Jaipur Serial blasts: Statement of Concerned Citizens

We the undersigned strongly condemn those behind the serial blasts of Jaipur. We also offer our sincerest condolences to the victims of this dastardly act and urge upon the state government and the Central Government to take all possible measures for the proper compensation/ rehabilitation of the survivors.

These cowardly acts of terror have become a sore on the body politic of Indian democracy. The current global and local politics in the name of religious identity is intensifying the acts of terror, more so in India. The unfortunate part is that prevention of these acts has been politicized by some political parties. Some of them claim that the present Government is soft on terrorism so there is increase in these acts of terror. They forget that even during the NDA regime the frequency and intensity of these acts was similar. Just by making the repressive laws cannot curtail these acts as it is a superficial and wrong approach. These acts of terror have deeper political causes. These causes relate to U.S. lust for oil, its help in forming Al Qaeda and local rise of communal politics around issues of religious identity.

The worst part of handling acts of terror, which has a bearing on the preventive measures, is the prevalent theory guiding the investigation authorities. As per this theory these acts are done by some Pakistan trained groups who want to spread communal disharmony. On this pretext many Muslim youth are hauled up and investigation is presented as a success. So many such acts of terror have taken place, Malegaon, Banaras, Mumbai, but how many places have the communal disharmony erupted? Are the terrorist’s fools to repeat the act which is not having the desired result? Then, the investigations done so far are clouded in mystery and under the cloak of secrecy. The social audit of these investigations has not taken place barring an odd exception. The present theory of investigating agency deliberately overlooks the case of two Bajarang Dal workers getting killed in Nanded in April 2006. It also does not want to give serious thought to the narco-analysis of one of the survivors of the Nanded episode who said that now we Hindus should also do the acts of terror, in front of crowded mosques, else we will be regarded as eunuchs.

The occurrence of these acts, more often on Tuesdays and Fridays gives a signal which goes beyond the thinking of present investigation agencies. There is a need to have a National body with due representation from the socially concerned citizens and Human rights activists who can have a say in these matters and also who in an unbiased way can go to the truth of these acts, unlike the ones at present, where the pattern of investigation can be predicted right in advance due to the prevalent prejudices, which by now have become institutionalized.

These acts are now polarizing the society and the biggest beneficiary of these are the communal forces. In a way, now communal violence is being substituted by the acts of terror to consolidate the electoral base by communal party.

We urge upon the society at large, the ruling governments, the bureaucracy, police and human rights activists to try to go to the depth of this painful phenomenon and try to address the deeper disease which is causing the symptom of terrorist acts.

We Demand
- Setting up of a National Commission with representation of broad layers of people to monitor the investigations.
- This Commission gives suggestions in the direction of prevention of such acts.
- This commission monitors those arrested on the ground of suspicion and ensures that only the guilty are detained while innocents are released.
- This commission goes to the deeper maladies affecting the society leading to such acts and suggests the remedial measures.
- It suggests ways to strengthen the intercommunity bonds so that religious identity and terrorism are not correlated.
Sincerely

1. Asghar Ali Engineer, Chairman Center for Study of
Society and Secularism
2. Digant Oza: Senior Journalist, Ahmedabad
3. Shabnam Hashmi, Secretary ANHAD
4. Dr. M.Hasan, Academic, Writer Jaipur
5. L.S.Hardenia, Senior Journalist, Writer
6. Irfan Engineer: Institute of Peace Studies and
Conflict Resolution
7. Ram Puniyani , Secretary All India Secular Forum

Karnataka NGO's campaign against BJP under fire from the State election commission

( From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 19, Dated May 17, 2008)

ENGAGED CIRCLE
activists in trouble

Campaign Pains

A coalition of 150 NGOs campaigning against the BJP in poll-bound Karnataka have run afoul of the State Election Commission, reports SANJANA

POLITICAL PARTIES are not the only ones engaged in a pitched battle in election bound Karnataka. People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) — a statewide coalition comprising 150 NGOs that work on a range of issues from Dalit and women’s rights to farmers’ issues, caste politics and labour — is actively engaged in campaigning against what it calls the BJPs ‘communal agenda’. Says KL Ashok, a PAD convenor, “We have no doubt that the BJP is a communal party committed to treating Dalits, Muslims, women and the working masses as second-class citizens. We have seen what they did in 20 months when they were in power in Karnataka. We are saying — never again!”

Headed by prominent cultural figures such as UR Ananthamurthy, Sara Aboobacker and Gauri Lankesh, the coalition has framed for itself a precise agenda — to ensure defeat of the BJP in the coming Assembly elections and to demand accountability from other political parties seeking to represent the people. It had undertaken a massive public awareness campaign including ‘jeep jathas’ across 100 towns in Karnataka and wide-scale distribution of a ‘people’s manifesto’, backed by about 50,000 posters. The campaign had just started to make waves when it ran into trouble with the Karnataka State Election Commission (SEC) and the police, which stepped in to halt it.

A Election Commission of India (ECI) directive issued to the Karnataka SEC on April 7, 2008 stipulates that “no wall writing, pasting of posters/papers, erecting of cut-outs, hoardings, banners, or defacement in any other form shall be permitted on public property” and that any local law applicable should be strictly enforced. Accordingly, MN Vidyashankar, Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Karnataka issued strict orders to the police for “criminal cases to be booked against those flouting the directive.”

On April 12, activists belonging to PAD were detained and arrested by police in Madikeri (Kodagu district), Mulbagal (Kolar district) and Bangalore as they attempted to paste posters urging voters to say no to the BJP. In Jamkhandi (Bagalkot district), police authorities denied permission to hold a public meeting. In Bangalore, activists were detained and posters seized. “Everywhere the police demanded that we produce permission letters by the State Election Commission. No matter how many times we told them that we weren’t a political party, they would not listen,” says AMM Shaafi of PAD.

For the State Election Commission too, this was a difficult proposition to buy – a non-political party coalition working to defeat the BJP and distributing copies of its own manifesto. When Shaafi along with other convenors approached the CEO Vidyashankar three days after the arrests, he said, “We want to ensure that they were not indulging in surrogate canvassing. The content of the posters have to be cleared.” The CEO insisted that the coalition submit translated copies of publicity material to the ECI and wait for clearance, citing an April 2004 Supreme Court judgment.

When the coalition obtained copies of the SC order, they found that it had nothing to do with their case, and instead pertained to cable television advertisements by Gujarat political parties during elections. When PAD representatives reverted to the CEO, he was apologetic but held that having submitted the poster for clearance, they had no choice but to wait for the ECI’S decision. With first phase of polling starting on on May 10, the coalition representatives are infuriated, but so far the only reply they have received from the SEC is that the matter is pending due to delays with the ECI in New Delhi.

ELECTION COMMISSIONER Dr SY Quraishi, told TEHELKA that, “PAD is free to do their campaigning; provided they don’t say that BJP is a communal party. That is a specific allegation. But they are free to ask voters to not vote for communal parties.” He also categorically stated that the ECI had conveyed this to the Karnataka SEC during their last visit to Bangalore. But Karnataka’s Joint Chief Election Commissioner BV Kulkarni, says they are “still waiting to hear from the ECI.”

Shabnam Hashmi, member, National Integration Council, who has undertaken similar campaigns in Gujarat, and who also wrote to the ECI on the PAD issue, believes that the organisation should simply get on with the task. “For eight months we carried a strong anti-BJP and anti-Modi campaign. There were cases against us. You can’t keep rushing to officials to get their stamp of approval every time.”

PAD is doing just that. Tired of official dillydallying, they have proceeded with their campaign — albeit in different ways.

