[sacw] [ACT] sacw dispatch 16 march 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web dispatch
16 March 2000
--------------------------------------
#1. RSS chief on Code3 of Conduct for Indians
#2. Dilip Simeon on the dangers of selective memory
--------------------------------------
#1.

Source: India Today.com
Posted March 15, 2000 

New RSS chief for code of conduct based on Hindu
philosophy 

New Delhi, March 15: The new RSS Chief K.S. Sudarshan favours
a new code of conduct (dharma) based on the Hindu philosophy and
a "Hindu way of development" in India, which is passing through a
"transitional" period.

LIVE CHAT
ITGO Live Chat with Union Law, Justice and
Company Affairs Minister Ram Jethmalani will
now be held on Thursday, March 16, between
1200 hours and 1300 hours IST.
Click here to post your questions now. 

In an interview to the RSS mouthpiece Organiser, he also said India
is a "Hindu Rashtra", which is based on dharma.

"Its identity lies in one motherland, one sanskriti (culture), common
ancestry and heritage and unity in diversity. It is these three that
constitute the national culture. The mode of worship can differ from
person to person," he said.

Holding that not only India but the whole world was undergoing a
radical change, Sudarshan said India is passing through a
transitional period. "The Sangh grew on the basis of Hindu
philosophy (chintan). It is now necessary to frame a new code of
conduct again based on the same philosophy. And what should be
that code?

"Efforts are on in various forums to evolve a consensus code. Let
there be an endeavour to bring forth a Hindu way of development. We
also have to find out how we can accelerate the process," he said.

Recalling RSS founder Hedgewar's dream of a Hindu society free
from fear and devoid of dissensions, Sudarshan said "The Sangh
cannot be an obstacle in the country becoming organised." He
added: "Our opponents do not subscribe to this view. They seldom
think holistically of the country, the people, the economy and
development."

__________________
#2.

The Hindustan Times
11 March 2000
Op-Ed.

The mirror of history 
(Dilip Simeon on the dangers of selective memory) 

"The very first essential for success is a perpetually
constant and regular
employment of violence" =97 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 

The history of India over the past century unfolds like a
chronicle of civil war. India
was partitioned, the segment re-partitioned. "Internal
enemies" were identified and
massacres unleashed. No solutions were found. Today,
communal myths possess
nuclear bombs. There are lines of control everywhere =97 in
villages, cities and in
hearts. Barbed wire, iron gates and security guards
abound. Flagpoles of religious
places compete with each other for height. Society is
awash with fear. Thanks to
the guardians of "identity", outraged sentiment seems to
be on the rampage =97
battling over cricket pitches, books, films and paintings. 

Humanity possesses a natural tendency for remembrance and
its transmission.
For those interested in ideals of progress, history is a
laboratory of social theory. It
is also the terrain of Identity, a category that sits
uneasily with human equality, and
has taken millions of lives. History as the maidservant of
a cause undermines its
own disciplinary procedures. No history is free of
tendency, and historians'
convictions undoubtedly affect their output. However, just
as the Euclidian point is
essential to geometry, the search for truth has to remain
an ideal, even if an
unattainable one, for history. 

This is a painful commitment, because historical materials
defy dogma. None of us
like our beliefs being challenged. Gandhians do not want
to be reminded of the
repercussions of the Khilafat movement or the Congress'
attitude to the 1946
naval mutiny. Communists are defensive about the stance of
the CPI in 1942 and
the Adhikari resolution supporting Partition. Admirers of
Savarkar do not advertise
the fact that he assisted the British war effort, was not
averse to Mahasabha
participation in the Muslim League ministry of NWFP in
1943, and was a main
accused in the Gandhi murder trial. The Pakistan Ideology
Act restrains Pakistani
historians from questioning the two-nation theory or
writing a non-tendentious
account of Jinnah's career. The RSS might not like to be
reminded that in May
1947 the Akhil Rajya Hindu Sabha under J&K RSS chief Prem
Nath Dogra, passed
a resolution on Kashmir stating that "a Hindu state should
not join secular India". Or
that Sardar Patel accused RSS men of celebrating Gandhi's
assassination. 

Trotskyists don't dwell on Bolshevik military action
against the Kronstadt sailors in
1921, Stalinists don't remember state terror and mock
trials in the USSR. Nazi
apologists don't recall the Holocaust and Zionists suffer
amnesia about the terror
unleashed by the Haganah and Stern gangs in 1948. Japanese
historians are
defensive about the massacres in Nanking and Shanghai and
some day Chinese
historians will forget that China waged war on Vietnam in
1979 in tandem with the
United States. 

