Saffron shrouds YKJ 2000 in Gujarat

December 31, 1999

For the second successive year in BJP-ruled Gujarat, Christmas time was curfew time for Christians from The Dangs district in the state

“Open the Doors!” is an epigram used by Christians in this 2000th
anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ (Yesu Krist Jayanti 2000 or YKJ 2000) accompanied by the symbolic gesture of opening the doors of cathedrals and churches to society and the world.

This symbolises the Christian resolve to be fully open in the new millennium — to sincerely dialogue with all religions, with the sciences and with all peoples in a global endeavour to foster justice, fellowship and peace. However, for Christians in Gujarat, especially those in the southern tribal districts, Christmas and the New Year 2000 have been closed-door affairs as saffron squads held the Christian community hostage while arm–twisting the state BJP–government into acceding to their demands.

A close analysis of the events preceding Christmas week, with the insidious moves and double–speak of the BJP state government, gives cause for alarm.
As a prelude to the Christmas 1998 Christian–bashing and chapel-burning, incendiary pamphlets were distributed in the villages of the Dangs (See Combat, January 1999). This Christmas (1999), too, Janubhai A. Pawar, president of the Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM), master-minded the distribution of provocative pamphlets and called for a Hindu ‘dharma sabha’ precisely on Christmas Day.

Feigning determination to protect the minority community and to curb violence, the home minister, Haren Pandya, issued a circular banning rallies of any community on the feast days of another community.

Janubhai Pawar was subsequently arrested on December 9 after the Christian community expressed its apprehensions. Surprisingly, with Janubhai’s arrest, about 200 BJP members including all party officers of south Gujarat resigned in protest against the circular and the arrest. Within hours, Pawar was released on bail.

Janubhai Pawar is the main trouble–maker in the Dangs. The Citizens’ Committee Report on the Dangs published in New Delhi in March 1999 recommended that the HJM be banned from the Dangs since: “The HJM’s sole objective is to instigate people to create trouble on communal lines. It is this organisation that has been responsible for all the incidents in the Dangs. The leader of HJM, Janubhai Pawar, has found his organisation a convenient instrument to exploit, blackmail and terrorise people.

“Obviously he has the backing of the government as is evident from the way he took us to a government office to give his views — when the officials at his very sight stood up to receive him and thereafter waited outside literally in attendance. There are four cases registered against him and having regard to the activities he has been indulging in, he should have been externed from Dangs for the mere asking.”

Interestingly, in the aftermath of the 1998 mayhem, to diffuse the focus of blame, Janubhai Pawar stoutly denied that the HJM was part of the Sangh Parivar (see Citizen’s Commission Report, p.21). This time, however, the ‘shilanyas’ and the rally were jointly organised by the HJM and the VHP who declared that the government would not ban their programmes as it was they themselves who launched it to power. Pushed against the wall, in a volte–face of its previous stand, the government lifted its ban on rallies with the VHP–HJM’s ‘verbal assurance’ to the home minister that they would call off the Christmas Day rally in exchange for allowing the ‘shilanyas’ at Halmodi on December 22.

The withdrawal of the ban on rallies went against the Union home ministry’s letter sent to the state chief secretary, L.N.S. Mukundan, to impose a restriction on all rallies around Christmas week in the state, particularly in the Dangs, “to pre-empt unfortunate implications on any count.” The home ministry’s letter, signed by special secretary, M. B. Kaushal, also instructed the state government to take legal action against those implicated in last year’s attacks. Ignoring these instructions, the government yielded to the fanatic elements among its ranks, laying bare its malicious intent. Was it necessary to withdraw the circular banning rallies if the Sangh Parivar was serious about not going ahead with theirs?

When questioned whether the VHP–HJM combine would actually cancel the proposed Christmas rally, VHP joint–secretary, Jaideep Patel, said, “We will disclose our position with regard to the rally only after the successful completion of the shilanyas programme.” This reply betrays the Sangh Parivar’s intentions.

