SACW | March 5-6, 2007 Nepal: monarchists and hindu right creating hurdles; Pakistan: Bigots, Basant, Faith Laden Cricket; India: Judicial reform, Gujarat Carnage; UK: British Police and Hindu right / Muslim council of Britain's school fatwa

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | March 5-6, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2371 - Year 9

[1]  Nepal: The King and the Emperor  (J. Sri Raman)
[2]  Inquiry on counter-terrorism and human 
rights continues South Asia study in Pakistan
[3]  Pakistan: Fanatics, basant and tourism (Omar R. Quraishi)
[4]  The Faith over the pitch. Tabhligi Jamaat 
and The Cricket Pakistan team (Amir Mir)
[5]  India: Contempt of Democracy: Time for Judicial Reform (Nivedita Menon)
[6]  India:  Five years of Gujarat Carnage - An Overview (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[7]  India: Goa - One Year after the 
Sanvordem-Curchorem violence' : Report of a 
meeting (CICH)
[8]  India: "Culture in Danger" say Hindu right 
and Congress : Out To Stop Nishabd
[9]  British Police and Government Supporting A 
Hindu Fundamentalist Agenda? (AWAAZ SAW)
[10]  UK: Keep religion out of school

____


[1]

truthout.org
28 February 2007

THE KING AND THE EMPEROR
by J. Sri Raman

     This is a story about a king and an emperor. 
Or, more correctly, about a dethroned king and an 
emperor with his clothes on but gloves off. This 
is a story of Nepal today.

     The story is less about the king than about 
the emperor. King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev 
is now history. His monarchy, deemed to be 
divinely ordained, was a sad anachronism swept 
away in the history made by the people of Nepal 
last year. The imperial and imperialist authority 
of James Francis Moriarty, however, is unshaken 
and the US ambassador to Nepal continues to 
assert and even flaunt it.

     The eyes of Nepal and Nepal-watchers are on 
both Gyanendra and Moriarty, as the Himalayan 
state faces the next and formidable hurdle in its 
advance towards a stable democracy. Both the 
names figure in informed Nepalese discussions 
about the ethnic unrest that may lead to the 
nation's shutdown today.

     Gyanendra caused a huge uproar when he issued 
a "message to the nation" on February 19, 
observed in Nepal as Democracy Day to commemorate 
an earlier victory of the people in overthrowing 
the despotic rule of Ranas. The unconscious irony 
of the message on this occasion did not amuse the 
tens of thousands who had taken to the streets 
and kept up their struggle until Gyanendra 
relinquished power and restored Nepal's 
parliament in April 2006.

     The tenor of the message amounted to a tacit 
dismissal of the democratic transition. 
Consequently, it has been widely condemned as 
"unconstitutional" in the new set-up, where the 
parliament has stripped him of all powers and the 
people are to vote on whether monarchy should be 
retained even in a ceremonial form. Beating a 
tactical retreat, Gyanandra has refrained from 
repeating the claim in his message about his past 
role as a defender of democracy and from reacting 
to its denunciations.

     Moriarty, too, has made statements, and these 
have been decried as conspicuously incompatible 
with norms of diplomatic conduct. That, however, 
has not deterred him from continuing to conduct 
himself as a diplomat with a difference, to claim 
diplomatic immunity of an imperial kind.

     We have noted, in these columns before, a 
couple of instances of Moriarty's distinguished 
diplomacy. One was his prediction at a press 
conference that the Communist Party of Nepal 
(Maoist) would get only "very few votes" in a 
general election. One can't think of any foreign 
envoy in Washington indulging in similar public 
speculation about the fortunes of parties in a US 
election. Nor has any diplomat anywhere, perhaps, 
announced different policies towards different 
parts of the host nation's government. Moriarty 
had matter-of-factly declared that his government 
would not extend development aid to departments 
that may be placed under Maoist ministers in a 
proposed interim government including them.

     It is not customary, either, for the 
diplomatic corps to make public pronouncements on 
political agitations and disturbances in states 
where they are stationed, on internal issues of 
the host-countries that do not involve them. No 
such niceties have stopped Moriarty from having 
his public say on the most explosive of ethnic 
issues that threaten to paralyze Nepal.

     The series of ethnic revolts now rocking 
Nepal started with an agitation in the southern 
Terai plains for a rightful place for the region 
in a new federal set-up. The Madhesis of the 
Terai, mostly of Indian origin, nurse deep 
resentment about the region's neglect and ethnic 
discrimination; in the past, they have received 
support and sympathy from the pro-democracy 
movement and the Maoists. The Madhesi example has 
proven contagious.

     The Nepal Adivasi Janajati Mahasangh, a 
federation of about 60 communities of the 
country's original inhabitants, has joined forces 
with the Madhesi Janadhikar (People's Rights) 
Forum. The federation has called for Wednesday's 
all-Nepal shutdown, compounding the 
Forum-enforced transport strike that has stopped 
much of the supplies from crossing the border 
with India. The two organizations together have 
threatened an even more crippling offensive in 
the first week of March.

     Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's 
government has failed to persuade the forum with 
its promise of federalism under the new 
constitution. The Maoists and many others, while 
conceding the justness of the Madhesi grievances, 
still see the hand of the pro-monarchy forces and 
India's Hindu far right behind the growing 
unrest. Some pro-Gyanendra leaders have been 
arrested, but only grim silence on the subject 
emanates from his palace.

     Silence on such subjects, however, is not 
Moriarty's style. Speaking at a public function 
on the occasion of the 102nd anniversary of the 
Rotary movement in Kathmadu on February 23, he 
talked breezily of his visit in the previous week 
to Chitwan in the violence-rocked Terai. 
Lecturing the Nepalese on "the large challenges" 
before them, he also said: "Recent disturbances 
in the Terai, for instance, suggest the need for 
greater transparency and inclusiveness to address 
ethnic groups with long-time grievances who feel 
excluded from Nepal's democratic transition."

     Few in India would recall similar 
forthrightness on the part of a US envoy in 
addressing any ethnic issue to have ever erupted 
in this country. The ambassadors of the George 
Bush regime, obviously, see little reason to be 
so ceremonious with one of the least-developed 
nations.

     Meanwhile, the more perceptive observers in 
Nepal are beginning to wonder - and worry - about 
where all this may lead. Well-informed journalist 
Dhruba Adhikary has chosen to wonder online about 
the future role of the Nepalese Army (until 
recently the Royal Nepalese Army) and Nepal's 
democratic experiment, if the situation gets out 
of hand.

     Envisaging a "scary scenario" where the 
intervention of the army under General Rukmangad 
Katawal becomes "unavoidable," Adhikary adds: 
"Men and women who know that General Katawal was 
once Pakistani President General Pervez 
Musharraf's classmate tend to predict a 
Pakistani-style coup, but analysts with a more 
mature approach think of a Bangladeshi model."

     He explains: "Bangladeshi army generals asked 
President Iajuddin Ahmed to declare a state of 
emergency on January 11, just days before 
elections planned for January 22, to avert an 
election that was sure to become violent." 
Adhikary asks: "How would India and the United 
States react if the army acted to prevent a 
Maoist takeover?" That is a crucial question 
indeed.

     Nepal can cope with King Gyanendra. Emperor 
Moriarty, however, may be more difficult to 
manage.

     A freelance journalist and a peace activist 
of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of 
Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA).

____


[2]

Press Releases

GLOBAL INQUIRY ON COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN 
RIGHTS CONTINUES SOUTH ASIA STUDY IN PAKISTAN

4 March 2007

The Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, 
Counter-terrorism and Human Rights begins a 
two-day public hearing in Islamabad on Monday 5 
March to examine and assess the responses of 
Pakistan to the threat of terrorism and its 
impact on human rights and the rule of law. The 
hearing is the second part of the Panel's study 
of South Asia's responses to terrorism.

