds me: now that you are chief minister again, could you please stop erecting Ambedkar statues all over the place? You went overboard the last three times you held office. There are better ways of spending tax-payers' money than turning me into an idol Mayawati: But you are our guiding light, Babasaheb. Your statutes inspire pride and self-confidence among the Dalit masses. Ambedkar: I'm deeply moved by their struggles and genuinely proud of their achievements. But they don't need my statues to feel inspired. Our Constitution should be enough to lift up their spirits and fill their hearts with courage. I live through my ideas and my writings. Mayawati: Then you must be very proud of the way we are putting your ideas to work. The social revolution we have started in Uttar Pradesh is nothing but your philosophy in action. As we in the Bahujan Samaj Party used to say when Kanshi Ramji was our leader, "Baba tera mission adhura, Kanshi Ram karega pura" Ambedkar: It is this "social revolution" of yours that I have come to talk about. I hear bigwig academics compare you favourably with Mao, I hear left-wing journalists celebrate you for inverting the caste pyramid, I hear right-wing Hindu chauvinists praise you for promoting caste harmony. But, Mayaji, I can't join this chorus of praise. This is not the revolution I dreamt of. Don't get me wrong: I'm happy to see you, daughter of a Chamar, come so far and rise so high. I admire you and Kanshi Ram for mobilising our Dalit brethren who have been treated as mere vote banks for so long. And you certainly have shown great political astuteness in putting together a winning political coalition. I bet you'd make an excellent chess player! But Mayawati: Sab apki kripa hai, Babasaheb. We are your students. We practice Ambedkarism. Ambedkar: But, as I was saying, I am uncomfortable with what you call "Ambed-karism." I find it a sad caricature of my philosophy. In my view, democracy is not merely a matter of formal equality and periodic elections. Real democracy means fraternity, a mode of associated living, an attitude of respect toward fellow citizens. For this kind of democracy to take root in our society, the hold of all beliefs that make hierarchies of caste, class and gender look natural and harmonious has to be destroyed. That is what I mean by the annihilation of caste. So you see, Ambedkarism - if you want to give my philosophy a name - is not about winning elections only. It is about creating a new society committed to the ideals of liberty, equality, justice and fraternity. When you have some spare time, you should dust off your copy of my Annihilation of Caste. I summed up my philosophy in that little book. It is true that I wanted Dalits to seek allies so they could become the nation's "ruling community". In my Independent Labour Party, for example, we worked with workers and peasants of all castes. And at many junctures, I was helped by enlightened Brahmins and other dwijas. But I sought allies not because they could bring me votes, but because they shared my ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. In contrast, the pursuit of raw power has become an end in itself for your party. It doesn't seem to matter who you seek out, how you woo them and what you do with political power once you have it. Where is the larger transformative agenda to challenge capitalism, Brahminism and religious superstition? I don't see any signs of it. Mayawati: But Babasaheb, times have changed. These days all political parties make deals - it's called "social engineering." Why, just recently the Akalis came to power in Punjab with the help of the BJP, which treats Sikhs as if they were still Hindus! The Congress stayed in power all these years because it created a big tent which brought in Brahmins, Muslims and Dalits. As you know, Dalits make up only 21 percent of UP. We can never come to power unless we create a big tent of our own and put Dalits in charge. Ambedkar: You are 100 percent correct, Mayaji. All major political parties make all kinds of deals to win elections. As the old saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. But just because everyone does it, does not make it right. This kind of horse-trading harms the quality of our democracy. At the grassroots, we are not yet a country of laws, but rather a country at the mercy of the whims and prejudices of men and women in power. I understand the bsp's electoral compulsions. But why drape the mantle of "Ambedkarism" on this rat race? If tactical caste calculation in pursuit of power is how you define Ambedkarism, then I am not an Ambedkarite. Ambedkarism is about so much more than winning elections: it is about creating a new egalitarian, rational cultural commonsense; it is about turning our political democracy into a secular social democracy. As I used to remind Congressmen in the Constituent Assembly, "We are having political democracy to reform our social system which is so full of inequalities and discriminations..." Mayawati: But we are seeking power in order to reform our social system. We in the bsp are