Deccan Herald
25 December 2009
Is it a new chapter?
by Kuldip Nayar
The BJP’s mentor, the RSS, should learn a lesson from our neighbouring country. Religion does not unify a country, pluralism does.
This was like searching for a needle in the haystack. I was looking for a word of remorse or regret in the reams of statements by the BJP on the Liberhan Commission’s report on demolition of the Babri masjid and on the stepping down of L K Advani from the office of opposition leader in the Lok Sabha. But I was disappointed.
Not that I was expecting a change of heart in the party. Yet I imagined that some leaders, at least from among the young who are supposed to have taken over the reins of the party, would feel sorry for the masjid’s destruction and the killing of hundreds in the wake. It would have sent a message that the BJP was trying to shake off its past and paving a new path of conciliation and consensus.
Instead, there was defiance and justification of demolition in the observations that the BJP leaders made. Remorse was needed, not to humiliate the BJP but to let it realise that a society, founded on the spirit of accommodation, expected the wrong-doers to make amends.
Advani has gone to the extent of saying that the high mark in his political career was the ‘rath yatra’ from the Somnath temple to Ayodhya where the Babri masjid stood till Dec 6, 1992. Still the din raised by the BJP and other leaders of the Sangh Parivar cannot drown the charge that they are responsible for the destruction and the death right up to Mumbai where scores were killed in early 1993.
The Liberhan Commission has named Advani as one of the 64 accomplices in the destruction of the masjid. There is nothing to ensure that action will be taken against any one of them. What should the nation infer if they get away with all that they did?
Sushma Swaraj has replaced Advani as leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha. The change of personalities does not usher a new chapter, the change of policies does. The BJP has given no evidence to suggest that it has jettisoned its communal agenda or that it has distanced from the fanatic RSS which has imposed its trusted man, Nitin Gadkari, as the party’s head in place of Rajnath Singh. It is the same old wine of the RSS prowess in a new bottle.
In the face of the Congress party’s arrogance, the BJP can attract support provided it does not follow the Hindutva line. At present, the BJP is part of the mob which is out to destroy the country’s ethos of pluralism. It has no faith even in India’s constitution, which consecrates secularism in the preamble itself.
No punitive action
The Manmohan Singh government has placed before parliament the Action Taken Report (ART) on the Liberhan Commission’s findings. But, shockingly, the government does not contemplate any punitive action against those who planned and pulled down the masjid.
True, Justice Liberhan did something unpardonable when he took 17 years to submit the report which also has some howlers. The BJP only concentrated on those to defend itself. But the verbal mistakes do not falsify the fact of demolition.
No doubt, the Muslim community would feel betrayed if the 64 people named by the commission go scot-free after what they have done. But the nation on the whole would equally be horrified if the guilty are not punished. The majesty of law would come down tumbling. And communalists would have a shot in their arm.
It is already a bad scenario which the country faces. The killing of 3,000 Sikhs at Delhi in 1984, nearly 100 Christians in Orissa two years ago and some 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 has disfigured Indians image as a pluralistic society. In fact, the message going around is that the minorities are not safe. On top of it, if there is no action on the Liberhan Commission’s recommendations, India may damage its secular credentials beyond repair.
That the BJP is a rightist party is understandable. The Congress is more or less the same. What is not acceptable is the BJP’s communal approach because it poses a threat to the very idea of India, the concept of unity and secularism. The RSS, the BJP’s mentor, should learn a lesson from the neighbouring country. Religion does not unify the country, pluralism does.
The pull of religion could not check the Bangladeshis separating from Pakistan because the Urdu speaking west Pakistanis did not accommodate the language, Bengali. The LTTE was a product of the Sinhalese inability to cope with the Tamil identity in Sri Lanka than that of the Tigers assertion. When the BJP ruled the country for six years, it kept aside its agenda of mandir.
The party can begin a new chapter only if it stops using religion for achieving its political ends. When the BJP stands in the way of punishment to the culprits in Gujarat or those who demolished the Babri masjid, the party only proves that it prefers wallowing in the waters of bigotry and communalism to seeking the secure shores of secularism. The day the people see that the BJP has stopped mixing religion with politics, they will consider that the party has begun a new chapter.
|
December 25, 2009
December 22, 2009
Hindutva Men who organised the Goa Blast linked to Abhinav Bharat too
Indian Express, Dec 21, 2009
Sanstha men in Goa blast had Sadhvi, Purohit links
by Prashant Rangnekar
[Photo] Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur
File: Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur is among 11 Abhinav Bharat members arrested in connection with 2008 Malegaon blast.
Days after the National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the probe into the Diwali bomb blast in Goa, police in the state have said they have found links between the Sanatan Sanstha members blamed for the blast and the Hindu extremists of Abhinav Bharat accused in the September 2008 Malegaon bomb blast.
The Goa Police investigation have unearthed phone records to show that some key members of the two Hindu groups had been in touch in the past and this was one of the reasons for the case to be handed over to the NIA, sources here said. The NIA took over the investigation on December 17.
“I can only say that this case has links with Sadhvi (Pragya) and Colonel (Shrikant) Purohit,” Goa’s Inspector-General of Police K D Singh told The Indian Express. “There is evidence... It would be inappropriate to share more information as the case has now been handed over to the National Investigating Agency.”
Ads by Google Study Diplomacy Online Accredited Master in Contemporary Diplomacy and short online courseswww.diplomacy.eduIsrael Diplomacy Master Live in Israel & Study in English Order a Free MA Diplomacy Catalog!rris.idc.ac.il/diploHotel Reviews and Deals Find Deals, Read Reviews from Real People. Get the Truth. Then Go.www.TripAdvisor.com
Sources in Goa Police said that they found the links when investigating the backgrounds of Malgounda Patil and Yogesh Naik, the two Sanatan members who were killed after one of the three bombs they were allegedly planting at a Diwali celebration in Margao went off on the night of October 16.
“When we checked call records from January this year, we found that he was in touch with a close family member of Purohit. After analysing call records before January 2009, we found calls between Patil and Sadhvi Pragya before the (Malegaon) blast,” one officer said.
Investigators also suspect that Patil may have been in touch with Purohit. Patil is believed to have had several mobile phone SIMs procured using fake identity documents.
“This is probably one of the reasons why Patil managed to evade investigating agencies in the past,” the officer said, adding that at least one of Patil’s SIMs had been procured using a fake voter ID card bearing the picture of a lawyer working with the state law department.
“Patil was the managing trustee of a trust which had more than 70 bank accounts across the country and also had connections all over the country. The money collected in the name of religion was deposited in his account. Since the accounts are spread across the country, it would be appropriate for NIA to investigate where the money was spent,” the officer said.
Goa Police have since arrested 28-year-old Vinay Talekar, who had an MBA in Human Resources and was working with a local five-star hotel, and an alleged accomplice, Vinayak Patil.
They have also picked up Dhananjay Ashtekar who was studying engineering in Kolhapur district in Maharashtra, and Dilip Mangaonkar, who had links with the Sanstha. While Talekar and Vinayak Patil have been accused of planting the fourth bomb in Sancaole town near Margaon, Ashtekar is suspected of helping assemble the explosives.
Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and Col. Purohit are among 11 Abhinav Bharat members arrested in connection with the September 29, 2008, Malegaon blast in which six people were killed. As reported by The Indian Express earlier, Malgounda Patil is also said to have been in touch with Sanatan member Vikram Bhave, who was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad last year in connection with the crude bombs planted on the outskirts of Mumbai.
Sanstha men in Goa blast had Sadhvi, Purohit links
by Prashant Rangnekar
[Photo] Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur
File: Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur is among 11 Abhinav Bharat members arrested in connection with 2008 Malegaon blast.
Days after the National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the probe into the Diwali bomb blast in Goa, police in the state have said they have found links between the Sanatan Sanstha members blamed for the blast and the Hindu extremists of Abhinav Bharat accused in the September 2008 Malegaon bomb blast.
The Goa Police investigation have unearthed phone records to show that some key members of the two Hindu groups had been in touch in the past and this was one of the reasons for the case to be handed over to the NIA, sources here said. The NIA took over the investigation on December 17.
“I can only say that this case has links with Sadhvi (Pragya) and Colonel (Shrikant) Purohit,” Goa’s Inspector-General of Police K D Singh told The Indian Express. “There is evidence... It would be inappropriate to share more information as the case has now been handed over to the National Investigating Agency.”
Ads by Google Study Diplomacy Online Accredited Master in Contemporary Diplomacy and short online courseswww.diplomacy.eduIsrael Diplomacy Master Live in Israel & Study in English Order a Free MA Diplomacy Catalog!rris.idc.ac.il/diploHotel Reviews and Deals Find Deals, Read Reviews from Real People. Get the Truth. Then Go.www.TripAdvisor.com
Sources in Goa Police said that they found the links when investigating the backgrounds of Malgounda Patil and Yogesh Naik, the two Sanatan members who were killed after one of the three bombs they were allegedly planting at a Diwali celebration in Margao went off on the night of October 16.
“When we checked call records from January this year, we found that he was in touch with a close family member of Purohit. After analysing call records before January 2009, we found calls between Patil and Sadhvi Pragya before the (Malegaon) blast,” one officer said.
Investigators also suspect that Patil may have been in touch with Purohit. Patil is believed to have had several mobile phone SIMs procured using fake identity documents.
“This is probably one of the reasons why Patil managed to evade investigating agencies in the past,” the officer said, adding that at least one of Patil’s SIMs had been procured using a fake voter ID card bearing the picture of a lawyer working with the state law department.
“Patil was the managing trustee of a trust which had more than 70 bank accounts across the country and also had connections all over the country. The money collected in the name of religion was deposited in his account. Since the accounts are spread across the country, it would be appropriate for NIA to investigate where the money was spent,” the officer said.
Goa Police have since arrested 28-year-old Vinay Talekar, who had an MBA in Human Resources and was working with a local five-star hotel, and an alleged accomplice, Vinayak Patil.
They have also picked up Dhananjay Ashtekar who was studying engineering in Kolhapur district in Maharashtra, and Dilip Mangaonkar, who had links with the Sanstha. While Talekar and Vinayak Patil have been accused of planting the fourth bomb in Sancaole town near Margaon, Ashtekar is suspected of helping assemble the explosives.
Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and Col. Purohit are among 11 Abhinav Bharat members arrested in connection with the September 29, 2008, Malegaon blast in which six people were killed. As reported by The Indian Express earlier, Malgounda Patil is also said to have been in touch with Sanatan member Vikram Bhave, who was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad last year in connection with the crude bombs planted on the outskirts of Mumbai.
A new book on anti-Sikh riots
Book Review / The Hindu, December 22, 2009
A chronicle of anti-Sikh riots
by Bhupendra Yadav
The book meanders through the “murder of Sikhs” “what the state was doing” and the “men behind the violence”
I ACCUSE… — The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984: Jarnail Singh; Penguin Books India Pvt. Limited, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 350.
On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George Bush Jr was in Baghdad. Two shoes were hurled at him by Muntadar al-Zaidi, a journalist. Muntadar was sentenced to a year in prison. On April 7, 2009, Jarnail Singh hurled a shoe at Union Minister P. Chidambaram to express his frustration at continued inaction against anti-Sikh rioters of 1984. Jarnail Singh, a reporter, was not prosecuted but he lost his job. The book under review is Singh’s account of the incident, its ba ckground and consequences.
Bloodbaths
Democracy in India has got soaked in blood many times. Class violence apart, there have been cases of group/mob violence before 1984 and after. Assam’s Nellie massacre in 1983 was worse than the 1984 anti-Sikh violence. Post-Babri Masjid demolition, there was group violence in Mumbai in 1992, about which we have a report by the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry. Then, in 2002, came the Gujarat pogrom, the cases related to which are still under investigation. Six years on, Orissa was the scene of murderous attacks on members of the Christian community. In all these incidents, mobs were successful in committing unspeakable atrocities on hapless victims. Worse, most culprits are roaming free, with impunity.
The anti-Sikh violence of 1984, which resulted in the death of around 2,500 people, has many chroniclers, and Jarnail Singh is the latest. Among the chroniclers, some are of the sectarian ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ variety and some are of the non-sectarian, democratic, human rights type.
Punjab was not just the land of economic plenty. It also became the land of ecological nightmares, social disparity, and cultural distortion. Men from the dominant caste, say keen observers of Punjabi culture, are given to boasting on three counts — that they are enterprising Singhs, unlike ‘bhaiyas’; martial, not sissy; and Jats, not Dalits. Such a mindset inevitably courts collision with the ‘others’ of different hues.
And the movement for Khalistan was built around supremacist delusions born out of it. The Khalistan agitation consumed its own offsprings, although the saga has its home-grown panegyrists. Between 1981 and 1993, it claimed the lives of 11,694 people, of whom 7,139 (61 per cent) were Sikhs, says K.P.S. Gill in The Knights of Falsehood (1997).
In the non-sectarian category, Uma Chakravarti and Nandita Haksar got together to record the horrific events from a secular viewpoint. The Delhi Riots: Three Days in the Life of a Nation (1987) was the outcome of their joint venture.
The police did some good work in securing peace for Punjab but then they were guilty of unconscionable excesses too. The human rights perspective is available in the work of Ram Narayan Kumar (1953-2009). Kumar, who hailed from Andhra Pradesh, co-founded the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab and co-authored Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab (2003), which provided a wealth of information on 600 cases of human rights violation. Taking cognisance of that information, the National Human Rights Commission initiated follow-up action and trials are on in some cases.
Twists and turns
Jarnail Singh’s book is a 165-page ‘quickie’ containing six chapters. Beginning with October 31, 1984 — the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated — it meanders through the “murder of Sikhs,” “what the state was doing,” and the “men behind the violence” before reaching the climax, the shoe-throwing episode.
Born to a migrant carpenter, the author grew up in a ‘refugee’ colony in Delhi with seven siblings. On becoming a journalist, Singh closely followed the twists and turns in the investigations/cases of Delhi anti-Sikh riots. At a Press conference when he could not take the “technical” responses to his questions anymore, he hurled a shoe at Mr. Chidambaram.
It is a matter of satisfaction for Singh that, after all, the wheels of law has turned, howsoever little or late! The foreword by Khushwant Singh is uncharacteristically dull. The publishers have rushed to publish it without an index. The book is non-sectarian and it might sell. But is it the best work in this genre?
A chronicle of anti-Sikh riots
by Bhupendra Yadav
The book meanders through the “murder of Sikhs” “what the state was doing” and the “men behind the violence”
I ACCUSE… — The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984: Jarnail Singh; Penguin Books India Pvt. Limited, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 350.
On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George Bush Jr was in Baghdad. Two shoes were hurled at him by Muntadar al-Zaidi, a journalist. Muntadar was sentenced to a year in prison. On April 7, 2009, Jarnail Singh hurled a shoe at Union Minister P. Chidambaram to express his frustration at continued inaction against anti-Sikh rioters of 1984. Jarnail Singh, a reporter, was not prosecuted but he lost his job. The book under review is Singh’s account of the incident, its ba ckground and consequences.
Bloodbaths
Democracy in India has got soaked in blood many times. Class violence apart, there have been cases of group/mob violence before 1984 and after. Assam’s Nellie massacre in 1983 was worse than the 1984 anti-Sikh violence. Post-Babri Masjid demolition, there was group violence in Mumbai in 1992, about which we have a report by the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry. Then, in 2002, came the Gujarat pogrom, the cases related to which are still under investigation. Six years on, Orissa was the scene of murderous attacks on members of the Christian community. In all these incidents, mobs were successful in committing unspeakable atrocities on hapless victims. Worse, most culprits are roaming free, with impunity.
The anti-Sikh violence of 1984, which resulted in the death of around 2,500 people, has many chroniclers, and Jarnail Singh is the latest. Among the chroniclers, some are of the sectarian ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ variety and some are of the non-sectarian, democratic, human rights type.
Punjab was not just the land of economic plenty. It also became the land of ecological nightmares, social disparity, and cultural distortion. Men from the dominant caste, say keen observers of Punjabi culture, are given to boasting on three counts — that they are enterprising Singhs, unlike ‘bhaiyas’; martial, not sissy; and Jats, not Dalits. Such a mindset inevitably courts collision with the ‘others’ of different hues.
And the movement for Khalistan was built around supremacist delusions born out of it. The Khalistan agitation consumed its own offsprings, although the saga has its home-grown panegyrists. Between 1981 and 1993, it claimed the lives of 11,694 people, of whom 7,139 (61 per cent) were Sikhs, says K.P.S. Gill in The Knights of Falsehood (1997).
In the non-sectarian category, Uma Chakravarti and Nandita Haksar got together to record the horrific events from a secular viewpoint. The Delhi Riots: Three Days in the Life of a Nation (1987) was the outcome of their joint venture.
The police did some good work in securing peace for Punjab but then they were guilty of unconscionable excesses too. The human rights perspective is available in the work of Ram Narayan Kumar (1953-2009). Kumar, who hailed from Andhra Pradesh, co-founded the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab and co-authored Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab (2003), which provided a wealth of information on 600 cases of human rights violation. Taking cognisance of that information, the National Human Rights Commission initiated follow-up action and trials are on in some cases.
Twists and turns
Jarnail Singh’s book is a 165-page ‘quickie’ containing six chapters. Beginning with October 31, 1984 — the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated — it meanders through the “murder of Sikhs,” “what the state was doing,” and the “men behind the violence” before reaching the climax, the shoe-throwing episode.
Born to a migrant carpenter, the author grew up in a ‘refugee’ colony in Delhi with seven siblings. On becoming a journalist, Singh closely followed the twists and turns in the investigations/cases of Delhi anti-Sikh riots. At a Press conference when he could not take the “technical” responses to his questions anymore, he hurled a shoe at Mr. Chidambaram.
It is a matter of satisfaction for Singh that, after all, the wheels of law has turned, howsoever little or late! The foreword by Khushwant Singh is uncharacteristically dull. The publishers have rushed to publish it without an index. The book is non-sectarian and it might sell. But is it the best work in this genre?
‘6 December 1992. A Blood-Soaked History. VCD. Rupees 20 Only’
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 50 Dated December 19, 2009
by Vani Subramanian
Scene 1
I’m not quite sure what I expected to see this time around, visiting as a film-maker. For one, my memories of the place predated the reasons we know all it today. It was then just a dusty little pilgrim town in Uttar Pradesh which I had visited with a busload of family and friends from Lucknow. But on the other hand, much had happened in that dusty little town over the last two decades, so I thought it might have grown, developed, changed… beyond recognition, perhaps?
But the young woman who joined my film project was certain about what she expected from the place, or rather, was scared of. Guns, talwars, trishuls, clashes, raging Hindus and Muslims, the crush of people, police, lathicharges … the montage of images playing in her mind, boggled mine. It was like television news. Years after the moment. Playing live. In a loop.
Clearly my scepticism was showing. “We are going to Ayodhya, aren’t we?”, followed by a tentative, “Isn’t that where all the action happened about the temple and the mosque?” Indeed, my dear, indeed.