Harsh Mander's film review of 'Khuda Kay Liye' and 'good faith' vs 'bad faith'

The God delusion

by Harsh Mander

Hindustan Times, May 12, 2008


There is today a world-wide resurgence of the politics of identity, separateness and divide. This has been spurred by declarations of an ongoing global ‘war on terror’, consummating in bloody military enterprises that have casually decimated vast helpless civilian populations. Religious texts as well as democratic principles have been reinterpreted to justify violent reprisals and to deny democratic rights. Democratic governments have felt it fit to label, place under surveillance and, in many cases, detain, torture and even exterminate people held in suspicion primarily because of their religious faith. But the greatest battle of all has been in the hearts and minds of people, in the everyday discourse of homes, classrooms and work-places, where the people of one faith have been demonised globally for their allegedly violent histories, and their alleged pervasive contemporary sympathies for terrorism.

It is inevitable that this battle would spill over also into the songs we sing, the poetry we recite, and — in particular in this part of the world — in the films we make. This cinema is notoriously unrealistic in its literal depiction of people’s lives. But because of the special emotional resonance of films with people in South Asia, they are often authentic as reflections of popular consciousness. It is, therefore, instructive to observe the evolution of the depiction of Muslim people in Indian cinema. In the relatively idealistic early decades after Independence, Muslim people were an essential element of the ‘formula’ of popular Hindi cinema, homogenised as gentle, friendly, benign neighbours, or people of exceptional culture, grace and poetry. In more recent times, their metamorphosis was precipitous, into shadowy, sinister figures: mafia, criminal, traitor, regressive, people who always initiate riots, are fundamentalist, violent. But many recent films have challenged these troubling, false stereotypes, and several have received enthusiastic audience endorsement.

Important among these is a popular Pakistani film, Khuda Kay Liye. Although flawed as cinema, it is a moral document of unusual humanism. The film attempts a brave, searching exploration of the struggles that people of faith in Islam are embroiled in, as they strive to sift right and wrong in a world which holds them responsible for the reprehensible crimes of a few who claim to defend their faith. It tries to make sense of the teachings of some leaders of their faith, who interpret its texts in ways that deny its syncretic humanist traditions, and who justify the oppression of women and the bloody often random extermination of not just people of different faiths but even liberal and progressive political persuasions. It also tries to understand the compatibility of Islam with Western sensibilities of dress and music.

The film endorses one of the most profound truths of our times: that the central battle is not of Islam with other faiths. The real war is between humanist and liberal interpretations and practices of faiths, and versions that advocate division, patriarchy, hate and violence. This war is by no means restricted to Islam, but people of Muslim faith in every country are forced more than any other to constantly make public choices about which side they stand on in this battle, because much of the world assumes that they are on the side of loathing and shedding of the blood of innocents. They shout their dissent, and sometimes pay for it with their lives, but few hear them, as they find themselves condemned because of the faith to which they are born.

The film has the quality of anguished honesty: as it tracks this turmoil within Islam, it holds up its own truths for scrutiny by the rest of the world. And yet the truths it captures are universal. The film is not a portrayal of contemporary Islam alone; it is a mirror to fundamentalist resurgence in every major faith today. The bids of the Muslim cleric in the film to ‘rescue’ women who wish to marry outside their faith by abducting them and forcing them into weddings with men of their own religion could be the mission of a Babu Bajrangi in Gujarat. The endorsement of retributive violence against ‘other’ peoples echoes Bush’s doctrine of ‘collateral damage’ and his and Blair’s frequent reference to ‘crusades’, or Modi’s resort to Newtonian physics to justify the post-Godhra massacres.

The cleric’s mocking of NGOs in the court scene of Khuda Kay Liye could have been Modi caricaturing ‘five-star’ NGOs or K.P.S. Gill’s indictment of human rights groups. The harrowing portrayal of cruel torture of a Muslim man under police detention after 9/11 in Chicago resonates chillingly with many testimonies of torture and illegal detention of Muslim youth in Gujarat after 2002, or in Hyderabad after the bomb blasts last year. It is not the truth of Islam, of the ‘other’ out there that the film recreates; it is the picture of all of us, if we have the courage and compassion to see and hear it.

My main quarrel with the film is its resolution. In its climax, the services of a ‘good’ cleric are recruited, as he offers his interpretation of Islamic scriptures, not just to justify music and Western dress and culture (which it could be argued was legitimate), but also to affirm that a woman cannot be forced to marry and have sex with her husband against her will. I feel troubled that judges of the court in the film rely on his interpretation of scriptures as clinching evidence, rather than reference to the undisputed facts, to reason and the secular law of the land; to gender equality, tolerance and the respect of adult choice.

The court is dealing with a grave crime, of clerics motivating a young man to abduct, marry and rape his cousin to prevent her from marrying a white Christian man. By subjecting this crime to interrogation by faith rather than law and secular notions of justice, the film in the end compromises its universalistic, liberal and modernist premise. There is an attractive finale of the young protagonist back in his jeans and jaunty cap, defiantly confronting the disapproval of the hardline cleric by delivering the call to prayers in the mosque. But before he does that, I would have felt reassured to see him jailed for abducting and raping his cousin.

There have been some as honestly introspective films about Hindu fundamentalism in India. The best recent example is Parzania, which tracks the heart-breaking search of parents for their child who disappeared in the 2002 carnage in Gujarat. It is as agonisingly scrupulous in its portrayal of Hindutva politics, and ends far more reassuringly, with the resolve of the survivors to fight against all odds for justice in the courts of law. Equally important is Shaurya, which courageously admits to communalism in the armed forces, and to human rights abuses against children in Kashmir. The Muslim officer who defends the civilians against the atrocities by his brother officer in uniform is viewed with suspicion because of his faith. The ‘loyalty’ test that Muslim citizens often find themselves subjected to was also illustrated in one of the most popular films of last year, Chak De! India, in which a Muslim hockey coach is believed to have deliberately thrown a match against Pakistan. In both films, audiences backed the Muslim who was unfairly labelled.

All these films revive hope, that ultimately in the battle of hearts and minds — that rages in the name both of global crusade against terror, and the political mobilisation within India around religious identity — justice, truth and compassion still have a chance.

Harsh Mander is the convenor of Aman Biradari

Perverse Drive for Cultural Purity Will Continue Till We Build A Secular Culture: Any takers ?

Daily News and Analysis
May 09, 2008

India’s cultural divide

by Ranjona Banerji

The Delhi High Court has done both India and art an enormous favour by dropping three obscenity cases against the 91-year-old artist, MF Husain.

As is well-known, India’s most famous artist has spent almost two years in self-imposed exile, ever since he was threatened for his ‘obscene’ portrayal of Hindu goddesses and mythological figures and his works were vandalised by Hindutva fundamentalists.

Yet, at every art venue, Husain’s works have continued to sell for top dollar — he remains India’s most coveted painter both at home and abroad. In his quirky, whimsical manner, he has also given the idea of an artist new impetus. His obsession with a series of Hindi film actresses, his delightful forays into film-making, his keen interest in current affairs, and his own unique way of transferring that interest into his art add to his greatness.

Husain has had his share of controversy within the art world as well and that is inevitable given his long career and body of work. But it is the controversy in the outside world that is truly shameful.

That he should be hounded and attacked by obscure groups looking for cheap publicity and that the idea of offending ‘sentiments’ should stop the law from being implemented is one of independent India’s less salutary episodes in upholding freedom of expression.

Because whatever the ferocity of the religious organisations which have attacked him, the government of India should have stood up to them with courage rather than cowardice.

Instead, we are unable to truly understand the significance of ‘freedom of expression’ — of artistic expression as well as of poetic licence. In all societies, popular culture rules over ‘high’ art. But in most societies, ‘high’ art is revered — it does not have to bow down to popular culture.

Rather, the popular strives to reach higher. We seem to have turned that wisdom on its head. As more of us get ‘voices’, we register our outrage at everything that offends us and even more at what we do not understand.

