SACW | Nov. 20, 2006
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Mon Nov 20 06:59:22 CST 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | November 20, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2319 - Year 8
[1] Pakistan: Women's Action Forum reiterates
demand for total repeal of Hudood Ordinance
[2] India: Glaring blind spots (Zoya Hasan)
[3] India: From William Hunter to Rajinder Sachar (Tahir Mahmood)
[4] UK: Race and faith: a new agenda (New Generation Network)
[5] UK: This system of self-appointed leaders
can hurt those it should be protecting (Sunny
Hundal)
[6] UK: Islamist donated cash to jailed
historian who denied the Holocaust (Jamie Doward)
[7] UK: Petition the Prime Minister to ban
within government-funded schools the promotion or
practice of any particular faith or religion
[8] Book Review: The Ants Write Their Own Script (Mushirul Hasan)
____
[1]
Daily Times
November 19, 2006
WOMEN'S ACTION FORUM THANKS ANTI-HUDOOD ACTIVISTS
* REITERATES DEMAND FOR TOTAL REPEAL OF HUDOOD ORDINANCE
LAHORE: The Women's Action Forum (WAF) has
thanked the political parties and individuals who
advocated the amendment of Hudood laws and
praised those who had categorically stated their
commitment to repealing the Hudood Ordinance
altogether.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the WAF said
it hoped that the Women's Protection Bill passed
by the National Assembly on November 15 would
help women by eliminating the possibility of rape
victims being prosecuted for zina and the
abolition of whipping and stoning to death.
"This will only be confirmed when the text of the
bill is made public," the statement said, adding
that the WAF viewed the political compromise made
in approving the bill as "unwarranted and
dangerous".
"WAF is convinced that the new clauses relating
to fornication will be used to victimise people
in the same way that the clauses on zina were
used under the Hudood Ordinances," the statement
said.
"The introduction of the Hudood Ordinances in
1979 resulted in tens of thousands of cases being
registered against innocent women each year," it
said. "It enabled family members and others to
use the Zina Enforcement Ordinance to imprison
and persecute women (and men) who married of
their own choice, and orally divorced women. It
is unclear whether the bill has removed the
previous contradictions between Muslim Family Law
Ordinance (1961) and the Hudood Ordinance." "WAF
is committed to its long-standing position that
the Hudood Ordinance violates all norms of
decency, justice and human rights," it said. "It
is the poorest of the poor who are subjected to
the worst of the punishments. Hundreds of women
are imprisoned and many more are on trial for
allegedly committing offences under other aspects
of Hudood laws."
"On behalf of Pakistani women, WAF reiterates its
demand to repeal the Hudood Ordinances in their
entirety and urges members of all political
parties committed to the repeal of the ordinance
to continue their efforts." staff report
_____
[2]
HindustanTimes.com » Editorial
November 17, 2006
GLARING BLIND SPOTS
by Zoya Hasan | Open Space
It is official once again that the educational,
social and economic development of Muslims has
fallen far behind that of other groups in our
society. The Sachar Committee findings on the
socio-economic status of Muslims make public the
multiple disadvantages that Muslims face,
particularly in education and employment.
The findings of the report demonstrate that when
it comes to education and employment, the average
Muslim is at the bottom of the heap and trailing
behind Scheduled Castes and OBCs on many
indicators of social development. It is obvious
that Muslims face inequality in all walks of
life. They suffer from discrimination, systematic
exclusion and under-representation in public
institutions.
The primary responsibility for this rests with
the political and administrative establishment of
the central and state governments, and the
implicit distrust and prejudice that pervades the
system. Yet, these sobering facts are unlikely to
generate a debate on vital policy interventions
needed to improve the condition of Muslims; it is
more likely to produce a frenzied debate on the
need for introspection by the community and
inevitably end up blaming Muslims for
perpetuating their own backwardness or secular
formations for playing vote-bank politics.
In view of the evidence of exclusion and
marginalisation that can no longer be denied,
there are strong moral and economic arguments to
revisit policies with regard to minorities. There
are three compelling reasons for this. First, it
is in the interest of any society to improve the
economic standing of all disadvantaged groups.
Second, high economic growth and inclusion must
go hand in hand, as high growth rates cannot be
sustained without the participation of all
groups. Third, this shift has become necessary in
view of the mounting evidence that the largest
minority has been left out of the process of
economic development. All in all, there is
considerable evidence of the State's
unconscionable neglect of Muslims, which must be
redressed through concerted intervention in the
areas of education, public employment and
infrastructure provision.
To bring about a change in this situation, the
UPA government must be prepared to confront the
reality of systematic inequality and
institutional prejudice head on. The Sachar
Committee findings offer a significant
opportunity for a course correction in the policy
towards minorities. Whilst India was among the
first major democracies in the world to recognise
and provide for minority rights, the limitation
of this approach has been that it treats
religious difference as the sole basis for
defining a minority community. The actual status
of minorities rarely figures prominently in this
debate, resulting in a disregard for basic needs.