But we are in 2005. Post the era of the Rath Yatras across the country. Post the aggressions of the Kalash Yatras, the Karsevas and the Sthapana Pujas at the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Post the violent insanities in Surat, Bhopal, Kolkata, the Baba Budangari Hills, Bombay, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Panchmahals, and Godhra.
We are all floundering. How do we try to combat the communal viciousness that is today playing itself out in varying forms all over the country? How do we understand what has brought us to this brink? How do we initiate conversations that might prevent other such fissures from opening up?
I find myself drawn to the eye of the storm. Ayodhya.
Scene 2
When you drive from Faizabad to Ayodhya, several things happen. First, you leave behind a bustling mid sized city with its busy markets, choice of hotels, a plethora of mechanics and electronics shops, coaching classes and printing presses, as well as the infrastructure of a large district administration – complete with courts, circuit houses, sundry bungalows, et al.
Next, you arrive at the main entrance of Ayodhya. A ceremonial white gateway standing astride the highway, through which you must pass to enter the city. On your left, is a 10 ft high fountain shaped like a bow and arrow, designed with a water body at its base, and lights to illuminate it against a rocky backdrop. But step closer and you’ll find that the water body is full of empty pan masala pouches and cigarette butts. The lights are bust, their bulbs and holders long stolen. And yes, the bow and arrow are rusted. It’s job of embedding ideas in our minds, long complete.
But just a few metres before the gate is a police barricade marked: STOP FOR CHECKING. People, bags on cycles, on foot, in cars, rickshaws and auto-rickshaws, motorbikes and scooters, everything and everyone. Except people of local eminence – politicians, journalists, the bureaucracy, royalty, and the security forces.
But don’t think too much about it. This is just a one-off on your way into Ayodhya. Nobody will check on your way out. It doesn’t matter who goes to Faizabad or beyond, what arms they may/may not be carrying, or what their intentions are. Ayodhya must remain safe, that is the mandate... after the Babri Masjid has been razed to the ground, of course.
The tour guides are pushing, ‘Chalo, chalo, chalte raho’. You look around and imagine the rush of karsevaks
Scene 3
I feel like I’m in a reality television show. My documentary is real. My questions are real (and earnest, to boot). And their answers too are seemingly real. Then why do I feel that many of the people I have started meeting in Ayodhya are playing roles from a script I haven’t had the privilege of seeing?
But soon I realise why I think I’ve heard them all before. Because indeed, I have. Over two decades of pitched battles fought on the ground and through the media, the profile of each major player in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has become finely etched. If Team Ram Janmabhoomi has its ‘political’ Hindu, ‘committed’ Hindu, and ‘media savvy’ Hindu, it also has its ‘rabid’, ‘knowledgeable’, ‘genuine’, ‘secular’ and ‘ghor-secular’ (ultra-secular) Hindu. Similarly, Team Babri Masjid too has its parallel set of characters – going all the way from ‘political’ to ‘secular’… but not quite, in popular understanding, all the way to ‘ghor-secular’. “They are after all, Muslims, and therefore caught up in their own ways of seeing”, I am repeatedly told.
Fortunately, these are not the characters whose stories I wish to explore. I am looking for the supporting cast of this drama. The people we do not see because we are so focussed on the main actors. The extras who the camera cropped out.
But the instinct of the so-called ‘ordinary’ person in Ayodhya is to lead you right back to some Acharya or Maulvi, Congress or VHP leader, or eminent person in whose presence it would be ‘inappropriate’ for folk like then to be interviewed.
But it’s not all work and earnestness out there. Every once in a while, I’ll encounter that famed UP-styled mischief. “You should meet that ‘Jyotish 840’ (the double conman - 420 - astrologer) or that one with the ‘Chappaas ki bimari!’ (addiction to being published/seen in the media).
I slowly begin to meet them. The Hindu bookseller who wistfully recalls the days of the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign when sales of his literature were brisk. A Muslim woman whose home and business were burnt, her husband almost killed by both, the karsevaks and police. A middle aged peace activist whose early days as a worker of the Temple movement gives him another perspective. A lawyer scarred by the baggage of being Muslim, still seeking justice. A Hindu woman who still dreams of the temple she worked for, but must confront the fear of bringing up a daughter in a town crawling with tens of thousands of security personnel – imperious, misbehaved, out of control. A cinema owner whose theatre is barely held up by earnings from blue films he screens. An aging karsevak, ruing the corruption of the leaders of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. A retired Muslim man who has made peace with the neighbours who collaborated in the killing of two of his family members. A rich Muslim trader who has remained safe through all these years, thanks to his social connections. A Ramcharitmanas-quoting editor of the fiercely secular independent newspaper which has survived the conflict. A Hindu landowner who has turned wage-labourer because her fields are now part of ‘the disputed area’, fenced out of reach. Young Dalit activists who lament the myriad ways in which they continue to be silenced: segregation to certain parts of the town, erasure of their history and heritage, and the negation of their claim to the disputed land as an original Buddhist stupa.
These are the people that interest me. Theirs are the stories that compel me to think afresh. To see how the politics of hate plays out. And the debris that gets left behind.
Scene 4
The romantics lead you to the Sufi shrines, rich with their history of multi-cultural tolerance and faith. During the violence of the late eighties and early nineties too, people will tell you, that it was the Hindus who fought off the karsevaks to protect the shrines. But today, they remain primarily the space of the Muslim community.
And then there is the Sarva-Dharmiya temple – the temple of all faiths that has survived all these decades of conflict. But in reality, it’s a structure that looks just like a Hindu temple within the campus of a Gujarati dharamsala. And the pilgrims who faithfully bow in obeisance on their way to the Ram Janmabhoomi temple scarcely notice the pantheon of gods standing shoulder to shoulder with their Ram and Sita, who take pride of place.
The Saket of Buddha, the home of 5 Jain Thirthankars, the land of countless Sufi saints, the Khurd Mecca of the Muslims, or the Ayodhya of Ram... is there space for everyone and their beliefs in Ayodhya?
Scene 5
From almost everywhere in town, you see the barricades wrapped around the site of the old Babri Masjid, and your mind cannot resist the question: what deep dark secrets lie buried within?
As you finally enter, khakhi uniforms are all around. So don’t stop and stare. Just try to seem like a normal pilgrim at a normal temple.
You enter separately, men and women, through a series of security checkpoints. No bags, no cameras, no pens, no pencils, and off with those shoes, if they look dubious too. The sky is open for a few moments before a covered grill tunnel starts squeezing you through. The tour guides are pushing, “Chalo, chalo, chalte raho… chalte raho!”
In front of the rubble of the old mosque is the Ram Chabootara, a platform that until 1886 was thought to be the birthplace of Ram, before the dispute mysteriously moved it into the mosque.
You look around, and imagine the rush of the kar sevaks, the crowds and their leaders, and you spot a new sign: Sacred water for pilgrims sponsored by the State Bank of India.
All around is the open excavation ordered by the High Court. While archaeologists, petitioners and stakeholders are still discussing the historical possibilities – every day the guides casually reassure pilgrims that this is evidence of the Ram temple, undisputed. Evidence of its desecration by the Muslims.
Soon, a beam of light to your right. You turn and see the idols glistening in the dark. “Yeh dekho, yahi hain Ram Lalla jisko aap dekhne aaye hain… Prasad le lo, daan de jao!” the voices beckon - not just the priests, but even the police men and women, doing their ‘sacred’ duty.
When you find your way out, you realise that the moment it’s all been building upto still lies ahead. Small shops are selling lamps, idols, trinkets and posters, and their TV screens are blaring with footage of the demolition, salutation to its martyrs and celebrations of the destruction. 6 DECEMBER, 1992. A BLOOD SOAKED HISTORY. VCD. RUPEES 20/- ONLY. Play. Pause. Replay.
You pick up your mobile to take refuge in the world you think you know. And the display screen welcomes you: RAM JANMABHOOMI UNLOCK
Scene 6
Along the way, another encounter. A lithe woman with a ready smile and a glint in her brown eyes is dressed in khakhi. We get talking and at some point she looks down at herself and asks, “I look good in this, don’t I?... I’d always dreamt I’d marry a man in a uniform, and look at me now.” Turns out she is a policewoman posted at the Ram Janmabhoomi. “I’ve been allotted quarters so we live there, and I support my husband and children, because He doesn’t really do anything. So it’s duty from morning to evening, 7 days a week. So no time for the family, the kids or even to shop.” She stops for an instant, seeming to replay her story in her mind. “Then again, that’s the story of most women, isn’t it? Life is both, sweet and sour, I guess.” “Your name?”, I ask. “Sita, dukhiyaari naam hai na?” she says with a grin. “It’s a sad name, isn’t it?”
But I’m thinking irony.
After all, this is Ayodhya, in whose name Sita has been forgotten. Her mention erased from the traditional chant of Jai Siya Ram, and replaced by the evocation of the male-hood inherent in Jai Sri Ram, the call of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
And yet, here in Ayodhya, where once the Sita of the Ramayana was forsaken by the husband she remained faithful to, a modern day Sita stands guard to protect him.
Scene 7
It’s been a bit of a meaningless walk down a blind alley for those waiting for the glory of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Today those who retain faith, find their voices getting smaller. For others compelled to lead more cautious or ghettoised lives, the emotional meter ranges from rage and resentment to resignation. But across the board, a realisation: if a temple or a mosque was to ever be built in the disputed space, cycles of death and destruction could begin again. And no one seems to have the imagination or commitment to think creative ways out of the crisis. Ways that look to the future, learning from the past. 18 years on, are we, and they, asking for too much?
Then there are those who simply want to get on with the business of living. But boom has come to bust in Ayodhya. And the emerging VHP township of Karsevakpuram is like a constant thorn in the flesh. Prosperous and growing, but its business is open only to those within circles of power of the VHP.
Here’s the crunch. In all their years in power, why didn’t the BJP, VHP and other elements of the Sangh Parivar make a showcase of Ayodhya Shining? Or at least, the Hindus of Ayodhya Shining? Never mind the Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Sikhs, or indeed, secularists, non believers, peaceniks or other persona non grata of the great Hindu Rashtra.
But it still takes me a while to understand why Ayodhya itself seems so dukhyaari. In many other places I have visited, the people have been much poorer, much more desperate than those I meet here. But I see now, that they all had been holding on to the possibility of change. And hope – of a project or programme to alleviate their situation, of rain or shine to save crops, of a God or government who would finally answer their prayers.
But Ayodhya has been there, done that. And this is what remains after the fifteen minutes of fame. The dust of the retreating vehicles. Escaping before anyone can hold them accountable for the hit and run.
Scene 8
It’s been many, many weeks. They have been welcoming me into their homes, seeing me meet others, noticing as I make copious notes at my favourite mithaiwala at the crossing. “Are you really making a film,” they’ve started asking, “we’ve never seen you with a video camera. Or do you have a secret one, like for sting operations?”
I laugh and say that my excuse for taking it nice and slow is that I’m a documentary film-maker. But I see they are actually unused to people just hanging around in Ayodhya when ‘nothing dramatic’ is happening - trying to watch and learn, to understand, seek consent, rethink, re-ask, re-explore…
Because Ayodhya is ‘news’ territory. Be it an attack on Sita Rasoi, the Liberhan Commission Report or 6 December, the script is like a Mills & Boon novel. Simple, predictable, familiar: Enter TV crews. OB vans. Reporters. Descend. Cover. Telecast. Publish. Exit all. End of story. Until the next crisis, then.
Footnote
I do finally get the film done. “Ayodhya Gatha” I call it, “Tales of Ayodhya”. Because if there’s one thing I’ve figured in all this time, it’s this: Ayodhya is neither just one place, nor one event, nor one story.
The author is a documentary film-maker and activist.
by Vani Subramanian
Scene 1
I’m not quite sure what I expected to see this time around, visiting as a film-maker. For one, my memories of the place predated the reasons we know all it today. It was then just a dusty little pilgrim town in Uttar Pradesh which I had visited with a busload of family and friends from Lucknow. But on the other hand, much had happened in that dusty little town over the last two decades, so I thought it might have grown, developed, changed… beyond recognition, perhaps?
But the young woman who joined my film project was certain about what she expected from the place, or rather, was scared of. Guns, talwars, trishuls, clashes, raging Hindus and Muslims, the crush of people, police, lathicharges … the montage of images playing in her mind, boggled mine. It was like television news. Years after the moment. Playing live. In a loop.
Clearly my scepticism was showing. “We are going to Ayodhya, aren’t we?”, followed by a tentative, “Isn’t that where all the action happened about the temple and the mosque?” Indeed, my dear, indeed.
But we are in 2005. Post the era of the Rath Yatras across the country. Post the aggressions of the Kalash Yatras, the Karsevas and the Sthapana Pujas at the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Post the violent insanities in Surat, Bhopal, Kolkata, the Baba Budangari Hills, Bombay, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Panchmahals, and Godhra.
We are all floundering. How do we try to combat the communal viciousness that is today playing itself out in varying forms all over the country? How do we understand what has brought us to this brink? How do we initiate conversations that might prevent other such fissures from opening up?
I find myself drawn to the eye of the storm. Ayodhya.
Scene 2
When you drive from Faizabad to Ayodhya, several things happen. First, you leave behind a bustling mid sized city with its busy markets, choice of hotels, a plethora of mechanics and electronics shops, coaching classes and printing presses, as well as the infrastructure of a large district administration – complete with courts, circuit houses, sundry bungalows, et al.
Next, you arrive at the main entrance of Ayodhya. A ceremonial white gateway standing astride the highway, through which you must pass to enter the city. On your left, is a 10 ft high fountain shaped like a bow and arrow, designed with a water body at its base, and lights to illuminate it against a rocky backdrop. But step closer and you’ll find that the water body is full of empty pan masala pouches and cigarette butts. The lights are bust, their bulbs and holders long stolen. And yes, the bow and arrow are rusted. It’s job of embedding ideas in our minds, long complete.
But just a few metres before the gate is a police barricade marked: STOP FOR CHECKING. People, bags on cycles, on foot, in cars, rickshaws and auto-rickshaws, motorbikes and scooters, everything and everyone. Except people of local eminence – politicians, journalists, the bureaucracy, royalty, and the security forces.
But don’t think too much about it. This is just a one-off on your way into Ayodhya. Nobody will check on your way out. It doesn’t matter who goes to Faizabad or beyond, what arms they may/may not be carrying, or what their intentions are. Ayodhya must remain safe, that is the mandate... after the Babri Masjid has been razed to the ground, of course.
The tour guides are pushing, ‘Chalo, chalo, chalte raho’. You look around and imagine the rush of karsevaks
Scene 3
I feel like I’m in a reality television show. My documentary is real. My questions are real (and earnest, to boot). And their answers too are seemingly real. Then why do I feel that many of the people I have started meeting in Ayodhya are playing roles from a script I haven’t had the privilege of seeing?
But soon I realise why I think I’ve heard them all before. Because indeed, I have. Over two decades of pitched battles fought on the ground and through the media, the profile of each major player in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has become finely etched. If Team Ram Janmabhoomi has its ‘political’ Hindu, ‘committed’ Hindu, and ‘media savvy’ Hindu, it also has its ‘rabid’, ‘knowledgeable’, ‘genuine’, ‘secular’ and ‘ghor-secular’ (ultra-secular) Hindu. Similarly, Team Babri Masjid too has its parallel set of characters – going all the way from ‘political’ to ‘secular’… but not quite, in popular understanding, all the way to ‘ghor-secular’. “They are after all, Muslims, and therefore caught up in their own ways of seeing”, I am repeatedly told.
Fortunately, these are not the characters whose stories I wish to explore. I am looking for the supporting cast of this drama. The people we do not see because we are so focussed on the main actors. The extras who the camera cropped out.
But the instinct of the so-called ‘ordinary’ person in Ayodhya is to lead you right back to some Acharya or Maulvi, Congress or VHP leader, or eminent person in whose presence it would be ‘inappropriate’ for folk like then to be interviewed.
But it’s not all work and earnestness out there. Every once in a while, I’ll encounter that famed UP-styled mischief. “You should meet that ‘Jyotish 840’ (the double conman - 420 - astrologer) or that one with the ‘Chappaas ki bimari!’ (addiction to being published/seen in the media).
I slowly begin to meet them. The Hindu bookseller who wistfully recalls the days of the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign when sales of his literature were brisk. A Muslim woman whose home and business were burnt, her husband almost killed by both, the karsevaks and police. A middle aged peace activist whose early days as a worker of the Temple movement gives him another perspective. A lawyer scarred by the baggage of being Muslim, still seeking justice. A Hindu woman who still dreams of the temple she worked for, but must confront the fear of bringing up a daughter in a town crawling with tens of thousands of security personnel – imperious, misbehaved, out of control. A cinema owner whose theatre is barely held up by earnings from blue films he screens. An aging karsevak, ruing the corruption of the leaders of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. A retired Muslim man who has made peace with the neighbours who collaborated in the killing of two of his family members. A rich Muslim trader who has remained safe through all these years, thanks to his social connections. A Ramcharitmanas-quoting editor of the fiercely secular independent newspaper which has survived the conflict. A Hindu landowner who has turned wage-labourer because her fields are now part of ‘the disputed area’, fenced out of reach. Young Dalit activists who lament the myriad ways in which they continue to be silenced: segregation to certain parts of the town, erasure of their history and heritage, and the negation of their claim to the disputed land as an original Buddhist stupa.
These are the people that interest me. Theirs are the stories that compel me to think afresh. To see how the politics of hate plays out. And the debris that gets left behind.
Scene 4
The romantics lead you to the Sufi shrines, rich with their history of multi-cultural tolerance and faith. During the violence of the late eighties and early nineties too, people will tell you, that it was the Hindus who fought off the karsevaks to protect the shrines. But today, they remain primarily the space of the Muslim community.
And then there is the Sarva-Dharmiya temple – the temple of all faiths that has survived all these decades of conflict. But in reality, it’s a structure that looks just like a Hindu temple within the campus of a Gujarati dharamsala. And the pilgrims who faithfully bow in obeisance on their way to the Ram Janmabhoomi temple scarcely notice the pantheon of gods standing shoulder to shoulder with their Ram and Sita, who take pride of place.
The Saket of Buddha, the home of 5 Jain Thirthankars, the land of countless Sufi saints, the Khurd Mecca of the Muslims, or the Ayodhya of Ram... is there space for everyone and their beliefs in Ayodhya?
Scene 5
From almost everywhere in town, you see the barricades wrapped around the site of the old Babri Masjid, and your mind cannot resist the question: what deep dark secrets lie buried within?
As you finally enter, khakhi uniforms are all around. So don’t stop and stare. Just try to seem like a normal pilgrim at a normal temple.
You enter separately, men and women, through a series of security checkpoints. No bags, no cameras, no pens, no pencils, and off with those shoes, if they look dubious too. The sky is open for a few moments before a covered grill tunnel starts squeezing you through. The tour guides are pushing, “Chalo, chalo, chalte raho… chalte raho!”
In front of the rubble of the old mosque is the Ram Chabootara, a platform that until 1886 was thought to be the birthplace of Ram, before the dispute mysteriously moved it into the mosque.