Some of this anguish has been expressed by Justice Sanjay K Kaul of the Delhi High Court. He said in his judgment, “We have been called the land of the Kama Sutra. Then why is it that in this land we shy away from its very name? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and so does obscenity.” He went on to say, “It’s most unfortunate that India’s new Puritanism is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and that ignorant people vandalise art.”

In the second sentence lies the crux of the matter. When art critics or art lovers have objected to Husain — and they have —it has been on the basis of his art and that alone.
When the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti launched the vicious campaign against Husain, it did not consider his work as an artist. It understood neither context not subtext but went straight for obvious pictorial representation. Even by itself, the right of these neo-Puritan saviours of ‘cultural purity’ to be offended would stand. But they went beyond intellectual discourse into physical intimidation, destruction of artworks and vituperative public campaigns. Dissent is essential in a democracy; threat, extortion, blackmail and violence are not.

The judge has gone back to both ancient Indian culture as well as contemporary art traditions and rued that the people who have attacked Husain are not familiar with either. He has pointed — perhaps inadvertently — to a singularly divisive fault line in India today. The cultural divides between an open and cultured elite and a neo-puritanical middle class obsessed with maintaining ‘cultural purity’ are extreme and silly. The recent debate over the cheerleaders in cricket matches exposed both.

The fault lies in a society which makes no effort to create space for both popular and high cultures. If your ideas of Indian mythology, for instance, are based solely on Hindi potboilers or televised mythological serials, then it is hardly surprising that Husain’s interpretations would offend you. If you have never read any of ancient India’s many eye-popping and enlightening texts, but have relied solely on word of mouth, then definitely Husain’s interpretations would offend you. This ignorance is not deliberate but it is a natural corollary of a system where once the elite kept everyone else out and today, technical education is given more prominence than the humanities. Interestingly, it is the techies of Bangalore and the US’s Silicon Valley who are the biggest supporters of India’s religious fundamentalist groups.

By mentioning what is known but rarely publicly stated, the Delhi High Court has pushed intelligence to the forefront over obscurantist rantings. It can only be hoped that now Husain will come home again and India will start a reasoned debate on how to disagree in a civilised manner.

Karnataka: Dargah forgotten, locals concerned about land rights, water & coffee

Indian Express, Monday, May 12, 2008

APURVA

Chikamagalur, May 11 : One of the flashpoints during the 2004 Assembly elections involved a 200-year-old dargah located in Chikamagalur district’s Baba Budan Hills. Looking for a foothold in the south, the BJP used the communal tension surrounding it to its advantage in defeating the Congress candidate from the seat. It was a major win, given that the candidate was a Muslim leader and a three-time winner in an area where the Muslims enjoyed a 20 per cent vote share.

This election, nobody is talking of the Baba Budan Dargah Inam Dattatreya Peeta here, including the BJP. It’s local issues which occupy voters’ minds, including rights of tribals in the Kudremukh reserved forests, drinking water and a failing coffee market.

The BJP’s silence, says the Congress, is understandable. “After winning, they have not done anything about the dargah, and that works to our advantage,” says Congress candidate K B Mallikarjuna.

While Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had invited a complaint from the district administration for his provocative speeches on the dargah in 2004, BJP leader Ananth Kumar had promised to make it another Ayodhya. However, on Sunday, while touring Chikamagalur, Kumar — the BJP’s Bangalore MP — made no mention of the shrine.

“Two saints, one a sufi and the other a vedic, settled in the dargah 200 years ago, and since then both Hindus and Muslims visit the shrine. However, the BJP wanted to make it a Hindu shrine and devoted their 2004 campaign to this,” says Vasu H V of the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum.

In the streets of Chikamagalur, located 270 km from Bangalore, the dargah is a forgotten issue. Locals are more concerned about declining demand hitting the coffee plantations, and the fact that nobody is discussing it.

Chikamagalur district also has a strong Naxal presence, and recently tribal rights in the nearby Kudremukh reserved forests have emerged as a major issue. However, again, all parties remain mum on it.

Sidlingappa T G, a local shopkeeper, says: “All the candidates only talk about the state and country and terrorism and not about drinking water or land rights. Last time they created a spark with the dargah and now they refuse to even acknowledge it.”

It’s not surprising that five days before Chikamagalur votes, in the second phase, the important hub for coffee and education is largely undecided about who to vote for.

Cases against M.F. Husain, cultural bigotry and moral vigilantism

The Hindu
May 10, 2008

Editorial

An end to Husain’s travails

By quashing the proceedings in three cases against M.F. Husain, the Delhi High Court has sent a strong message against cultural bigotry and moral vigilantism. The order provides a measure of welcome relief for India’s most celebrated painter, who has suffered terribly at the hands of rank communalists and a criminal justice system that failed to factor in the utter ludicrousness of his so-called offence. Mr. Husain has been living in self-imposed exile in Dubai since 2006, thanks to a vicious and orchestrated campaign by right-wing groups, which charged him with offending religious sentiments through paintings that insulted Bharat Mata (Mother India) and Hindu gods and goddesses. The 92-year-old artist was threatened, his Cuffe Parade residence in Mumbai was ransacked, and exhibitions of his paintings were vandalised. As if this weren’t enough, the harassment spilled over into the legal sphere with lower courts taking cognisance of what were clearly frivolous complaints, resulting in a chain of events — a proclamation declaring the painter an ‘absconder’ and an order to attach his Cuffe Parade residence, not to speak of the many non-bailable warrants.

In observing that frivolous and vexatious complaints that affect the freedom of an individual should be scrutinised strictly at the magisterial level, the Delhi High Court was echoing the Supreme Court which, in a series of judgments, has cautioned lower courts from taking cognisance of them reflexively. In its 192nd report, the Law Commission recommended the enactment of a law to prevent the filing of such litigations (civil and criminal); the Commission framed a model Act by drawing upon laws in force in countries such as Britain, Australia, and Canada that deal very firmly with vexatious litigants. Orders such as the one passed by the Delhi High Court are a good precedent and will act as a check on lower courts, which — instead of upholding freedom of expression — have tended to be extremely accommodating of frivolous complaints. A recent case that made international headlines related to Richard Gere; the Supreme Court had to step in to quash the arrest warrant issued against the famous Hollywood actor for pecking Indian actress Shilpa Shetty on the cheek at a public function in New Delhi. Four more cases, which were registered in different parts of the country and transferred to a lower court in Delhi, survive against Mr. Husain. They are in different stages of the legal process but are similar inasmuch as they relate to the same tired and hollow controversy over the obscenity of his paintings. They would hopefully meet the same legal fate — a firm and forthright quashing.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh explained by Madhu Limaye

Communalism Combat
May 2008

What is the RSS?

A veteran socialist on an ‘age-old enemy’

by Madhu Limaye

I entered political life in 1937. I was quite young then but as I had passed my matriculation examination at a relatively early age, I also entered college quite early. Quite active in Pune in those days were the RSS and the Savarkarites (followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist political organisations on the other. On May 1, 1937 we took out a march to observe May Day. The marchers were attacked by the RSS and Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known revolutionary Senapati Bapat and our socialist leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had serious differences with these Hindutva organisations ever since.

Our first difference with the RSS was over the issue of nationalism. We believed that every citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. But the RSS and the Savarkarites came up with their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. He believed that India was made up of two nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu nation. Savarkar too said the same thing.

The other major difference between us was that we dreamt of the birth of a democratic republic while the RSS claimed that democracy was a western concept that was not appropriate for India. In those days members of the RSS were full of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar) was not only the sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was its ideological guru as well.

There is amazing similarity between the thoughts of Guruji and the Nazis. One of Guruji’s books, We or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several editions, its fourth edition having been published in 1947. At one point in the book, Guruji says, "The non-Hindu people in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead – in a word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights."

In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all their citizenship rights taken away. Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in Germany.

The extent of Guruji’s sympathies for the views of the Nazi Party is evident from the following passage from We or Our Nationhood Defined: "To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by
her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by" (We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).