The excessive focus on cultural rights in this
approach tends to conceal inter-group inequality,
so that minority deprivation is rendered
invisible and, therefore, not convincingly
addressed.
Even if a little late, we need to recognise that
the concept of minority rights must be lifted out
of its isolated context in the constitutional
framework and be placed alongside other issues
that require an approach of substantive equality,
rather than formal equality. This calls for a
political willingness to confront the
implications of the competing notions of
equality, i.e. affirmative action, including a
whole slew of special policies and planned
allocations for disadvantaged castes and nothing
more than cultural autonomy for minorities,
despite evidence that they are in most respects
more disadvantaged than other deprived groups. It
is this distinction and separation that has led
to a severance of minorities from the development
discourse.
The constitutional separation of minorities from
the development process has been used to justify
the paltry allocations made for the welfare and
development of minorities in the distribution of
resources in the past decades. Minority-specific
and target-oriented schemes to remove the
deprivation of minorities have been largely
conspicuous by their absence. Even though the
minorities constitute 18.42 per cent of the
population, the allocation for the minority
sector was a mere 3 per cent of the total outlay
under the Tenth Plan of the Ministry of Social
Justice.
Since Muslims are among the most deprived
sections of our society, it is essential that the
UPA government gives the utmost importance to
their development on the lines the State has done
for other deprived groups since Independence. The
creation of a Ministry of Minority Affairs, the
Prime Minister's 15-Point Programme for the
Welfare of Minorities and the reported decision
to allocate 15 per cent in development schemes
for minorities are important signals of a
conceptual shift in favour of development as
against the past preoccupation with identity
politics.
One tangible way of translating this shift into
effective action could be through the
introduction of a Minority Sub-Plan for socially
and educationally disadvantaged minorities in the
Eleventh Five Year Plan. This may be necessary to
alleviate the deprivation of minorities, enhance
equality of opportunity in education and give
them an equitable share in economic activities.
The 15-point programme can itself be the basis of
a Sub-Plan in the designated areas of education,
social sector and infrastructure but implemented
in a way that is similar to other sub-plans such
as the Special Component Plan for the Scheduled
Castes or Tribal Sub-Plan for the Scheduled
Tribes. A Sub-Plan, if implemented and monitored
properly, has the potential of improving the
socio-economic conditions of minorities and would
go a long way in promoting fair and just
development of all sections of our society.
The government must lay special emphasis on
modern education and take up the responsibility
for establishing and running more schools and
colleges in areas with substantial Muslim
population. It must also guarantee access to
Muslim entrants in educational institutions
through scholarships, free textbooks and
uniforms, and grants-in-aid for construction of
hostels for secondary/higher secondary schools
and colleges.
Representation is an area that requires inspired
intervention to remedy the exclusion of Muslims
from public institutions. In electoral
democracies, important changes in public policy
depend critically on the presence of legislators
and decision-makers from disadvantaged groups who
can use legislative and policy arenas to bring
about improvements. Arguably, a significant
barrier to the introduction of such policies in
India is the under-representation of individuals
from minority groups who might articulate and
press for such policies. Not surprisingly,
Parliament and public institutions have rarely
discussed issues concerning the deprivation of
minorities. Greater representation of Muslims in
public institutions would, therefore, be
necessary to make sure that their voice and
interests are articulated and heard in the public
domain.
Taken together, a Sub-Plan for the socially and
educationally backward minorities, better access
to modern education and a drive to encourage
recruitment in public institutions, will
broad-base the reach of substantive equality and
allow India to retain its primacy as an inclusive
democracy with a commitment to the empowerment of
all its citizens. If these policies are to be
adopted, it is important that a cross-party
consensus is forged, so that they are seen not as
vote-bank politics but as fundamental to
statecraft, social justice and national unity.
This is, indeed, necessary to ensure justice,
promote public order and enhance democratic
legitimacy.
These reflections should not be taken to
countenance a plea for reservations for Muslims
qua Muslims in any sphere. In fact, instituting
reservations would be extremely dangerous as it
would provoke widespread resentment that could
heighten communalism in a way that compromises
social cohesion. But it certainly underlines the
need for reconsideration of existing approaches
towards minorities in order to focus on their
social development. At the least, there is also a
place for an anti-discrimination principle with
regard to minorities, for fair equality of
opportunity and for programmes of redistribution
designed to ensure that everyone lives in at
least minimally decent conditions. If the State
wants to alleviate contemporary discrimination in
addition to past discrimination, there should be
no constitutional problem so long as the policies
are reasonably well-tailored.
The Constitution provides enough space and good
reason to give social equality overriding
priority, including in allocation of outlays for
all disadvantaged groups in proportion to their
population as well as special schemes to promote
their well-being. Such an approach is entirely
consistent with the unique constitutional compact
between the Indian State and the minorities, and
the exceptional constitutional stress on
non-discrimination and equal rights for all.