You look around, and imagine the rush of the kar sevaks, the crowds and their leaders, and you spot a new sign: Sacred water for pilgrims sponsored by the State Bank of India.
All around is the open excavation ordered by the High Court. While archaeologists, petitioners and stakeholders are still discussing the historical possibilities – every day the guides casually reassure pilgrims that this is evidence of the Ram temple, undisputed. Evidence of its desecration by the Muslims.
Soon, a beam of light to your right. You turn and see the idols glistening in the dark. “Yeh dekho, yahi hain Ram Lalla jisko aap dekhne aaye hain… Prasad le lo, daan de jao!” the voices beckon - not just the priests, but even the police men and women, doing their ‘sacred’ duty.
When you find your way out, you realise that the moment it’s all been building upto still lies ahead. Small shops are selling lamps, idols, trinkets and posters, and their TV screens are blaring with footage of the demolition, salutation to its martyrs and celebrations of the destruction. 6 DECEMBER, 1992. A BLOOD SOAKED HISTORY. VCD. RUPEES 20/- ONLY. Play. Pause. Replay.
You pick up your mobile to take refuge in the world you think you know. And the display screen welcomes you: RAM JANMABHOOMI UNLOCK
Scene 6
Along the way, another encounter. A lithe woman with a ready smile and a glint in her brown eyes is dressed in khakhi. We get talking and at some point she looks down at herself and asks, “I look good in this, don’t I?... I’d always dreamt I’d marry a man in a uniform, and look at me now.” Turns out she is a policewoman posted at the Ram Janmabhoomi. “I’ve been allotted quarters so we live there, and I support my husband and children, because He doesn’t really do anything. So it’s duty from morning to evening, 7 days a week. So no time for the family, the kids or even to shop.” She stops for an instant, seeming to replay her story in her mind. “Then again, that’s the story of most women, isn’t it? Life is both, sweet and sour, I guess.” “Your name?”, I ask. “Sita, dukhiyaari naam hai na?” she says with a grin. “It’s a sad name, isn’t it?”
But I’m thinking irony.
After all, this is Ayodhya, in whose name Sita has been forgotten. Her mention erased from the traditional chant of Jai Siya Ram, and replaced by the evocation of the male-hood inherent in Jai Sri Ram, the call of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
And yet, here in Ayodhya, where once the Sita of the Ramayana was forsaken by the husband she remained faithful to, a modern day Sita stands guard to protect him.
Scene 7
It’s been a bit of a meaningless walk down a blind alley for those waiting for the glory of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Today those who retain faith, find their voices getting smaller. For others compelled to lead more cautious or ghettoised lives, the emotional meter ranges from rage and resentment to resignation. But across the board, a realisation: if a temple or a mosque was to ever be built in the disputed space, cycles of death and destruction could begin again. And no one seems to have the imagination or commitment to think creative ways out of the crisis. Ways that look to the future, learning from the past. 18 years on, are we, and they, asking for too much?
Then there are those who simply want to get on with the business of living. But boom has come to bust in Ayodhya. And the emerging VHP township of Karsevakpuram is like a constant thorn in the flesh. Prosperous and growing, but its business is open only to those within circles of power of the VHP.
Here’s the crunch. In all their years in power, why didn’t the BJP, VHP and other elements of the Sangh Parivar make a showcase of Ayodhya Shining? Or at least, the Hindus of Ayodhya Shining? Never mind the Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Sikhs, or indeed, secularists, non believers, peaceniks or other persona non grata of the great Hindu Rashtra.
But it still takes me a while to understand why Ayodhya itself seems so dukhyaari. In many other places I have visited, the people have been much poorer, much more desperate than those I meet here. But I see now, that they all had been holding on to the possibility of change. And hope – of a project or programme to alleviate their situation, of rain or shine to save crops, of a God or government who would finally answer their prayers.
But Ayodhya has been there, done that. And this is what remains after the fifteen minutes of fame. The dust of the retreating vehicles. Escaping before anyone can hold them accountable for the hit and run.
Scene 8
It’s been many, many weeks. They have been welcoming me into their homes, seeing me meet others, noticing as I make copious notes at my favourite mithaiwala at the crossing. “Are you really making a film,” they’ve started asking, “we’ve never seen you with a video camera. Or do you have a secret one, like for sting operations?”
I laugh and say that my excuse for taking it nice and slow is that I’m a documentary film-maker. But I see they are actually unused to people just hanging around in Ayodhya when ‘nothing dramatic’ is happening - trying to watch and learn, to understand, seek consent, rethink, re-ask, re-explore…
Because Ayodhya is ‘news’ territory. Be it an attack on Sita Rasoi, the Liberhan Commission Report or 6 December, the script is like a Mills & Boon novel. Simple, predictable, familiar: Enter TV crews. OB vans. Reporters. Descend. Cover. Telecast. Publish. Exit all. End of story. Until the next crisis, then.
Footnote
I do finally get the film done. “Ayodhya Gatha” I call it, “Tales of Ayodhya”. Because if there’s one thing I’ve figured in all this time, it’s this: Ayodhya is neither just one place, nor one event, nor one story.
The author is a documentary film-maker and activist.
December 21, 2009
On route to consolidation of rightwing politics in India
Dawn.com, 21 December 2009
Congress needs BJP to sustain rightwing politics
by Jawed Naqvi
The secular-communal binary has just been shored up in India with the intent to further consolidate rightwing politics. A leadership tussle has thrown up an even more reactionary change of guard within the main opposition party. On the other hand, a controversial report has been placed before parliament, pretending to placate Muslims but actually providing traction to a more intense communal assertion in national politics.
The objective of both manoeuvres – the appointment of Nitin Gadkari by the RSS as the BJP’s new president and the placing of the Ranganath Mishra Commission report in the Lok Sabha – looks primed to revitalise a flagging bipolar system so that both poles could continue to represent rightwing interests.These interests have been on the ascent in India since the fall of the Soviet Union, a major trading partner and geopolitical anchor. A more immediate point of reference to explain the shift away from the country’s traditional centre-left economics, however, could be the arrival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as finance minister in 1991.
Shoring up the right-right binary masked as a communal-secular discourse is easy and enticing and it addresses major compulsions. The overtly communal BJP was trounced in the last general elections. Its embarrassing performance in the more recent Maharashtra state polls seriously worried the overtly secular Congress.
Low morale gripping the BJP, reflected in the drastic changes in the party’s leadership last week, was seen as a potential invitation to centre-left rabble-rousers (who are no more than that really) to occupy the opposition space.At a time when the country, led by Prime Minister Singh and the inscrutable Congress high command, is bracing for a structured attack on the homes and hearth of adivasi forest-dwellers on behalf of powerful mining consortiums, it would be disastrous for the nation to have a non-rightwing opposition in place.
Prof Amit Bhaduri, who has been visiting the most vulnerable tribal regions of Chhatisgarh and Orissa, describes the state’s evolving strategy there as a move towards ‘internal colonialism’. It is not a coincidence that the BJP which rules Chhatisgarh and the Congress, the centre, are working in tandem.
So if the poor election results came as a series of heart attacks for the BJP, the consequent exist of Lal Kishan Advani of the Babri mosque notoriety and several others from the party leadership triggered equally turbulent convulsions. Not everyone goes contrite with age. Lots of third-raters go off on pilgrimages, and yet continue with their nefarious pastimes. Haji Mastan comes to mind. He continued to be a smuggler even after saying sorry to God.
The alleged accomplices of Ayodhya have not apologised to anyone in their religious pursuit of a high obscurantist order. They have resorted to equivocation instead. (‘Razing the mosque reflected nationalist upsurge but we didn’t do it.’)
The Liberhan Commission indicted Mr Advani and his partners for the destruction of the nondescript and probably crumbling mosque in 1992. The government in its response to the report has done little except promising more laws to shore up secularism. They can’t touch Advani, it is widely whispered. (Or even Bal Thackeray for that matter, indicted in another report damning the Shiv Sena for mass murder of Muslims, which is collecting dust in government archives.)
That is precisely the approach Dr Singh and his home minister are expected to take on the Mishra report, which promises a lot for Muslims but leaves it to the government whether it would eventually do anything at all about the findings and suggestions. Public relations and image-building is a Congress forte. In a build-up to its last-minute announcement, the Congress pumped up the Mishra report through clever advertising through leaked coverage.
‘After Liberhan, the UPA government is trying to hide another commission’s report because it seems like an even bigger political hot potato,’ wrote one reporter close to the Congress leadership on December 2. The Mishra commission’s recommendations are clear: 15 per cent reservation in jobs and educational institutions, and social sector schemes for Muslims and other minorities.
‘The government is in no position to implement the recommendations without major changes in existing rules and regulations, and that is one reason why it is sitting tight on the report,’ the newspaper claimed.
The National Commission on Religious and Linguistic Minorities was set up on October 29, 2004, under the chairmanship of retired chief justice of India Ranganath Mishra. He submitted the report to the government two-and-a-half-years ago on May 22, 2007.
There is nothing wrong with the report as such and that may be its undoing. It has recommended the inclusion of Muslim and Christian Dalits in the list of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (SC/STs). This is red rag before the BJP bull.
Justice Mishra was asked to suggest criteria for the identification of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities, and also measures for their welfare, including reservations in education and government employment. He was also asked to suggest necessary constitutional, legal and administrative modalities for the implementation of the commission’s recommendations.
On the educational front, the commission recommended 10pc reservations for Muslims out of the total 15pc for minorities. The remaining 5pc is for the other minorities.
With regard to government jobs, the commission has said that ‘since Muslims are underrepresented and sometimes wholly unrepresented in government employment, they should be regarded as backward in this respect within the meaning of that term as used in Article 16(4) of the constitution, and that 15pc posts in all cadres and grades under the central and state governments should be earmarked for them’. It has made a similar recommendation in respect of social sector schemes.
If job quotas could solve the complex social, economic and political problems of Muslims, Dalits, and tribespeople among others it would be still worthwhile to look at the promise that reports such as Mishra Commission proposals hold. However, going by the less than a happy lot for the Dalits, the most impoverished and socially abused people of India, quotas have a limited role to play in their emancipation if and whenever that happens.
Meanwhile, Mr Gadkari will have dusted out the BJP’s response to the Mishra proposals it gave last year. ‘Minorities in India are entitled to a separate set of rights in relation to their educational rights. The socially and educationally backward are entitled to special rights, which are created. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are thus entitled to reservations in jobs and the minorities are entitled to special rights to education. The attempt of the UPA is to create a new set of persons who on account of religious conversion to Christianity and Islam would be entitled to both sets of rights,’ says the BJP.
It insists that the Congress government wants to ‘incentivise’ conversion of Dalits to Islam and Christianity. Several states ruled by UPA partners have initiated the process of religion-based reservation. The BJP says such reservations are entirely against the constitutional mechanism. It accuses the UPA of persisting with a divisive policy.
‘The Sachar Commission recommendations constitute the most divisive step ever initiated by a government of independent India. Communal reservations and communal budgeting are a remedy worse than the problem being addressed. The 15pc allocation in the planned expenditure on basis of religion will set a divisive precedent in the country.’ It is in the nature of the beast. The BJP will make those noises, worse it has shown the capacity to back up its noises with reckless street power.
The Congress makes promises to vulnerable communities it knows it cannot and possibly should not be offering to keep. Remember that it was Congress Prime Minister Narasimha Rao who had promised he would reconstruct the demolished mosque in Ayodhya at its very own site. It would be a laughable idea were it also not a menacing suggestion. Rao retired after handing power to BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee. That’s how they work together – the BJP and the Congress. If they mean business, Muslim leaders should consider looking for less deceptive allies. But Muslim leaders are often more callous with their flock than any of the two knackers in this equation.
Congress needs BJP to sustain rightwing politics
by Jawed Naqvi
The secular-communal binary has just been shored up in India with the intent to further consolidate rightwing politics. A leadership tussle has thrown up an even more reactionary change of guard within the main opposition party. On the other hand, a controversial report has been placed before parliament, pretending to placate Muslims but actually providing traction to a more intense communal assertion in national politics.
The objective of both manoeuvres – the appointment of Nitin Gadkari by the RSS as the BJP’s new president and the placing of the Ranganath Mishra Commission report in the Lok Sabha – looks primed to revitalise a flagging bipolar system so that both poles could continue to represent rightwing interests.These interests have been on the ascent in India since the fall of the Soviet Union, a major trading partner and geopolitical anchor. A more immediate point of reference to explain the shift away from the country’s traditional centre-left economics, however, could be the arrival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as finance minister in 1991.
Shoring up the right-right binary masked as a communal-secular discourse is easy and enticing and it addresses major compulsions. The overtly communal BJP was trounced in the last general elections. Its embarrassing performance in the more recent Maharashtra state polls seriously worried the overtly secular Congress.
Low morale gripping the BJP, reflected in the drastic changes in the party’s leadership last week, was seen as a potential invitation to centre-left rabble-rousers (who are no more than that really) to occupy the opposition space.At a time when the country, led by Prime Minister Singh and the inscrutable Congress high command, is bracing for a structured attack on the homes and hearth of adivasi forest-dwellers on behalf of powerful mining consortiums, it would be disastrous for the nation to have a non-rightwing opposition in place.
Prof Amit Bhaduri, who has been visiting the most vulnerable tribal regions of Chhatisgarh and Orissa, describes the state’s evolving strategy there as a move towards ‘internal colonialism’. It is not a coincidence that the BJP which rules Chhatisgarh and the Congress, the centre, are working in tandem.
So if the poor election results came as a series of heart attacks for the BJP, the consequent exist of Lal Kishan Advani of the Babri mosque notoriety and several others from the party leadership triggered equally turbulent convulsions. Not everyone goes contrite with age. Lots of third-raters go off on pilgrimages, and yet continue with their nefarious pastimes. Haji Mastan comes to mind. He continued to be a smuggler even after saying sorry to God.
The alleged accomplices of Ayodhya have not apologised to anyone in their religious pursuit of a high obscurantist order. They have resorted to equivocation instead. (‘Razing the mosque reflected nationalist upsurge but we didn’t do it.’)
The Liberhan Commission indicted Mr Advani and his partners for the destruction of the nondescript and probably crumbling mosque in 1992. The government in its response to the report has done little except promising more laws to shore up secularism. They can’t touch Advani, it is widely whispered. (Or even Bal Thackeray for that matter, indicted in another report damning the Shiv Sena for mass murder of Muslims, which is collecting dust in government archives.)
That is precisely the approach Dr Singh and his home minister are expected to take on the Mishra report, which promises a lot for Muslims but leaves it to the government whether it would eventually do anything at all about the findings and suggestions. Public relations and image-building is a Congress forte. In a build-up to its last-minute announcement, the Congress pumped up the Mishra report through clever advertising through leaked coverage.
‘After Liberhan, the UPA government is trying to hide another commission’s report because it seems like an even bigger political hot potato,’ wrote one reporter close to the Congress leadership on December 2. The Mishra commission’s recommendations are clear: 15 per cent reservation in jobs and educational institutions, and social sector schemes for Muslims and other minorities.
‘The government is in no position to implement the recommendations without major changes in existing rules and regulations, and that is one reason why it is sitting tight on the report,’ the newspaper claimed.
The National Commission on Religious and Linguistic Minorities was set up on October 29, 2004, under the chairmanship of retired chief justice of India Ranganath Mishra. He submitted the report to the government two-and-a-half-years ago on May 22, 2007.
There is nothing wrong with the report as such and that may be its undoing. It has recommended the inclusion of Muslim and Christian Dalits in the list of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (SC/STs). This is red rag before the BJP bull.
Justice Mishra was asked to suggest criteria for the identification of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities, and also measures for their welfare, including reservations in education and government employment. He was also asked to suggest necessary constitutional, legal and administrative modalities for the implementation of the commission’s recommendations.
On the educational front, the commission recommended 10pc reservations for Muslims out of the total 15pc for minorities. The remaining 5pc is for the other minorities.
With regard to government jobs, the commission has said that ‘since Muslims are underrepresented and sometimes wholly unrepresented in government employment, they should be regarded as backward in this respect within the meaning of that term as used in Article 16(4) of the constitution, and that 15pc posts in all cadres and grades under the central and state governments should be earmarked for them’. It has made a similar recommendation in respect of social sector schemes.
If job quotas could solve the complex social, economic and political problems of Muslims, Dalits, and tribespeople among others it would be still worthwhile to look at the promise that reports such as Mishra Commission proposals hold. However, going by the less than a happy lot for the Dalits, the most impoverished and socially abused people of India, quotas have a limited role to play in their emancipation if and whenever that happens.
Meanwhile, Mr Gadkari will have dusted out the BJP’s response to the Mishra proposals it gave last year. ‘Minorities in India are entitled to a separate set of rights in relation to their educational rights. The socially and educationally backward are entitled to special rights, which are created. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are thus entitled to reservations in jobs and the minorities are entitled to special rights to education. The attempt of the UPA is to create a new set of persons who on account of religious conversion to Christianity and Islam would be entitled to both sets of rights,’ says the BJP.
It insists that the Congress government wants to ‘incentivise’ conversion of Dalits to Islam and Christianity. Several states ruled by UPA partners have initiated the process of religion-based reservation. The BJP says such reservations are entirely against the constitutional mechanism. It accuses the UPA of persisting with a divisive policy.
‘The Sachar Commission recommendations constitute the most divisive step ever initiated by a government of independent India. Communal reservations and communal budgeting are a remedy worse than the problem being addressed. The 15pc allocation in the planned expenditure on basis of religion will set a divisive precedent in the country.’ It is in the nature of the beast. The BJP will make those noises, worse it has shown the capacity to back up its noises with reckless street power.
The Congress makes promises to vulnerable communities it knows it cannot and possibly should not be offering to keep. Remember that it was Congress Prime Minister Narasimha Rao who had promised he would reconstruct the demolished mosque in Ayodhya at its very own site. It would be a laughable idea were it also not a menacing suggestion. Rao retired after handing power to BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee. That’s how they work together – the BJP and the Congress. If they mean business, Muslim leaders should consider looking for less deceptive allies. But Muslim leaders are often more callous with their flock than any of the two knackers in this equation.
Ram and Rahim as Good Neighbours
Ram and Rahim as Good Neighbors
Ram Puniyani
The leak and tabling of Liberhan Commission report has created a big turmoil in the country. While most of the sides have been shouting hoarse about their own position on the issue, not much has been talked about the future solution of this vexed problem.
We recall that the mosque built by Mir Baqui around five centuries ago has been deliberately dragged into the controversy. At the time of Independence it was a mosque, no political party had claimed anything to the contrary. As per the understanding in the constitution, the status of 1947 was to be maintained in cases of places of worship. The installation of Ram lalla idols by deceit in midnight of 22nd Jan 1949 sowed the seeds of controversy. Later in 1975 the dispute between two local groups was taken up by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and in 1989, BJP decided to make a political issue out of it. The tragic demolition and the making of makeshift Ram temple there have added new dimensions to the issue.