The Panel will be represented by its Chair, 
Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice and first 
President of South Africa's Constitutional Court 
and Vitit Muntarbhorn, leading human rights 
advocate and Professor of Law in Bangkok, who is 
currently United Nations' expert on human rights 
in North Korea. The hearing is hosted by the 
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an affiliate 
of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

"Pakistan is a key player in the global debate on 
terrorism", said Justice Arthur Chaskalson. "Its 
society faces serious terrorist threats. However, 
as in other countries that the panel visited 
previously, concerns have been voiced about the 
negative impact of terrorism and 
counter-terrorism measures on human rights and 
the rule of law", he added.

The public hearing is part of a global inquiry by 
the Panel, a high-level and independent group 
appointed by the ICJ in October 2005. It is the 
twelfth in a series of hearings held around the 
world by the Panel. The visit to Islamabad forms 
part of a study of laws and policies of 
terrorism, counter-terrorism in South Asia.

"We came to listen to a broad range of 
perspectives, from civil society and the 
authorities to get a fully considered 
understanding of the challenge posed by terrorism 
and counter-terrorism for the protection of human 
rights in Pakistan", said Professor Muntarbhorn.

In two days of high-level public hearings (Monday 
5-Tuesday 6 March) in Islamabad at the Holiday 
Inn Hotel, the Panel will hear testimony from a 
wide range of actors, including leading lawyers, 
academics, national and international human 
rights organisations, and members of the public 
affected by terrorism and counter-terrorism. 
Following the hearing, the Panel members will 
hold private meetings with senior government 
representatives in Islamabad, including the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of 
Interior, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human 
Rights and the Law and Justice Commission.

The public hearing is open to the media. The 
Panel will share its conclusions on its visit to 
Pakistan with the media on Wednesday 7 March at 
5pm at House 56, Street 35, F-6/1, Islamabad.

Background

The Panel is composed of eight judges, lawyers 
and academics from all regions of the world. It 
exercises its mandate independently, with the 
logistical support of the ICJ Secretariat and its 
network of organizations. Arthur Chaskalson, 
former Chief Justice and first President of the 
Constitutional Court of South Africa, chairs the 
Panel.

The other members are Vitit Muntarbhorn 
(Thailand), Professor of Law at Chulalongkorn 
University in Bangkok and UN expert on human 
rights in North Korea; Hina Jilani (Pakistan), a 
lawyer before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and 
the UN Secretary General's Special Representative 
on Human Rights Defenders; Mary Robinson, now 
Head of the Ethical Globalization Initiative, and 
former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and 
former President of Ireland; Stefan Trechsel 
(Switzerland), former President of the European 
Commission on Human Rights, and judge at the 
International Criminal Tribunal for the former 
Yugoslavia; Georges Abi-Saab (Egypt), former 
Judge at the International Criminal Tribunals for 
the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; Robert K. 
Goldman (United States), Professor of Law at 
American University's Washington College of Law, 
a former President of the Inter-American 
Commission on Human Rights and former UN expert 
on counter-terrorism and human rights; and 
Justice E. Raúl Zaffaroni (Argentina), a judge at 
the Supreme Court of Argentina.

The Panel has held hearings in Australia, 
Colombia, East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and 
Uganda), the United Kingdom (in London on current 
counter-terrorism policies and in Belfast on 
lessons from the past), North Africa (Algeria, 
Morocco and Tunisia), the United States, the 
Southern Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay 
and Uruguay), South-East Asia (Indonesia, 
Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand) and the 
Russian Federation. Prior to coming to Pakistan 
the panel had held a hearing in New Delhi 
(Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka and 
India). Other countries or regions where the 
Panel will also hold hearings include Canada, the 
Middle East and Europe. The final report of the 
Panel is expected to be published towards the end 
of 2007.

For further information on the public hearing and 
to arrange interviews with the Panel, please 
contact:

In Islamabad: (0) 51 2827 147 or (0)333 426 2505 
or (0)333 561 6190 (Asad Jamal or Muhammad Asif 
from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan)
-  (0) 332 513 2374 (Isabelle Heyer, from the 
International Commission of Jurists)

In Geneva: + 41 22 979 38 00 (Stephen Coakley, 
from the International Commission of Jurists)


_____


[3]

The News,
March 4, 2007

RIPPLE EFFECT

Fanatics, basant and tourism

by Omar R. Quraishi

If ever there is going to be a contest for a 
country with the highest number of fanatics per 
capita, I have a strong feeling that Pakistan 
will win it hands down. The last few weeks have 
been particularly bad (or good if one is looking 
from the point of view of winning this 
'contest'). The country was rocked by several 
suicide bombings and there was news that many 
more had been planned by the extremists/fanatics.

Thankfully, and for a change, our police and 
law-enforcement agencies had reportedly managed 
to nab several would-be suicide bombers but there 
were still many who were (and still are) said to 
be on the loose. All this obviously does not make 
for a carefree existence but then again who said 
that living in a country like Pakistan was going 
to be easy. There is bad (nay terrible) traffic, 
people with little or no civic sense, and now we 
have to deal with suicide bombers in our midst.

This is not all. As the days progressed, two 
other stories came and they drove home the point 
further (as if that could be done given how 
intolerant we have become as a society) that 
Pakistan has far more fanatics than we would like 
to admit. The first was the tragic murder of a 
doctor in FATA who had been sent to the region to 
manage the polio vaccination drive. He was killed 
by unidentified gunmen and it's quite probable 
that this was done because the local population 
had been manipulated by some local mullahs into 
believing that vaccinating one's child was the 
handiwork of the devil and hence should be 
avoided at all costs. A week or so later, this 
poisonous disinformation had reached Swat with a 
local cleric -- and the son-in-law of the chief 
of the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi Maulana 
Sufi Mohammad -- reportedly telling the local 
population to not vaccinate their children when 
health workers come to their homes as part of the 
provincial government's polio eradicat
ion drive.

The cleric, who apparently broadcasts his 
pernicious views without impunity on a makeshift 
FM station, also is reported to have said the 
following gems: "I must tell my brothers and 
sisters that finding a cure (vaccination) for an 
epidemic before its outbreak is not allowed in 
Sharia. According to Sharia, one should avoid 
going to the areas where an epidemic has broken 
out, but those who do go to such areas and get 
killed during an outbreak are martyrs."

One does not know whether to laugh or cry at the 
presence of such people in our midst. It would be 
okay -- of course relatively speaking -- if they 
confined the import of their absurd and 
obscurantist views to themselves but the problem 
is that these purveyors of bigotry, 
disinformation and hate want everybody else to 
conform to their warped and skewed interpretation 
of religion.

And of course, there is this man from Gujranwala, 
a certain Maulvi Sarwar who killed the Punjab 
social welfare minister because he apparently 
disapproved of the way she dressed. The man is 
said to have, apparently by his own admission, 
killed several other women as well (one 
newspaper's Gujranwala correspondent described 
them as 'model girls' while another called them 
'women of easy virtue' -- so much for the 
reporting standards of our print media since it 
seems women are judged even after they have 
died). Incidentally, Maulvi Sarwar was wanted in 
several cases and had even been arrested but was 
released for 'want of evidence' -- will someone 
in Punjab's law-enforcement and legal hierarchy 
explain why this was allowed to happen?

**********************
Tourism minister Neelofar Bakhtiyar can forget 
about making Visit Pakistan Year (2007) a 
success. Luckily modern-day Gujranwala probably 
does not have much to offer the foreign tourist, 
unless one's wish is to visit a polluted 
industrial city with little tolerance for women 
in general and the arts and theatre in 
particular. As for the anti-polio mullah, he is a 
resident of Swat, otherwise known as Pakistan's 
'Switzerland' with its alpine landscape and 
verdant valleys (of course the fact many of its 
residents are lorded over by cleric who would 
have them live in the Dark Ages is something that 
one does not need to include in the travel 
brochure).