Zoya Hasan is Professor of Social Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, and a member of the
National Commission for Minorities. The views
expressed here are her own.
_____
[3]
The Indian Express
November 19, 2006
FROM WILLIAM HUNTER TO RAJINDER SACHAR
by Tahir Mahmood
'Where there is a will there is a way,' goes an
old English adage. And 'Where there is no will,
there is a survey.' That seems to have been the
case with the officially sponsored studies of the
problem of under-representation of Muslims - the
second-largest group in the Indian population -
in the educational institutions and employment
under government control. Though surveyed and
studied again and again by various
government-appointed agencies - individuals,
committees and commissions - the problem remains
largely unresolved till this day.
Under-representation of Muslims in the
educational and employment sectors in the country
has been as consistent all along as, indeed, the
official inaction in the matter.
In the 1870s, at the behest of the Viceroy, Lord
Meo, Sir William Hunter had studied the causes of
Muslim unrest in the country. Published in 1871
under the title Our Indian Musalmans, the study
included some authentic data on the number of
Muslims in government jobs - especially in the
Muslim-concentration province of Bengal, where
the city of Calcutta was then the seat of
government. Among its findings were the figures
that follow: "Assistant engineers (three grades)
: Hindu 14, Muslim 0; sub-engineers & supervisors
: Hindu 24, Muslim 1; overseers : Hindu 63,
Muslim 2; accounts department : Hindu 50, Muslim
0; registered legal counsel : Hindu 239, Muslim
1¿", and so on. The study lamented that "there is
in fact now in Calcutta hardly any government
office where a Muslim can hope to get anything
more than the job of a guard, peon or attendant."
There is, however, nothing on record to show that
any concrete steps were ordered by the Viceroy to
correct the imbalance and injustice prevailing in
the government offices in respect of employment
of Muslims as revealed by this study made under
official patronage by a respectable Englishman of
the time.
Having inherited from the British this legacy of
social injustice to the Muslims and official
inaction in the matter, independent India seems
to have maintained it till this day. A Minorities
Commission was set up in 1978 by the first
non-Congress government at the Centre.
Side-stepping it on returning to power, the new
Congress government appointed in 1980 a separate
'high-powered panel' to study the status of
minorities and other backward classes as
beneficiaries of government's fiscal policies and
welfare schemes. Initially chaired by the late Dr
VA Sayid Mohammad, on his appointment as the
Indian High Commissioner in London barely four
months later, the panel was placed under its
senior-most member Dr Gopal Singh - a former MP
and diplomat - and eventually came to be known as
the 'Gopal Singh Committee'. Its secretary,
Khurshid Alam Khan, on his elevation to the Union
Ministry was replaced by the late Dr Rafiq
Zakaria. The 10-member panel submitted on 14 June
1983 a 118-page 'Report on Minorities' with 205
pages of annexures containing extensive data on
the 'participation and performance' of minorities
in education and employment, their share as
beneficiaries in rural development and place in
the industrial sector, and the role played by
financial institutions in respect of their
welfare. Painting a rather dismal picture of the
position of Muslims in all these, the panel made
a large number of recommendations for its
improvement through various short-term and
long-term measures. For an unduly long period the
Gopal Singh Panel report remained a closely
guarded secret despite demands for its release;
and no action was ever taken on its
recommendations when at last these were made
public.
In 1995 the National Minorities Commission
collected data on the share of minorities in
police and para-military services and, finding
that their presence, especially of the Muslims,
in that sector was "deplorably disproportionate
to their population in various states," had made
some important recommendations for the
improvement of the situation. The report
submitted on 6 May 1996 by the Planning
Commission's 12-member Sub-Group on Minorities
chaired by NCM member S Vardarajan provided
detailed data on minority presence in central
services and banking sector and concluded that
"the representation of minorities, especially
Muslims, in the State and all-India services is
very low and bears no relation to their
population, and there has been no purposeful
action to remedy this imbalance."
Observing that "as even fifty years after
independence there are serious imbalances and
inequities in respect of the representation of
minorities in all public employments, top
priority should be given to the adoption of
measures to rectify this situation," the NCM
report for 1998-99 specifically recommended that
"in all public employment under central
government there must be at least 15 per cent
representation of the minorities with a break-up
of 10 per cent for the Muslims and five per cent
for the other minorities taken together; and this
should be ensured by adopting suitable measures
and issuing mandatory guidelines to all
governments, public-sector undertakings and
concerned recruiting authorities." Both these
reports too, like that of the Gopal Singh Panel,
are still awaiting a response from those who
matter.
In March 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
appointed a new 'high-powered' committee chaired
by a former judge to evaluate afresh the
educational and socio-economic status of the
Muslims. Now generally known as the Sachar
Committee, it has faced some unsavory
controversies. Surprisingly, anti-Muslim elements
in society did not cry foul on the setting up of
the committee - perhaps due to their
preoccupation with something even more important
than their favourite pastime of Muslim-bashing.