It is around this issue that Hindu and Muslim communalists raised the emotional pitch and the tragedies which followed, the demolition, the post demolition communal violence and communalization, polarization of society along religious lines are too well known by now. The court case regarding the same is dragging from last several years without any outcome so far.
Where do we go from here? Do we let this sore to continue on the body politic of the nation? This may act as the trouble spot for the future. It is time that we look at all the aspects of the issue and try to bring a peaceful solution to the issue.
The first step in the issue is to realize that it the communal forces from both communities which have claimed that they represent the community and so they will decide on behalf of Hindus or Muslims respectively. The fact of the matter and, this has been confirmed by Liberhan Commission report, is that these communal groups neither represent the community nor reflect the opinion the communities as a whole. It is imperative that we look forward to the liberal sections, leadership from these communities to come forward and talk in the language of reconciliation. The liberal sections are those who have so far been ignored, but they are the one’s who have talked of peace and accommodation. The election results have also shown that those claiming to represent the aspirations of a particular community have been routed in popular elections. The elected representatives of the area have a major role to play in bringing the consensus. We cannot undo the past but we can definitely chart a peaceful path for future. The peaceful talks between these sections along with the local people of Ayodhya are the central core for solution.
The people of Ayodhya have also been the victims of the demolition and other offshoots of the dispute. What they think should be done at the site has to be taken seriously. They have to be taken on board along with the liberal leadership of the communities. Today the most amicable solution has to veer around respecting Ram and Allah both. Both temple and mosque can be accommodated in the area, with equal importance and respect.
Along with temple and mosque in the same spot we need to bring up a museum dedicated to the great tradition of Ayodhya. Ayodhya has not only been popular for Lord Ram, but it had also been a place for Buddhists and also people of other faith as well. It has been a sort of ‘No War zone’ (A- no, Yudhya-War, Ayodhya- A no war zone), and that spirit has to be cultivated all around. The emotive and divisive appeals need to be rejected by the nation as a whole. In that light the museum-memorial has to be the one of syncretic traditions, of saints who were followed by Muslims and Hindus both, of Sufis who again were respected by Hindus and Muslims both. While the history has been made to degenerate into hoarse shouting, a cool reasoned archeological based understanding should help us to go further. The negotiations between the communities have to be encouraged to the last.
The second line of action has to relate to the court verdict. The court verdict should be final for all of us. The formulation that faith will decide the birth place of the Lord has no place in a society governed by law and reason. The community leaders must give undertaking to respect the court verdict and act accordingly. Those not having faith in the courts cant be the part of the process of reconciliation as reconciliation has to be done in the framework of Indian Constitution. We have invested too much in this issue and it is time that not only this but even other such issues are not given any importance to ensure that the country, nation, can focus on the issues related to bread, butter shelter, employment and health.
--
Ram Puniyani
The leak and tabling of Liberhan Commission report has created a big turmoil in the country. While most of the sides have been shouting hoarse about their own position on the issue, not much has been talked about the future solution of this vexed problem.
We recall that the mosque built by Mir Baqui around five centuries ago has been deliberately dragged into the controversy. At the time of Independence it was a mosque, no political party had claimed anything to the contrary. As per the understanding in the constitution, the status of 1947 was to be maintained in cases of places of worship. The installation of Ram lalla idols by deceit in midnight of 22nd Jan 1949 sowed the seeds of controversy. Later in 1975 the dispute between two local groups was taken up by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and in 1989, BJP decided to make a political issue out of it. The tragic demolition and the making of makeshift Ram temple there have added new dimensions to the issue.
It is around this issue that Hindu and Muslim communalists raised the emotional pitch and the tragedies which followed, the demolition, the post demolition communal violence and communalization, polarization of society along religious lines are too well known by now. The court case regarding the same is dragging from last several years without any outcome so far.
Where do we go from here? Do we let this sore to continue on the body politic of the nation? This may act as the trouble spot for the future. It is time that we look at all the aspects of the issue and try to bring a peaceful solution to the issue.
The first step in the issue is to realize that it the communal forces from both communities which have claimed that they represent the community and so they will decide on behalf of Hindus or Muslims respectively. The fact of the matter and, this has been confirmed by Liberhan Commission report, is that these communal groups neither represent the community nor reflect the opinion the communities as a whole. It is imperative that we look forward to the liberal sections, leadership from these communities to come forward and talk in the language of reconciliation. The liberal sections are those who have so far been ignored, but they are the one’s who have talked of peace and accommodation. The election results have also shown that those claiming to represent the aspirations of a particular community have been routed in popular elections. The elected representatives of the area have a major role to play in bringing the consensus. We cannot undo the past but we can definitely chart a peaceful path for future. The peaceful talks between these sections along with the local people of Ayodhya are the central core for solution.
The people of Ayodhya have also been the victims of the demolition and other offshoots of the dispute. What they think should be done at the site has to be taken seriously. They have to be taken on board along with the liberal leadership of the communities. Today the most amicable solution has to veer around respecting Ram and Allah both. Both temple and mosque can be accommodated in the area, with equal importance and respect.
Along with temple and mosque in the same spot we need to bring up a museum dedicated to the great tradition of Ayodhya. Ayodhya has not only been popular for Lord Ram, but it had also been a place for Buddhists and also people of other faith as well. It has been a sort of ‘No War zone’ (A- no, Yudhya-War, Ayodhya- A no war zone), and that spirit has to be cultivated all around. The emotive and divisive appeals need to be rejected by the nation as a whole. In that light the museum-memorial has to be the one of syncretic traditions, of saints who were followed by Muslims and Hindus both, of Sufis who again were respected by Hindus and Muslims both. While the history has been made to degenerate into hoarse shouting, a cool reasoned archeological based understanding should help us to go further. The negotiations between the communities have to be encouraged to the last.
The second line of action has to relate to the court verdict. The court verdict should be final for all of us. The formulation that faith will decide the birth place of the Lord has no place in a society governed by law and reason. The community leaders must give undertaking to respect the court verdict and act accordingly. Those not having faith in the courts cant be the part of the process of reconciliation as reconciliation has to be done in the framework of Indian Constitution. We have invested too much in this issue and it is time that not only this but even other such issues are not given any importance to ensure that the country, nation, can focus on the issues related to bread, butter shelter, employment and health.
--
60 min video recording of the hindu right demolition squad in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992
Hindustan Times, December 20, 2009
Saw this, Liberhan?
by Madhu Trehan
It should have taken 60 minutes — 30 minutes to watch the footage from Newstrack, the old video magazine, and 30 minutes to write the report. Newstrack’s December 1992 edition gave a minute-by-minute account of what happened in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. And yet, M.S. Liberhan took 17 years to come up with what he came up with.
Mritinjoy Jha along with his team were in Ayodhya from November 23, 1992. Thousands of pumped-up, slogan-shouting people were pouring in, carrying pick-axes and other equipment. Manoj Raghuvanshi, with another Newstrack team, had pulled the story together. In his voice-over, Raghuvanshi spoke about “a chief minister who spoke from both sides of his mouth — promising the Supreme Court that no construction would take place on the disputed site — and a prime minister who trusted everybody, including his central forces sent ostensibly to defend the masjid”.
The recordings captured Hindu leaders, including Tyagi Maharaj and Acharya Dharmendra, exhorting the crowd that the masjid must be destroyed and a temple built. Uma Bharti in her speech made three crucial points by demanding answers from the crowd: “Will you restrain yourselves when the leaders ask you to? Will you maintain peace and observe rules? Will you obey your leaders?’” The crowd bellowed a yes. But did the BJP really believe that it could control the kar sevaks, the RSS volunteers, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad after its own passion-rousing rath yatra?
Rehearsals of demolition teams practising with ropes, pick-axes and boulders were recorded by Newstrack. The images included Bajrang Dal leader Ramesh Pratap in khaki shorts ‘directing’ with a whistle.
Each time they pulled down a ‘practice boulder’, there were cheers. Bajrang Dal president Vinay Katiyar stated on camera, “I have never formulated any strategy keeping the Supreme Court in mind.” At the Marg Darshak Mandal meeting on December 5, 1992, VHP president Ashok Singhal responded to Newstrack’s query on whether he would obey the Supreme Court order to maintain the status quo: “Nonsense! We have nothing to do with courts. We are unaffected by the court order.”
The disputed area was cordoned off and only sadhus and journalists were allowed in. Around 11.00 am on December 6, BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi, L.K. Advani and the VHP’s Ashok Singhal were seen walking into the area. Ayodhya District Magistrate R.N. Srivastava smugly told the Newstrack team: “We have made full arrangements,” adding excitedly, “There is a lot of enthusiasm in the public.” Any fear of anything happening? “No fear,” Srivastava replied. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) D.B. Rai maintained that “peace and calm will prevail”. Srivastava, along with other senior bureaucrats, then settled down on a terrace to observe the demolition. Tea was served as they watched the proceedings.
As the mob started to demolish the cordoned-off area of the Babri Masjid, there was a clear divide between the general crowd and the hardcore kar sevaks. After being given a cue, the kar sevaks started assaulting journalists, breaking cameras and most journalists made a run for it. Newstrack’s sound recordist Ashok Bhanot hid tapes under a charpai in a nearby house. Another team carried on shooting.
The hardcore kar sevaks wearing yellow head-bands then started weeding out the general crowd (wearing orange head-bands) and only those trained and part of the demolition plan entered the area of the masjid. Singhal was seen shoving people himself. There was confusion among the faithful about why they were being thrown out. Those who resisted were beaten up. There was a specific plan with assigned roles for the demolition. Any ‘freelance’ help was not welcome.
“Watch this. The single-most crucial development that led to the destruction of the disputed structure — at this point there was no direct threat to the shrine and certainly no threat to the police — for some unknown reason: these troops suddenly lined up and filed out of the shrine area,” says Raghuvanshi in the voice-over of the footage. “Was this direct collusion? Were they ordered to leave and if so, by whom? There was no tear gas. No rubber bullets. No lathi charge. No firing. There was no attempt whatsoever to even try to defend the shrine.”
As sadhus blew conch-shells and kar sevaks scaled the barricades to the masjid with pick-axes, ropes and shovels, a small contingent of police stood just below the bureaucrats’ terrace. A police rebellion was caught on camera. As the demolition began, a frantic-looking SSP D.B. Rai ordered his troops to stop the demolition. The police force shuffled nervously, refusing to move even as Rai shouted at them. The bureaucrats kept sipping on their tea. Cameraman Bharat Raj realised then that the action to capture was not confined to the destruction of the masjid, but also the inaction around it.
The Censor Board banned the Newstrack tape. We appealed to the Appellate Tribunal in Bombay. Justice B. Lentin passed an order that stated, “Not only should this tape be allowed, it should be compulsory viewing for every citizen of India.” Doordarshan showed nothing.
We had 36 tapes of 20 minutes each, which totalled 12 hours. I was furious with Raghuvanshi for wasting so much tape on a 30-minute story. M.S. Liberhan asked Newstrack to hand over the tapes. I refused to hand over 12 hours of original tape and we gave him the edited story.
In the 17 years that Liberhan took to write his report, the BJP was in power for six years and the Congress for ten. One can presume that all the 48 extensions were given to Liberhan by both these parties, since the Congress and the BJP were in power for 16 out of the 17 years. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the tabling of the report did not suit either party.
Here’s the simple conclusion: both parties were responsible for the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has ordered an inquiry into the leaking of the Liberhan report. This is the wrong inquiry to order. Journalists were simply doing their job to get the contents of the Liberhan report to the public. There should be an inquiry into who gave Liberhan 48 extensions and took Indian citizens for a Rs 8 crore ride.
Madhu Trehan produced and anchored Newstrack, a video magazine, from 1988 to 1995.
Saw this, Liberhan?
by Madhu Trehan
It should have taken 60 minutes — 30 minutes to watch the footage from Newstrack, the old video magazine, and 30 minutes to write the report. Newstrack’s December 1992 edition gave a minute-by-minute account of what happened in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. And yet, M.S. Liberhan took 17 years to come up with what he came up with.
Mritinjoy Jha along with his team were in Ayodhya from November 23, 1992. Thousands of pumped-up, slogan-shouting people were pouring in, carrying pick-axes and other equipment. Manoj Raghuvanshi, with another Newstrack team, had pulled the story together. In his voice-over, Raghuvanshi spoke about “a chief minister who spoke from both sides of his mouth — promising the Supreme Court that no construction would take place on the disputed site — and a prime minister who trusted everybody, including his central forces sent ostensibly to defend the masjid”.
The recordings captured Hindu leaders, including Tyagi Maharaj and Acharya Dharmendra, exhorting the crowd that the masjid must be destroyed and a temple built. Uma Bharti in her speech made three crucial points by demanding answers from the crowd: “Will you restrain yourselves when the leaders ask you to? Will you maintain peace and observe rules? Will you obey your leaders?’” The crowd bellowed a yes. But did the BJP really believe that it could control the kar sevaks, the RSS volunteers, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad after its own passion-rousing rath yatra?
Rehearsals of demolition teams practising with ropes, pick-axes and boulders were recorded by Newstrack. The images included Bajrang Dal leader Ramesh Pratap in khaki shorts ‘directing’ with a whistle.
Each time they pulled down a ‘practice boulder’, there were cheers. Bajrang Dal president Vinay Katiyar stated on camera, “I have never formulated any strategy keeping the Supreme Court in mind.” At the Marg Darshak Mandal meeting on December 5, 1992, VHP president Ashok Singhal responded to Newstrack’s query on whether he would obey the Supreme Court order to maintain the status quo: “Nonsense! We have nothing to do with courts. We are unaffected by the court order.”
The disputed area was cordoned off and only sadhus and journalists were allowed in. Around 11.00 am on December 6, BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi, L.K. Advani and the VHP’s Ashok Singhal were seen walking into the area. Ayodhya District Magistrate R.N. Srivastava smugly told the Newstrack team: “We have made full arrangements,” adding excitedly, “There is a lot of enthusiasm in the public.” Any fear of anything happening? “No fear,” Srivastava replied. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) D.B. Rai maintained that “peace and calm will prevail”. Srivastava, along with other senior bureaucrats, then settled down on a terrace to observe the demolition. Tea was served as they watched the proceedings.
As the mob started to demolish the cordoned-off area of the Babri Masjid, there was a clear divide between the general crowd and the hardcore kar sevaks. After being given a cue, the kar sevaks started assaulting journalists, breaking cameras and most journalists made a run for it. Newstrack’s sound recordist Ashok Bhanot hid tapes under a charpai in a nearby house. Another team carried on shooting.
The hardcore kar sevaks wearing yellow head-bands then started weeding out the general crowd (wearing orange head-bands) and only those trained and part of the demolition plan entered the area of the masjid. Singhal was seen shoving people himself. There was confusion among the faithful about why they were being thrown out. Those who resisted were beaten up. There was a specific plan with assigned roles for the demolition. Any ‘freelance’ help was not welcome.
“Watch this. The single-most crucial development that led to the destruction of the disputed structure — at this point there was no direct threat to the shrine and certainly no threat to the police — for some unknown reason: these troops suddenly lined up and filed out of the shrine area,” says Raghuvanshi in the voice-over of the footage. “Was this direct collusion? Were they ordered to leave and if so, by whom? There was no tear gas. No rubber bullets. No lathi charge. No firing. There was no attempt whatsoever to even try to defend the shrine.”
As sadhus blew conch-shells and kar sevaks scaled the barricades to the masjid with pick-axes, ropes and shovels, a small contingent of police stood just below the bureaucrats’ terrace. A police rebellion was caught on camera. As the demolition began, a frantic-looking SSP D.B. Rai ordered his troops to stop the demolition. The police force shuffled nervously, refusing to move even as Rai shouted at them. The bureaucrats kept sipping on their tea. Cameraman Bharat Raj realised then that the action to capture was not confined to the destruction of the masjid, but also the inaction around it.
The Censor Board banned the Newstrack tape. We appealed to the Appellate Tribunal in Bombay. Justice B. Lentin passed an order that stated, “Not only should this tape be allowed, it should be compulsory viewing for every citizen of India.” Doordarshan showed nothing.
We had 36 tapes of 20 minutes each, which totalled 12 hours. I was furious with Raghuvanshi for wasting so much tape on a 30-minute story. M.S. Liberhan asked Newstrack to hand over the tapes. I refused to hand over 12 hours of original tape and we gave him the edited story.
In the 17 years that Liberhan took to write his report, the BJP was in power for six years and the Congress for ten. One can presume that all the 48 extensions were given to Liberhan by both these parties, since the Congress and the BJP were in power for 16 out of the 17 years. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the tabling of the report did not suit either party.
Here’s the simple conclusion: both parties were responsible for the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has ordered an inquiry into the leaking of the Liberhan report. This is the wrong inquiry to order. Journalists were simply doing their job to get the contents of the Liberhan report to the public. There should be an inquiry into who gave Liberhan 48 extensions and took Indian citizens for a Rs 8 crore ride.
Madhu Trehan produced and anchored Newstrack, a video magazine, from 1988 to 1995.
December 20, 2009
BSP and its politics of forging alliances with the Hindutva forces
The Times of India, 21 December 2009
What The Statues Say
by Badri Narayan
If you travel through Uttar Pradesh's kasbas, townships or cities like Lucknow and Allahabad, you might see some 20,000 Ambedkar statues. The vast and sprawling Ambedkar Park in Lucknow showcases tall statues of Ambedkar along with those of Kanshi Ram, Jyotiba Phule and Periyar. Most of these statues were erected during three tenures of the chief ministership of Mayawati (June 1995 to October 17, 1995, March 21, 1997 to September 20, 1997, and May 3, 2002 to August 26, 2003). After Mayawati came to power with a clear majority in 2007, construction of these statues gained momentum. Most of them were, and are, erected by the Bahujan Samaj Party government, with the aid of the development funds of several BSP ministers, MLAs and MPs. All this is being done in the name of fulfilling the dreams and missions of Ambedkar.
Strangely, Ambedkar who advocated struggles at the grassroots for the emancipation of Dalits was never in favour of erecting statues. In the initial days of his political career, Kanshi Ram also criticised Ambedkar's supporters in Maharashtra for betraying him by erecting his statues. He used to say that, in Maharashtra, Ambedkar's followers had killed his mission, message and dreams. He would ask, "What's the use of erecting statues, crows sit on these?" It is difficult to understand how the BSP founder later came to support the building of statues of Ambedkar, Mayawati as well as his own.
The dominant features of the Dalit emancipation movement that Indian society experienced were inspired by Ambedkar and led by Kanshi Ram. The movement developed in the form of a BSP upsurge. Kanshi Ram argued that the bahujan movement in UP was, in fact, the extension and flowering of the Dalit movement in Maharashtra. He even used to mix his own ideology with that of Ambedkar.
However, in the name of carrying forward the ideology of Ambedkar, the BSP in the past formed a government with the BJP, whose Hindutva ideology primarily strengthened Brahmanism. While Ambedkar favoured the abolition of the caste system in Indian society for Dalit emancipation, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati favoured the awakening of Dalit and backward identities in order to link these with the bahujan movement. Thus, in UP, to strengthen Ambedkar's vision, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati transformed his 'abolish caste system' slogan into a 'promote caste system' one.