You might say that this is an old book, of a time when India was in the throes of the struggle for independence. But then there is his second book, Bunch of Thoughts. I cite below an example from this "popular publication" which was brought out in November 1966. In this book, while discussing India’s internal security problem, Guruji identifies three internal dangers. One is Muslims, the second Christians and the third Communists. In Guruji’s view, every Indian Muslim, every Christian and every Communist is a danger to the nation’s security. Such is his ideology.

Our second major difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question. They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of brahminism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can be no economic and social equality in India until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are demolished.

But Guruji says, "Another unique feature of our society was the varna vyavastha (caste system, the former occupation-based classification of society) which is today vilified as jati pratha (a rigid caste system)." He adds, "Society was conceived of in the image of an all-powerful god, of four aspects, who was to be worshipped by different people in their own ways as determined by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was considered great because he was the purveyor of knowledge. The Kshatriya was considered equally great because he destroyed the enemies. The Vaishya was no less important than others because through agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a social need. The Sudra too was important for he served society through his workmanship." Here it is very shrewdly being asserted that through his workmanship the Sudra is fulfilling an important social need. But Chanakya’s Arthashastra, from which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly states that it is the religious duty of the Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji replaces service of the upper castes with "service of society".

The fourth issue on which we differ is that of language. We are in favour of promoting the languages of the people. All regional languages, after all, are indigenous. But what does Guruji have to say on this? Guruji says that for now Hindi should be made the common language for all while the ultimate objective should be to make Sanskrit the national language. He says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "For convenience, Hindi should be given primacy as our link language until such time as Sanskrit is adopted as our national language." Thus Hindi is merely for convenience, the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.

We have had differences over this right from the start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, we too have always been in favour of the regional languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on anyone. We would like to see Tamil as the prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and Bengali in West Bengal. If the non-Hindi speaking states wish to adopt English, it should be up to them. We have no differences with them on this. But Sanskrit is the language of a handful of people, the language of a particular caste. Making Sanskrit the national language means the supremacy of a handful of people over others, something we definitely do not want.

Fifth, the national movement for independence had accepted the idea of a federal state. In a confederation, the centre would definitely have certain powers on specific matters but all others would be a subject matter for the states. But following partition, in a bid to strengthen the centre, the Constitution stipulated a concurrent list. As per this list, several subjects were made concurrent, subjects over which both the centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. What was originally meant to be under the domain of different states was included in the concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. Thus the federal state came into existence.

But the RSS and its chief ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to this basic constitutional provision. These people ridicule the very concept of ‘a union of states’ and maintain that this Constitution, which envisages a confederation of states, should be abolished. Guruji says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "The Constitution must be reviewed and the idea of a unitary state should be written into the new Constitution." Guruji wants a unitary or, in other words, a centralised state. He says that this system of states should be done away with. What he wants is one nation, one state, one legislature and one executive. In other words, he wants to abolish state legislatures and state ministries. That means they wish to see the rule of the stick. If they were to capture power, they would doubtless bring into existence a centralised state.

Another issue was the tricolour, the flag chosen by the national movement. Hundreds of Indians sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt of lathis for the honour and glory of our chosen national flag. But surprisingly, the RSS has never accepted the tricolour as the national flag. It always swore by the saffron flag, asserting that the saffron flag has been the flag of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.

Just as Guruji rejected the concept of a federal state, similarly, he had no faith in a democratic system. He was of the firm view that democracy is a concept imported from the West and the system of parliamentary democracy did not jell with Indian thought and Indian civilisation. As for socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. He repeatedly said that all isms, including socialism and democracy, were alien ideas which should be rejected, that Indian society should be founded on Indian culture. Speaking for ourselves, we believe in parliamentary democracy, in socialism, and we aspire to establish socialism consistent with Gandhian principles in India through peaceful means.

While we were engaged in a struggle against the Congress party’s autocratic rule, our leader, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we should join hands with all opposition forces to save the nation and dislodge from power the Congress party which was responsible for our humiliation at the hands of the Chinese. I had lengthy discussions with Doctorsaheb on the issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept insisting throughout that we cannot have any alliance with the RSS and the Jan Sangh. Ultimately, Doctorsaheb asked me, "Do you accept my leadership or not?" I replied, "Yes, I do." He said it wasn’t necessary for us to agree on every issue or for him to have to convince me on every issue. Let there be an issue or two on which we disagreed. And since he was only thinking of a political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I should cooperate with him, let his idea be given a "trial". Perhaps he would be proven right, he said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced however that a clash between the RSS and the Lohiaite ideologies was inevitable.

It is a fact that we formed an alliance with these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency, increasingly resorted to dictatorial methods, started promoting Sanjay Gandhi and the Maruti scandal surfaced. Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if the opposition did not unite under the banner of a single party it would be impossible to defeat Mrs Gandhi and dictatorship. Choudhary Charan Singh was also of the view that we should come together and form a united party. While we were in jail, we were all asked to give our opinions on the need to form such a party and contest elections. I recall sending a message that in my view we must contest elections. Millions of people would participate in elections. Elections are a dynamic process. As the electoral tempo builds up, the shackles of emergency are bound to snap and people are bound to exercise their democratic right. Therefore, I stressed, we must participate in elections.

Since Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain and other leaders were of the view that without coming together under the banner of one party we could not succeed, we (socialists) too gave it our consent. But I would like to stress that the understanding that was arrived at was between political parties – the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Loktantrik Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. We did not come to any arrangement with the RSS, nor did we accept any of its demands. What is more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that on July 7, 1976 Choudhary Charan Singh had raised the issue of a possible clash of interests because of dual membership when members of the RSS also became members of the new party. In response, the then acting general secretary of the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the proposed party should feel free to formulate whatever membership criteria it wanted. He even said that since the RSS, having faced many constraints, had been dissolved anyway, the question of RSS membership did not arise.

Later, when the constitution of the proposed Janata Party was being drawn up, the subcommittee appointed to draft the constitution proposed that members of any organisation whose aims, policies and programmes were in conflict with the aims, policies and programmes of the Janata Party should not be given membership to the new party. Given the self-evident meaning of such a membership criterion, there was no question of anyone opposing it. However, it is significant that the sole opposition to this came from Sunder Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh). At a meeting convened in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on behalf of the Jan Sangh and the RSS, stating that a section of leaders of the proposed party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be raised in connection with membership of the Janata Party. But several leaders told me that no such assurances were given because the RSS was nowhere in the picture at the time when the idea of a merger of opposition political parties was mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison at the time and even if there was some secret understanding, I had no part in it.

I can categorically assert that the election manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any way reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each point in the manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is it not a fact that the manifesto of the Janata Party spoke of a socialist society based on secular, democratic and Gandhian principles and in which there was no mention of Hindu Rashtra? The manifesto also assured the minorities equal citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their rights. In contrast, Guruji wanted to deny equal citizenship rights to the minorities and wanted them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu Rashtra. The Janata Party was committed to decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish separate states, abolish state legislatures and ministries while the Janata Party emphasised the need for greater decentralisation. In other words, the Janata Party had no desire to snatch away the autonomy of states. The manifesto spoke of socialism, social justice and equality. Did the manifesto state that it upholds the caste system? Did it maintain that the Sudras’ duty was to devote their life in the service of others? On the contrary, the manifesto not only promised that the backward castes would have full opportunity to progress, it pledged special policies for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for them in government jobs.

Yes, it is true that members of the RSS did not genuinely accept the provisions of the party’s election manifesto. It was my contention and I had once even complained in writing to Kushabhau Thakre that during discussions you people (RSS, Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you at heart totally disagree with. That is why your motives are suspect. I wrote this letter to him a long time ago and I have always had doubts about the RSS. I have had these doubts since Doctorsaheb’s time (Dr Ram Manohar Lohia died in 1967). But despite this, the fact remains that to fight dictatorship we entered into a political alliance with them.