But when as part of its assigned job the
committee sought data on the Muslims in armed
forces, and overlooking the need of
confidentiality in the matter somebody made it
public, they did raise a great hue and cry.
Initially given a time-span of fifteen months and
attached to the PMO, the Sachar Committee was
later given some extensions and placed under the
newly created Ministry of Minority Affairs. It
has at last completed its work and submitted its
report to the government. Its findings on the
terrible under-representation of the Muslims in
government jobs across the country, however,
already became public - a long article revealing
its findings was serialized in a leading English
daily. And, expectedly, there has been a great
hue and cry once again. An innocuous statement
made by the Prime Minister on 2 November in his
inaugural speech at the meeting of the State
Minorities Commissions - that the minorities
should get their due share in
government-controlled jobs - is being linked with
the presumed recommendations of the committee and
seen as a precursor to reservation for the
Muslims, an all-time dreaded scenario for the
those votaries of communal politics who use
"appeasement" as a euphemism for ensuring human
rights.
In recent months the government has repeatedly
declared before the apex court that it does not
favour religion-based reservation; but who
bothers?
The Sachar exercise is obviously nothing novel or
unprecedented - it only offers an updated account
of the educational and socio-economic status of
the Muslims who undoubtedly are the worst
sufferers among the various minorities of the
country. It will be appropriate for the
government of the day to consider in the right
earnest its report and recommendations along with
all other similar reports and recommendations of
the post-independence era. It is high time some
remedial action was taken to at least partially
undo the inequalities, injustices and inequities
that the second largest section of the Indian
citizenry has been facing since the advent of
independence.
(Dr Tahir Mahmood is former chairman of the National Minorities Commission)
______
[4]
The Guardian
November 20, 2006
RACE AND FAITH: A NEW AGENDA
The debate around these sensitive subjects has
hit a new low. We need a fresh approach.
New Generation Network
Thirty years since the passing of the Race
Relations Act, Britain faces a crisis of
discourse around race and faith. These have
always been sensitive topics, but the debate has
hit new lows of simplicity and hysteria in the
past few years. People want to talk. They need to
talk. But how do they engage in a discussion
which has been manipulated by recent governments
to demonise minority groups, while being
increasingly hijacked by self-appointed
"community leaders"?
We, the signatories to this manifesto, today call
for a new approach to tackle discrimination and
prejudice and forge a fresh approach to building
a modern Britain. We are optimistic that people
of different backgrounds and faiths can live
together in our society. Thus we want to ensure
that the national conversation is not dominated
by our fears or polarised voices.
We need an approach that discards the older
politics of representation through government
sanctioned gate-keepers. One that rejects
prejudice from both majority and minority
communities, especially religious intolerance,
and finds a common cause in equality and social
justice with all Britons.
The prevailing evidence seems to be on our side.
Contrary to scare-stories of "sleepwalking into
segregation" or riots on the streets, many
studies show that segregation is decreasing. We
do not accept such broad generalisations.
Mixed-race children represent the fastest growing
group and polls demonstrate that most Britons are
positive about race relations. And yet a crisis
is being generated by commentators and
politicians with scare-stories that have little
grounding in reality.
Challenges
We recognise that modern Britain faces
challenges. Growing religious extremism is no
doubt uppermost in many people's minds. Racism
and discrimination against minority groups remain
a major problem as hatred against Muslims and
immigrants in general has become a proxy for
old-fashioned racism. Racial prejudice is no
longer the preserve of white people and has
become much more complicated.
There is little doubt that recent events,
culminating in the so-called "war on terror",
have increased fear on all sides, made worse by
debates that miss the nuanced arguments. Problems
of housing shortages, bad public services and
some gang-violence have been politicised into
problems of race or religion even if the facts
disagree.
Not helping
We need to wrest the debate away from the extreme
ends of the spectrum and provide a voice to the
silent majority. The true purpose of
"multiculturalism" should be to help people from
differing cultural backgrounds to understand each
other better and overlap productively. Instead it
has come to mean increasing separation. Sometimes
this is a case of deliberate misrepresentation by
the media. It has not been helped by the
government entrusting power to so-called
community leaders and other umbrella groups who
claim to be the voice of minority groups. Such
organisations should be working to put themselves
out of business not expand their remits.
In a throwback to the colonial era, our
politicians have chosen to appoint and work with
a select band of representatives and by doing so
treat minority groups as monolithic blocks, only
interested in race or faith based issues rather
than issues that concern us all, such as housing,
transport, foreign policy and crime.
Unfortunately, many self-appointed community
representatives have an incentive to play up
their victimisation. This arrangement allows
politicians to pass on the burden of
responsibility to them and treat minorities as
outsiders. MPs have increasingly sought to
politicise problems of segregation, political
apathy, criminality and poverty into problems of
race and religion, and shift responsibility onto
appointed gate-keepers rather than find ways of
engaging with all Britons.