While bargaining with the saffron forces, the home minister rushed to the Dangs in a vain attempt to assuage the fears of the Christian community. There were neither explanations about the government’s plans to curtail anti-Christian atrocities nor any indications of bringing the culprits to book. Pandya merely told the Christian delegation to be patient, promised them security and requested them not to make press statements for it would aggravate the situation. The government also sought to coerce the Christian community into agreeing to the ‘shilanyas’.

Christian leaders refused to sign any statement of agreement for they claimed that it was part of the VHP-HJM’s terror campaign. Furthermore, familiar with the back–bending of the government on various issues, the Christian community doubted the sincerity of the home minister. Many Christian leaders were sure that the government would finally allow the VHP–HJM to have its way.

Apparently, the BJP government in Gujarat is unconcerned about the plight of the minorities. It only desires that the truth be concealed.

Contrary to the claims of the VHP-HJM that over 10,000 tribals (‘vanvasis’ in Sangh Parivar terminology) would assemble at Halmodi for the ‘shilanyas’ ceremony on December 22, barely 500 people including government officials and school children were present. Swami Aseemananda of the Waghai–based ‘Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad’ — who devised the forcible ‘shuddikaran’ (ritual purificatory process) at the Unai hot–springs and launched a scathing attack on Christian missionaries before the ‘bhoomi pujan’ at Halmodi — explained that the aim of setting up temples all over the district was to enable ‘vanvasis’ to worship in peace.

Although the Parivar members were upset by the low turnout at the ceremony, it served as intimidation to the minority community and symbolically demonstrated the power of the Hindutva forces. Admitting that the turnout was low, Rajnikant Rajwadi, BJP MLA from Bardoli, made a significant comment: “The message has been conveyed to the world that we have achieved our objective.”

Haren Pandya was pleased that the ‘shilanyas’ passed off “peacefully” and S.K. Nanda, secretary in–charge of Dangs, mentioned that the Halmodi ceremony left tribal Christians “quite relaxed.” The fact is that tribal Christians were terrorised and remained indoors.

After the shilanyas, egged on by the weak resolve of the state government, the VHP–HJM publicised plans for the proposed ‘dharma sabha’ on December 25 to be addressed by Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Karvir Pith while the home minister, interviewed by Star TV repeated, “We will leave no stone unturned to maintain law and order.” Parrying questions, he could not explain the government’s compromises and failure to counter the VHP–HJM offensive.
Meanwhile, the district authorities seemed clueless about the plans of the VHP–HJM and helpless about the government’s arbitrary decisions.

Simultaneously, as the result of a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Samson C. Christian, secretary, United Christian Association, the Gujarat High Court directed the state government to appoint two observers in the Dangs from December 26 to 28 who would produce a report by December 29.

With tension mounting, on Christmas eve, nearly 750 villages, chapels and institutions of South Gujarat which were identified as sensitive spots, were cordoned off by a huge police force with 55 senior police officers, 15 companies of the SRP and 300 RAF jawans, making it impossible to celebrate Christmas.
Ironically, the YKJ jubilee, to be celebrated with ‘open doors’ passed off behind locked doors and under the shadow of the gun.

No traditional midnight prayer-services and no cultural programmes were possible. A veritable Christmas curfew. “The Hindutva forces have succeeded in instilling fear among us, tribals, who have lived peacefully for decades,” said Motilal Gaikwad, former co–ordinator of the ‘Adivasi Pragati Samiti’.

He regretted that the Christian community had to call off its Christmas prayers and programmes. “The government wants us to be grateful for preventing violence. That we have lost all our freedom and basic rights is of no consequence to them,” lamented a Christian leader who was strictly warned not to meet the press.

On Christmas day itself, saffron flags adorned the roads at Ahwa. At the Dandkeshwar Mahadev Temple, the Shankaracharya convened a ‘sabha’ of about 500 people and attacked the Christian missionaries. Swami Aseemananda and other VHP–HJM leaders gave vituperative speeches with threats of a backlash if the missionaries continued their activities. The meeting concluded with a decision to hold similar ‘dharma sabhas’ every Christmas.