committed to annihilating caste, but we are pragmatic. We believe in using caste calculations to end casteism. By bringing upper castes to support our core constituency of Dalits, the most backward castes and poor Muslims, we are building a sarvajan samaj, a big tent, a rainbow coalition of all castes led by us Dalits. Ambedkar: In theory, it sll sounds great. But the sad fact is that a real fellow-feeling of sarvajan samaj does not exist in India. Even though we have stopped using the vocabulary of chaturvarna, the mental attitudes that justify hierarchies are still there. Mayawati: I agree caste prejudice abounds at all levels in our society. But we are trying to challenge it by bringing all castes together under the leadership of Dalits, so that we can open the doors of equality for all. Ambedkar: Judging by your own record, caste-based coalitions seem to deepen casteism, not lessen it. When you were cm, you took care of your Dalit constituency; when Mulayam Singh got his turn, he took care of his Yadavs. When you became cm again, you tightened the law preventing atrocities against Dalits, and when your BJP "allies" came to power, they immediately loosened those laws. By your third stint as cm in 2002, you were so keen on retaining the BJP's support that you even condoned Narendra Modi's anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. After all this, you will understand why I'm unable to rejoice in your victory. Mayawati: On all previous occasions, bsp governments were short-lived. This time, we will be more productive because we will complete our full five-year term. Ambedkar: Yes, yes, I know that this time your upper-caste allies are a part of the bsp and not simply supporting it from the outside. But do you really believe that just because they ran on bsp tickets, they have given up their belief in Hindu majoritarianism and Hindu traditionalism? Don't you see that they are using you, just as much as you think you are using them? Mayawati: That may be so. But you are overlooking the energising effect a Dalit chief minister has on Dalits. Whenever I'm in power, Dalits feel safer and more confident. Did you notice how proud they looked when all my Brahmin ministers and hangers-on touched my feet at the oath-taking ceremony? Ambedkar: That Dalits should feel more confident when one of their own is in power is a sign of the shallowness of our democracy. And this business of Brahmins falling at your feet, is not something you should revel in or encourage. My idea of a good society is a society where there is no bowing and scraping Mayawati: You may not like all this "bowing and scraping," but we have to respect the reet rivaz of the people. After so many centuries, it is no small matter that the mighty savaranas are bowing before us! These gestures are important. They create a sense of empowerment. But our social revolution goes beyond symbols. Whenever we have come to power, we brought solid material gains like roads, electricity, water and schools to thousands of Ambedkar Villages. We provided jobs to landless Dalits through the Ambedkar Rozgar Yojna. Dalits know that their needs will be taken care of only when there is one of their own in power. That is why they vote for us again and again Ambedkar: I agree these are positive steps. But Dalits and the poor of other castes and religious minorities are citizens of this country, and they have a right to all the basics for a good life. Their welfare should not depend upon the caste or creed of those in power. In the deliberative democracy I envisioned, policy was set by rational criteria guided by principles of equality. Mayawati: Your deliberative democracy sounds very good. But we politicians have to worry about reality on the ground. But on one thing at least you must give us full marks: we are defending secularism. I consider that our most important achievement. The bsp has peeled off the Brahmin vote from the BJP. Once we nationalise our UP model, the BJP will be finished. Ambedkar: It is true that the bsp's gains have come at the BJP's expense. I'm very pleased to see the Hindu nationalists checkmated. But there are two reasons why I am still worried. One, you have defied the first principle of secularism by openly invoking the gods in your election appeals. I was aghast to see bsp's haathi first turn into Ganesh, and then morph into the Hindu trinity! If it is wrong for the BJP to parade the gods for electoral gains, it is equally wrong for the bsp to do the same. Indeed, it is downright hypocritical of the bsp to start showing reverence to gods that Dalits and shudras were forbidden to worship through the ages. You have kept the BJP at bay for now, but you have failed to advance a secular idiom suitable for the public sphere. Mayawati: With due respect, Babasaheb, you are again measuring existing reality against very high ideals. Ambedkar: We must measure our actions against our highest ideals. What else are ideals for? But let me give you the second reason why I'm not rejoicing in your defence of "secularism". You seem to think that just because