This brand of politics works against the very
people it is meant to help. The gate-keepers have
helped to polarise the debate on community
cohesion by taking extreme positions and failing
to reflect more progressive opinion from those
they claim to represent. Sikhs, Muslims,
Christians, Hindus and Jews all have long
traditions and histories of progressive thought,
self-criticism and change. Unsurprisingly a
political paralysis has followed when addressing
cultural ills such as honour killings, homophobia
and forced marriages.
The way forward
In calling for a dismantlement of the old order,
we must build a new movement on the values of
tolerance, freedom of expression and a clear
commitment to anti-racism. Prejudice in the form
of anti-semitism, homophobia and sexism must be
rejected, as should any demonisation of Muslims.
And it should be rejected from all corners.
The struggle for equality and better access to
public services is a struggle for all Britons not
just ethnic minorities. White working-class
families also face problems with deprivation,
injustice and demonisation. Their concerns should
not be ignored or blamed on other groups.
We are not arguing that faith or race based
groups should be restricted, but rather that
their arguments be treated as one argument
amongst many others and on their own merit. They
have a right to argue for the enforcement of
civil liberties and minority rights but they
should be seen as lobby groups, not
representatives of millions of people.
We need to foster a climate in which people can
have private differences which include religion,
language and culture, but also have a public
space where such differences are bridged. The
right to freedom of speech and expression of
culture, faith and public debates must remain
paramount.
Each one of us from this modern generation of
Britons has multiple identities and we do not ask
that anyone surrenders their heritage. Indeed,
cultural and religious heritages are, in the main
a source of empowerment.
The aim of this manifesto is to declare that too
many discussions are framed as "them and us" by
politicians, or dominated by reactionaries on all
sides. To build a modern Britain at peace with
itself we must also hear the voices in the middle
that are interested in building bridges rather
than stressing our differences.
Our principles
1) An end to communal politics
As Britons we want to be treated not as
homogenous blocks but as free-thinking citizens
with diverse views.
So-called community leaders and race-relations
experts should be seen as lobbyists not
representatives. They do not have a democratic
mandate to represent anyone.
This is not to say anyone working with ethnic or
faith minorities is on a gravy train; there are
many examples of necessary work being done on
issues of social exclusion and marginalisation at
the grassroots.
We do not support any group that claims to
champion equality but refuses to respect the
human rights of other disadvantaged groups.
Eligibility for funding should depend on being
able to demonstrate a clear commitment against
all forms of discrimination on grounds of race,
caste, religion, sexuality, gender or disability.
2) Against prejudice
We condemn racism against any peoples, including
against whites, Jews and Muslims, or between
different non-white groups.
We reject the increasingly common sight of
extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir being
feted by anti-racism organisations and
politicians on common causes.
We would like a debate on what initiatives can be
taken to enable faith schools to foster community
cohesion.
3) For equality
We are for a commitment to ending child poverty
across our society and to building an effective
coalition across class, ethnic and faith groups
in order to achieve this.
An effective British democracy needs to engage
and involve all of the talent in our population.
While some progress has been made on both gender
and race, the public and private sector draw
talent from far too narrow a range of experiences
- in terms of class, gender, faith and ethnicity.
We reject the idea that representation should
mean "ethnic faces for ethnic areas", which would
ghettoise minority representation.
4) We believe in freedom of speech
Enshrined in free speech and free expression are
the same civil liberties which have allowed
minorities to sustain and develop their cultures,
wear what they want, go on public demonstrations
and challenge laws.
We call on the government to support freedom of
speech in situations where extremists threaten
artists and writers with violence. Its failure to
do so is state multiculturalism at its most
unpleasant and should be viewed as collusion with
extremists. To tackle extremism we must allow
diverse voices to speak out.
5) We are for respecting people's multiple identities
The right to combine mixed identities, which
include culture, faith, ethnicity, religion and
more is the essence of an open society. These
rights must be underpinned by a common
citizenship which protects our rights.
We call on government to fund programmes giving
new immigrants the language skills they need to
participate in civic society and be more
self-empowered. This is the primary way to ensure
gaps can be bridged between different communities.
Proud of our strong identities, we aim to be free
in voicing concerns about repressive cultural
practices, corruption within religious
institutions and forced marriages.
6) A new national conversation about race
Media organisations need to do considerably more
to inform themselves about and to tune into the
debates going on within multi-ethnic Britain
today. Too often, extreme and highly
unrepresentative voices are presented as
authoritative or representative in part due to
the shock value they provide.
All broadcasters have a particular responsibility
to create the space for the much richer national
conversation that we need.