So, while Ambedkar wanted it dismantled, the caste system was used by Kanshi Ram to polarise the Dalits instead. The latter's argument was that social polarisation based on the caste identities of Dalits and marginalised communities was meant to oppose and eventually demolish Brahmanical politics. Ambedkar laid emphasis on identity and the struggle for self-respect, locating Dalits in history. In contrast, Kanshi Ram mingled myth with history, popular culture with intellectualism. He used pragmatic wisdom (vyavaharic vivek) as the basis of his politics. In contrast, Ambedkar wanted to empower Dalits by building their intellectual capacities in order to ensure their political emancipation. His idea of emancipation was not memories or memorials.
The basic differences between Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram are latent in the development of their personalities and viewpoints. Ambedkar, who studied at Columbia University, was a modern and intellectual leader. Kanshi Ram, in contrast, belonged to a small village of Punjab, with a critical stance towards Marathi Dalit politics. He evolved as an excellent organiser of Dalit politics. Ambedkar believed Dalits couldn't be freed from Brahmanism within the Hindu fold. He, therefore, embraced Buddhism along with thousands of Dalits. Kanshi Ram and Mayawati held an opposed view on this subject, the main reason being not to alienate and anger the majority of Dalits who are part of popular sects of the Bhakti kaal (era of devotion) of the Hindus, like Kabirpanthi, Ravidasi, Satnami, Shivnarayani, etc. It was a wise political strategy, which was to both link them and carry forward the avowed mission.
If Ambedkar were around today, he might have paused and thought very deeply before forging alliances with the Hindutva forces. But Kanshi Ram was known to defend his political strategy without any scruples or qualms. He used to say, "If someone feels that this is opportunism, my answer is that if Brahmanism used it to strengthen itself, why i should not strengthen the Dalits treading the same path?"
Though Kanshi Ram criticised the Congress and the BJP for practising Brahmanism, he followed the path of these political parties. Ambedkar, on the other hand, favoured an alternative culture, religion and politics to assert Dalit rights; he held ideology and principles in high esteem. Kanshi Ram, by contrast, adopted pragmatic politics as a guide in the search for Dalit emancipation. He used to elaborate the differences between Ambedkar and himself by saying, "Ambedkar used to collect books, i collect people."
The difference between a thorough intellectual and a practical organiser is, therefore, pretty sharp. The statues in UP are a testimony to two very different political visions.
The writer is with G B Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad.
What The Statues Say
by Badri Narayan
If you travel through Uttar Pradesh's kasbas, townships or cities like Lucknow and Allahabad, you might see some 20,000 Ambedkar statues. The vast and sprawling Ambedkar Park in Lucknow showcases tall statues of Ambedkar along with those of Kanshi Ram, Jyotiba Phule and Periyar. Most of these statues were erected during three tenures of the chief ministership of Mayawati (June 1995 to October 17, 1995, March 21, 1997 to September 20, 1997, and May 3, 2002 to August 26, 2003). After Mayawati came to power with a clear majority in 2007, construction of these statues gained momentum. Most of them were, and are, erected by the Bahujan Samaj Party government, with the aid of the development funds of several BSP ministers, MLAs and MPs. All this is being done in the name of fulfilling the dreams and missions of Ambedkar.
Strangely, Ambedkar who advocated struggles at the grassroots for the emancipation of Dalits was never in favour of erecting statues. In the initial days of his political career, Kanshi Ram also criticised Ambedkar's supporters in Maharashtra for betraying him by erecting his statues. He used to say that, in Maharashtra, Ambedkar's followers had killed his mission, message and dreams. He would ask, "What's the use of erecting statues, crows sit on these?" It is difficult to understand how the BSP founder later came to support the building of statues of Ambedkar, Mayawati as well as his own.
The dominant features of the Dalit emancipation movement that Indian society experienced were inspired by Ambedkar and led by Kanshi Ram. The movement developed in the form of a BSP upsurge. Kanshi Ram argued that the bahujan movement in UP was, in fact, the extension and flowering of the Dalit movement in Maharashtra. He even used to mix his own ideology with that of Ambedkar.
However, in the name of carrying forward the ideology of Ambedkar, the BSP in the past formed a government with the BJP, whose Hindutva ideology primarily strengthened Brahmanism. While Ambedkar favoured the abolition of the caste system in Indian society for Dalit emancipation, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati favoured the awakening of Dalit and backward identities in order to link these with the bahujan movement. Thus, in UP, to strengthen Ambedkar's vision, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati transformed his 'abolish caste system' slogan into a 'promote caste system' one.
So, while Ambedkar wanted it dismantled, the caste system was used by Kanshi Ram to polarise the Dalits instead. The latter's argument was that social polarisation based on the caste identities of Dalits and marginalised communities was meant to oppose and eventually demolish Brahmanical politics. Ambedkar laid emphasis on identity and the struggle for self-respect, locating Dalits in history. In contrast, Kanshi Ram mingled myth with history, popular culture with intellectualism. He used pragmatic wisdom (vyavaharic vivek) as the basis of his politics. In contrast, Ambedkar wanted to empower Dalits by building their intellectual capacities in order to ensure their political emancipation. His idea of emancipation was not memories or memorials.
The basic differences between Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram are latent in the development of their personalities and viewpoints. Ambedkar, who studied at Columbia University, was a modern and intellectual leader. Kanshi Ram, in contrast, belonged to a small village of Punjab, with a critical stance towards Marathi Dalit politics. He evolved as an excellent organiser of Dalit politics. Ambedkar believed Dalits couldn't be freed from Brahmanism within the Hindu fold. He, therefore, embraced Buddhism along with thousands of Dalits. Kanshi Ram and Mayawati held an opposed view on this subject, the main reason being not to alienate and anger the majority of Dalits who are part of popular sects of the Bhakti kaal (era of devotion) of the Hindus, like Kabirpanthi, Ravidasi, Satnami, Shivnarayani, etc. It was a wise political strategy, which was to both link them and carry forward the avowed mission.
If Ambedkar were around today, he might have paused and thought very deeply before forging alliances with the Hindutva forces. But Kanshi Ram was known to defend his political strategy without any scruples or qualms. He used to say, "If someone feels that this is opportunism, my answer is that if Brahmanism used it to strengthen itself, why i should not strengthen the Dalits treading the same path?"
Though Kanshi Ram criticised the Congress and the BJP for practising Brahmanism, he followed the path of these political parties. Ambedkar, on the other hand, favoured an alternative culture, religion and politics to assert Dalit rights; he held ideology and principles in high esteem. Kanshi Ram, by contrast, adopted pragmatic politics as a guide in the search for Dalit emancipation. He used to elaborate the differences between Ambedkar and himself by saying, "Ambedkar used to collect books, i collect people."
The difference between a thorough intellectual and a practical organiser is, therefore, pretty sharp. The statues in UP are a testimony to two very different political visions.
The writer is with G B Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad.
Gujarat: The forgotten riots of surat
The Indian Express, Dec 17, 2009
The forgotten riots
by Parimal Dabhi
Ahmedabad/ Surat : While Justice Liberhan may have submitted his report 17 years late, an inquiry commission for the 1992 riots that broke out in Surat in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition was terminated in 1997 because it sought several extensions. And while a human rights group challenged the decision in court, this attempt failed to revive the commission.
Though the official death toll in the Surat riots stands at 152, many went missing, and property worth crores was damaged, no one has been held accountable. Lawyer-turned-BJP MLA Atmaram Parmar who defended the accused in the riots admits that there has not even been one conviction in cases of arson, rape and murder that are comparable to the 2002 riots in the state.
Incidentally, Shankersinh Vaghela, who as the chief minister in 1997 ordered the termination of the state inquiry commission, is the lone Congress leader to be indicted by the Liberhan Commission for his role in inciting the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots.
The ill-fated inquiry commission was ordered by Chimanbhai Patel’s Congress government two months after the Surat riots. It was initially headed by Justice (retd) I C Bhatt, but when he was appointed as the Lokayukta in 1995-96, Justice P M Chauhan replaced him.
Incidentally, it was on the issue of the Ayodhya rath yatra that Chimanbhai Patel’s support shifted from the BJP to Congress. Patel, heading the Janata Dal-Gujarat, became the chief minister with the BJP’s support in 1990 but the coalition fell apart on the issue of support to L K Advani’s rath yatra which began from Somnath in Gujarat. By 1992, Chimanbhai Patel emerged as a Congress chief minister after merging the Janata Dal-Gujarat with the party.
Further political ironies were to play out. Vaghela was the state BJP president when the riots broke out in 1992-93, but he went on to engineer a split in the party and toppled the Suresh Mehta-led BJP government in 1995. He then formed the government with the support of the Congress in October 1996. It was in 1997 that he ordered the termination of the inquiry commission, just when the final report was being dictated.
“I am strongly against giving extensions to the inquiry commissions as they become an instrument of getting various allowances only. And so, I ordered the termination of the Chauhan Commission when it did not meet the deadline,” says Vaghela.
While Vaghela’s decision to terminate the commission was challenged in the Gujarat High Court by a human rights group, Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), the division bench of the HC dismissed the petition saying that the state government has the power to terminate the inquiry commission. Mukul Sinha of JSM said that the HC decision was challenged in the Supreme Court but it “did not entertain the petition at the relevant time.”
The outcome is that the findings of the commission report may never be known. Justice Chauhan refuses to comment on it and the survivors — especially women and children who were raped and lost their entire families — are reluctant to recall the trauma they went through.
The only candid admission comes surprisingly from BJP MLA, Atmaram Parmar, who defended those accused in the riots’ cases “To the best of my knowledge not a single person had been convicted in any case of 1992 riots.”
The forgotten riots
by Parimal Dabhi
Ahmedabad/ Surat : While Justice Liberhan may have submitted his report 17 years late, an inquiry commission for the 1992 riots that broke out in Surat in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition was terminated in 1997 because it sought several extensions. And while a human rights group challenged the decision in court, this attempt failed to revive the commission.
Though the official death toll in the Surat riots stands at 152, many went missing, and property worth crores was damaged, no one has been held accountable. Lawyer-turned-BJP MLA Atmaram Parmar who defended the accused in the riots admits that there has not even been one conviction in cases of arson, rape and murder that are comparable to the 2002 riots in the state.
Incidentally, Shankersinh Vaghela, who as the chief minister in 1997 ordered the termination of the state inquiry commission, is the lone Congress leader to be indicted by the Liberhan Commission for his role in inciting the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots.
The ill-fated inquiry commission was ordered by Chimanbhai Patel’s Congress government two months after the Surat riots. It was initially headed by Justice (retd) I C Bhatt, but when he was appointed as the Lokayukta in 1995-96, Justice P M Chauhan replaced him.
Incidentally, it was on the issue of the Ayodhya rath yatra that Chimanbhai Patel’s support shifted from the BJP to Congress. Patel, heading the Janata Dal-Gujarat, became the chief minister with the BJP’s support in 1990 but the coalition fell apart on the issue of support to L K Advani’s rath yatra which began from Somnath in Gujarat. By 1992, Chimanbhai Patel emerged as a Congress chief minister after merging the Janata Dal-Gujarat with the party.
Further political ironies were to play out. Vaghela was the state BJP president when the riots broke out in 1992-93, but he went on to engineer a split in the party and toppled the Suresh Mehta-led BJP government in 1995. He then formed the government with the support of the Congress in October 1996. It was in 1997 that he ordered the termination of the inquiry commission, just when the final report was being dictated.
“I am strongly against giving extensions to the inquiry commissions as they become an instrument of getting various allowances only. And so, I ordered the termination of the Chauhan Commission when it did not meet the deadline,” says Vaghela.
While Vaghela’s decision to terminate the commission was challenged in the Gujarat High Court by a human rights group, Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), the division bench of the HC dismissed the petition saying that the state government has the power to terminate the inquiry commission. Mukul Sinha of JSM said that the HC decision was challenged in the Supreme Court but it “did not entertain the petition at the relevant time.”
The outcome is that the findings of the commission report may never be known. Justice Chauhan refuses to comment on it and the survivors — especially women and children who were raped and lost their entire families — are reluctant to recall the trauma they went through.
The only candid admission comes surprisingly from BJP MLA, Atmaram Parmar, who defended those accused in the riots’ cases “To the best of my knowledge not a single person had been convicted in any case of 1992 riots.”
December 19, 2009
Goa Bomber linked to three hindutva organisations
Times of India
Goa blast: Malgonda Patil linked to two more Hindu organizations
PTI 17 December 2009, 12:32pm IST
PANAJI: Goa home ministry has said that Malgonda Patil, prime accused in the Margao blast, was also a managing trustee of two more Hindu organizations besides his association with Sanatan Sanstha.
The names of these two Hindu organisations -- Dharma Prachar Sabha and Hindu Dharma Prathisthan -- had surfaced publicly for the first time since October 16, when a blast triggered panic in the commercial town of Margao in South Goa.
The record furnished on the floor of the House during the ongoing state Legislative Assembly session has confirmed Patil's links to these two institutions.
Patil (28), a native of Sangli in Maharashtra, till date was known only for his links with Sanatan Sanstha, a right-wing Hindu organisation operating from Ramnathi village of Goa.
Patil died when the bomb he had planned to plant triggered prematurely.
Yogesh Patil (29), a Goan native, also died in the blast, which occurred on Diwali eve and was a part of larger conspiracy to trigger serial explosions in the state.
Home minister Ravi Naik in a statement in the floor of the House said that gelatin sticks, detonators and timer circuits were used to set off the explosion.
He said that immediately after the blast, chief minister Digamber Kamat, alongwith Fatorda constituency Legislator Damodar Naik, visited the spot.
Goa blast: Malgonda Patil linked to two more Hindu organizations
PTI 17 December 2009, 12:32pm IST
PANAJI: Goa home ministry has said that Malgonda Patil, prime accused in the Margao blast, was also a managing trustee of two more Hindu organizations besides his association with Sanatan Sanstha.
The names of these two Hindu organisations -- Dharma Prachar Sabha and Hindu Dharma Prathisthan -- had surfaced publicly for the first time since October 16, when a blast triggered panic in the commercial town of Margao in South Goa.
The record furnished on the floor of the House during the ongoing state Legislative Assembly session has confirmed Patil's links to these two institutions.
Patil (28), a native of Sangli in Maharashtra, till date was known only for his links with Sanatan Sanstha, a right-wing Hindu organisation operating from Ramnathi village of Goa.
Patil died when the bomb he had planned to plant triggered prematurely.
Yogesh Patil (29), a Goan native, also died in the blast, which occurred on Diwali eve and was a part of larger conspiracy to trigger serial explosions in the state.
Home minister Ravi Naik in a statement in the floor of the House said that gelatin sticks, detonators and timer circuits were used to set off the explosion.
He said that immediately after the blast, chief minister Digamber Kamat, alongwith Fatorda constituency Legislator Damodar Naik, visited the spot.
December 17, 2009
New Book by Asghar Ali Engineer on Communalism and Terrorism
SECULARISM, DEMOCRACY AND MUSLIM EXPERIENCE IN INDIA: Understanding
Communalism and Terrorism
A new book written by Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
The Essays presented here discuss briefly but seriously contemporary events
and issues pertaining mostly to Islam, Muslims and minorities from secular
perspective. The author lays stress here on the importance and need of
humanism and dignity of all human beings, irrespective of one’s religion,
race, language or culture.
In Asia, particularly in South Asia both religious and ethnic minorities are
being discriminated against. They suffer doubly from majority prejudices as
well as from repression by the state organs. The author highlights the
problem and gives the answer.
The author feels that Muslim women suffer a lot. They are a minority within
minority. In many cases, Muslims themselves discriminate against their women
and impose on them restrictions not called for even from Islamic point of
view. Their Qur’anic rights, the author stresses must be honoured by Muslim
men.
It is hoped that this book, like author’s other books, would attract
concerned people’s attention and help spread proper awareness about minority
rights and make the world less irritating and more pleasing.
CONTENTS
Preface
SECTION - 1: RELIGION, CULTURE & SECULARISM
1. Composite Culture of India: A Perspective
2. Inter-Faith Dialogue: Some Thoughts
3. Religion: A Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace?
4. How Secular is India?
SECTION – II: MUSLIMS, POLITICS & EDUCATION
1. Indian Muslim: Moderation and Extremism
2. Madrasa Education: Myth and Reality
3. Shibli Nu’mani and National Politics
4. Muslim Party: Should or Should No Be?
SECTION – III : DEMOCRACY & MINORITIES
1. Democracy: Inclusion or Exclusion?
2. Discontents of Democracy
3. Religious Extremism and Democracy
4. Islam in Democracy
5. Democracy, Elections and Minorities in India
SECTION – IV: TACKLING TERRORISM
1. Terror Attacks: Is There Any Way Out?
2. Terrorism: How Not to Combat It?
3. Terrorism, Police and Minorities
4. Terrorism, Communal Violence and Police
5. Terrorist Attack on Mumbai: What Should Be Done?
6. Jammu on Fire? How to Destroy Integrity of The Country?
7. And They Struck Again
8. Islam: Muslims and Terrorism
9. And Now Hindu Terrorists?
SECTION – V: UNDERSTANDING COMMUNAL PROBLEMS
1. Communal Riots: A Case Study
2. Malegoan Bomb Blasts and Hindutva Extremists
3. Whither BJP Now?
4. India is Darul Aman, Mr. Singhal!
5. Nehru, Jinnah And Partition
6. Maulana Azad and Partition
7. On Confederation in the Sub-Continent: Some Thoughts
Total Pages: 200
Price: INR.495/-
For Copies Contact
Hope India Publications
85, Sector 23, Gurgaon – 122017,
Haryana, India
Tel. +91 124 2367308, +91 9911402692
E-mail: info@hopeindiapublications.com
www.hopeindiapublications.com
Communalism and Terrorism
A new book written by Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
The Essays presented here discuss briefly but seriously contemporary events
and issues pertaining mostly to Islam, Muslims and minorities from secular
perspective. The author lays stress here on the importance and need of
humanism and dignity of all human beings, irrespective of one’s religion,
race, language or culture.
In Asia, particularly in South Asia both religious and ethnic minorities are
being discriminated against. They suffer doubly from majority prejudices as
well as from repression by the state organs. The author highlights the
problem and gives the answer.
The author feels that Muslim women suffer a lot. They are a minority within
minority. In many cases, Muslims themselves discriminate against their women
and impose on them restrictions not called for even from Islamic point of
view. Their Qur’anic rights, the author stresses must be honoured by Muslim
men.
It is hoped that this book, like author’s other books, would attract
concerned people’s attention and help spread proper awareness about minority
rights and make the world less irritating and more pleasing.