Brahmins do not lord it over landless Dalit labourers in the villages, they're automatically your allies against the shudra landowners. That because there is no immediate economic conflict between Brahmins and Dalits, there is no ideological contradiction either. I'm afraid you underestimate the power of belief, ritual, myth, and habits-of-the-heart. Neither the urban middle classes nor the land-owning peasants have revised the notions of atman and rebirth that underlie the hierarchies of caste and gender. If anything, neo-Hindu gurus and traditional pundits are getting more sophisticated in packaging this superstitious worldview in the covers of "science". That is why I have always urged Dalits to cultivate the scientific temper and actively challenge irrational ideas and practices. That was the message of my Buddha and His Dhamma. It is possible that the Brahmin communities that voted for you for tactical reasons are actually making a living propagating conservative social values and superstitious religious practices in the temples, ashrams and Vedic pathshalas that dot your state. Now that they have a foot in your government, will they not expect state largesse for a traditionalist agenda in education and other cultural matters? In my humble opinion, Hindu traditionalism is the breeding ground of Hindu nationalism. That is why I worry whether you will be able to hold the Hindutva forces at bay. Mayawati: I think I am strong enough to defy all communal agendas. Our agenda is secular, and I will not put up with any Hindutva propaganda. Mayawati: All power to you, Mayaji. You and the people of UP have my best wishes. It is getting late, and I must take your leave. But I am always with you in spirit. Ambedkar's voice fades as the statue turns to stone again. Mayawati wakes up and sits thinking about her dream into the wee hours of the morning Nanda is a philosopher of science and a John Templeton Foundation fellow ______ [6] SUPERSTITION, FEUDALISM AND THE MEDIA by Mukul Dube, Indian Express, 1 June 2007 Those of us who are old enough to remember Jawaharlal Nehru will remember seeing photographs of that Kashmiri from Uttar Pradesh wearing the head-gear of the Nagas and of other peoples elsewhere in the country. Such gestures, for all that they may have been hollow and to have show-cased the colourfully "quaint", were symbolic of the oneness of India and therefore were given publicity. They were photo opportunities which attracted us; and they influenced us, as they were meant to do. The only vehicles of visual publicity at the time were, for the relatively well off, a few illustrated newspapers and magazines and, for the masses, the Films Division newsreels which were shown in cinemas before feature films. In today's India there are several times as many printed periodicals, going with more widespread literacy and increased purchasing power: but there can be no doubt that the reach and the inherent power of television make it the most potent medium there is. It cannot be said that the media have, in the last few decades, used their growing effectiveness to do anything to promote Nehru's ideals, democracy and more specifically the scientific temper. Quite the contrary. In every possible sphere and in every possible way, they have been twisted to promote the most regressive, feudal tendencies. I recall with disgust how virtually the whole country would come to a standstill so that the faithful and the curious might watch the serialised "Ramayana"; how some would fold their hands towards crackling and hissing television screens; and how not a few would throw reason to the winds by going forward to apply tilak to moulded glass. I recall with disgust how the grand, spectacular funerals of Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi were pictured, with the press and television going to great lengths to show every ritual in gory detail. The regal proceedings became specially obnoxious when one remembered that the mother was the one to have taken the calculated populist step of abolishing privy purses. Then again, while the similar activities of earlier leaders were given little attention, Indira Gandhi's visits to religious places and her cosiness with "holy" people and dispensers of mumbo-jumbo received much publicity in the media. Because she knew well how to manipulate and control the media, it must be assumed that this happened with her consent or, more likely, by royal command. The media cynically exploit the fact that the common people are drawn by all that has to do with the famous and the prominent. The recent wedding in the "first family of Bollywood" was an excellent instance, the more so because the figure to have been brought into that family-the person, the object-is a beauty queen and film star with her own fan following. "We gave the people what they wanted" will no doubt be the media's justification for what they did. The transformation of a female star into a demure, humble bride is what a patrilineal and essentially patriarchal society would have wanted. People rooted in superstition would