Signatories:
Sunny Hundal (writer, commentator)
Ziauddin Sardar
(writer, commentator and broadcaster)
Sunder Katwala (general secretary of the Fabian Society)
Hari Kunzru (writer)
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (writer and commentator)
Sukhdev Sandhu (writer and journalist)
Dr Robert Beckford (lecturer and broadcaster)
Gurpreet Bhatti (writer and playwright)
Reem Maghribi (Sharq magazine editor-in-chief)
Dr Priyamvada Gopal (lecturer at Cambridge University)
Dave Hill (writer)
Maya Sikand (barrister)
Rehna Azim (barrister and writer)
Tommy Nagra (executive producer, television)
Farmida Bi (Progressive British Muslims)
Ravi Mattu (journalist, writer)
Maha Sardar (barrister, writer)
Rahul Verma (journalist, commentator)
Arif Naqvi (grassroots charity worker)
Sara Wajid (writer)
Sadaf Meehan (journalist)
Sonia Afroz (grassroots charity worker)
Rohan Jayasekera (associate editor, Index on Censorship magazine)
Simon Barrow (co-founder, Ekklesia think-tank)
Catherine Fieschi (acting director, Demos)
If you support the manifesto and principles and
would like to add your name, go to www.new-gen.org
_____
[5]
The Guardian
November 20, 2006
THIS SYSTEM OF SELF-APPOINTED LEADERS CAN HURT THOSE IT SHOULD BE PROTECTING
It is in all our interests to challenge those who
wrongly claim to be speaking for Britain's
minority communities
by Sunny Hundal
Thirty years to the month after the Race
Relations Act of 1976 was passed, it is time we
rethink our approach to race and faith relations
in Britain. The national debate has become so
poisonous that space for a saner dialogue is
needed. We are told that our society is becoming
more more segregated, and that riots are more
imminent with every controversy. But take a look
at the statistics and things are not so bad.
This is not to say that there are no problems -
it is obvious that there are many. But to
confront these and have an honest debate we need
to re-examine how discussions around these issues
are framed and who gets involved.
One of the main barriers to an open discussion is
the system of representation. When the first
generation of African-Caribbean and Asian
migrants came to this country, politicians did
not make much effort to engage them or understand
their concerns. In recent years, as the numbers
have grown and socio-economic issues have come to
the fore, politicians have changed tack. Rather
than engaging with these communities locally and
constructively, they want so-called community
leaders to do the job for them.
During the past decade, a group of self-appointed
representatives has sprung up, including the
Hindu Council UK and Hindu Forum of Britain; the
Network of Sikh Organisations, the Sikh
Federation and Sikh Human Rights Group; and the
Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Association
of Britain, all claiming to speak on behalf of
all Hindu, Sikh and Muslim citizens.
Of these, the MCB is the oldest, having been set
up in 1997. In contrast, most Sikh and Hindu
organisations have sprung up in the past two or
three years, jealous of the attention showered on
the MCB. But this system is getting out of
control.
For a start, there are problems specific to the
structure of these organisations. They tend to
reflect a narrow range of predominantly
conservative opinion. They generally ignore
non-religious, liberal or progressive opinions
and yet claim to represent everyone of their
particular faith. Any criticism, from the outside
or within, is portrayed as an attack on the
religion itself, making it more difficult to hold
the groups to account. Worse, they largely
consist of first-generation, middle-aged men who
are out of touch with second- and
third-generation Britons.
In a broader context, we need to ask why we still
need these self-appointed representatives. Who
gave them prominence? Step forward the Labour
government - though the Tories had signalled a
move in this direction before Blair came to
power. Even in 2006 the new generation of Britons
are perceived as outsiders who need their
interests represented differently. The government
does not want to hear mixed messages. It wants to
pretend minorities are homogeneous groups who
think along the same lines. It works with those
groups that tell them what they want to hear.
This allows politicians to pass the burden of
responsibility on to these representatives and
treat minorities as outsiders. Have a problem
with crime? Forget the police, get the "community
leaders" on television to declare everything is
under control. Have a problem with terrorism?
Deny the intelligence chief's suggestion that
foreign policy is exacerbating the problem and
tell the community leaders to sort it out.
Home secretaries from Jack Straw and David
Blunkett to John Reid have sought to politicise
problems of segregation, criminal behaviour and
poverty into issues that are only about race and
religion. Whole communities are blamed for
keeping themselves separate, without local
housing schemes or "white flight" being taken
into account. Politicians prefer to hold a debate
on the veil rather than sort out public services.
This whole system distorts the national debate.
The politicians say something alarmist and
absurd; the appointed community leaders react
defensively. Speeches, interviews or television
debates are then constructed around polarised
positions. The media love putting together a
shouting match. Not realising this, these
representatives are set up as fall guys by
politicians and the media who use them for their
own objectives.
We need to go back to the basics and take a clear
stance against prejudice. The struggle by ethnic
minorities who migrated to this country was
always for equality - to be accepted, treated
according to merit and to see an end to
discrimination. As times have changed, so has the
nature of racism and prejudice. In setting out a
forward-looking agenda we should not accept any
inconsistency. It must be rejected in all forms
by everyone - majority and minority groups.