One can be absolutely sure that there are many 
Maulvi Sarwars out there, and they can be found 
especially in the areas that we want the goras to 
visit. I remember that as long as eight years ago 
on one of my regular trips to Nathiagali I came 
across small signboards nailed on trees by a 
local jihadi outfit saying that women who did not 
cover their hair deserved to have their hair 
chopped off at the very least. These were also 
bolted on the trees along the Ayubia chairlift, 
so one could read them as one went up the 
chairlift to the top. If they are still there -- 
which they surely must be -- they can now be 
translated into various foreign languages so that 
the hundreds of thousands of tourists who are 
sure to visit Pakistan this year can benefit from 
reading them.

**********************
Despite many hindrances, Basant thankfully 
happened this year. The whole debate, one must 
admit, has religious and cultural overtones and 
there is no need of getting into that. Just two 
things though. One: thousands of people die in 
traffic accidents every year, so do we ban people 
from buying and driving cars or do we ask them to 
be more careful. Two: strictly speaking 
constitutionally, isn't it parliament's 
prerogative to legislate (since it is sovereign 
and has the power to enact laws) and the 
judiciary's to interpret such legislation?

The writer is Op-ed Pages Editor of The News.


______


[4]

Outlook Magazine Mar 12, 2007

cricket: pakistan

A Catch In The Deep

THE FAITH OVER THE PITCH. THE PAKISTAN TEAM IS RIVEN OVER THE PLAYERS' SOULS.

by Amir Mir

Long before the Islamists discovered their 
frightening zeal, Pakistani cricketers were 
considered a paragon of modern Muslims: they 
played flamboyantly, partied hard and didn't 
flaunt their religion publicly. They were the 
playboys of their times—suave, educated and 
dashing; they had their one-night stands, clubbed 
and tippled; as great exponents of reverse swing 
as they were ardent admirers of fine legs. They 
had the lifestyle only stars have—in any country, 
of any sport, of any religious persuasion.

Those days of cricketing insouciance are now 
memory, as are so many other aspects of secular 
life in Pakistan. Every prize presentation 
ceremony has captain Inzamam-ul-Haq begin his 
soundbite with "Bismillah (In the name of 
Allah)"; players huddle to pray on the ground 
during pre-match preparations; 'Islamic beards' 
are sported as an advertisement of their faith; 
batsmen have been known to cramp up because they 
fast and play during Ramzan.

The responsibility for this fervent religiosity 
are a clutch of players—Inzy, Mushtaq Ahmed 
(bowling coach), Mohammed Yousuf, Saqlain 
Mushtaq, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Malik and Yasser 
Hameed—who have become members of the Tableeghi 
Jamaat, or the 'party of preachers'. The TJ, an 
exact Arabic translation of which is the 
Proselytising Group, occupies itself 
participating in functions organised to propagate 
Islam and stressing on the virtues of an 
'authentic Islamic lifestyle'. TJ has invaded the 
dressing room—they can be seen praying with 
players and reciting the Quran for the team's 
success. As TJ membership makes it incumbent upon 
a person to preach, Inzy reportedly went to 
Gujranwala, Punjab, on a three-day preaching 
tour, before flying off to South Africa for the 
recently concluded series.

Inzy's proclivity to mix religion with cricket 
has sparked accusations that he favours TJ 
players over those who are either non-religious 
or prefer to confine religion to their private 
lives. The non-Tableeghi group is led by 
vice-captain Younis Khan and includes Shoaib 
Akhtar, Mohammed Asif, Danish Kaneria, Imran 
Nazir, Abdul Razzaq etc. This divide often 
shadows differences between players. Though Inzy 
is said to detest Shoaib for his indiscipline, 
some in the team feel the real reason is the fast 
bowler's liberal views, the occasional pegs and 
his breathlessly busy night life.

A disgruntled team member who requested anonymity 
detailed to Outlook aspects of Inzy's religious 
passion. On tours abroad, one of the rooms is 
declared a 'prayer' room, where TJ players offer 
prayers and discuss religious issues. 
Accompanying the team is a former TV personality 
and TJ member, Naeem Butt, who stays in the team 
hotel. Butt arranges interactions between the 
cricketers and officer-bearers of the TJ chapter 
of the host country.

This palpable Islamisation prompted even 
President Pervez Musharraf to tell Pakistan 
Cricket Board chairman Dr Naseem Ashraf that 
players should go easy on religion and strike a 
balance between it and cricket. Ashraf 
subsequently warned the Tableeghi cricketers at a 
recent press conference, asking them to "stop 
exhibiting their religious beliefs in public". To 
Outlook, Ashraf confessed, "I have discussed the 
matter in detail with Inzamam, making it clear to 
him that religion is purely a private affair and 
there should not be any pressure on those who 
don't pray regularly. He assured me there is no 
pressure at all on any of the players to do 
anything they don't want to do."

So how has the flamboyant cricket team of the 
past become a Tableeghi Jamaat redoubt? The 
Islamisation of the team, in a way, has been in 
tandem with the transformation of society here. 
The process began under president Zia-ul Haq, 
under whose rule the TJ was even provided access 
to soldiers in the barracks.Simultaneously, the 
democratisation of cricket brought in players 
from semi-urban centres where religion can be a 
more prominent part of life. As ex-Test opener 
Mohsin Khan points out, "The current team's 
make-up is different from the earlier Pakistani 
sides, which drew from the educated and social 
elite in Lahore and Karachi. Currently, half the 
squad hails from outside of Pakistan's two major 
cities."

In the early days, Pakistani players may have 
been believers but didn't flaunt it. It was the 
otherwise hip Imran Khan who made it cool for 
cricketers to talk religion. His 'awakening' 
following retirement and his public, even 
strident, endorsement of Islam provided Islamists 
the cue to recruit cricketers to their cause. 
Among them was Maulana Tariq Jameel who, like 
Inzy, is a Multani, and a close associate of 
Maulana Abdul Wahab, the ameer of Pakistan's TJ 
chapter. He began to concertedly target the team 
once he had converted Saeed Anwar to the TJ 
cause. The stylish opener, a computer engineer by 
training, became a born-again Muslim in 2001, 
after the tragic death of his infant daughter 
Bismah. The traumatic experience prompted Anwar 
to find solace in religion—he joined the TJ. His 
primary task: working on present and former 
cricketers to join the TJ and spread the message 
of Islam.

About his TJ experience, Anwar told Outlook, 
"There's only one aim in my life...follow Allah 
Almighty's path and prepare for the Day of 
Judgement. I am a different Saeed Anwar today, 
the material world to me is meaningless now. I 
have turned to Allah for solace and am committed 
to spread the religion worldwide."

So now religion has become a badge the cricketers 
are willing to wear publicly, particularly Inzy, 
whose diffident personality acquired an assertive 
edge under Maulana Jameel's influence. Perhaps 
religion provided Inzy an anchor in the 
glamourous and corporate world that cricket has 
become—and which he as a Multani must have found 
alienating. With the captain under its sway, the 
TJ now had an open field, winning over players in 
numbers that divided the team into TJ and non-TJ 
groups.

Inzy himself denies any rift in the team. He told 
Outlook, "The team is selected purely on the 
basis of merit. There is no pressure on any 
player to join the five-times-a-day collective 
namaaz. Those who say otherwise have never 
offered prayers, nor have any links to Islam... 
which does not force anyone on the issue of 
religion." He furnishes proof of his contention. 
"Look at the players yourself. Only four players 
who toured South Africa—Mohammed Yousuf, Shahid 
Afridi, Shoaib Malik and myself—have beards. Our 
religious activities have never stopped a match." 
Inzy says the preaching sessions with Islamic 
scholars help instil unity in the team, and that 
his own piety enables him to overcome 
distractions on tours abroad.