Since it was Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji’s desire that all parties should merge for a united opposition to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did not make any compromises, I consented to our coming together. At the same time, I would like to say that from the beginning I was very clear in my mind that to emerge as a unified and a credible body the Janata Party would have to do two things. One, the RSS would have to change its ideology and accept the ideal of a secular democratic state. Two, the various organisations that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi Parishad, would have to dissolve themselves and merge with the secular-minded trade union and student wings of the Janata Party. I was very clear about this from the beginning and as the Janata Party had given me the responsibility to manage the affairs of its trade union and student wings, it was my consistent attempt throughout to ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate existence.

But these people started insisting on their autonomy. In fact, these organisations always function on the dictates of Nagpur (RSS headquarters), they believe in the one leader principle. Take, for example, Guruji himself. Guruji maintained that they create a mind-set which is totally disciplined and where people accept whatever they tell them. This organisation operates on a single principle: one leader. They do not believe in democracy, they have no faith in discussions and debate. They have no economic policy. For example, in his Bunch of Thoughts, Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was deeply saddened, deeply disturbed by the abolition of the zamindari system. But he felt no compassion for the poor.

I told members of the RSS that you must abandon your ideal of organising Hindus alone and find a place for people of all religions within your organisation, that you must merge your different class-based organisations with those of the Janata Party. They responded by saying that this could not be done so soon, that there were very many difficulties involved but they did want to change, bit by bit. They continued to give such evasive replies.

From their behaviour I concluded that they had no intention of changing. Especially after the assembly elections of June 1977, when they managed to gain power in four states and one union territory, after which they began to think that with this newly acquired clout they had no need to change. Now that they had already captured four states, they would gradually also gain control of other states and finally even the centre. The leaders of other political parties in the Janata Party were older leaders who would not live long; and they would ensure that no younger (non-RSS, non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the top.

As is evident from the pages of the Organiser and Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata Party leader who is not from their parivar. I, of course, was their special favourite, the target of special attention. They probably devoted more column space to abusing me than they did even for Mrs Indira Gandhi.

For a protracted period I persisted in dialogue with these people. I recall an occasion when Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) visited me at my residence in Mumbai. Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971 polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule once before the emergency. On the fourth occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and Madhavrao Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim that I made no attempt to talk to them. But I finally reached the conclusion that they have closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.

On the contrary, the RSS specialises in casting young minds in a particular mould from a very young age. The first thing they do is ‘freeze’ the minds of children and of youth, making them impervious. After this they are rendered incapable of responding to other ideas.

Still, I tried. On one occasion I convened a meeting of all trade union leaders. The representatives of all constituents of the Janata Party attended but the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they hurled abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar efforts were made with the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Yuva Morcha but despite all attempts at a merger, they held aloof. This is only because of the RSS’ desire to function as a "super party".

Their aim is not only to enter into every aspect of people’s life but also to control it. In an article written for The Indian Express around that time, George Fernandes used the example of Dattopant Thengdi to make the same point. Thengdi responded by saying that the RSS intended to have all of society under its sway, it would leave no aspect of a person’s life untouched, it would establish its hegemony in every department of life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. Similar views have been repeatedly asserted by Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood Defined, as also in Bunch of Thoughts. No totalitarian organisation allows any space for freedom, its tentacles reach everywhere: art, music, economy, culture. This is the essence of any fascist organisation.

The fact is that the RSS wanted to capture the Janata Party and through it to take control of the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously dangled the carrot of the prime minister’s chair before several Janata Party leaders. On the one hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the end that he was their choice for prime minister. Every now and then they would promise Choudhary Charan Singh that they would support his claim to be prime minister. Concurrently, they kept giving similar assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes. Not once did they dare to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, "Why you, Nanaji (Deshmukh) has never made me such a promise either. They want neither you nor me as prime minister." Anyway, they never made any such suggestion to me, knowing only too well that I would not deny others their due nor would I allow others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you can’t fool this man so what’s the point of promising him anything – it will only make him (Limaye) even more cautious.

What these people (the RSS) do on the odd occasion is however of little importance. Has the RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji’s way of thinking? Only Atalji says that we should all accept the principles of composite nationalism, democracy, socialism, social justice, etc because we cannot move forward without them in today’s world. But Atalji is the only one who says this. I do not trust the other sanghis. These people pleaded for pardon while in prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated Indira Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the Raj Narain case. So I have no faith in the utterances of these people. I am of the firm belief that I could only have trusted these people (erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata Party) if they had ousted RSS leaders from the party, expelled them from the working committee, placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in particular, expelled people like Nanaji Deshmukh, Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from the party.

(Translated by Javed Anand.)

(May 1 marks the 31st anniversary of the united Janata Party and also the 86th birth anniversary of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu Limaye. The above piece, penned by Limaye soon after the split in the Janata Party, was published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. Though dated, many of the issues he raises in the article are relevant even today.)

Ramanujam's 300 Ramayanas essay in Communalism Combat

cover page, Communalism Combat, May 2008
______

An extract from The Collected Essays of AK Ramanujan


Three hundred Ramayans


The epic story’s spectacular journey through the ages: An extract from The Collected
Essays of AK Ramanujan

How many Ramayanas? Three hundred? Three thousand? At the end of some Ramayanas, a question is sometimes asked: How many Ramayanas have there been? And there are stories that answer the question. [. . .]

Read More

Sahmat: India's Secular artists platform welcomes court ruling on the painter M F hussain

Test below of statement by SAHMAT

9 May 2008

SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001

Telephone- 23711276 / 23351424
e-mail: sahmat at vsnl dot com

9.5.2008

The artists community welcomes the Delhi High Court ruling dismissing three criminal cases against the painter M.F. Husain for the supposed crime of obscenity. The court has in our perception, upheld the right to artistic creation and decisively quashed efforts at censorship through street violence and orchestrated legal action by politically motivated groups. The court has importantly, held that there was no intent on the part of the artist to cause offence. Obscenity in this reading, is in the eyes of the viewer. And a difference in perspective cannot be the basis of criminal charges.

We note that despite an earlier ruling from the higher judiciary holding the criminal charges against India’s greatest living painter thoroughly unfounded, the campaign of victimization against him for artistic productions dating back a quarter century or more, has shown no signs of abating. This has compelled the 92-year old artist to seek refuge in a distant country, rather than risk the possibility of arrest on the orders of some over-zealous police official.

We note that police in Mumbai went so far on a recent occasion, to order the sealing of residential premises owned by Husain, for failure to respond to judicial summons in one such case. The possibility that an old and distinguished artist could be subject to the ignominy of summary arrest and prolonged detention, was very real.

Despite the ruling of the Delhi High Court, we observe with concern, that because of procedural complications, four cases are still pending against the artist in the Sessions Court at Patiala House in Delhi, on virtually identical charges. We call upon the judicial authorities concerned to recognize the value of the precedent set in the Delhi High Court ruling and to deal with all pending complaints against Husain accordingly. We call upon the Union Home Ministry to heed the principles laid down in the Delhi High Court ruling – that differences in perspective cannot be the basis of criminal complaints – and to intervene accordingly in the pending cases.

Having been active in the defence of Husain for many years, through public meetings, petitions, symposia and appeals to constitutional authorities like the President and the Home Minister, we feel our stand that Husain’s art is a part of a longstanding evolving tradition of Indian iconography has been vindicated.

The acquittal of Shiv Sena men involved in 1992-93 riots in Bombay

[see 2 news report below re the acquittal of Shiva Sena activists for their role in the 1992-93 riots]

o o o

NDTV.COM

Sena activists acquitted in 1992-93 riots case

Press Trust of India
Friday, May 9, 2008 (Mumbai)
The special riots court on Saturday acquitted Shiv Sena MLA Gajanand Kirtikar, Shiv Sena corporator and member of the standing committee of the BMC Ravindra Waikar along with 18 other Shiv Sena activists and supporters, for lack of evidence.