CONTENTS
Preface
SECTION - 1: RELIGION, CULTURE & SECULARISM
1. Composite Culture of India: A Perspective
2. Inter-Faith Dialogue: Some Thoughts
3. Religion: A Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace?
4. How Secular is India?
SECTION – II: MUSLIMS, POLITICS & EDUCATION
1. Indian Muslim: Moderation and Extremism
2. Madrasa Education: Myth and Reality
3. Shibli Nu’mani and National Politics
4. Muslim Party: Should or Should No Be?
SECTION – III : DEMOCRACY & MINORITIES
1. Democracy: Inclusion or Exclusion?
2. Discontents of Democracy
3. Religious Extremism and Democracy
4. Islam in Democracy
5. Democracy, Elections and Minorities in India
SECTION – IV: TACKLING TERRORISM
1. Terror Attacks: Is There Any Way Out?
2. Terrorism: How Not to Combat It?
3. Terrorism, Police and Minorities
4. Terrorism, Communal Violence and Police
5. Terrorist Attack on Mumbai: What Should Be Done?
6. Jammu on Fire? How to Destroy Integrity of The Country?
7. And They Struck Again
8. Islam: Muslims and Terrorism
9. And Now Hindu Terrorists?
SECTION – V: UNDERSTANDING COMMUNAL PROBLEMS
1. Communal Riots: A Case Study
2. Malegoan Bomb Blasts and Hindutva Extremists
3. Whither BJP Now?
4. India is Darul Aman, Mr. Singhal!
5. Nehru, Jinnah And Partition
6. Maulana Azad and Partition
7. On Confederation in the Sub-Continent: Some Thoughts
Total Pages: 200
Price: INR.495/-
For Copies Contact
Hope India Publications
85, Sector 23, Gurgaon – 122017,
Haryana, India
Tel. +91 124 2367308, +91 9911402692
E-mail: info@hopeindiapublications.com
www.hopeindiapublications.com
December 16, 2009
Justice is so delayed and the organisers of anti Sikh Pogrom still not in dock
The Telegraph, December 16 , 2009
ONLY WORDS
The repetition of the promise that action will be taken against those who are accused of killing the Sikhs in 1984 is becoming as tedious as a tale told many times over. The latest in the series of promises comes from none other than the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram, who assured the Rajya Sabha that action against the 1984 riot accused would be speeded up. The home minister advised the lieutenant governor of Delhi, Tejinder Khanna, to sanction prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation in four riot cases before the end of 2009. Mr Chidambaram announced to the Upper House that the CBI’s investigations were complete in seven cases against the Congress’s three politicians, Dharam Das Shastri, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. (Shastri, it needs to be pointed out, is dead.) Messrs Tytler and Kumar are still active in politics, even though they were denied tickets in the Delhi assembly polls earlier this year. This kind of reassurance, even when it comes from the Union home minister, does precious little to assuage the grievances of the Sikhs. If anything, it aggravates the grievances since it bypasses certain crucial questions.
There is no satisfactory answer, for example, to the question why it has taken so long to arrive at a decision on the cases that go back to 1984. The other uncomfortable question relates to the presence of Mr Tytler and Mr Kumar in Congress politics. There is something to be said against the failure to suspend them or expel them from the Congress party. It would not be unfair to conclude that the only time Mr Chidambaram wakes up to take cognizance of Sikh grievances regarding the 1984 killings is when a Sikh hurls a shoe at him or when Sikh members of parliament raise the issue. It would be simplistic to only blame Mr Chidambaram about this state of affairs where justice is so delayed that it appears as if it has been deferred. There is something systemic in the delays that occur to unearth evidence and then to prosecute on incidents that are matters of national shame. One recent example is the report of the Liberhan Commission, which has taken 17 years to prepare. The pogrom against the Sikhs — the word, pogrom, is used advisedly since the epithet, riot, is an euphemism for what was a one-sided and organized killing — happened 25 years ago and nothing more than apologies has been offered.
ONLY WORDS
The repetition of the promise that action will be taken against those who are accused of killing the Sikhs in 1984 is becoming as tedious as a tale told many times over. The latest in the series of promises comes from none other than the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram, who assured the Rajya Sabha that action against the 1984 riot accused would be speeded up. The home minister advised the lieutenant governor of Delhi, Tejinder Khanna, to sanction prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation in four riot cases before the end of 2009. Mr Chidambaram announced to the Upper House that the CBI’s investigations were complete in seven cases against the Congress’s three politicians, Dharam Das Shastri, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. (Shastri, it needs to be pointed out, is dead.) Messrs Tytler and Kumar are still active in politics, even though they were denied tickets in the Delhi assembly polls earlier this year. This kind of reassurance, even when it comes from the Union home minister, does precious little to assuage the grievances of the Sikhs. If anything, it aggravates the grievances since it bypasses certain crucial questions.
There is no satisfactory answer, for example, to the question why it has taken so long to arrive at a decision on the cases that go back to 1984. The other uncomfortable question relates to the presence of Mr Tytler and Mr Kumar in Congress politics. There is something to be said against the failure to suspend them or expel them from the Congress party. It would not be unfair to conclude that the only time Mr Chidambaram wakes up to take cognizance of Sikh grievances regarding the 1984 killings is when a Sikh hurls a shoe at him or when Sikh members of parliament raise the issue. It would be simplistic to only blame Mr Chidambaram about this state of affairs where justice is so delayed that it appears as if it has been deferred. There is something systemic in the delays that occur to unearth evidence and then to prosecute on incidents that are matters of national shame. One recent example is the report of the Liberhan Commission, which has taken 17 years to prepare. The pogrom against the Sikhs — the word, pogrom, is used advisedly since the epithet, riot, is an euphemism for what was a one-sided and organized killing — happened 25 years ago and nothing more than apologies has been offered.
Ghettoes in the making
by Ram Puniyani
As per the report in a section of media recently (November 2009) UK based Muslim charities have warned the Muslims living in the relief colonies set up in the wake of Gujarat carnage, that they must abide with a code of conduct, no TV, no music, education only in Madrassa, particular type of cap and beard for men, hijab for women, etc. If these are not adhered to the Charity threatened that they will stop supporting the relief work. At the same time the members of Tablighi Jamat insisted on the similar lines, 'Islamic Behavior' or else! The Muslims living in these colonies are living a wretched life, totally bereft of any support from state and boycotted by the society at large.
There are cases where the residents of this 'lesser world' have opposed such dictates coming through local Maulanas, but they have been beaten to silence. The society at large is not permitting them to come out of the emotional and physical walls erected by the state and civil society around them. The orthodox elements, clerical etc., are not permitting them to live as they like, to endeavor for modern education and jobs, a life matching with our times. One recalls that in the aftermath of Godhra train burning and the riots engineered on the pretext of taking revenge of Godhra, took a heavy toll of the life of Muslim minorities. As the refugee camps were to be set up by the state, it reluctantly did part of the job and soon enough, even before the tears of trauma dried up and scars of the violence were healed, the state supported camps were wound up. The Gujarat Chief Mininster Narendra Modi said that there is no need to keep these 'Child producing factories to go on'.
Other charities enlarged their scope of work and stepped up their activities to fill the vacuum left by the action of heartless state administration and a largely hostile civic society. The mosques which gave them shelter also imposed a version of Islam, a type of life style on them, which was alien to most of the Gujarat Muslims. The compensation by the state did not come up to the necessary and mandatory level. Once the total rehabilitation fell under the control of orthodox Muslim charities, they started imposing the retrograde norms on the community. The most glaring example of this was manifest in the housing pattern which came up in due course. One noticed that the dwellings were comparatively smaller while the mosques were bigger. One also noticed that the presence of Maulanas became more dominant in these communities. The Madrassas were the only type of schools available for these 'children of the other God'.
One knows very well that prior to violence in Gujarat the Muslim community there was going more for trade, modern education and the like. The process has been reversed by the physical insecurity created by carnage and this has been topped with the total neglect of the plight of Muslims by the state. One is witnessing a very interesting sociological phenomenon in Gujarat. On one side the planned carnage left the minority community helpless and gripped by insecurity. On the other, since the state controlled by right wing politics bypasses the legal, social and moral norms, it left the victims to fend for themselves.
The popular perceptions accuse the Muslim minority of being conservative etc., but it never goes beyond this level of perception to understand as to why it is so. One concedes that what is going on so intensely in Gujarat today vis a vis Muslim community has been a widespread phenomenon in different Muslim majority areas, more so those areas which have seen communal violence. One also knows that in communal violence the percentage of Muslim victims is over 80%, while their percentage in population is 13.4%. The insecurity this creates is the root of conservatism in this community. One also knows that Muslim community is no uniform monolith. There are types and types of pattern of living. Till 1990 large sections of Muslims girls and boys were trying to come up and take to Modern vocations, teachers, professionals of various types and what not. 1992-93 Mumbai carnage came as a big damper and the Muslim youth got a big setback, economic deprivation on the top of insecurity. For sometime the large section of community could not recover from the trauma of the violence. As they began to recover, there was Gujarat baying at them.
A chicken and egg situation! The insecurity ghettoizes them and retards their path; the same is then used by the propaganda mills to demonize them. On one hand the myth is spread that Madrassas are a breeding ground for terrorists, on the other a situation is created where Madrassas remain the only option for Muslim children. While this Madrassa and terrorism is a total lie, barring of course those Madrassas which were set up with US-CIA link in Pakistan, where Muslim youth were indoctrinated to take the path of violence against Russian army. One can confidently say that the Indian Madrassas are just teaching Koran and not terrorism.
The condition of large section of Muslims can only be compared to the Shudras in Ancient India, where the society treated them as slaves and codified their slavery as their Dharma, Shudra Dharma. They were also ghettoized. The other example is the African Americans of US, where the Whites committed atrocities on them and pushed them to the ghettoes, depriving them of dignity and civic rights. The rise of Right wing communal politics in India from last three decades in particular, politics in the name of religion, which is seeping through different pores of state apparatus and social thinking, is achieving the same purpose, to create a set of second class beings at the mercy and service of the elites trying to impose retrograde politics on the society at large.
As per the report in a section of media recently (November 2009) UK based Muslim charities have warned the Muslims living in the relief colonies set up in the wake of Gujarat carnage, that they must abide with a code of conduct, no TV, no music, education only in Madrassa, particular type of cap and beard for men, hijab for women, etc. If these are not adhered to the Charity threatened that they will stop supporting the relief work. At the same time the members of Tablighi Jamat insisted on the similar lines, 'Islamic Behavior' or else! The Muslims living in these colonies are living a wretched life, totally bereft of any support from state and boycotted by the society at large.
There are cases where the residents of this 'lesser world' have opposed such dictates coming through local Maulanas, but they have been beaten to silence. The society at large is not permitting them to come out of the emotional and physical walls erected by the state and civil society around them. The orthodox elements, clerical etc., are not permitting them to live as they like, to endeavor for modern education and jobs, a life matching with our times. One recalls that in the aftermath of Godhra train burning and the riots engineered on the pretext of taking revenge of Godhra, took a heavy toll of the life of Muslim minorities. As the refugee camps were to be set up by the state, it reluctantly did part of the job and soon enough, even before the tears of trauma dried up and scars of the violence were healed, the state supported camps were wound up. The Gujarat Chief Mininster Narendra Modi said that there is no need to keep these 'Child producing factories to go on'.
Other charities enlarged their scope of work and stepped up their activities to fill the vacuum left by the action of heartless state administration and a largely hostile civic society. The mosques which gave them shelter also imposed a version of Islam, a type of life style on them, which was alien to most of the Gujarat Muslims. The compensation by the state did not come up to the necessary and mandatory level. Once the total rehabilitation fell under the control of orthodox Muslim charities, they started imposing the retrograde norms on the community. The most glaring example of this was manifest in the housing pattern which came up in due course. One noticed that the dwellings were comparatively smaller while the mosques were bigger. One also noticed that the presence of Maulanas became more dominant in these communities. The Madrassas were the only type of schools available for these 'children of the other God'.
One knows very well that prior to violence in Gujarat the Muslim community there was going more for trade, modern education and the like. The process has been reversed by the physical insecurity created by carnage and this has been topped with the total neglect of the plight of Muslims by the state. One is witnessing a very interesting sociological phenomenon in Gujarat. On one side the planned carnage left the minority community helpless and gripped by insecurity. On the other, since the state controlled by right wing politics bypasses the legal, social and moral norms, it left the victims to fend for themselves.
The popular perceptions accuse the Muslim minority of being conservative etc., but it never goes beyond this level of perception to understand as to why it is so. One concedes that what is going on so intensely in Gujarat today vis a vis Muslim community has been a widespread phenomenon in different Muslim majority areas, more so those areas which have seen communal violence. One also knows that in communal violence the percentage of Muslim victims is over 80%, while their percentage in population is 13.4%. The insecurity this creates is the root of conservatism in this community. One also knows that Muslim community is no uniform monolith. There are types and types of pattern of living. Till 1990 large sections of Muslims girls and boys were trying to come up and take to Modern vocations, teachers, professionals of various types and what not. 1992-93 Mumbai carnage came as a big damper and the Muslim youth got a big setback, economic deprivation on the top of insecurity. For sometime the large section of community could not recover from the trauma of the violence. As they began to recover, there was Gujarat baying at them.
A chicken and egg situation! The insecurity ghettoizes them and retards their path; the same is then used by the propaganda mills to demonize them. On one hand the myth is spread that Madrassas are a breeding ground for terrorists, on the other a situation is created where Madrassas remain the only option for Muslim children. While this Madrassa and terrorism is a total lie, barring of course those Madrassas which were set up with US-CIA link in Pakistan, where Muslim youth were indoctrinated to take the path of violence against Russian army. One can confidently say that the Indian Madrassas are just teaching Koran and not terrorism.
The condition of large section of Muslims can only be compared to the Shudras in Ancient India, where the society treated them as slaves and codified their slavery as their Dharma, Shudra Dharma. They were also ghettoized. The other example is the African Americans of US, where the Whites committed atrocities on them and pushed them to the ghettoes, depriving them of dignity and civic rights. The rise of Right wing communal politics in India from last three decades in particular, politics in the name of religion, which is seeping through different pores of state apparatus and social thinking, is achieving the same purpose, to create a set of second class beings at the mercy and service of the elites trying to impose retrograde politics on the society at large.
December 15, 2009
A New Dress for the Hindu Right -- Will the RSS drop the Khakhi Shorts?
From: The Times, December 12, 2009
Hindu nationalists drop their baggy shorts
by Jeremy Page in Delhi
For more than eight decades, members of India’s largest Hindu nationalist organisation have identified themselves with a distinctive military-style uniform consisting of long baggy shorts, a white shirt and a black cloth cap.
Followers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can still be seen wearing the uniform, modelled on that of British colonial police, as they perform ritual early morning exercises in public parks and squares across India.
Now, 84 years after its foundation, the RSS has finally given in to the demands of modern India and decided to renounce its uniform. Ravi Bansal, a RSS spokesman, told The Times that it hoped to devise a new uniform by March.
The move is the latest attempt by India’s beleaguered Hindu nationalists to overhaul their image after a year in which its main political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, was trounced in a general election. Analysts say that the movement — which campaigns to rid India of the legacies of foreign invasions and establish a pure Hindu state — is struggling to appeal to young people, especially the urban middle classes.
Related Links
* India and Pakistan relations ‘better than feared’
* Top Indian politician shot dead by brother
So, as well as deciding to change its uniform, the RSS has also introduced evening meetings as an alternative to its traditional morning exercises to cater for busy middle-class professionals.
It has organised special forums for supporters in the technology hubs of Bangalore and Hyderabad. It is also allowing married couples to take a more prominent role in the organisation, although its leadership still consists entirely of celibate males, known as pracharaks.
Some RSS veterans say that the uniform change is a step too far and betrays the legacy of K. B. Hedgewar, who founded the movement in 1925 and introduced the uniform a year later to encourage discipline.
Critics are happy to see the end of a uniform that they say was inspired partly by the European fascist movements of the 1920s. The RSS, which trained the killer of Mahatma Gandhi, has been banned three times for inciting violence and is still often accused of fomenting ethnic and religious hatred.
The question now is whether the movement can agree on a design for the eight million members it claims.
Sadanand Menon, a popular columnist, said: “It is universally accepted that there can be nothing more boring and unattractive than their present attire ... What designers will have to pay attention to is how to make it trendy, smart and ‘cool’.”
Hindu nationalists drop their baggy shorts
by Jeremy Page in Delhi
For more than eight decades, members of India’s largest Hindu nationalist organisation have identified themselves with a distinctive military-style uniform consisting of long baggy shorts, a white shirt and a black cloth cap.
Followers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can still be seen wearing the uniform, modelled on that of British colonial police, as they perform ritual early morning exercises in public parks and squares across India.
Now, 84 years after its foundation, the RSS has finally given in to the demands of modern India and decided to renounce its uniform. Ravi Bansal, a RSS spokesman, told The Times that it hoped to devise a new uniform by March.
The move is the latest attempt by India’s beleaguered Hindu nationalists to overhaul their image after a year in which its main political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, was trounced in a general election. Analysts say that the movement — which campaigns to rid India of the legacies of foreign invasions and establish a pure Hindu state — is struggling to appeal to young people, especially the urban middle classes.
Related Links
* India and Pakistan relations ‘better than feared’
* Top Indian politician shot dead by brother
So, as well as deciding to change its uniform, the RSS has also introduced evening meetings as an alternative to its traditional morning exercises to cater for busy middle-class professionals.
It has organised special forums for supporters in the technology hubs of Bangalore and Hyderabad. It is also allowing married couples to take a more prominent role in the organisation, although its leadership still consists entirely of celibate males, known as pracharaks.
Some RSS veterans say that the uniform change is a step too far and betrays the legacy of K. B. Hedgewar, who founded the movement in 1925 and introduced the uniform a year later to encourage discipline.
Critics are happy to see the end of a uniform that they say was inspired partly by the European fascist movements of the 1920s. The RSS, which trained the killer of Mahatma Gandhi, has been banned three times for inciting violence and is still often accused of fomenting ethnic and religious hatred.
The question now is whether the movement can agree on a design for the eight million members it claims.
Sadanand Menon, a popular columnist, said: “It is universally accepted that there can be nothing more boring and unattractive than their present attire ... What designers will have to pay attention to is how to make it trendy, smart and ‘cool’.”
Editorial from Communalism Combat Special issue on Liberhan Report
Communalism Combat
December 2009
Editorial
Who are the guilty?
What can one say about the wisdom of a judge who damages his own case before his verdict concerning others! After 17 long years and eight crore rupees of public money Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan has delivered to the country an over 1,000 page report on the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition that is full of howlers. According to the Liberhan Commission report, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 31, 1948. Names of the same persons are spelt differently in different places; designations too are mixed up on occasions. Looks like the learned judge could not be bothered with reading his own report before placing it before the nation.
Not surprisingly, those indicted, and rightly so, have latched on to the howlers to dismiss the entire report as lacking credibility. But though Justice Liberhan’s callousness is indefensible, his report remains an evidence-backed damnation of those who took the Indian Republic to the brink in December 1992. Not only was the Babri Mosque demolished in full public view on December 6, it also created the communal climate that made possible the pogrom against Mumbai’s Muslims in December 1992-January 1993 and the Muslims of Gujarat 10 years later.