Two observers of the All India Christian Council, John Dayal, national convenor of the United Christians Forum for Human Rights and national secretary of the All India Catholic Union and Kamal Mitra Chenoy, professor at JNU (Delhi) and leading civil rights’activist, lambasted the government for its ineptitude and connivance. Asserting that the Parivar had violated prohibitory orders and taking exception to the fiery speeches, Chenoy and Dayal added that, “a systematic attempt was being made by the Sangh Parivar to enforce its will and political and social agenda, violating all norms of civil society.”

The Dangs disappeared from media focus as soon as the Kandahar hijacking hit the headlines. Thus, voices against the Gujarat government’s handling of the situation were few and weak.

Gujarat’s leader of the Opposition, Amarsingh Chaudhary, pointed out that “Christians are being terrorised by militant Hindu organisations” and alleged that “organisations like the VHP, RSS, HJM and Bajrang Dal, supported by the ruling BJP in Gujarat, have been carrying on disruptive activities in a bid to create a rift between tribals and tribal Christians in the state.”

The saffron brigade has reaped rich dividends through its terror tactics and brow–beating of minorities. The pernicious and persistent peddling of Parivar ideology is backed by a political power–base that surreptitiously supports and sustains it and vice versa. Hence, the phenomenal success of the BJP in Gujarat: three new, tribal–belt victories in last year’s Parliamentary elections (Chhota-udepur, Dahod and Mandvi) and 30 out of 48 municipalities this year.
The Parivar armament also contains an ostensibly innocuous, yet insidious, bill on religious conversion that was introduced in the Gujarat Assembly by BJP MLA Mangubhai Patel, arousing apprehension among minorities in Gujarat. When challenged about its anti–constitutional content, Haren Pandya was quick to remark, “This is not raised by the whole party but by one member.” When questioned whether he would revoke the bill, Pandya was non–committal saying, “We shall see when the bill comes up for discussion!” There is little doubt that the powerful BJP lobby will try its might and mane to pass the bill, thereby trampling upon the minorities’ constitutional, fundamental rights.

New Year 2000 has brought little cheer for Gujarat’s minorities. On January 3, the Keshubhai government lifted the ban on membership of state government employees in the RSS, one of the 30–odd communal organisations on the banned list, which includes the Indian Union Muslim League, the VHP, the Ananda Marg and others.

The move will have deleterious repercussions, as not only will government officials be permitted to join the RSS, but also all will view RSS membership as sure qualification for getting promotions and prize postings.

Adding fuel to the fire, in the recently–concluded ‘sankalp shibir’ held in Ahmedabad, Keshubhai Patel donned the RSS khaki shorts and white shirt and played generous host to the 30,000 RSS ‘swayamsevaks’ who marched triumphantly through Ahmedabad’s streets, while the RSS leaders boasted of establishing RSS ‘shakhas’ in every village of Gujarat by the year 2005.

While the Union government has been drawing flak for its handling of the hijacking crisis, the RSS chief, Rajendra Singh, termed the compromise as an example of ‘Hindu cowardice’. Immediately, an ominous “Regulation of Public Religious Buildings and Places Bill” was passed in the UP Assembly on the grounds that ISI activities were escalating in masjids and madrassas along the Nepal border. Indeed, the Parivar has capitalised on anything and everything from Kargil to Kandahar. Political analysts predict that the same bill will be passed in Pakistan-bordered Gujarat, too, providing a battering–ram for demolishing Christian places of worship.

Gujarat has always been a treasured launching pad and testing-ground for the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ programmes. The success is amazing and alarming. L.K. Advani’s ‘rath yatra’, launched from Dwarka, got the Hindutva juggernaut rolling in Gujarat, resulting in the Muslim massacre of 1992 in Surat, the Christian baiting of 1998 in South Gujarat, a debate on conversions, a ‘Christian census’ and a conversion bill in 1999 and the legitimisation of RSS activities at the very dawn of 2000.