Therefore it cannot go unnoticed that the Indian
politician Narendra Modi, whose critics dub him
"the butcher of Gujarat" and claim he was
complicit in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in India,
has been invited to this country twice. It cannot
go unnoticed that British mosques have played
host to imams who have previously justified
attacks on Hindus, Christians, homosexuals and
others; nor that many Sikh organisations are
populated with members of previously proscribed
terrorist groups such as the International Sikh
Youth Federation.
This is why we need to set a different agenda to
develop community cohesion. Today, a group from
different backgrounds, perspectives and
experiences is launching a manifesto on the
Guardian's Comment is Free website for a new
approach to community relations and
representation. On other issues we disagree, but
we are united in our desire to see an end to the
political arrangement with self-appointed
community leaders because it hurts those it is
supposed to protect.
At the same time, we must reject the constant
demonisation of British Muslims that has become
the new acceptable face of racism. Recent weeks
have seen the Sun newspaper blame Muslim youths
for acts of vandalism that the police denied were
their fault; the reporting of "race riots" in
Windsor when what occurred was an attack on a
Muslim-owned dairy by white youths; and many more
non-stories blown up into front-page headlines
purely because they involved Muslims.
All this serves only to drive liberal Muslims
into the arms of the community leaders who claim
to voice their fears. It is a choice between a
rock and a hard place that does not help the
silent majority.
There needs to be a new way forward that ignores
the rabble-rousers and scare-mongers. We believe
a new progressive agenda on citizenship,
democracy, public debate and civil liberties is
possible, but it needs others to debate and
engage with us.
· Sunny Hundal is the editor of the online
magazine Asians in Media and founder of the New
Generation Network
_____
[6]
The Guardian
November 19, 2006
MUSLIM LEADER SENT FUNDS TO IRVING
Islamic activist admits he donated cash to jailed historian who denied the
Holocaust
by Jamie Doward , home affairs editor, The Observer
One of Britain's most prominent speakers on Muslim issues is today
exposed as a supporter of David Irving, the controversial historian who for
years denied the Holocaust took place.
Asghar Bukhari, a founder member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee
(MPAC), which describes itself as Britain's largest Muslim civil rights group,
sent money to Irving and urged Islamic websites to ask visitors to make
donations to his fighting fund.
Bukhari contacted the discredited historian, sentenced this year to three
years in an Austrian prison for Holocaust denial, after reading his website.
He headed his mail to Irving with a quotation attributed to the philosopher
John Locke: 'All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to
stand idle.'
In one email Bukhari tells Irving: 'You may feel like you are on your own but
rest assured many people are with you in your fight for the Truth.' Bukhari
pledges to make a donation of £60 to Irving's fighting fund and says that he
has asked 'a few of my colleagues to send some in too'. He also offers to
send Irving a book, They Dare to Speak Out, by Paul Findley, a former US
Senator, who has attacked his country's close relationship with Israel.
Bukhari says Findley 'has suffered like you in trying to expose certain
falsehoods perpetrated by the Jews'.
In a follow-up letter, Bukhari writes: 'Here is the cheque I promised. Good
luck, if there is any other way I can help please don't hestitate to call me. I
have also asked many Muslim websites to create links to your own and ask
for donations.'
Bukhari confirmed sending the letters in 2000. 'I had a lot of sympathy for
anyone who opposed Israel,' Bukhari told The Observer said. 'I wrote
letters to anyone who was tough against the Israelis - David Irving, Paul
Findley, the PLO."I don't feel I have done anything wrong, to be honest. At
the time I was of the belief he [Irving] was anti-Zionist, being smeared for
nothing more then being anti-Zionist.
'The pro-Israeli lobby often accused people of anti-Semitism and smear
tactics against groups and individuals is well known. I condemn anti-
Semitism as strongly as I condemn Zionism (in my opinion they are both
racist ideologies). I also believe that anyone who denies the Holocaust is
wrong (I don't think they should be put behind bars for it though).'
At his trial this year, Irving said he had been 'mistaken' to say the gas
chambers did not exist. He had been due to attend a conference hosted by
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, questioning the 'truthfulness' of
the Holocaust.
'David Irving was described by a High Court judge as a falsifier of history
and a false denier,' said Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust
Educational Trust. 'I can't understand why anyone would want to support
his views, let alone encourage and influence others to sympathise with
them. I'm appalled.'
Earlier this year, speaking on behalf of MPAC, Bukhari said a march in
London in protest at the publication of satirical cartoons depicting the
Prophet Muhammad should not have gone ahead. 'We believe it should
have been banned and the march stopped,' Bukhari said. 'Freedom of
speech has to be responsible.'
MPAC was banned from university campuses in 2004 after being branded
'anti-semitic' by the National Union of Students. It is becoming increasingly
influential within the Muslim community. At the last election the organisation
drew up a list of Labour candidates with links to Israel, whom it urged
Muslims to vote out. One MP, Lorna Fitzsimons, lost her seat to the Lib
Dems by 400 votes.
'Getting into bed with Holocaust revisionists who are the heroes of racist
organisations which use Islamophobia to divide communities on racial and
religious grounds is just extraordinary and very, very sad,' Fitzsimons said.