Kirtikar, Waikar and others were accused of instigating violence and being part of an unlawful assembly during the 1992-93 communal riots in Mumbai. A case against them was registered in the year 2000 by the Jogeshwari police.

Magistrate R C Bapat Sarkar acquitted the 20 accused due to lack of evidence and after the statement of the investigating police officer failed to support the case of the prosecution.

According to the prosecution, Kirtikar and other Shiv Sena leaders took out a march on December seven, 1992 and allegedly pelted stones outside a mosque in Jogeshwari, a north western suburb in Mumbai.

When the police stopped the march, Kirtikar and Waikar led the supporters to the police station where they allegedly misbehaved with the police officers. The police, instead of registering the offence, immediately made an entry in the station diary about the incidence.

However, the police could not produce the diary before the court reasoning that the diary had been lost in the span of 16 years. Based on this, the court acquitted all the accused due to insufficient evidence against them, advocate Jaiprakash Bagoria appearing for Kirtikar said.

''We have been falsely implicated in this case by the Congress government, who did it to pacify their Muslim voting bank,'' Waikar said after he was acquitted by the court.

He added that when the special riots court was set up and several riots cases were reopened, not a single case was made against any Congress activist or leader. ''We went there only to pacify the crowd but instead we were charged. The Congress tried to gain political mileage out of this,'' Waikar added.

According to Kirtikar, there was no evidence or witness against them and yet this case was dragged for 16 years only to insult us. ''There has been no wrong doing on the part of the Shiv Sena,'' he asserted.

o o o


Six Sena men acquitted in '92 riots case

CNN-IBN

TimePublished on Fri, May 09, 2008 at 17:33, Updated at Fri, May 09, 2008 in Nation section


LET OFF: It is the first acquittal of Shiv Sena men in the 1992-93 Mumbai riots case.


Mumbai: In a big blow to the prosecution, the special riots court on Friday acquitted six Shiv Sena men including Sena MLA Gajanan Kirtikar and Corporator Ravindra Waikar who were charged of unlawful assembly and instigating violence during the 1992-93 riots in Mumbai.

It is the first acquittal of Shiv Sena men in the riots case.

In all 20 persons were acquitted by Magistrate RC Bapat Sarkar for lack of evidence and the failure of the investigating officer's statement failed to prove the prosecution's case.

The other Sena men who were accused Nandkumar Kale, Raghunath Kadam, Shridhar Khade and Laltaprasad Singh. Corporator Waikar currently heads the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Standing Committee.

A complaint had been filed against the 20 persons at suburban Jogeshwari police station on December 7, 1992, in connection with two different cases for unlawful assembly and instigating violence.

The six were booked under section 39 of Bombay Police Act (unlawful assembly), various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for instigating violence and 153 (a) of the Indian Penal Code for the conspiracy.

So far there have been only two convictions while around 40 persons have been acquitted in the on going trial of the 1992-93 riots.

CNN-IBN Correspondent Toral Varia reports that the Special Task Force (STF), which is the prosecuting agency in the riots case, was set up in January 2000 by the Democratic Front government.

According to the STF's brief, it was to prosecute those found guilty by the Srikrishna Commission. But even after presenting all the evidences and cross-examining witnesses, 40 people have been acquitted and only two held guilty in the riots case.

The Srikrishna Commission had found guilty many Shiv Sena workers of being involved in the riots that took place after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

But with more and more people being acquitted, it seems that the STF has failed to build up a strong case.

From Caste to Communal Violence in Gujarat

Book review:

Communalism, Caste and Hindu Nationalism: The Violence in Gujarat
by Ornit Shahni

ISBN 978-0-521-86513-5 hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-68369-2 paperback

Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521683692 ]
--------------

Frontline
Volume 25 - Issue 10 :: May. 10-23, 2008

BOOKS

Origins of hatred

A.G. NOORANI

How caste conflicts turned into communal violence in Gujarat.


NOT long ago L.K. Advani famously declared that "studies on the working relationship between the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] and the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] have been done, unfortunately, in large number by foreigners. In the Indian media [sic.], any writing of all this is absurd, even amusing." That he did not care to mention Indian academia shows his scant respect for swadeshi scholarship. He must be held to his words.

Two decades ago, Walter K. Anderson and Shridhar D. Damle accurately described the nexus in their book The Saffron Brotherhood. "It is questionable if the BJP could survive politically without the RSS cadres." Advani's sack from the BJP's presidency and reinstatement, both by the RSS, prove the point.

But if the foreigner is so insightful about the nexus, his research on the Sangh Parivar's complicity in riots and pogroms merits equal respect. He cannot be accused of "pseudo-secularism", a term coined by K.M. Munshi, or "minorytism", coined by Dr. Gopal Singh. (Advani can never be original. He needs intellectual crutches.)

Ornit Shani is lecturer in Asian Studies at Haifar University in Israel, the Parivar's favourite foreign country. Her work is based on intensive field work in Ahmedabad on several visits. Besides conducting interviews, she worked in its libraries, the archives - there and in Britain - and various institutions such as the Municipal Corporation and the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association. On solid research is based incisive analysis and an original theme. Why did distinct groups of Hindus, deeply divided by caste, mobilise on the basis of unitary Hindu nationalism? Why was the rhetoric about the threat from an impoverished Muslim minority so persuasive?

It is shameful to talk of Muslim appeasement when Muslims are underprivileged, discriminated against and, in large sections, impoverished. Her thesis is that intensifying caste tensions found expression in the pogrom against Muslims. Go back to 1990. Threatened by V.P. Singh's decision to implement the Mandal report, Advani responded immediately by launching the rath yatra to unite Hindus on an anti-Muslim agenda.

It is amazing how "caste conflicts turned into communal violence" as in Gujarat in 1985 and in India in 1990. The theory of Hindutva appealed to the upper castes and the urban middle class. "The disposition of all-Hindus against Muslims was formed as some segments of forward-caste Hindus found the cause of their own `limited' mobility in these governments' preferential treatment of minorities. Communalism grew, then, in the interstices between the interrelations of caste and class. The threat that Hindu nationalists claimed to be posed by Muslims actually expressed a fear about the peril of violating the Hindu social and moral order from within."

INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP

Muslim girls in a closed shop, during the communal violence in Ahmedabad in March 2002.

The rise of communalism and the formation of a "Hindu identity" since the 1980s are described in this book as ethno-Hinduism. They were driven by tensions between members of minority groups among Hindus. The author examines how communalism is related to caste and to the state's reservation policies and their discourse. This analysis of the interconnections between caste, class, communalism and the state is developed gradually in the book.

The book argues that "both caste and communal conflicts, despite the potential contradiction between them, ? stem from similar social processes, and that caste is inextricably linked to the rise of communalism since the 1980s". It was caste conflicts that fostered communalism in the 1980s and 1990s.

"While militant Hinduism assumes and tries to promote the principle of a unitary Hindu identity, caste conflicts demonstrate deep divisions among Hindus. Furthermore, the Hindu caste groups that propelled Hindu nationalism were also the primary generative forces behind caste agitations. Indeed, the rhetoric of Hindutva about the appeasement of Muslims by the state, and the attempt to portray them as a threat to Hindus, has appealed primarily to upper-caste and urban-middle class Hindus, who are particularly anxious about compensatory reservation policies for lower- and backward-caste Hindus."

Shifts in the caste order were related to the rising antagonism against Muslims fostered by the Sangh Parivar. The state helped by its inaction - as in Mumbai in 1992-1993 - or by active participation as in Gujarat. There was, as Shani puts it, "a massacre of Muslims in many parts of the State". This is what Advani calls "communal violence" in contrast to "mass killings" at Godhra.