Reading the report is like watching a horror film with an unfolding evil plot, step-by-step. Until 1983 when the VHP decided to jump on to the bandwagon, the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute remained a local issue that agitated some residents of Ayodhya… and Faizabad district at most. By 1989, however, a multitude of ordinary Hindus from across the country had been transformed into a frenzied mob that converged on Ayodhya again and again with a single object: construction of a Ram Mandir on the very spot where the Babri Masjid had stood for a few hundred years. Mission demolition on December 6, 1992 was the logical culmination and climax of a hate-driven agenda.
If the criminal intent of the various constituents of the sangh parivar and its ally the Shiv Sena was public knowledge the contribution of the report lies in establishing in great detail how a malevolent intent was translated into malicious action in such a short period as the institutions of State sworn to protect constitutional values and provisions – Union government, Parliament, the Supreme Court of India, the governor of Uttar Pradesh – stood as "helpless" spectators while corresponding institutions and individuals with similar obligations at the state level – chief minister Kalyan Singh, his cabinet, senior to top level civil servants and police officers – acted instead as the private army of a campaign brimming with contempt for the rule of law. If the Liberhan report provides us overwhelming evidence of the acts of commission of those guilty of the criminal act, far more damning is the evidence it marshals against those whose acts of omission made it possible.
It has been the plea of the BJP and the RSS ever since December 1992 that mosque demolition was never on their agenda. To puncture this claim, Justice Liberhan asks a simple question: why then were tens of thousands of kar sevaks mobilised to descend in Ayodhya repeatedly, indoctrinated with incendiary slogans till a very large number of individuals had turned into a hate-filled frenzied mob, straining at the leash? Justice Liberhan does not buy the innocence plea.
From the evidence gathered before the commission it was more than apparent well before December 6 that the plan for that day was anything but a "symbolic kar seva". What’s more, the report points out that much of this information was already in the public domain. By December 2, if not earlier, it was so easy to anticipate the climax of this dance of the macabre on December 6. Why then did the Union government, the Allahabad High Court, the Congress-appointed governor of UP, the Supreme Court of India not intervene?
Justice Liberhan seems over-eager to give the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao (and the Congress party?) a clean cheat. "In 1992, the central government had been blinded and handicapped by the inaction of its own agent (governor) in the state and by the unfathomable trust the Supreme Court placed in the paper declarations of the sangh parivar". But he is not so sparing with other agents of State. Here are his parting words: "the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the governor (of UP), the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court’s observer (sent to Ayodhya) and the short-sightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb... (But) historians, journalists and jurists may – and should – explore these dimensions and tell these untold stories for the benefit of the current and unborn generations".
In short, the Liberhan Commission tells us that our constitutional edifice today stands on shaky pillars – legislature, executive, judiciary – of State. Unless the System addresses the rot within and secures its porous borders from pretentious infiltrators, there’s little hope of meeting the challenge from without.
We reproduce in this issue excerpts from the Liberhan Commission’s Report with a few obvious corrections and clarifications.
– EDITORS
The complete December 2009 issue of Communalism Combat is available at:
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2009/dec09/index.html
December 10, 2009
Hidden facets to the Babri Masjid episode also implicate others
Mail Today, 10 December 2009
SINNERS IN DISGUISE
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
There are hidden facets to the sorry episode of the Babri Masjid that also implicate others
THE LIBERHAN Report can be excused for its longwinded vacuity as also the time it took to see the light of day. But the more hilarious aspect of the aftermath of the tabling of the report is the manner in which politicians of various persuasions have reacted to it. All of them have come up with their own version of the truth. In Indian politics, truth never prevails, but all that prevails is true.
In a mature democracy, it would have been the norm for the BJP to accept that they participated in a criminal act that vitiated public life and divided people.
Equally so, the Congress ought to have apologised to the country for P. V. Narasimha Rao’s inept handling of the entire situation.
Mulayam Singh ought to have kept silent in Parliament, if only because he was, until recently, extolling the virtues of a certain Kalyan Singh. The Left too ought to have toned down its self- righteous bluster, especially after their cosy understanding with the BJP recently in trying to bring down the UPA government over the issue of the nuclear deal. “ In the congregation of the righteous”, said a poet, “ the sinners are well- disguised: do not seek to count them”.
Opportunity
For the BJP and certain of its leaders, the Liberhan report seems like a godgiven opportunity to revive its ever- dwindling fortunes. Just as their conception of Hindutva is stuck in an imaginary past, so are their political calculations. They hope to revive the irrational mobilisation of the rath yatra and karseva movements, if only to rectify their rockbottom status in the arena of Uttar Pradesh politics.
Even if their hope of a revival on the lines of the Ayodhya movement clashes with pictures of Narendra Modi in denims, they would love to live under the fatal illusion that they have the moral and intellectual wherewithal to merge and resolve all such contradictions.
The spectacle of Rajnath Singh thundering about the existence of a Ram Temple in the past and the assurance of a temple in the future weeks before he is to be given the marching orders by the RSS in favour of a man whose sole claim to fame is building flyovers is all too delicious for the ordinary spectator. After all, flyovers for the BJP are the new temples of their conception of modern India.
In all this, the RSS presents a picture that is a strange mixture of bravado, innocence and lack of contrition. They have been consistent in stating that they have no regrets about the demolition of the Babri Mosque.
But they are equally consistent in saying that a spontaneous surge of karsevaks resulted in the felling of what has been known as the disputed structure. This theory of spontaneity and popular sentiment has served the RSS and the Sangh Parivar well over the years in their systematic attempts at subverting democracy, the rule of law and the Indian Constitution.
One just has to remember the rhetoric at all levels within the Sangh Parivar in justifying the post- Godhra riots and the systematic killing of Muslims to know that this is a familiar tool in their kit of medieval barbarity. The only consolation that the Sangh Parivar has is that even the Congress borrowed the same set of rhetorical devices in order to justify the massacre of innocent Sikhs in 1984 and continues to condone similar acts by not acting on the findings of the Srikrishna Report concerning the 1992- 93 riots in Bombay.
Is there, then, a difference between the Sangh Parivar and the Congress? The difference is a small, but significant one. The Congress condones similar acts of violence for political expediency and does so with cynical impunity. The Sangh Parivar indulges in acts of organised violence in the name of God, Hinduism, cultural pride and with the express purpose of destroying a plurality of the ideas of India.
In keeping the mandirmasjid issue alive, the RSS also has a different agenda. It hopes to alienate Muslims to an extent by which it becomes untenable for them to exist as first- class citizens in India, and, thereby, foist its limited, shortsighted and dangerous idea of a Hindu nation.
Logic
A few examples would suffice. The former RSS sarsanghchalak , K. P Sudarshan, wrote a pamphlet published in 2000 called ‘ Sangh ki saphalta ka rahasya’ ( The Secret of the Sangh’s Success). He writes that when Indira Gandhi visited Afghanistan and wanted to lay a wreath at the tombstone of Babur, the Afghans had to clean the place overnight. The tombstone was in a state of acute disrepair. Sudarshan cites an official in the Prime Minister’s party asking the caretaker of the cemetery about Babur’s tomb and its sorry state.
The caretaker is supposed to have replied that they did not care because Babur was no Afghan.
Sudarshan goes on to say that it is unfortunate that many Indian Muslims still connect themselves to Babur. He goes on to explain how the structure that was demolished was on purpose designated as Babri Mosque, and they created futile anger in the country upon its demolition.
Sudarshan’s amnesia makes him forget that if his story of the Afghan caretaker of the cemetery is a desirable one, then the Sangh ought not to have screamed and shouted as much as it did when the Bamiyan Buddhas were blown away by dynamite sticks. After all, the Buddha was no Afghan either! But Sudarshan’s perverse creativity in rewriting history reaches hitherto unscaled heights when he dismisses the historical veracity of a structure that is a few hundred years old, but argues that the existence of a Ram Temple at the very spot was historically true and incontrovertible.
Irony
But there is one other gem in Sudarshan’s pamphlet.
He quotes a fax sent to Narasimha Rao on 10 December 1992 by a senior leader from Maharashtra.
Sudarshan says that this leader advised Rao not to ban the RSS in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri mosque because Balasaheb Deoras was a friend of the Congress government.
Deoras wanted the government to survive for five years and was not in favour of frequently bringing governments down.
This unnamed Maharashtra leader warns Rao that if the Sangh was banned, a section of the Sangh sympathetic to Rao’s government would turn hostile.
Despite this advice, the Sangh was banned. It would do us all a lot of good if Sudarshan could release the copy of that fax to the Indian people now and expose this senior Maharashtra leader.
But nothing of this sort is likely to happen. The irony is that all those associated with this act of mob violence and vandalism will go scot- free. In the case of L. K. Advani, like the proverbial cat with nine lives, he will probably see a revival in his political fortunes and his political ambitions. In the meantime, the RSS will go on with its business of sullying Indian public life in a manner only it can and has perfected over the years. History, perhaps, will forgive those karsevaks , but it will scarcely condone the likes of Advani for being complicit in the RSS’s agenda of the diminution of what India is all about.
The writer teaches politics in University of Hyderabad
SINNERS IN DISGUISE
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
There are hidden facets to the sorry episode of the Babri Masjid that also implicate others
THE LIBERHAN Report can be excused for its longwinded vacuity as also the time it took to see the light of day. But the more hilarious aspect of the aftermath of the tabling of the report is the manner in which politicians of various persuasions have reacted to it. All of them have come up with their own version of the truth. In Indian politics, truth never prevails, but all that prevails is true.
In a mature democracy, it would have been the norm for the BJP to accept that they participated in a criminal act that vitiated public life and divided people.
Equally so, the Congress ought to have apologised to the country for P. V. Narasimha Rao’s inept handling of the entire situation.
Mulayam Singh ought to have kept silent in Parliament, if only because he was, until recently, extolling the virtues of a certain Kalyan Singh. The Left too ought to have toned down its self- righteous bluster, especially after their cosy understanding with the BJP recently in trying to bring down the UPA government over the issue of the nuclear deal. “ In the congregation of the righteous”, said a poet, “ the sinners are well- disguised: do not seek to count them”.
Opportunity
For the BJP and certain of its leaders, the Liberhan report seems like a godgiven opportunity to revive its ever- dwindling fortunes. Just as their conception of Hindutva is stuck in an imaginary past, so are their political calculations. They hope to revive the irrational mobilisation of the rath yatra and karseva movements, if only to rectify their rockbottom status in the arena of Uttar Pradesh politics.
Even if their hope of a revival on the lines of the Ayodhya movement clashes with pictures of Narendra Modi in denims, they would love to live under the fatal illusion that they have the moral and intellectual wherewithal to merge and resolve all such contradictions.
The spectacle of Rajnath Singh thundering about the existence of a Ram Temple in the past and the assurance of a temple in the future weeks before he is to be given the marching orders by the RSS in favour of a man whose sole claim to fame is building flyovers is all too delicious for the ordinary spectator. After all, flyovers for the BJP are the new temples of their conception of modern India.
In all this, the RSS presents a picture that is a strange mixture of bravado, innocence and lack of contrition. They have been consistent in stating that they have no regrets about the demolition of the Babri Mosque.
But they are equally consistent in saying that a spontaneous surge of karsevaks resulted in the felling of what has been known as the disputed structure. This theory of spontaneity and popular sentiment has served the RSS and the Sangh Parivar well over the years in their systematic attempts at subverting democracy, the rule of law and the Indian Constitution.
One just has to remember the rhetoric at all levels within the Sangh Parivar in justifying the post- Godhra riots and the systematic killing of Muslims to know that this is a familiar tool in their kit of medieval barbarity. The only consolation that the Sangh Parivar has is that even the Congress borrowed the same set of rhetorical devices in order to justify the massacre of innocent Sikhs in 1984 and continues to condone similar acts by not acting on the findings of the Srikrishna Report concerning the 1992- 93 riots in Bombay.
Is there, then, a difference between the Sangh Parivar and the Congress? The difference is a small, but significant one. The Congress condones similar acts of violence for political expediency and does so with cynical impunity. The Sangh Parivar indulges in acts of organised violence in the name of God, Hinduism, cultural pride and with the express purpose of destroying a plurality of the ideas of India.
In keeping the mandirmasjid issue alive, the RSS also has a different agenda. It hopes to alienate Muslims to an extent by which it becomes untenable for them to exist as first- class citizens in India, and, thereby, foist its limited, shortsighted and dangerous idea of a Hindu nation.
Logic
A few examples would suffice. The former RSS sarsanghchalak , K. P Sudarshan, wrote a pamphlet published in 2000 called ‘ Sangh ki saphalta ka rahasya’ ( The Secret of the Sangh’s Success). He writes that when Indira Gandhi visited Afghanistan and wanted to lay a wreath at the tombstone of Babur, the Afghans had to clean the place overnight. The tombstone was in a state of acute disrepair. Sudarshan cites an official in the Prime Minister’s party asking the caretaker of the cemetery about Babur’s tomb and its sorry state.
The caretaker is supposed to have replied that they did not care because Babur was no Afghan.
Sudarshan goes on to say that it is unfortunate that many Indian Muslims still connect themselves to Babur. He goes on to explain how the structure that was demolished was on purpose designated as Babri Mosque, and they created futile anger in the country upon its demolition.
Sudarshan’s amnesia makes him forget that if his story of the Afghan caretaker of the cemetery is a desirable one, then the Sangh ought not to have screamed and shouted as much as it did when the Bamiyan Buddhas were blown away by dynamite sticks. After all, the Buddha was no Afghan either! But Sudarshan’s perverse creativity in rewriting history reaches hitherto unscaled heights when he dismisses the historical veracity of a structure that is a few hundred years old, but argues that the existence of a Ram Temple at the very spot was historically true and incontrovertible.
Irony
But there is one other gem in Sudarshan’s pamphlet.
He quotes a fax sent to Narasimha Rao on 10 December 1992 by a senior leader from Maharashtra.
Sudarshan says that this leader advised Rao not to ban the RSS in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri mosque because Balasaheb Deoras was a friend of the Congress government.
Deoras wanted the government to survive for five years and was not in favour of frequently bringing governments down.
This unnamed Maharashtra leader warns Rao that if the Sangh was banned, a section of the Sangh sympathetic to Rao’s government would turn hostile.
Despite this advice, the Sangh was banned. It would do us all a lot of good if Sudarshan could release the copy of that fax to the Indian people now and expose this senior Maharashtra leader.
But nothing of this sort is likely to happen. The irony is that all those associated with this act of mob violence and vandalism will go scot- free. In the case of L. K. Advani, like the proverbial cat with nine lives, he will probably see a revival in his political fortunes and his political ambitions. In the meantime, the RSS will go on with its business of sullying Indian public life in a manner only it can and has perfected over the years. History, perhaps, will forgive those karsevaks , but it will scarcely condone the likes of Advani for being complicit in the RSS’s agenda of the diminution of what India is all about.
The writer teaches politics in University of Hyderabad
They Debated Liberhan Report, But No Punitive Action Against The Guilty
Editorial in The Times of India, 10 December 2009
All Talk
The debate in Parliament on the Liberhan commission report turned out to be a damp squib. Over two days, legislators nitpicked about the report
and hardly any thought was given to the impact of the Babri masjid demolition at Ayodhya on Indian democracy and secularism. BJP leader Rajnath Singh set the tone by calling the report a "bundle of errors" and taking exception to the indictment of senior BJP leaders, including former prime minister A B Vajpayee. Like Rajnath, BJP's Sushma Swaraj harped on the inaccuracies in the report and suggested that it was politically motivated. Both leaders were more intent on playing to the gallery than dealing with the complicity of the BJP in the destruction of the mosque.
The initial Congress response by Salman Khursheed was a tepid one where he sought to blame the Narasimha Rao government and exonerate Vajpayee. It was only in the final session that home minister P Chidambaram took up what was at the heart of the report - that the demolition of the Babri masjid was meticulously planned by the sangh parivar and that it wasn't a spontaneous combustion. He pointed out that the sangh parivar's politics represented a vision of India which clashed with Congress's, and that the people had rejected the Sangh's version. He further said that the Rao government had made a wrong political judgement for which Congress had to subsequently pay at the hustings.
The report itself - which indicted people like Deoraha Baba who had died two years before the Babri demolition - lends itself to some justified criticism. But what was conspicuously absent in the debates was any sort of soul-searching or a discussion of how best to prevent such events from happening in future. The BJP found fault with the report while the Congress preferred to pass the buck to a person who is no longer there to defend himself. Perhaps the only sensible suggestion was made by
In this context, of much greater importance than the debate on Liberhan is the Communal Violence Bill that is likely to be tabled in the ongoing session of Parliament. It empowers the Centre to intervene during acts of communal violence without the concurrence of state governments. That was the primary reason given by the Rao government, and corroborated by the Liberhan report, for not stepping in at Ayodhya. Though there are misgivings about giving the Centre enhanced powers to intervene in states and upsetting the federal structure, such legislation is needed, with adequate checks, to prevent Ayodhya-like events from occurring again.
All Talk
The debate in Parliament on the Liberhan commission report turned out to be a damp squib. Over two days, legislators nitpicked about the report
and hardly any thought was given to the impact of the Babri masjid demolition at Ayodhya on Indian democracy and secularism. BJP leader Rajnath Singh set the tone by calling the report a "bundle of errors" and taking exception to the indictment of senior BJP leaders, including former prime minister A B Vajpayee. Like Rajnath, BJP's Sushma Swaraj harped on the inaccuracies in the report and suggested that it was politically motivated. Both leaders were more intent on playing to the gallery than dealing with the complicity of the BJP in the destruction of the mosque.
The initial Congress response by Salman Khursheed was a tepid one where he sought to blame the Narasimha Rao government and exonerate Vajpayee. It was only in the final session that home minister P Chidambaram took up what was at the heart of the report - that the demolition of the Babri masjid was meticulously planned by the sangh parivar and that it wasn't a spontaneous combustion. He pointed out that the sangh parivar's politics represented a vision of India which clashed with Congress's, and that the people had rejected the Sangh's version. He further said that the Rao government had made a wrong political judgement for which Congress had to subsequently pay at the hustings.
The report itself - which indicted people like Deoraha Baba who had died two years before the Babri demolition - lends itself to some justified criticism. But what was conspicuously absent in the debates was any sort of soul-searching or a discussion of how best to prevent such events from happening in future. The BJP found fault with the report while the Congress preferred to pass the buck to a person who is no longer there to defend himself. Perhaps the only sensible suggestion was made by
CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta who said punitive action against the guilty might not be feasible but pleaded for the "isolation of fundamentalist forces".
In this context, of much greater importance than the debate on Liberhan is the Communal Violence Bill that is likely to be tabled in the ongoing session of Parliament. It empowers the Centre to intervene during acts of communal violence without the concurrence of state governments. That was the primary reason given by the Rao government, and corroborated by the Liberhan report, for not stepping in at Ayodhya. Though there are misgivings about giving the Centre enhanced powers to intervene in states and upsetting the federal structure, such legislation is needed, with adequate checks, to prevent Ayodhya-like events from occurring again.