Inzy has long sported a beard. But others wear 
it, critics allege, only as a show of allegiance 
to the captain, to boost their chances of getting 
into the squad. Saqlain and Mushtaq are counted 
among the prime examples. There's also the unique 
case of Mohammed Yousuf, who converted from 
Christianity and seemingly never shaved 
thereafter. Despite repeated denials, there 
aren't many takers for Yousuf's view—that he 
didn't convert to boost his chances of becoming 
captain in the future.

Yousuf says: "My conversion is because of a 
change of heart...it's not a calculated move. 
Danish Kaneria is Hindu and there is no problem. 
Before my conversion, I had played for Pakistan 
for 10 long years and there had been no problem. 
I didn't do this to be captain. Islam is the true 
religion because it says that life after death is 
the real life; the better you prepare for it, the 
better your present life will be".

His transformation was not only confined to his 
faith, but extended to a change in name, 
appearance, behaviour—and even performance on the 
field. The string of tall scores he made became a 
prompt line for those who say Allah favours those 
who turn to Him. Residing in a posh Lahore 
locality, and having recently bought a Mercedes, 
Yousuf told Outlook that he credits the 
"benediction from above" for the change in 
fortunes. He plans to repay his debts to Allah. 
How? "After I retire, I plan to serve God by 
devoting myself to preaching Islam to all those 
out there who have not been exposed to the real 
face of the religion."

Meanwhile, Mohsin Khan pooh-poohs the notion of 
religiosity helping players perform better. He 
points to the irony—Saeed Anwar, Mushtaq Ahmed 
and Saqlain Mushtaq lost their form once they 
took to sporting beards. "Shahid Afridi too is 
following in their footsteps," he points out. But 
English-speaking opening batsman Salman Butt 
pleads for the positive impact Islam has had on 
the team. As for performance, Butt explains, "A 
lot of people work hard, but only those get to 
their destination who are lucky and have the help 
of God. We believe if we pray five times a day 
and go in the way of God, we will get help. That 
is our firm belief. It puts all of us in very 
good spirits, and has made us disciplined—a 
definite change for the team."

Even coach Bob Woolmer recently admitted that 
religiosity has helped foster unity among 
players. He however added, "But there is the odd 
problem. You have to train the players with less 
intensity during the Ramzan, or do it at a time 
of the day when they have more strength. In some 
respects, this can be frustrating as a coach." 
The non-TJ group have a litany of other 
complaints though: the stifling atmosphere, 
charges of bias, mutual suspicion etc.

Former cricketer-turned-TJ man Agha Zahid says 
his organisation recruits sporting stars because 
"if they change their lifestyles, then others who 
idolise them would follow their example". For a 
society riven by religious passions that often, 
consciously or otherwise, shrinks the secular 
space, cricketer-preachers could unwittingly 
undermine Musharraf's enlightened moderation.

This shrinking of the secular space is perhaps 
already happening in the cricket team. As editor 
Najam Sethi says, "The issue is not about being 
religious. That is an individual choice. It is 
about flaunting it in a manner that seems to 
threaten some and pressure others to follow suit. 
The Pakistani team must be talked to about the 
image the world has of men with unkempt beards. 
The team must build a good image for itself, if 
for nothing else than for the sake of gaining a 
neutral crowd watching the game." For Allah's 
cricketers, these are minor matters.

_____


[5]

kafila.org
www.kafila.org/2007/03/01/contempt-of-democracy-time-for-judicial-reform/

CONTEMPT OF DEMOCRACY: TIME FOR JUDICIAL REFORM

by Nivedita Menon (March 1st, 2007)


What would you call an institution that can 
overturn any policy adopted by democratically 
accountable governments; whose decisions are 
final, and cannot be reconsidered in any other 
forum; and which can throw into prison anybody 
who criticizes it? What would you call this 
institution accountable to nobody but itself, 
which has the sole power to appoint its own 
members and the sole power to decide if one of 
its own is guilty of a misdemeanour?

In India you would call it the Judiciary.
Cheered on vociferously by the freedom-loving 
media and its viewers/readers, the judiciary for 
about a decade, has been taking over more and 
more functions of government, until finally on 
January 11, 2007, the decisive judicial coup 
d'etat took place. By a judgement delivered on 
this day, the Supreme Court gave itself the power 
to strike down any law if it violates fundamental 
rights, resulting in the violation of the basic 
features of the Constitution. It is important to 
remember that constitutionally, no fundamental 
right is unconstrained, 'reasonable restrictions' 
being necessary to ensure that every citizen can 
enjoy these rights. Further, no right is beyond 
interpretation - does 'right to equality' entail 
affirmative action, for instance? There may be 
contradictions between fundamental rights; say 
between the right to equality of individual 
citizens and cultural rights of minorities. What 
exactly are the features that constitute the 
'basic features of the constitution'?

On these and other questions, there is now one 
final arbiter - the Supreme Court. In other 
words, the tensions and contradictions generated 
by democratic functioning - in which different 
and often contradictory interests must be 
balanced by governments that can be recalled by 
the people through elections - are now to be 
settled by a body that is under no pressure 
whatever from citizens. Indeed, this alarming 
feature is precisely seen as its strength. It is 
advised by 'experts', and supposedly takes its 
decisions free from any other consideration than 
the rationality of the arguments presented before 
it.

Social movements and political parties must of 
course, take full responsibility for preparing 
the ground for this coup d'etat. Whether on the 
question of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, 
the Sardar Sarovar Dam or the mandatory universal 
iodization of salt, recourse to the Court had 
become the political weapon of choice. The 
Supreme Court, it was assumed, would listen 
carefully to arguments on both sides and take the 
right decision on whether there had been a temple 
at the site of the masjid, whether the height of 
the dam should be raised, and on who benefits by 
the universal iodization policy. Each question a 
minefield of political interests, on each side a 
battery of experts and reams of facts, but out of 
this welter of conflicting interests and 
contradictory world-views, 'The Truth' was to 
emerge, as discovered by the infallible judges of 
the Supreme Court. This truth would necessarily 
be in the best interests of society as a whole.

Consider some decisions of the Supreme Court and 
other levels of the judiciary in the recent past:
In July 2006, the City Civil Court of Bangalore 
issued a restraining order on labour unions, 
forcing them to remain silent about extensive 
labour rights violations in garment export units 
in the city. The restraining order was issued at 
the request of the management of the units 
concerned, without any input from the defendants. 
The hearings are now on, but until the court 
takes its decision, the retraining order is in 
place. If the trade unionists continue to 
document and make public these violations 
(including physical abuse, non-payment of 
over-time wages and so on), they are liable to be 
jailed for contempt of court.

In September 2006 the Kerala High Court struck 
down the Kerala government ban on colas, citing 
violation of natural justice since the government 
had not heard the cola firms, basing the ban on a 
report by Centre for Science and Environment. 
(Apparently the CSE was not expert enough. Who 
decides who is the expert whose views count? Why, 
the court of course.)

In December 2006, the Supreme Court refused to 
issue a stay order on construction at the Vasant 
Kunj Mall site in Delhi. This, despite an 
affidavit from the Ministry of Forests and 
Environment that the topography of the site is 
similar to that of a ridge, requiring that 
environmental impact of construction should have 
been assessed beforehand. The judgement held the 
Delhi Development Authority culpable for having 
auctioned the site without requisite clearances, 
but since the corporate entities involved in the 
construction were not aware of this fact, they 
should not be penalized. Construction is on in 
full swing, while conservationists have filed a 
review petition. By the time it comes up for 
hearing, it will be too late to reverse the 
decision even if incontrovertible evidence were 
to emerge that there is irreversible ecological 
damage.