have welcomed absurdities such as the "marriage" of the beauty queen with a tree to ward off the supposed baneful effect of her planetary indices. And millions will have felt the warm glow of oneness on seeing that the now bearded paterfamilias, Big B. Bachchan, wears stones of many hues on his fingers, as they do on theirs, to bring good fortune and evade the evil eye, whatever those may be. What of ideas, of ideals, of conscience? Well, what of them? Is not money divine, the end of all our actions? Film stars sell, the mix of astrology and religion sells. What can be a more saleable commodity than the stars of the stars? ______ [7] FRAUD SCIENTIST TAKES RSS FOR A RIDE DOWN LORD RAM'S BRIDGE by Shishir Gupta Indian Express, June 17, 2007 http://www.indianexpress.com/story/33813.html _____ [8] BOOK REVIEW: Dawn June 17, 2007 Books and Authors HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN? Reviewed by I.A. Rehman Probing the Jihadi Mindset, by well-known psychologist Dr Sohail Abbas, enjoys a unique position amongst studies on Muslim militants in and around Pakistan. Quite a few works on the subject have included information about the jihadis, their recruitment, training and activities, that was collected first hand from them but here is a study that surpasses the earlier works in the size of the sample chosen for interviewing as well as the scale of information elicited, and all this has been done in accordance with the standard procedure for scientific research. Dr Abbas and his team of researchers were able to interview 517 men who had left their homes and families to fight in Afghanistan. It was possible to talk to these jihadis as, on their return from Afghanistan, all of them were detained in Haripur and Peshawar jails. The 319 jihadis interviewed in the Haripur jail comprised men who had entered Afghanistan in September-October 2001 and could not join the Taliban in battle. When the Taliban regime collapsed, they tried returning to Pakistan but were taken into custody at the border. The second group of 198 jihadis who met in the Peshawar jail comprised men who had gone to Afghanistan earlier. They had taken part in the fighting and were taken as prisoners and handed over to Pakistan by the Karzai government. The book describes the subjects as jihadis as there is no other word for the men we are talking about and 'militant' does not convey some of the essential characteristics of a person motivated by the belief of risking his life in a war that does not directly concern him. The data on the jihadis interviewed includes age, domicile, languages, rural/urban background, marital status, education, occupation and income. Since the sample from a population of 150 million is not sizeable, each finding has been compared to the national data on the subject. The result is that quite a few assumptions about these jihadis are proved wrong and one acquires a sounder understanding of the modern phenomenon of jihad that produces today's jihadis. The largest group of jihadis among the Haripur detainees (54.9 per cent) was in the 21-30 age group, those 20 or less constituted 26.3 per cent, the youngest was 13 years old and the oldest was 75. In the Peshawar group, the sub-group (44.9 per cent) was aged 20 or less, 47.4 per cent were above 30 (18.8 per cent in the Haripur group), and the oldest man was 72. Similar divergences between the Haripur and Peshawar groups were noticed in respect of domicile, language and rural/urban distinction. The combined results of the two groups, however, showed that 42 per cent belonged to NWFP (39.4 per cent spoke Pushto) while 39.8 per cent came from Punjab (36.1 per cent spoke Punjabi), and 69.9 per cent of them came from the rural areas. Nearly 40 per cent of the men were married. When asked as to who was supposed to look after their families while they were at the battlefront, some answered: 'Making my way to paradise was not only for myself but for the whole family.' The data on the jihadis' educational level and their exposure to religious instruction is quite revealing. The literacy rate among the jihadis and the level of their attendance at formal educational institutions were found to be higher than the national averages. Some 18.8 per cent had eight years of schooling, 11.2 per cent of matric level and 3.3 per cent had 14 years of education (graduate level). Some 76.7 per cent of the Haripur group and 64.5 per cent of the Peshawar group had not attended any madressah and those who had gone to madressahs had done so for short periods. In the two groups combined, tenants and labourers formed 52.4 per cent of the total and only 6.0 per cent were unemployed. An interesting finding was that about 40 per cent of the total were themselves the most religious persons in their families, and the decision of over 57 per cent of them to join the war was opposed by their families. Questions about motivation yielded significant data. Some 65.5 per cent believed the Taliban were justified in protecting Osama, 69.0 per cent thought Islam was in danger, 73.7 per cent joined jihad for the glory