The book describes the background with its politics of reservation and caste, the 1985 Ahmedabad riots and "the making of ethno-Hinduism". Shani was in Ahmedabad at the time of "the 2002 pogrom". It was foretold. "The state apparatus revealed themselves to be totally mobilised to the benefit of Hindu nationalist forces. In many instances the police led Hindu rioters in their onslaught."

The BJP was in political decline when the Godhra incident took place on February 28, 2002. The State government "has yet to provide evidence to support its claim that the Godhra incident was a pre-meditated terrorist attack".

Narendra Modi went to town on this cry as did his leaders in Delhi. For "once the Hindu-Muslim divide that rested upon intangible hostilities became less acute the underlying tensions among Hindus surfaced" and "once the tensions along the boundaries of difference among Hindus had come to the fore, the ill-defined sectarian boundaries, which upper-caste propagators of Hindu nationalism exploited to mitigate the rising aspirations of the lower and backward castes, regained political relevance".

It remains to be seen how in the months to come the BJP resolves its differences, now that it has done its worst in Gujarat.?

Hindutva merry-go-rounds for Bangalore techies

The Telegraph
May 8 , 2008

Rich techies on weekend 'guilt' trips to Sangh

by Radhika Ramaseshan

CHASING AN INDIAN DREAM?

Bangalore, May 7: IT executive Shrichand Kaushik, 25, doesn’t waste his Saturdays and Sundays at parties or spas. He heads to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh office for a bout of soul-searching.

Neither does Guru Prasad, a young Infosys employee, spend the weekend watching the IPL boys and girls or lazing about the house. He, too, makes it to the Sangh state headquarters, where he can meet Lokesh B.H. and M.P. Kumar, the CEOs of Ratna Rai Infotech and Global Edge Solutions.

They are all regulars at the IT milan, held on the lines of the Sangh parivar’s Diwali and Holi milans.

Every fortnight for the past one year, scores of young Bangalore techies have been gathering at these meetings, feeling sheepish about skipping their share of the daily shakhas and hoping to exorcise the guilt through the milans.

The meetings end with the members singing the Sangh anthem, “Namaste sadaa, vatsale mathrubhoomi (salutations, ever-loving motherland)”, their right hand placed over the chest. Some of the wealthy yuppies even turn out in the Sangh’s khaki knickers.

Most are aged between 25 and 35, and include junior, middle-level and senior executives, some of them already millionaires. Word of mouth has increased the attendance from around 25 at the beginning to about 100.

They discuss the issues of the day and not business or office politics, and wonder if it’s worth their while stashing up the bucks if they cannot “share a part of it with society”.

The guilt trips that the gatherings are have sometimes yielded tangible results, like a corpus for scholarships for poor but “bright and meritorious” students.

Some of the techies’ attraction is born out of faith in the Sangh’s ideology of a “strong nation”. For others, the “sanitised” lifestyle of the swayamsevak (Sangh volunteer) is an ideal to aspire to.

Few of them would admit they see the Sangh as a springboard to a political career in the BJP. But the enthusiasm with which they have virtually taken over the party’s central election office makes one wonder if the impulse is merely “social service”.

The milans may be a fortnightly business, but with the Karnataka polls drawing near, the BJP’s Malleshwaram office in the heart of Bangalore is overrun with the IT boys at any time of the day.

They have created a portal that is a political analyst’s dream. The databases are so well updated that a click will tell you which leader is campaigning where and when, apart from other sundry details.

In their oversized bush shirts and jeans, the clean-shaven techies with their crew cuts stand out from the tilak-wearing Sangh-BJP worker in kurta-pyjamas.

Oozing attitude and flitting from room to room, the boys refer to the senior leaders by their first names. Arun Jaitley is “Arunji” for party officials but to the IT lads, he’s just Arun, a “pioneer and practitioner of IT in politics”.

The Kaushiks and Prasads speak with as much authority on the state elections, and how poorly the Congress and H.D. Deve Gowda’s party are placed, as on ancient Indian history — or their versions of it. They claim to know as much about the future of the Sangh as about that of the IT industry.

“Anything modern need not be western,” says Kumar, arguing globalisation and the Sangh are “perfectly compatible”.

Asked how many techies are in the Sangh, the answer ranges from 2,000 to 1 lakh, including those from Mysore and Mangalore, the state’s other IT hubs.

But, Lokesh explains, the IT milans are confined to small, “manageable” groups so that the discussions and debates don’t wander off-course. The Sangh doesn’t maintain membership records, claiming “voluntary participation” lies at the core of its credo.

So why are they here? Kaushik, a senior executive with Torry Harris Business Solutions, cites “Indianisation” as his inspiration.

“It’s erroneously called Hindutva, but I want to quote a Hindi adage that says the world will awaken only when the Hindu awakens and when the world awakens, only then will humanity gather faith in itself.”

Kaushik claims there is no contradiction between his version of “Indianisation” and globalisation, which spawned the industry that has turned him into a millionaire at 25.

“To understand a country you must understand its history, and globalisation has clouded this understanding,” he says.

For Prasad, the Sangh is like a personality-development kit. “I have understood the traditional values of India, the family and social values, through the Sangh.”

Hindutva boss and his scientist friends do it with OM made coconuts

[Amazing, how big guns of the India's space programme, and also the celebrated Queen bee of the ecologist alternative circuit feel like fish in water with a Hindutva ideologue who markets Astrology and 'Vedic Maths', and defends a war against India's minorities, among other things. Posted below is a report of a book release party where the happy extended family played ball -CW]

o o o

Indian Express
May 08, 2008

At his book release, Joshi enforces his image of a ‘swayamsevak-scholar’

Express News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 7: Top BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi on Wednesday used his book release function to project himself as a thoroughbred “swayamsevak-scholar steeped in India’s value system”. A fortnight after RSS chief K S Sudarshan said in the presence of the party’s prime ministerial candidate L K Advani that Deendayal Upadhyay’s integral humanism should be made “a compulsory reading for the partymen”, Joshi reminded his audience that his book “Science Sustainability and Indian National Resurgence” was essentially compilation of 24 lectures. He started delivering these when “he was an ordinary Bharatiya Jana Sangh worker and was initiated into Upadhyay’s integral humanism”.

India's Economy Free Speech Hindu God

The setting and symbolism of the function were meant to reinforce his brand equity as a leader distinct from Advani. Apart from the academics and scientists who shared the dais with him, Joshi mentioned the names of VHP leader Ashok Singhal and RSS pointman for BJP, Suresh Soni, sitting in the front row — “with whom he had conversations on varied themes, dealt with in the book, on many occasions”.

Joshi devoted much of his speech to the synergy between science and philosophy “that the West is beginning to acknowledge only now”.

Apart from his speech on science, sustainable development, and India’s national resurgence, it was the imagery that stood out. Vedic chants and a coconut each greeted the scientists and scholars on the dais while a message from Kanchi Shankaracharya was read out at the very beginning.

While he dwelt on themes like “Einstein enjoying an undue advantage over Bose”, or the “Western science system only a little over 300 years old”, he also hit out at the prevalent economic system in the country. “Why didn't we adopt a system suitable to our country?” he asked, in an apparent reference to many governments, including the BJP-led NDA, in the last decade. While Prof MGK Menon unveiled the book, Prof K Kastrurirangan and Vandana S[h]iva were on the panel of speakers.

Conversion: a political weapon in India

Conversion: a political weapon

by Ram Puniyani (May 6, 2008)

These days one has been hearing a lot about the conversion activities of Christian missionaries. That there is a threat to Hindu nation due to Adivasis converting to a 'foreign religion' is becoming part of 'social common sense' by now. Yes conversions are going on, but the real face of the conversion came to fore when the attack on nuns in Alibaug near Mumbai (March 2008) was followed by a massive conversion of Adivasis to Hinduism, Shuddhi ritual (April 27, 2008) in Mumbai. The person involved in both these has been the same. In the attack on the Adivasis, the followers of Sadguru Narendra Maharaj of Ramanandcharya Peeth were involved and in the elaborate Shuddhi ritual the Guru himself led the conversion. Talking on the occasion he said the Hindus are being reduced to a pitiable minority in the country because of the activities of Christian missionaries. He also came down heavily on the central Government for not pushing through the anti conversion bill and criticized the Maharashtra Government for passing the anti Superstition bill. According to him both these steps are anti Hindu.