For some ideologues, the past is a saga of victory and
defeat. The fear of
ambivalence is characteristic of them and in their hands,
history is pure polemic.
Savarkar's speech to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1942 described
17th century India
as being "a veritable Pakistan", with "Hindustan being
wiped out", and the 18th
century witnessing the march of Hinduism. This anachronism
is repeated in a
Pakistani textbook of 1982, which teaches that in the 16th
century, "`Hindustan'
disappeared and was absorbed in `Pakistan'". 

The distortions extend to contemporary analysis. Time
magazine summed up the
history of the 20th century as a victory of "free minds
and free markets over
fascism and communism" (December 31, 1999). Along with
Clinton's essay it
misrepresents the Allied victory in World War II as an
American one, ignoring the
role of the Red Army and the fact that the USSR lost over
20 million lives,
compared to less than three lakh Americans. This is
history as the paean of
megalomania. I do not believe that all viewpoints are
equally biased, or that history
provides no lessons. From the welter of partiality, we may
glean truths and hope =97
but only if our profession is motivated by respect for
human experience, and not
just "Hindu" or "Muslim" experience. The historian has to
be an iconoclast or risk
becoming a propagandist. 

In an attempted refutation of Bharat Bhushan's article The
Other Italian Connection
(HT, February 18), K.R. Malkani (Letter, February 23)
states that the RSS was
founded before Moonje visited Italy, that its heroes were
Indians, and that Gandhi
also met Mussolini. Here is an example of history as
polemic. It was the militaristic
mind-set of fascism, not its specific heroes that inspired
Moonje. All ultra-Rightists
had their own "national" heroes. Mussolini seized power in
1922, and his impact
was evident by the time the RSS was founded in 1925. And
whereas Moonje was
greatly impressed by Mussolini, Gandhi told the latter
that his state was "a house
of cards", and took a dim view of the man =97 "his eyes are
never still". Moonje's trip
was not an innocuous replica of Gandhi's. 

Defending the recent withdrawal of the ICHR volumes,
Government protagonists
aver that the authors reduced Gandhi to a footnote. It is
ironic that persons
sympathetic to the politics of Gandhi's assassin
repeatedly take refuge behind
Gandhi's memory. Let us address the issue differently. 

Gandhi was a proponent of ahimsa. Hindutva's proponents
believe that Hindus are
too pacific, even cowardly, and need to become militant.
Their heroes are those
whom they identify as warriors. Their constant evocation
of wounded sentiment as
a justification for "direct action", prompt us to ask the
Government to clarify its
position on violence. Should sentiment be elevated to a
level superior to the needs
of civic order and criminal justice? Is it surprising that
a retired CBI director is so
fond of the Bajrang Dal, an organisation known more for
muscle than mind? That a
former Union Minister encouraged the intimidation of a
film unit? That the
vandalisation of the BCCI office was condoned by a Chief
Minister who saw no
reason for a police case? Is it their case that Naxalite
violence is wrong but
violence unleashed by outraged sentiment is acceptable? Do
they have the
courage to say so explicitly? 

The assault on the mind is the most dangerous feature of
the current situation.
Mushirul Hasan was attacked for suggesting that the ban on
The Satanic Verses
be lifted. (A prominent Congressman incited that
campaign). Asghar Ali Engineer is
beaten up for questioning the Syedna's powers. Whatever
happened to the rights of
minorities within minorities? Demands are voiced =97 rather
belatedly =97 for a ban on
Dante's Inferno. Film screenings are disrupted. 

Literary commentaries on the Granth Sahib result in
threats of excommunication.
(How brave our militants are!) And when we need a
discussion on the rule of law,
we indulge instead in literary criticism, film
appreciation, etc. Surely the point ought
to be whether bad authors and film-makers have a right to
remain alive, with their
bones intact. Whether the Government can ensure a peaceful
resolution of conflicts
or if musclemen may run amuck because they have high
connections. 

Gandhi rendered Hindus nirvirya and napunsak, said Godse.
I beg to differ. Gandhi
had greater physical courage than most politicians in his
time =97 and not many of
today's luminaries would venture forth without protection
after three attempts at
assassination. His ahimsa was a name for restraint,
without which no society may
survive and no institution gathers strength. Let us stop
flaunting our boringly
delicate sentiments, and address the deliberate
inculcation of revenge and hatred.
Those who care about human survival can see their future
in the mirror of history.