On the other hand, lack of awareness of the 
illegality of an action has never worked to the 
advantage of thousands of slum dwellers evicted 
by court order over the last decade. In one such 
judgement in 2000, the Supreme Court, denying 
that the government had any responsibility to 
find the estimated three hundred thousand people 
alternative accommodation, declared, 'Rewarding 
an encroacher on public land with a free 
alternate site is like giving a reward to a 
pickpocket.'

The Delhi High Court recently ordered the 
implementation of the Conditional Access System 
(CAS) for television channels in the metros. What 
is the 'public interest' involved in the CAS? 
None at all. In fact, since the implementation of 
CAS, the newspapers are full of complaints from 
aggrieved consumers, who in this era of the 
glorious free market, find their freedom of 
choice severely curtailed. Why not permit 
consumers the choice between CAS and the older 
system? Precisely because the CAS would not be 
voluntarily chosen by consumers. The average 
consumer will have to pay a much higher fee for 
receiving pay channels, her choice is limited to 
channels made available by the cable network, she 
has to pay for all the channels of a given 
company even if she wants only one. In whose 
interest then is the CAS? Purely in that of the 
mega network companies whose profits are reduced 
by the unorganised functioning of hundreds of 
local cable operators who were giving us the 
channels we wanted, at a reasonable rate in our 
neighbourhoods.

In short, judgement after judgement at various 
levels of the judiciary that have consistently 
benefited corporations at the expense of 
consumers, project-affected people and the 
environment; and management at the expense of 
workers.

In our democracy, fallible and beleaguered though 
it may be, every institution - at some point, in 
some forum - can be criticized. Not so the 
Courts. Recently though, a judge of the Supreme 
Court Markandeya Katju, wrote that 'contempt of 
court' needs to be scrapped except with regard to 
an action that makes the functioning of the 
judiciary 'impossible or extremely difficult'. 
This is a welcome statement. Perhaps one may take 
his Lordship at his word and criticize one of his 
own judgements?

In December 2006, a two-judge bench of the 
Supreme Court, including Justice Katju, 
substantially modified the recently notified 
Domestic Violence Act, which gives married women 
the right of residence in a shared household. 
Declaring the term 'shared household' to be "not 
properly worded" and "the result of clumsy 
drafting", the court said that it should mean 
only a house belonging to, or taken on rent by 
the husband, or one belonging to the joint family 
of which the husband is a member. In this case, 
since the house belonged to the mother of the 
husband, the wife was dispossessed from it. The 
Domestic Violence Act expresses a long-standing 
demand of the women's movement, and as framed, 
intends precisely that a woman has a right to 
live in whatever house she and her husband 
inhabit, so that she cannot arbitrarily be thrown 
out of it when a marriage breaks up. The 
expansive definition is intentional, not a result 
of 'clumsy' drafting. Essentially then, the very 
remedy intended by the law has been limited by 
this judgement.

But the right to criticize is only the 
preliminary step. What about re-opening Supreme 
Court decisions? What about judicial 
accountability? The latest bill on judicial 
accountability is limited in very serious ways. 
It addresses only the question of complaints 
against judges, and even in this, restricts the 
powers of investigation to members of the 
judiciary. As former Union Law Minister Shanti 
Bhushan remarked irascibly in an interview, this 
is like permitting only doctors to investigate 
doctors and thieves to investigate the misdeeds 
of other thieves!

But more importantly, accountability is not 
conceived of in wider terms. A Supreme Court 
decision is not necessarily the right one, 
conceded the previous Chief Justice YK Sabharwal, 
but it is the final one.

Should there be any absolutely final, 
non-negotiable decisions in a living democracy?


______



[6] 

http://communalism.blogspot.com/2007/03/five-years-of-gujarat-carnage-overview.html

FIVE YEARS OF GUJARAT CARNAGE -- AN OVERVIEW

by Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective March 1-15, 2007)

Five years have past since the Gujarat carnage of 
February 28 2002 which lasted over six months. 
The carnage followed the burning of S-6 at Godhra 
on 27th February. It is great mystery as to who 
set fire to S-6 or was it an accidental fire? 
Before even news spread all over India of this 
ghastly incident at Godhra in which 59 persons 
were burnt, Ahmedabad city started burning on the 
morning of 28th February. In the post-Godhra 
carnage in central and north Gujarat more than 
2000 persons, mostly of minority origin, were 
killed most brutally. Several women were raped 
and weapons inserted in their private parts.

The then NDA Government at the Centre and Modi in 
Gujarat maintained that S-6 was set afire as a 
result of conspiracy hatched by the ISI of 
Pakistan with the help of some Muslims in Godhra. 
The Modi Government arrested about 100 persons 
under POTA which was then in force. However, 
during last five years the Modi Government has 
not been able to produce an iota of proof against 
the accused in the ‘Godhra conspiracy case.’

The POTA review committee opined last year that 
there are no substantial grounds for keeping the 
accused under the POTA but even then the Modi 
Government refused to release these accused.

It is real mystery as to who set fire to the 
coach S-6 or was it an accidental fire. The 
Banerjee Commission set up by Shri Lalu Prasad, 
the Railway Minister in the UPA Government 
concluded that the fire was result of short 
circuit inside S-6 and there is no evidence for 
setting fire from outside. Mr. Mukul Sinha, the 
defense lawyer thinks that fire was result of 
bursting of cooking stove carried by karsevaks 
had gone on long tour to Ayodhya. The 
Shah-Nanvati Commission, which is also probing in 
the train burning at Godhra has still not 
published its report. One wonders what conclusion 
it would draw.

Before even the cause of fire was known Modi 
pronounced the theory of ‘equal and opposite 
reaction’ and justified the carnage in Gujarat on 
the very first day the carnage began. Modi also 
insisted on carrying the dead bodies of Godhra 
train tragedy in procession in Ahmedabad thus 
providing direct provocation for the carnage. No 
administration, let alone a chief minister, would 
permit dead bodies of those killed in any 
sensitive communal incident to be taken out in 
procession as it acts as direct provocation for 
more violence. But Modi wanted precisely that.

The Gujarat carnage of 2002 was very different 
from other riots in post-independence India for 
following reasons:

1) In no other riot in post-independence period 
chief minister directly provided justification 
for massacre as Modi himself did. There have been 
instances of chief minister not effectively 
quelling the riots but never of justifying them.

2) In no other riot ministers and police officers 
led the marauding mob. In case of Gujarat carnage 
many eye witnesses named two ministers including 
Mr. Zadaphiya, the then Minister of state for 
Home involved in directing the marauding mobs. He 
even entered the police control room and directed 
the police what to do. His cell numbers also have 
been recorded. No outsider is ever allowed in 
police control rooms.

3) In no other riots police officers have been 
transferred for effectively controlling communal 
violence. In Gujarat 2002 several honest and 
committed police officers were transferred on 
this ground and soon after their transfer riots 
broke out in that region.

4) In no other riots refugee camps were suddenly 
closed without providing either alternate 
accommodation or allowing the refugees to return 
to their homes and hearth. Modi Government closed 
the camps without any justification and without 
providing refugees any alternate accommodation or 
making arrangements to return to their homes and 
hearths. Modi while closing down the camps even 
derisively remarked that I cannot allow 
‘baby-producing factories’ to go on, simply 
because few Muslim women who were pregnant at the 
time of riots gave birth to babies in refugee 
camps.