of Islam, the aim of 39.4 per cent was harming the Americans, and only 39.7 per cent said they had been motivated by religious leaders. Finally, only 5.4 per cent wished to continue jihad while 79.6 per cent wanted to give importance to routine daily life. Among other things, the study demolishes the commonly-held view that the men who went to fight in Afghanistan were poor, illiterate and unemployed young men or madressah students. The study also examines the jihadi groups' psychological characteristics (morbidity, sociability, emotional stability, prejudice, etc) and presents detailed analyses of the two groups' responses to important issues, such as responsibility in changing the existing circumstances, perceptions of conspiracy against the Muslim people, attitude towards modernism and Taliban-style government. Following a methodology that cannot be questioned and avoiding generalisations that are not borne out by national data, Dr Abbas has not only successfully probed the jihadi mindset, he has also held a mirror to Pakistan's society and has revealed the Pakistani people's mindset. There is much in this slim volume that anyone interested in a proper understanding of the jihadi phenomenon and the ways to overcome it should find useful. PROBING THE JIHADI MINDSET By Sohail Abbas National Book Foundation Islamabad ISBN 969-37-0236-0 207pp. Rs 250 _______ [9] ANNOUNCEMENTS: (i) NEW YORK PUBLIC RALLY FOR THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE IN PAKISTAN A coalition of political, social and human rights organizations of Pakistani Americans and other concerned US citizens will hold a public rally on June 22nd, 2007 from 2-4 PM, after Friday Prayers on Coney Island Avenue in "Little Pakistan area" near Makki Masjid in Brooklyn, New York. 1117 Coney Island Avenue Take trains Q and B to New Kirk Avenue Pakistani Diaspora and other US citizens will join forces to demand an end to military rule, restoration of democracy and judicial system, investigation of Karachi massacre and restoration of the constitution in Pakistan. Demonstrators will show solidarity against the dictatorial, ethnically divisive and ruthless policies of the General Musharraf, including the politics of fear, curbs on judiciary, restrictions on the freedom of movement of citizens, arrest of political workers, death threats, kidnappings and disappearances dissenting voices and attack on the media. Speakers will include Imran Khan (through telephone), Professor Ijazul Hasan (PPP), Ali Zaidi, International Coordinator of Tehrike-Insaaf Pakistan, champion of women's right Dr Amna Buttar (ANAA) and Mola Dad Khan (PIA Union). The rally will be a fusion of civil rights and human rights activists and Pakistani Diaspora representing a variety of segments of the Pakistani-American Population. Current situation in Pakistan is becoming unbearable to watch as the dictatorial military regime is showing blatant abuse of power and making a mockery of judicial and democratic institutions within Pakistan, and is destroying the integrity of Pakistan. The lawyers of Pakistan have initiated and sustained a movement to demand independence of judiciary which has now become the movement for construction of a democratic, secular, and peaceful Pakistan. Lawyers have been joined by people from all walks of life and this has now become of a movement of the masses. Time has now come for Pakistani Diaspora and other international communities to join forces with people of Pakistan and extend this movement to the world. People of Pakistan must get a chance to rule their own country and Military must go back to the barracks forever. Coalition for the Restoration of Democracy in Pakistan (CRDP) Co-sponsors: Pakistani-American Advocates for Civil & Human Rights (PAACHR), Asian American Network Against Abuse of Human Rights, (ANAA), Association of Pakistani Physicians for Justice and Democracy (APPJD), Sindhi Association of North America ( SANA ), American Muslims Peace Initiative (AMPI) , Coney Island Avenue Project (CIAP), Awami National Party (ANP); Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaaf (PTI); and Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) Contact Rana Ramzan 516-376-1868, Bobby Khan 917-440-9002, Nasir Gondal 917-860-0808, Bazah Roohi 347-865-2769, Sarwar Chaudhry 917-817-0895, Rana Saeed 718-696-8683, Taj Akbar 718-859-3999, Dabeer Tirmazi 848-405-1064 o o o (ii) CALL FOR ENTRIES Film South Asia '07 4-7 October 2007 Kathmandu Film South Asia, the festival of South Asian documentaries, calls for entries for the sixth edition of its biennial festival being held in Kathmandu from 4-7 October 2007. Documentaries made in and after January 2005 are eligible for the competitive section. Submission deadline for the entries: 30 June 2007 Details and entry forms are available at www.filmsouthasia.org For further information contact: Upasana Shrestha Co-Director Film South Asia P.O. Box 166 Patan Dhoka Lalitpur Nepal _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: http://insaf.net/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