Rural Gujarat needs vidyalayas and bal mandirs rather ‘shilanyas’ and ‘Hanuman mandirs’. Much can be done if everyone seriously opens doors and sets about building bridges for a peaceful and prosperous third millennium.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No, 55, Special Report

Erosion in minority rights: India criticised

December 31, 1999

Human Rights Watch, an international human rights’ organisation has released a report on the rights’ situation in India that could prove embarassing for the BJP government at the centre. Dealing among other things with the increasing threats to the life an security of religious and ethnic minorities, the group has put out a set of recommendations that could be used to rally opinion at national and international for a.In the recommendations made by HRR are :

“The government of India should demonstrate its commitment to protecting the rights of minorities by implementing the following recommendations at the earliest possible date. In compliance with the Indian constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it should ensure that all citizens may equally enjoy freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, propagate, and adopt religion. In particular, it should commit to taking steps to prevent further violence and prosecute both state and private actors responsible for attacks on religious minorities.

Ø Recommendations to the Government of India provide adequate police protection to Christians and other minority communities in violence-affected areas and increase the number of police stations and outposts in each district.Require that police register all cases of communal attacks, regardless of the religious background of the complainant, and enforce this regulation through frequent reviews of registers by a magistrate or other competent judicial authority and the establishment of a civilian review board mandated to investigate complaints. Police who violate the regulation should be dismissed.Investigate and prosecute state officials complicit in attacks onminorities. Police who are found to be complicit should be dismissed.End impunity for past campaigns of violence against minorities. That is, prosecute and punish all those found responsible for murder, rape, assault, and destruction of property during the post–Ayodhya violence of December 1992 and January 1993. Police responsible for excessive use of force should be prosecuted; those who having the power and duty to stop the violence but did not intervene should be punished accordingly. Victims and family members should be paid compensation.Implement the recommendations made by the National Commission for Minorities in its reports on attacks on Christians in various states.Make public the recommendations of the Wadhwa

Commission and prosecute those found responsible for the 1999 attacks in Orissa.Ensure speedy review and publication of findings by commissions of inquiry appointed by the state to investigate abuses against minorities.Strengthen the capacity of the National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to operate branch offices in all states with enough financial resources and powers to initiate Prosecution of cases.

Ø Prohibit surveys by district administrations to assess the activities and whereabouts of minority community members and leaders.Launch a nationwide public awareness campaign regarding the dangers of communal violence. This campaign should explain in simple terms what actions are legally prohibited, what recourse is available to minorities, and what the procedures are for filing a First Information Report (FIR: the first report, recorded by the police, of a crime). It should also include a program of public service announcements in all states aimed at sensitizing the population against any form of religious extremism and creating awareness of minority rights.Implement the recommendations made by the U.N. special rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance in his report on his December 1996 visit to India. In particular, the following recommendations should be implemented:

1. Increase awareness of the existence and dangers of extremism because, despite the fact that it is confined to a minority, its influence on the masses through political parties, places of worship, schools and even seats of power, could well destroy community and religious harmony in India.

2. The Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, should be scrupulously implemented and that in addition it should be speedily supplemented by a new act debarring political parties from the post-election use of religion for political ends.

3. Places of worship should be used exclusively for religious, and not political, purposes.

4. Education can play a vital role in preventing intolerance, discrimination, hate and violence (including violence motivated by extremism) by creating and disseminating a culture of tolerance among the masses and the most disadvantaged segments of the population. It can make a decisive contribution to the assimilation of values based on human rights by the use of school curricula and textbooks reflecting principles of tolerance and non-discrimination.

Recommendations to the International CommunityIndia’s donors and trading partners should pressure the Indian government to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission on the 1992–1993 Bombay riots, and the recommendations of the National Commission for Minorities on attacks against Christians.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No, 55, Human Rights 3

‘Golden Corridor’ of Gujarat: Who Bears the Cost?

December 31, 1999

Asthma,cancers, infertility and related problems, corrosion of fingers, toes and perforation of the nasal septum (the wall separating the nostrils), skin irritation and other related health problems are the fate of hundreds of thousands of people, both workers and local populations living within Gujarat’s industrial belt, also known as its “golden corridor”.