December 09, 2009
Chidambaram’s reply to the debate on the Liberhan Commission in Lok Sabha
The Hindu
Dec 10, 2009
Editorial
Clear and commendable
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s raucous slogan-shouting in the Lok Sabha could not drown out the clear message from Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s reply to the debate on the Liberhan Commission’s report on the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. His oration was in the best traditions of truth-telling — a cool lawyerly marshalling of facts punctuated by sharp punches but also by honest self-criticism that is rare in Indian political discourse. True to form, the BJP leaders defended the indefensible — defiant in their insistence that the “disputed structure” met its brutal end because kar sevaks were at the end of their patience. Mr. Chidambaram, on the other hand, must be commended for showing the mirror to the BJP and also turning it inward, admitting on the floor of the House that the P.V. Narasimha Rao government — which made a “wrong political judgment” — was partly to blame for the demolition. Assembling his facts with care and targeting the protagonists with precision, the Home Minister made out an unassailable case against the sangh parivar and the BJP, accusing the latter of breaking “every single promise” made to the Supreme Court, the Central government, and the National Integration Council. The assault on the disputed structure was “pre-planned, calculated, and cold-blooded.” The evidence lay in the variety of tools and ropes ready at hand for destroying the structure, the inflammatory slogans that encouraged the rampaging kar sevaks, and the passivity of the BJP leaders as well as the police and district administration, which “remained a mute spectator to the demolition.”
Even as Mr. Chidambaram laid bare the details of the Babri conspiracy, which could not have possibly succeeded had the Congress central government done its job, the party’s rising star, Rahul Gandhi, was away in Lucknow, refusing even to acknowledge that he had read the Liberhan report. Had he gone through the 1,000-plus pages, he might have learnt that there were other omissions in the report, besides Prime Minister Rao’s tragic culpability. History will record that the Congress in power made two earlier key contributions to the process that led to demolition. It was Rajiv Gandhi’s government that, under pressure from a VHP-led mobilisation, facilitated the opening of the locks of the makeshift temple in February 1986, and enabled the performance of shilanyas in November 1989. One provided fresh impetus to the Ayodhya movement, the other legitimised the Ram mandir project. It was not part of Mr. Chidambaram’s remit to go into this pre-history of the demolition. But the Congress would do well to follow his lead and complete the much-delayed exercise in truth-telling on Ayodhya — so that full closure can be applied to a benighted chapter in independent India’s socio-political history.
Dec 10, 2009
Editorial
Clear and commendable
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s raucous slogan-shouting in the Lok Sabha could not drown out the clear message from Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s reply to the debate on the Liberhan Commission’s report on the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. His oration was in the best traditions of truth-telling — a cool lawyerly marshalling of facts punctuated by sharp punches but also by honest self-criticism that is rare in Indian political discourse. True to form, the BJP leaders defended the indefensible — defiant in their insistence that the “disputed structure” met its brutal end because kar sevaks were at the end of their patience. Mr. Chidambaram, on the other hand, must be commended for showing the mirror to the BJP and also turning it inward, admitting on the floor of the House that the P.V. Narasimha Rao government — which made a “wrong political judgment” — was partly to blame for the demolition. Assembling his facts with care and targeting the protagonists with precision, the Home Minister made out an unassailable case against the sangh parivar and the BJP, accusing the latter of breaking “every single promise” made to the Supreme Court, the Central government, and the National Integration Council. The assault on the disputed structure was “pre-planned, calculated, and cold-blooded.” The evidence lay in the variety of tools and ropes ready at hand for destroying the structure, the inflammatory slogans that encouraged the rampaging kar sevaks, and the passivity of the BJP leaders as well as the police and district administration, which “remained a mute spectator to the demolition.”
Even as Mr. Chidambaram laid bare the details of the Babri conspiracy, which could not have possibly succeeded had the Congress central government done its job, the party’s rising star, Rahul Gandhi, was away in Lucknow, refusing even to acknowledge that he had read the Liberhan report. Had he gone through the 1,000-plus pages, he might have learnt that there were other omissions in the report, besides Prime Minister Rao’s tragic culpability. History will record that the Congress in power made two earlier key contributions to the process that led to demolition. It was Rajiv Gandhi’s government that, under pressure from a VHP-led mobilisation, facilitated the opening of the locks of the makeshift temple in February 1986, and enabled the performance of shilanyas in November 1989. One provided fresh impetus to the Ayodhya movement, the other legitimised the Ram mandir project. It was not part of Mr. Chidambaram’s remit to go into this pre-history of the demolition. But the Congress would do well to follow his lead and complete the much-delayed exercise in truth-telling on Ayodhya — so that full closure can be applied to a benighted chapter in independent India’s socio-political history.
A Transnational Platform To Take on the Fundamentalists : Call / Sign-on Statement
Text of Charter of International Bureau for Laicite
International Bureau for Laicite*
Considering that:
-- The so-called theory of ’clash of civilisations’ between a ’Christian West’ on the one hand, and a ’Muslim Orient’ on the other, is gaining ground, in total disregard of all people the world over, who have been fighting in favour of a political model founded on principles of secularism,
-- In the name of defending the ’right to difference’, numerous states are legitimizing differences of rights between citizens depending on their faith, thereby fueling communalisms,
-- With the help of religions, governments try to draw people into warlike confrontations
-- In addition to fighting against existing disparities between men and women, women have to unceasingly defend their hard won rights, notably equality in the realm of social and professional rights and bodily rights,
-- That, in many countries, the rise of different fundamentalisms has come to increase the subordination of women
-- Despite a movement towards secularisation and the decline of religions, globalisation of neoliberal policies (favoured by the Washington consensus) that emerged in the 80’s, stimulated the march towards privatisation and commoditisation of all human activities, and exacerbated inward looking communalism (the disengagement of the state necessitated the recourse to traditional forms of solidarity, substituing national solidarity with the principle of charity),
-- The alliance that a communalized Left does not hesitate to make with religious organisations, in the name of fighting ’western imperialism’, is damaging, as is the neoliberal disinvestment by the State from the social sphere that has allowed religious organisations to occupy that space
-- The current economic crisis has accentuated inequalities and poverty,
-- However, there has been a convergence of secularist, feminist and social struggles, everywhere in the world ;
The organisations and persons listed below have come together to set up the International Bureau for Laïcite, based on the present resolution, in order to promote secularism internationally.
1. We affirm our commitment to secularism. The principle of secularism, notably the strict separation of State and religion, guarantees the non interference of religion in the sphere of state authority; as well as a real independance of religious and faith based organisations of civil society vis-a-vis the state. Secularism guarantees to citizens the absolute freedom of conscience: the right to believe, the right to disbelieve, the right to change faith, as well as the right to freedom of expression. Consequently, the right to criticize religions is not to be put into question and it takes precedence above all moves to institute ’ defamation of religions and their prophets’ as a crime.
2. We affirm our commitment to the principle of equality and the universality of rights. We believe in a republican conception of citizenship, and we reject all systems which, in the name of particularisms, segment the body politic, either by privileging one category of citizens or by excluding it. Therefore we intend to fight against all forms of discriminations, notably those faced by women and the minorities.
3. We refuse the globalized predatory and destructive neoliberal policies which accentuate pauperisation, whose first victims are women and children; state disengagement fosters the retreat of national solidarity in favour of traditional solidarities of ’communal’ type. In wake of neoliberalism, we call for the internationalisation of struggles.
On the 9th of December 2009**, we call on organisations and individuals who identify with the principles of this statement to support and sign it, and join us.
To sign up : http://laicity.info/bli/
*After consultation, we finally resolve to use the French concept/word ‘Laicite’ in the name of our platform. The reason for it is that the word ’secularism’ in English conveys the notion of equal tolerance of the state vis a vis all religions, rather than the notion of separation between ’Churches’/religions and the state as well as the total disinvestment of the state regarding religions, which is embeded into the French concept of laicite. Rare scholars have of late started to use the neologism ‘Laicity’, but we feel that it is not known to activists and to public at large.
** On the 9th of December 1905, France voted the Law of Separation of Churches and State
The founders of the BLI :
Coalition for a Secular State, Serbia
Collectif citoyen pour l’égalité et la laïcité (CCIEL), Montréal
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Development Alternatives with Women for A New Era (DAWN), international network
Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran
Iran Solidarity
Iranian Secular Society
MAREA, feminist journal, Genova, Italy
Parti pour la Laïcité et la Démocratie (ex MDSL), Algérie
Protagoras, Croatia
One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain
Organization for Women’s Liberation (OWL), Iran
Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (SIAWI), international network
Union des Familles Laïques (UFAL), France
Women’s Initiative for Citizenship and Universal Rights (WICUR) international network
Women in Black - Belgrade (WIB), Serbia
Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), international network
and
Zarizana Abul Aziz, lawyer, human rights activist, Malaysia
Samia Allalou, journaliste, Algérie/France
Hakim Arabdiou, militant laïque, Algérie/France
Soheib Bencheikh, théologien, spécialiste des religions et de la laicité, ancien mufti de Marseille, France
Djemila Benhabib, auteure de Ma vie à contre-Coran, récipiendaire du Prix des écrivains francophones d’Amérique et finaliste pour le prix du gouverneur général 2009, Québec
Codou Bop, journaliste, Dakar, Sénégal
Caroline Brancher, co-responsable du secteur féminisme et laïcité de l’UFAL, France
Ariane Brunet, co-fondatrice de Urgent Action Fund, Montréal,Québec
Sonia Correa, co-coordinator of Sexuality Policy Watch and Research -Associate at ABIA (Brazilian Interdisciplinary Association for AIDS (Brazil)), Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
Yvonne Deutsch, feminist peace activist, Jerusalem
Lalia Ducos, présidente de WICUR, Algérie/France
Aldo Facio, Feminist Human Rights Activist and Lawyer, Costa Rica
Gigi Franscisco, coordinator of the DAWN international network, Manila, The Philippines
Pierre Galand, président du Centre d’action laïque (CAL), Belgique
Nadia Geerts, initiatrice du R.A.P.P.E.L. (www.le-rappel.be/FR)
Laura Guidetti, President and co-founder of MAREA, Genova, Italy
Marieme Helie Lucas, Fondatrice du WLUML et coordinatrice de SIAWI, Algérie/France
Hameeda Hossein, co-chair of South Asians for Human Rights and Chairperson of Ain o Salish Kendra, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ayesha Imam, Sociologist, human rights activists, Nigeria
Harsh Kapoor, founder of South Asia Citizens Web (sacw.net), India/France
Sultana Kamal, lawyer and human rights activist, Executive Director of Ain O’Salish Kendra, former Advisor to the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
Cherifa Kheddar, présidente de l’association " Djazairouna" des Familles -Victimes du Terrorisme Islamiste, Algérie
Catherine Kintzler, philosophe de la laïcité, Paris, France
Monica Lanfranco, journalist, co-founder of MAREA, Genova, Italy
Azar Majedi, Présidente de l’OWL, Iran/U.K
Maryam Namazie, Campaigner, Iran/U.K
Fariborz Pooya, Iranian Secular Society, Iran/U.K
Venita Popovic, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mary Jane Real, lawyer and human rights activist, Manilla, The Philippines
Rhoda Reddock, feminist scholar, Trinidad and Tobago
Henri Pena Ruiz, philosophe de la laïcité, France
Nina Sankari, Présidente de l’Initiative Féministe Européenne (IFE), Pologne
Aisha Shaheed, historian and women’s rights activist, Canada/Pakistan/UK
Mohamed Sifaoui, journaliste, Algérie/France
Fatou Sow, sociologue au CNRS, Dakar, Sénégal
Gila Svirsky, Women In Black, Jerusalem
Lino Veljak, Professor of philosophy, University of Zagreb, founder of PROTAGORAS, Croatia
Vivienne Wee, anthropologist and women’s rights advocate, Singapore and Hong Kong, China
Stasa Zajovic, founder of WIB-Belgrade, coordinator of the Coalition for a Secular State, Serbia
International Bureau for Laicite*
Considering that:
-- The so-called theory of ’clash of civilisations’ between a ’Christian West’ on the one hand, and a ’Muslim Orient’ on the other, is gaining ground, in total disregard of all people the world over, who have been fighting in favour of a political model founded on principles of secularism,
-- In the name of defending the ’right to difference’, numerous states are legitimizing differences of rights between citizens depending on their faith, thereby fueling communalisms,
-- With the help of religions, governments try to draw people into warlike confrontations
-- In addition to fighting against existing disparities between men and women, women have to unceasingly defend their hard won rights, notably equality in the realm of social and professional rights and bodily rights,
-- That, in many countries, the rise of different fundamentalisms has come to increase the subordination of women
-- Despite a movement towards secularisation and the decline of religions, globalisation of neoliberal policies (favoured by the Washington consensus) that emerged in the 80’s, stimulated the march towards privatisation and commoditisation of all human activities, and exacerbated inward looking communalism (the disengagement of the state necessitated the recourse to traditional forms of solidarity, substituing national solidarity with the principle of charity),
-- The alliance that a communalized Left does not hesitate to make with religious organisations, in the name of fighting ’western imperialism’, is damaging, as is the neoliberal disinvestment by the State from the social sphere that has allowed religious organisations to occupy that space
-- The current economic crisis has accentuated inequalities and poverty,
-- However, there has been a convergence of secularist, feminist and social struggles, everywhere in the world ;
The organisations and persons listed below have come together to set up the International Bureau for Laïcite, based on the present resolution, in order to promote secularism internationally.
1. We affirm our commitment to secularism. The principle of secularism, notably the strict separation of State and religion, guarantees the non interference of religion in the sphere of state authority; as well as a real independance of religious and faith based organisations of civil society vis-a-vis the state. Secularism guarantees to citizens the absolute freedom of conscience: the right to believe, the right to disbelieve, the right to change faith, as well as the right to freedom of expression. Consequently, the right to criticize religions is not to be put into question and it takes precedence above all moves to institute ’ defamation of religions and their prophets’ as a crime.
2. We affirm our commitment to the principle of equality and the universality of rights. We believe in a republican conception of citizenship, and we reject all systems which, in the name of particularisms, segment the body politic, either by privileging one category of citizens or by excluding it. Therefore we intend to fight against all forms of discriminations, notably those faced by women and the minorities.
3. We refuse the globalized predatory and destructive neoliberal policies which accentuate pauperisation, whose first victims are women and children; state disengagement fosters the retreat of national solidarity in favour of traditional solidarities of ’communal’ type. In wake of neoliberalism, we call for the internationalisation of struggles.
On the 9th of December 2009**, we call on organisations and individuals who identify with the principles of this statement to support and sign it, and join us.
To sign up : http://laicity.info/bli/
*After consultation, we finally resolve to use the French concept/word ‘Laicite’ in the name of our platform. The reason for it is that the word ’secularism’ in English conveys the notion of equal tolerance of the state vis a vis all religions, rather than the notion of separation between ’Churches’/religions and the state as well as the total disinvestment of the state regarding religions, which is embeded into the French concept of laicite. Rare scholars have of late started to use the neologism ‘Laicity’, but we feel that it is not known to activists and to public at large.
** On the 9th of December 1905, France voted the Law of Separation of Churches and State
The founders of the BLI :
Coalition for a Secular State, Serbia
Collectif citoyen pour l’égalité et la laïcité (CCIEL), Montréal
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Development Alternatives with Women for A New Era (DAWN), international network
Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran
Iran Solidarity
Iranian Secular Society
MAREA, feminist journal, Genova, Italy
Parti pour la Laïcité et la Démocratie (ex MDSL), Algérie
Protagoras, Croatia
One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain
Organization for Women’s Liberation (OWL), Iran
Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (SIAWI), international network
Union des Familles Laïques (UFAL), France
Women’s Initiative for Citizenship and Universal Rights (WICUR) international network
Women in Black - Belgrade (WIB), Serbia
Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), international network
and
Zarizana Abul Aziz, lawyer, human rights activist, Malaysia
Samia Allalou, journaliste, Algérie/France
Hakim Arabdiou, militant laïque, Algérie/France
Soheib Bencheikh, théologien, spécialiste des religions et de la laicité, ancien mufti de Marseille, France
Djemila Benhabib, auteure de Ma vie à contre-Coran, récipiendaire du Prix des écrivains francophones d’Amérique et finaliste pour le prix du gouverneur général 2009, Québec
Codou Bop, journaliste, Dakar, Sénégal
Caroline Brancher, co-responsable du secteur féminisme et laïcité de l’UFAL, France
Ariane Brunet, co-fondatrice de Urgent Action Fund, Montréal,Québec
Sonia Correa, co-coordinator of Sexuality Policy Watch and Research -Associate at ABIA (Brazilian Interdisciplinary Association for AIDS (Brazil)), Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
Yvonne Deutsch, feminist peace activist, Jerusalem
Lalia Ducos, présidente de WICUR, Algérie/France
Aldo Facio, Feminist Human Rights Activist and Lawyer, Costa Rica
Gigi Franscisco, coordinator of the DAWN international network, Manila, The Philippines
Pierre Galand, président du Centre d’action laïque (CAL), Belgique
Nadia Geerts, initiatrice du R.A.P.P.E.L. (www.le-rappel.be/FR)
Laura Guidetti, President and co-founder of MAREA, Genova, Italy
Marieme Helie Lucas, Fondatrice du WLUML et coordinatrice de SIAWI, Algérie/France
Hameeda Hossein, co-chair of South Asians for Human Rights and Chairperson of Ain o Salish Kendra, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ayesha Imam, Sociologist, human rights activists, Nigeria
Harsh Kapoor, founder of South Asia Citizens Web (sacw.net), India/France
Sultana Kamal, lawyer and human rights activist, Executive Director of Ain O’Salish Kendra, former Advisor to the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
Cherifa Kheddar, présidente de l’association " Djazairouna" des Familles -Victimes du Terrorisme Islamiste, Algérie
Catherine Kintzler, philosophe de la laïcité, Paris, France
Monica Lanfranco, journalist, co-founder of MAREA, Genova, Italy
Azar Majedi, Présidente de l’OWL, Iran/U.K
Maryam Namazie, Campaigner, Iran/U.K
Fariborz Pooya, Iranian Secular Society, Iran/U.K
Venita Popovic, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mary Jane Real, lawyer and human rights activist, Manilla, The Philippines
Rhoda Reddock, feminist scholar, Trinidad and Tobago
Henri Pena Ruiz, philosophe de la laïcité, France
Nina Sankari, Présidente de l’Initiative Féministe Européenne (IFE), Pologne
Aisha Shaheed, historian and women’s rights activist, Canada/Pakistan/UK
Mohamed Sifaoui, journaliste, Algérie/France
Fatou Sow, sociologue au CNRS, Dakar, Sénégal
Gila Svirsky, Women In Black, Jerusalem
Lino Veljak, Professor of philosophy, University of Zagreb, founder of PROTAGORAS, Croatia
Vivienne Wee, anthropologist and women’s rights advocate, Singapore and Hong Kong, China
Stasa Zajovic, founder of WIB-Belgrade, coordinator of the Coalition for a Secular State, Serbia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