MPAC, which strongly denies allegations that it is anti-semitic, accused The
Observer of 'twisting an innocent gesture of support (even if gravely
mistaken) into more than it is'. The story was 'just another Islamaphobic
attack aimed at undermining and harming the brave individuals who
support the Palestinian cause and the cause of Muslims within Britain.'
_____
[7]
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
to ban within government-funded schools the
promotion or practice of any particular faith or
religion."
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/nofaithinschools/
_____
[8]
Outlook
Magazine | Nov 27, 2006
REVIEW
The Ants Write Their Own Script
Did Partition's onus rest only on its grand
players or did the untold story lie outside
conference chambers?
Mushirul Hasan
SHAMEFUL FLIGHT: THE LAST DAYS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN INDIA
by Stanley Wolpert
Oxford University Press
Pages: 250; Rs: 495
British civil servant Irish Portal
captured the mood in the early '40s when he said
"you must never take land away from people.
People's land has a mystique. You can go and
possibly order them about for a bit and introduce
some new ideas and possibly dragoon an alien race
into attitudes that are not quite familiar to
them". But then, he added, "you must go away and
die in Cheltenham".
Stanley Wolpert revisits the transfer of power in mid-August 1946.
Starting with the indictment of Admiral 'Dickie'
Mountbatten, Britain's last viceroy in India, he
concludes his story with the failure of M.K.
Gandhi and M.A. Jinnah to stop the runaway
juggernaut to Partition. In the course of this
journey, he covers some of the familiar landmarks
until we reach the parting of ways, the only
seeming solution to an intractable problem.
Nehru conceded that he and his Congress
colleagues were tired men and getting on in
years. He mentioned that they could not stand the
prospect of getting to prison again, and if they
had stood out for a united India, prison
obviously awaited them.
In dusty towns, in local dailies, in
'benign' temples, madrassas: that's where we can
seek the Partition story.
They saw the fires burning in Punjab and
heard of the killings. The Partition plan offered
a way out. They expected it would be temporary;
that Pakistan was bound to rejoin India.
Having traversed the historical terrain from the days of B.G. Tilak and G.K.
Gokhale until the present day, Wolpert knows how
to weave in facts and personalities into his
story. He does not burden us with postcolonial
theories or other fanciful discourses; instead,
he neatly fits in the dramatic moments of the
'40s in his chapters.
I suggest a change in the overall direction and
orientation of our researches on the transfer of
power, especially on India's partition. That is
because the grand narrative, with its focus on
the British-Congress-Muslim League negotiations,
does not factor in how socio-economic changes
impacted on class-caste and religion-based
alignments. Likewise, individual pronouncements
of the leaders mislead us into believing that
they were free agents. The fact is that the
constituency they had created curbed their
actions. As the vivisection of India became
imminent, Gandhi's own sense of impotence
increased. "My writ runs no more.... No one
listens to me any more.... I am crying in the
wilderness."
In other words, Partition debates must be located
outside the conference chambers. This is how we
may perhaps delineate the local roots of Hindu,
Sikh and Muslim nationalisms. That is how the
intricate process of the formation of
community-based solidarities, which should
ideally be the staple diet of present-day
historians, can be explored in the public arena,
the arena of public performance and of
"collective activities in public spaces".
So it may be that the untold story lies in the
dusty towns and not always in the faceless
metropolitan centres; in and around the bustling
vernacular newspaper offices, or in the seemingly
benign madrassas, temples and Sufi shrines, the
focal point of mobilisation in Sind and Punjab.
These were, undeniably, the sites where myths,
memories and divisive religious symbols were
invented and propagated to heighten communitarian
consciousness.
Wolpert neither celebrates religious nationalism
nor contests the pluralist heritage in what's
been one of the most multicultural societies in
the world. But he doesn't answer why a society,
with its splendidly plural heritage, became the
site of one of the most cataclysmic events in
20th-century history. Surely, the onus doesn't
rest, as Wolpert's narrative implies, on
Mountbatten, Gandhi, Nehru or Jinnah. The
historian's history of Partition has to be
differently constructed.
This is not the moment to mourn the break-up of
India or lament the collapse of a common cultural
and intellectual inheritance.What we need is to
evolve a common reference point, especially in
the subcontinent, for rewriting the histories of
an event that cast its shadow over many aspects
of state and society. Such an exercise can be
undertaken without calling into question the
legitimacy of one or the other varieties of
nationalism.
The sun in the British Empire set sooner than
later; or else the likes of Mountbatten, who made
a mess of the task he was assigned, would have
prolonged the agony of the colonies in Asia and
Africa. He ensured that the last days of the
British Empire, the theme of Wolpert's study,
were inglorious, marked by violence against the
innocent. The wily Mountbatten, who charmed the
future rulers of India and exited triumphantly,
needs to be resurrected only to be consigned to
the dustbin of colonial history.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the SACW
mailing list