Not only that the refugee camps were closed down 
even today i.e. five years after the carnage more 
than 5000 families are rotting in horrifying 
conditions in various refugee camps. Not only 
this Modi recently returned more than Rs.19 crore 
to Central Government saying funds are no more 
needed as all have been ‘settled’. The victims of 
Gujarat carnage are unable to return to their 
original homes as they are still threatened by 
the VHP activists of the affected villages.

They say that victims would be allowed to return 
only if they agree to withdraw all cases against 
the perpetrators of carnage in the village and on 
condition that they will live in separate 
quarters like the apartheid and would not give 
azan on loud speakers. Naturally many victims 
have refused to agree to these humiliating 
conditions and are living in most despicable 
conditions.

What is most shocking is that the Gujarat society 
is still completely polarised and one sees no 
signs of repentance among those who indulged in 
most brutal violence against fellow human beings. 
They still feel the violence against Muslims was 
justified. The Sangh Parivar has been carrying on 
high-pitched hate campaign against minorities 
even today. Modi needs this campaign to go on as 
it be used a s political capital in coming 
assembly elections.

In fact the Gujarat carnage, as it is well known 
was carried out with the sole purpose of winning 
the 2002 assembly elections in Gujarat. When the 
Modi Government won the elections with two-third 
majority the BJP functionaries celebrated the 
victory by saying we have found a ‘model’ to win 
the elections and we will repeat it in other 
states. Even Mr.Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister 
of India when asked for his reaction as to the 
winning model, he replied ‘will Muslims burn 
train in other place?’ In other words even 
Vajpayee found the ‘model’ acceptable.

However, the BJP lost general elections of 2004 
and Mr. Vajpayee accepted that NDA Government was 
defeated mainly because of Gujarat carnage. The 
people of India who are basically peace-loving 
and secular rejected the BJP-led NDA Government 
lest other states should experience such carnage. 
The BJP is in disarray ever since and has not 
been able to find yet its political bearings. The 
BJP and Shiv Sena are the two political parties 
which, thrive on anti-minority hate campaign. 
They want to base their victory in elections on 
hatred against minorities. The Sena Chief Bal 
Thackaray again made sharp attack on Muslims 
during the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections.

Is there any way out? In Gujarat one does not 
find any way out as of now. What Gujarat needs in 
healing touch and only civil society can provide 
it. But as pointed out above, the civil society 
itself is deeply polarised on communal lines. In 
South Africa the blacks and coloured had suffered 
immensely under the White Government. When Nelson 
Mandela could establish government of people of 
African origin, he did not seek any revenge and 
instead set up a truth and justice commission. 
Bishop Desmond Tutu played very vital role in 
functioning of the commission. It provided the 
healing touch.

But one does not see any Desmond Tutu in Gujarat. 
The civil society is badly divided. In democracy 
civil a vibrant society can play very important 
role but when it is itself polarised on communal 
lines how can it intervene to set things right? 
Harsh Mandar, who himself is not from Gujarat, 
but is extremely sensitive soul, is trying his 
best to bring about some reconciliation is few 
villages of Gujarat. But it is only a lonely 
battle of an outsider.

Why the Gujarat society is so polarised today? 
The BJP has won over dalits, backwards and 
tribals in its political fold and thus Hindus, 
despite deep internal cleavages appear to be 
united. There has never been a strong dalit 
movement in Gujarat emphasising their own 
separate identity like in Maharashtra and other 
states. There has been no reform movement either. 
Thus in absence of such a movement dalits, 
backwards and tribals find it politically 
beneficial to be part of Hindutva parivar.

Only in 1985 the then chief minister of Gujarat 
Mr. Solanki had made a feeble attempt to unite 
weaker sections of Gujarat society by forming a 
KHAM alliance. KHAM stood for kshatriya, 
harijans, adivasis and Muslims. He gave them 
reservations as per Bakhshi Commission 
recommendations and won 1985 assembly elections 
with two-third majority. However, the BJP saw the 
red and launched an aggressive movement against 
KHAM alliance and succeeded in toppling Solanki 
Government. Solanki also unfortunately did not 
stand up firmly with the alliance and suspended 
reservations to save his government.

However, that knocked the ground off the KHAM 
alliance and except Muslims, other weaker 
sections sought refuge under the Sangh Parivar. 
That is the main reason why Sangh parivar has 
been able to successfully create the illusion of 
‘Hindu unity’ and Hindu rashtra. The Congress 
after Solanki could not stand up and almost 
willingly conceded ground to the Sangh Parivar. 
Most of the Congressmen themselves subscribe to 
Hindutva ideology in Gujarat. It has rightly been 
described the B-party of BJP.

The BJP has been further helped by the identity 
crisis among the Gujarati NRIs living in U.K. and 
USA. They help the Hindutva movement in Gujarat 
generously through their financial contributions 
to compensate for their identity crisis. Most of 
the Gujaratis have struck it rich in USA and 
satisfy their conscience by supporting the 
Hindutva movement back home. Taking all this into 
account there is very little hope in Gujarat for 
the time being. Let us hope for better days in 
future.

--------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
www.csss-isla.com


______


[7]

http://communalism.blogspot.com/2007/03/one-year-after-sanvordem-curchorem.html

TOWARDS PEACE WITH JUSTICE: ONE YEAR AFTER THE 
SANVORDEM-CURCHOREM VIOLENCE - A report

Citizens' Initiatives for Communal Harmony, Goa

"The government must immediately make public the 
Sanvordem-Curchorem magisterial enquiry report, 
which has been lying with the government for over 
a week. Despite repeated assurances from 
officials that the report would be released, the 
report is yet to see the light of day. A people's 
agitation would be launched if the report is not 
released."
This was the call given by Ramesh Gauns, 
co-convenor, Citizens' Initiatives for Communal 
Harmony (CICH), at the meeting 'Towards Peace 
with Justice: One Year after the 
Sanvordem-Curchorem violence' organised by CICH. 
The meeting was held to solemnly recall the 
tragic communal violence at Sanvordem-Curchorem 
on 2-3 March 2006.

Gauns also mentioned the reported clash at the 
Sirvodem mosque and wondered about whether it was 
truly a coincidence that this occurred exactly 
one year after the Sanvordem-Curchorem violence 
or whether there were more sinister designs at 
play. He mentioned the case of Tariq Battlo, the 
alleged terrorist, who was arrested just a few 
days after the previous communal violence, as 
another suspicious 'coincidence', which indicates 
that an impression is being sought to be created 
by fascist forces that minorities are responsible 
for communal disorder.

A variety of perspectives on the communal 
violence were expressed at the meeting. Mr.Salim 
Qazi said that rather than recall the past, it 
may be better to look towards the future. He gave 
the example of the mohalla committees set up 
after the communal riots in Mumbai and  suggested 
that similar
initiatives be launched in Goa. Speaking about 
equality, he said that this means equality of 
opportunity, which is lacking for Muslims today 
and substantiated his case with examples from 
Goa. The Sachar committee report has focused on 
this and suggested action to bring about a change
in this.

Mr. Iqbal Mohiddin of the All-India Milli Council 
said that last year's riots were certainly not 
riots between two communities and that in fact 
there were members of the Hindu community who had 
stuck their necks out to protect the victims of 
the riots. Mr. Mohideen further urged that
action should be taken to ensure that such 
incidents do not happen in future. Speaking about 
the concept of 'Jihad', Mr. Mohideen clarified 
that it primarily means a struggle against 
oneself and against one's own baser instincts. It 
is an exhortation to each individual to lead a 
more moral life. He bemoaned the fact that this 
concept is being misused by fundamentalist forces 
and being interpreted as one more 'proof' of the 
violence of Islam.