His claim that Hindus are being reduced to minority is a stuff of make believe world as demographically India's Hindu population is fairly stable. Also though there is a marginal decline in the population of Christians, this again is close to negligible. If we consider the occasional change in the logistics of conducting the census one can explain the marginal rise/decline of one or the other community and this has not much to do with proselytizing by any religious group. The example of this is the inclusion of Kashmir in 2001 census due to which the overall percentage of Muslim population seemed to have gone up and the total population of Hindus seemed to dip slightly.

The criticism by Guru, Narendra Maharaj, is against the grain of Indian constitution, goals of enlightenment and progress of rationalism in the society. The anti conversion bills which many state Governments have passed/are passing are totally against several articles of our constitution. Our constitution encourages the promotion of rational thought, in pursuance of which Maharashtra Government has done the laudable job of passing anti superstition bill. Those opposing this bill surely want the persistence of blind faith in society, it is this which strengthens their social and political clout and Guru is forthright as far as that is concerned. The same Guru's followers are adept to violence off and on. In Alibaug the people had assembled to hear a lecture on AIDS awareness when his followers assaulted the nuns. Again his followers were earlier involved in an act of rampage following the airport security staff not permitting his holy dandam (Staff) to be carried on the flight along with him.

How does one understand the rising incidence of violence in Adivasi areas? One recalls just around the Christmas time, massive violence was unleashed in Kandhmal and Phulbani districts of Orissa. In most of the Adivasi areas Dangs, Gujarat, Jhabua Madhya Pradesh, areas of Orissa, there has been a recurrent violence. It is these areas which have seen the conversion of Adivasis into Hindu fold. One must clarify that Adivasis are Animists, neither Christians nor Hindus. While some conversions to Christianity have been occurring they are not new as Christianity has been here from centuries. These conversions are due to many reason, missionaries work in the area of education being the main ones. This is nothing new. Also it is a slow process. In recent times on the contrary the overall population of Christians has been declining marginally (1991-2.60%, 1981-2.44%, 1991-2.34, 2001-2.30%) Part of the conversion surly is due to some groups amongst Christian missionaries who do believe in aggressive proselytization. The Adivasi areas have invited the wrath of RSS combine from last two decades in particular since Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, an RSS affiliate intensified its activities in Adivasi areas.

The pattern of RSS affiliate activities is fairly uniform in the Adivasi belt spread from Dangs in Gujarat to Kandhmal in Orissa. There is the EKAL Vidyalaya, a single teacher school to give very elementary education. Then there is a vicious anti Christian propaganda leading to violence. This violence is low intensity and recurrent and lately it is orchestrated more around the Christmas time. Since this takes place in remote places the culprits can get away easily and on the top of that a communalized state apparatus is very helpful to those RSS affiliates who unleash the violence. In these areas various Godmen with RSS affiliation, direct or indirect, have been setting up their Ashrams, Aseemanand; Dangs and Lakshmananand in Orissa are amongst the two major such, who are working for these conversions in various ways. In MP, Jhabua, the followers of Asaram Bapu have been taking to violence and now we witness that in the anti Christian violence in Maharashtra, the followers of Narendra Maharaj are active.

There are multiple processes through which these conversions have been undertaken. Usually violence and intimidation is accompanied by cultural cooption. This latter has been done by holding huge Hindu Sangams (Congregations) like in Jhabua, and in Rajasthan and by holding Shabri kumbh (religious congregation in the name of the destitute adivasi woman Shabri, e.g. in Dangs. The conversion has been the major political tool of Dilip Singh Judeo, one who was caught taking bribe while he was forest minister, who has been doing this in Adivasi areas of Madhya Pradesh from last several years. The term Sanskritzation can also help us understand these conversions, an expectation of upward mobility in social hierarchy. The process of conversion to Hinduism has been called Ghar Vapsi or Shuddhikaran on the premise that Adivasis are Hindus. Here the definition of Hindu is not a religious one but a political one. Theologically religion is defined according to holy book, the revered deity and the clergy. Since Hinduism is not a prophet based religion its latest definition was constructed in early 20th century as religion of all those who regard this land as their father land and holy land (Savarkar). This is unmindful of the fact that Advasis are primarily animists and do not fall in the category of religion as a social phenomenon applicable to Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc.

Adivasis are the most deprived lot of the society and RSS combine has targeted them for political reasons, not for their own welfare. As during the early 1920s, to consolidate the communal politics, Shuddhi movement (Hindu Communalism) was unleashed in parallel to Tanzim (Muslim communalism), now again the Shuddhi is back to strengthen the communal politics. The only difference is that during the twentieth century it was parallel to Tanzim, now it has been constructed around the fear of Christians to consolidate its social base and practice. Interestingly the concept of purity and pollution of Brahminical tradition are displayed very prominently in this process. Brahminical rigidities have a clearly defined pure and polluted. While some right wing politicians assert that many other religions look down upon other religions, we the Hindus recognize all to be equal. As per this word Shuddhi, those who are not Hindus are regarded as polluted and so this purification ritual for bringing them into the fold of Hinduism, which by implication is pure. Various types of baths given at the time of conversion signify this purification, external cleansing signifying total purity, which makes one fit enough to be Hindu. Interestingly after the Chavdar Talao and Mahad agitation by Dr. Ambedkar, the lake, which was polluted due to Shudras touching it, was purified by mixing cow dung in the same.

Ghar Vapasi word has been cleverly coined. While browbeating Christian missionaries for conversions, to say that 'we' are also converting Adivasis will sound as if 'we' are also doing similar thing. So while what others do is despicable conversion, what 'we' do is to bring them to their original home! The propaganda behind this says that Adivasis are essentially those Hindus who ran away to forests to escape the conversions by Muslim kings. In forests they kept living for long because of which they kept sliding down on the scale of social hierarchy. This concoction serves two purposes. One, it feeds into the misconception that Islam spread by sword. Second, if Adivasis are original inhabitants then Aryans/Hindus who came from outside, are also akin to 'foreigner' Muslim and Christians. This in turn will weaken the Hindu nation's claim as first comers and so the sole proprietors of this land, country or whatever. Accordingly Adivasis are called Vanvasis and the claim of this land being Hindu nation, the one belonging to first comers, Aryans-Hindus holds the ground. This way Hindu nation's claim on the country becomes stronger, as they can also claim to be its original inhabitants.

The attention to Adivasis, to throw away Christian Missionaries from those areas and to co-opt Adivasis to Hindu fold, became overt from the decade of 1980, coinciding with the rise of Ram Janm bhumi campaign, coinciding with global rise of identity politics and local rise of communal politics. This came with RSS combine's realization that to impose Hindu rashtra in this country the electoral majority is needed as a starting point. And this 8% population can be the wonderful electoral base for the right wing politics. The second advantage is that by indoctrinating them they can be unleashed against the 'other enemies' of Hindu nation, like Muslims, as witnessed in Gujarat, where they were used as ideal foot soldiers for the agenda of Hindu Rashtra.

While one has no problems with the peaceful missionary work of Ramakrishna mission or Christian missionaries one is aghast at this new phenomenon, violence followed by conversions, in our society whose primary focus is political, though couched in the language of religion. More human welfare activities in these areas, more emphasis on human rights concerns of this marginalized section of society are what are needed. By emphasizing on blind faith, by spreading hate against other section of society, this phenomenon started by the ilk of Gurus is very dangerous to national Integration and country's progress.