Fr. Victor Ferrao from Council for Social Justice 
and Peace (CSJP) made it clear that the Catholic 
faith stands firmly on the side of justice and in 
solidarity with the victims of violence and 
discrimination, as in the case of last year's 
communal violence. He stressed the need for every 
true Christian to understand that the message of 
Christianity is one of peace and love, and that 
justice is an essential part of true 
reconciliation and healing.

Noted Ambedkarite activist Mr. Dadu Mandrekar 
spoke of the values enshrined in the Constitution 
of India. He pointed out that secularism, 
socialism, equality, fraternity and democracy are 
all enshrined in the preamble to the 
Constitution. He said that in a truly secular 
society, we should restrict religion to our 
homes. Outside our homes, the Constitution should 
be our religion, and we should strive to live up 
to its values. For that we must fight 
discrimination and inequality, be it based on 
religion or caste. Else there are many religions 
and 6000 castes in India, and we would break up 
into 6000 nations rather than one united India, 
Mr. Mandrekar remarked

Pravin Sabnis made an audio presentation on the 
song "Vande Matram" and spoke about how it was a 
homage to the nation, but also used much Hindu 
symbols and deities and could not therefore 
become the national song of a truly 
multi-religious nation. He then showed through 
popular songs
about how this song has been used creatively to 
express different viewpoints, in one version 
incorporating the call of the muezzin and in 
another making it a lament to the state of the 
nation. Summing up, he stressed the need to speak 
up for justice, because wounds that are hidden do 
not heal but fester.

Mr.Bernard D'Souza felt that humanism should be 
one's religion and communal harmony should begin 
with oneself. "Be fair to one another when 
dealing with injustice and humanity. Then the 
nation will succeed," he said.

Ms. Pratibha Bapat stated that there was a need 
to understand the tenets of the various faiths 
that people practiced so as to dispel the 
misconceptions about them. Ms. Bapat further 
raised the issue of gender disparities within 
various religions which must be addressed on the 
road to communal harmony.

Mr. Devendra Kandolkar of Rashtriya Seva Dal 
raised concerns about the increasing 
communalization of society reflected in decisions 
being taken of denying rental accommodation to 
persons of minority communities. Ms. Raynah 
Sequeira, a sociology lecturer, expressed the 
need to seriously look at similar approaches in 
the arena of employment.

Journalist Fredrick Noronha felt that the 
politicians and the press are the two forces that 
need to be monitored, as it is they who have 
often contributed to the communalisation of 
society. He traced through media reports how 
there was a clear build-up towards the demolition 
of the religious structure in Guddemol, with 
small incidents being reported from all over Goa. 
He cautioned that we must widen and strengthen 
the space of secular values, else we are all in 
peril.

Ms.Sabina Martins of Bailancho Saad felt that 
silence is the wrong approach. She stressed that 
the investigations by Bailancho Saad clearly 
indicated that the communal violence in March 
2006 was not spontaneous but engineered by 
communal forces bent on targeting minorities. She 
said that women are the primary sufferers in such 
violence.

Adv. Albertina Almeida, Co-Convenor of CICH, 
moderated the discussion and summed up the 
various points made at the meeting urging that we 
shed that sense of Goan pride which makes us 
sweep the injustices being committed within Goan 
society under the carpet, while building on the 
secular traits. She pledged that Citizens' 
Initiatives for Communal Harmony would continue 
to work towards strengthening secularism in Goa.

The programme concluded with an emotional song 
performance by four young women, Rekha Desai, 
Kavita Naik, Gaus Bi Shaikh and Ria Fernandes of 
Jan Ugahi, Margao. They sang "We will be 
together, we will not let communal elements 
divide us." With tears in their eyes, they 
pleaded with the audience to work towards 
maintaining peace and harmony and ensure that we 
can all live together as brothers and sisters, 
irrespective of religion and caste. Ms. Dipti 
Arolkar compered the programme.

(Albertina Almeida) (Ramesh Gauns)
Co-convenors

______


[8]

ibnlive.com
March 05, 2007 at 10:58

CULTURE COPS OUT TO STOP NISHABD

BAD AFFAIR? Nishabd focuses on the love of a 
60-year-old man (Bachchan) and an 18-year-old 
girl ( Jiah Khan ).

New Delhi: Four days after the release of Amitabh 
Bachchan-starrer Nishabd, the unconventional film 
has fallen afoul of the culture cops in different 
corners of the country.

The film has run into controversies in at least 
two big cities, including Bachchan's hometown 
Allahabad, where it has witnessed mass protest 
for, what they call, an attempt to propagate 
Western culture among the youth.

The movie focuses on the love of a 60-year-old 
man (Bachchan) and an 18-year-old girl ( Jiah 
Khan).

"The release of Nishabdon the soil of Prayag 
can't be tolerated," the protesters in Allahabad, 
led by a local legislator, vowed. "Through this 
film, Bachchan is propagating Western culture in 
our youth, which is disgusting," they alleged.

"We will not let the movie hit the halls. Indeed, 
Bachchan should take a voluntarily retirement 
from film industry," said Mukund Tiwari, the 
local legislator.

In Hyderabad, the state unit of the BJP is up in 
arms against the film for "destroying Indian 
ethos and values."

The party's official spokesperson, N Ramachader 
Rao, said the film was not only creating 
"cultural pollution", but was also showing an 
unacceptable ''love proposition and height of 
perversion.''

Appealing to the film producers, directors and 
actors to use their talent and expertise to save 
the Indian culture, he said it was imperative to 
every film personality to inculcate patriotism 
and nationalism in youth and students through 
their films.

Nishabd is directed and produced by Ram Gopal 
Varma and it exhibits a high-voltage sensual 
drama, much contrary to conventional Indian 
social norms. Both Varma and Bachchan have denied 
that the movie is a take off on Lolita.


______


[9]


http://communalism.blogspot.com/2007/03/british-police-and-government.html

AWAAZ - SOUTH ASIA WATCH STATEMENT

4 MARCH 2007

BRITISH POLICE AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING A HINDU FUNDAMENTALIST AGENDA?

Why are the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and 
a government minister giving credence to dubious 
Hindu fundamentalist claims?


AWAAZ - SOUTH ASIA WATCH condemns what it 
believes to be an attempt by London's 
Metropolitan Police to lend authority to dubious 
claims being made by Hindu fundamentalist groups 
in Britain. These claims mainly centre around the 
allegation that Muslim students on university 
campuses are engaging in 'aggressive conversions' 
or 'forcible conversions' of Hindu and Sikh girls.
On 21 February 2007, the Hindu Forum of Britain 
and National Hindu Students Forum (NHSF) held a 
'Hindu Security Conference' at the London School 
of Economics. The  Metropolitan Police 
Commissioner, Ian Blair, was a keynote speaker 
and a number of senior policemen, including 
officers from Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist 
squad and Diversity Directorate, were present. 
Tony McNulty, the Minister for Policing and 
Security, was also a keynote speaker. The 
audience was mainly composed of about 120 
students.

THE 'AGGRESSIVE CONVERSIONS' CLAIM

At a conference workshop on the subject of 
'campus security', chaired by a police officer 
from the Met's Diversity Directorate, NHSF 
students related accounts of what they described 
as aggressive conversions. These were the worst 
examples they presented: one Hindu male student 
described how a Muslim friend has suggested he 
come to a lecture on the meaning of Islam. In 
another case, a group of Muslim students 
allegedly told a Hindu male student that he 
should convert to Islam and predicted that, by 
the end of the university term, he would do so-a 
statement which this student felt carried an 
element of menace. Both these were defined as 
examples of 'aggressive conversions'. Mention was 
made of leaflets, alleged to have been produced 
by Islamic organisations and distributed on 
campuses, in which instructions were given on how 
to convert Hindu and Sikh girls by getting them 
drunk. Such leaflets have long been used by 
groups on all sides wanting to stir up trouble in 
British Asian communities. Police officers, in 
the past, have generally dismissed them as a hoax.

WHY ONLY MUSLIMS?

The poster for the Hindu Security conference 
advertised 'radicalisation and violent extremism' 
as one of the topics under discussion. But, in 
fact, the only extremism under discussion was of 
the Islamist kind. At the conference, a 
representative of the Union of Jewish Students 
described what he regarded as a special 
relationship between Hindus and Jews, explaining 
that what Israel faces in Palestine is the same 
as what India faces in Kashmir. Islamic societies 
on campuses were being singled out as the sole 
guilty parties on conversions. When one attendee 
at the workshop pointed out that many evangelical 
religious organisations, including Christian 
ones, attempt to convert students, the police 
officer chairing the workshop said they were only 
interested in Muslim attempts at converting 
people. At one point in the conference, an 
officer from Scotland Yard's SO15 Counter 
Terrorist Command showed an al-Qaida propaganda 
video, explaining that it was important for the 
audience to know what Muslim students were being 
exposed to. Awaaz believes that this is a 
reprehensible attempt to link violent terrorist 
organisations and acts with the separate issue of 
alleged forcible conversions in the UK.

WHAT THE PAPERS REPORTED

The day after the Hindu Security event, a number 
of articles on 'aggressive conversions' appeared 
in the press. The Metro wrote of 'Muslim 
extremists who try to force teenage Hindu girls 
to convert' and spoke of a 'new police crackdown' 
(22 February 2007). Ian Blair was quoted as 
saying 'There is a feeling in the Hindu community 
that we have not given them as much attention as 
other groups.' In the Daily Mail (22 February 
2007), Blair also spoke of the need to clamp down 
on 'aggressive conversions' by 'extremist 
Muslims'. Both newspaper articles reported 
uncritically the Hindu Forum of Britain's 
allegations that 'hundreds of mostly Sikh and 
Hindu girls' are being 'terrorised' into 
converting.

AWAAZ'S VIEW

Neither at the conference nor in subsequent newspaper reports was there any
solid evidence of coercion. Awaaz strongly 
condemns any attempt to intimidate or threaten 
students into religious conversion or religious 
conformity and believes that this must be tackled 
by university authorities.  We condemn, for 
example, some reported incidents of Islamist 
groups trying to coerce Muslim women into wearing 
the hijab. But we believe that the National Hindu 
Students Forum is grossly exaggerating the issue 
of 'aggressive conversions' as part of its own 
political agenda. It is indulging in dangerous 
and divisive scare-mongering. The organisation 
itself, and the claims it is making, are being 
given undue credibility by the police and the 
government. The National Hindu Student's Forum is 
an organisation closely allied to Indian Hindu 
supremacist groups, such as the RSS (Rashtriya 
Swayamsevak Sangh). The RSS, once banned in India 
because of its fascist and violent history, has a 
virulent anti-Muslim agenda and pursues this 
effectively through its sister organisations 
abroad. Indian groups with links to the RSS are 
often also anti-Christian (more information on 
these groups is available on our website: 
www.awaazsaw.org). Neither the British 
organisations nor the Indian ones represent the 
majority of Hindus in either country. Awaaz 
believes that the NHSF in Britain is trying to 
turn any kind of conversion-whether coercive or 
not-into a matter involving the police and 
criminal justice system. This agenda has been 
imported directly from Hindu supremacist groups 
in India, such as the violent Vishwa Hindu 
Parishad, an organisation that the Hindu Forum of 
Britain has defended. A number of anti-conversion 
laws have been introduced in some Indian states 
after successful lobbying by these groups. These 
are part of an anti-Muslim and anti-Christian 
communal politics which has led to restrictions 
on religious freedom in India.

Hindu supremacist organisations in Britain have 
long targeted campuses in order to promote their 
divisive ideology. What is new is the overt 
collusion of the police in a political agenda 
that is itself a serious threat to community 
cohesion.
[ENDS]
For further information:  contact at awaazsaw.org, www.awaazsaw.org,
0208 843 2333


_______


[10]

National Secular Society -UK
  4 Mar 2007


Editorial By Terry Sanderson: MUSLIM COUNCIL 
WANTS TO TURN SCHOOLS INTO RELIGIOUS MINEFIELDS

The reassuring news from this week is that the 
Government has not taken kindly to a report 
published by the Muslim Council of Britain which 
demanded that schools in this country make 
large-scale provision for the traditions and 
religion of "Muslim" pupils. "This is not 
official guidance and is not endorsed by the 
Government, nor does it have any binding power 
whatsoever on schools," said a spokesman for the 
Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

The MCB's "guidance document" entitled Towards 
Greater Understanding - Meeting the Needs of 
Muslim Pupils in State Schools claims to give 
"information on how schools can respond 
positively to some commonly raised issues 
concerning Muslim pupils including halal food, 
dress code, Ramadan, provision for prayers, 
collective worship etc". It was launched by 
Professor Tim Brighouse, Chief Adviser for London 
Schools and you can read it here.

Naturally we all want pupils from every culture 
to be respected and cared for, but as you read 
through the MCB's "guidance" you rapidly realise 
that it is the product of theocrats who want to 
turn our schools into religious minefields where 
Islamic sensibilities are waiting to trip you up 
around every corner.

It starts with the MCB's favourite definition of 
"Islamophobia" - a definition that brands anyone 
who has doubts or fears about the ideology of 
Islam as a racist. "Islamophobia," says the 
report, "is the term currently being used to 
denote an extreme and abnormal fear and/or 
aversion to Islam in general and Muslims in 
particular."

Neat, isn't it? If you don't like Islam you don't 
like Muslims, ergo - you're a racist. The worst 
excesses of Islam are therefore beyond criticism 
by anyone who doesn't want to be branded as 
racist.

Not all Muslims are as attached to their religion 
as the MCB document would have us believe. A 
graph at the beginning of the document claims 
that 85% of children from Muslim backgrounds 
regard their religion as "extremely important to 
them". There is no indication where this figure 
came from, though.

There is no acknowledgement that some children 
from Muslim families might actually not want to 
put so much emphasis on religious observance 
while they're at school. If these recommendations 
were to be accepted, we would have schools where 
all Muslims are pushed into the arms of the local 
mullahs. Girls who don't want to swathe their 
heads in scarves will feel obliged to do so. 
People who don't want to eat halal food will find 
they have no alternative.

The demands are never-ending - no Western 
clothes, no swimming during Ramadan (or at any 
other time if there is a likelihood that pupils 
might see somebody naked in the changing room). 
No dancing, no music (except voices and drums), 
no sex education, no representative art, no 
handshaking between sexes - and for goodness sake 
don't mispronounce people's names or give them 
nicknames. It might be unIslamic.

The Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, is holding 
an enquiry into how to build community cohesion. 
Well, the first thing she should do to bring 
people together is to consign this report into 
the bin. Community Cohesion is not encouraged by 
emphasising religious differences in schools. 
Different times for Collective Worship, different 
times for prayers (in separate prayer rooms), 
different days for holidays, Arabic lessons, 
learning the Koran - when are these kids going to 
find time for lessons?

The more this kind of thing is pushed by the 
people with a heavy, authoritarian, controlling 
religious agenda, the more I long for the good 
sense of the French and the Americans and the 
Turks. Get religion out of schools. Get all of it 
out: collective worship; religious education; 
prayer rooms, the works. Let's return schools to 
their primary purpose - academic education. Let's 
bring our children together, not drive them 
apart. Get the self-interested "faith leaders" - 
Christian, Muslim, Jew, intelligent designers and 
creationists - out of our education system once 
and for all. And keep them out.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: 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.