The unbriddled expansion of industry in this belt that stretches from Vapi in Valsad district to Nadesari in Varodara in complete violation of environmental controls and norms is the subject matter of a recent investigation conducted by the Indian People’s Tribunal that released its report last month. This inquiry was held in response to the requests from Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Vadodara Kamdar Union, Vyavasahik Swastha Swaksha Mandal and other concerned individuals and organisations active in the area. The inquiry was headed by Justice Suresh, retired High Court judge, assisted by a panel of experts: environmental lawyers, community health specialists, occupational health specialists and scientists.

The eleven–member team visited various areas in the Corridor to examine the effects of indiscriminate industrialisation and the resultant pollution of air, water and land by noxious gases, toxic chemical effluents and other hazardous substances, which have both destroyed the livelihood sources of the local population but have also posed a grave threat to their health and lives. The local population in all the industrialised areas has recorded a loss in livelihood in terms of the loss in agricultural and horticultural produce and in fish stocks, especially in the inland water bodies.

In addition, the IPT also inquired into the occupational health and safety of workers in some specific industries where blatant violations of safety norms have caused serious damage to the workers’ health.

Gujarat has rolled out the red carpet for industrial investment with little or no consideration for environmental norms.
The report, documents how Proper Environmental Impact Assessments were not carried out, the hazardous solid waste and toxic effluents that are spewed out are not being monitored neither is the disposal of such waste given any attention. At most places, the report states, there is no pollution control equipment and whatever efforts have been made to provide for the control of pollution have been half-hearted and ineffective. Moreover, no consideration was given to the fact that the industrial estates were dangerously close to human settlements. The IPT team observed several instances of blatant violations.

For instance, 50 lakh metric tonnes of chalk, loaded with heavy metals, was found lying illegally in a village without any impervious layer to prevent its seepage into groundwater sources and soil. In the monsoons of 1997 and 1998, this chalk hill slid and gushed into the several houses of the village.

In another instance, the Effluent Channel Project carrying effluents of nearly 150 industries, running 56 kms in length and passing through 24 villages is used as irrigation water due to an acute shortage has resulted in the spread of heavy metal contamination of the food chain throughout the 24 villages.An overwhelming 61 per cent of the factory units in Ankleshwar alone were found by the investigators to have “unsatisfactory working conditions” as defined under the Factories Act, 1948. Thus, the “potential of a major environmental accident endangering the lives of thousands of workers and the general public residing in the vicinity is hanging like a Damocles sword over the entire Corridor.” The Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) was launched on June 5, 1993 at a National Conference on Human Rights, Environment and the Law held in Bangalore. The mandate of the IPT is to highlight environmental and human rights violations, both by the state and private parties, and give voice to the struggles of grass root organisations and affected communities. The IPT endeavours to place before the public and the authorities a factual picture of the ground realities, based on objective investigation by experts.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No, 55, Human Rights 1

Believers of the world, unite!

December 31, 1999

Not only Hinduism, Christianity is equally under threat from the forces of a godless, selfish and aggressive culture

India appears to be plagued by the resurgence of religious fundamentalism. The unfortunate aspect of this resurgence is that it is not limited to intellectual discourse, but has degenerated into physical violence and systematic attacks on people and institutions perceived to have views which are not in conformity with those of the proponents of fundamentalist convictions.
At the very core of Indian civilisation is the spirit of tolerance and non-violence. Indian history, for as far back as it goes, is witness to this spirit of acceptance of differences, whether linguistic, cultural, religious or ethnic. No other comparable civilisation can boast of a society as multi–cultural, multi–ethnic, multi–linguistic and multi–religious as India.
Modern secular societies are post-industrial revolution and have emerged out of the conflicts of industrial disputes and global wars. India’s secular character, on the contrary, is inherent in its cultural identity.

Even a cursory glance into Indian history shows that this society always accepted influences and ideas from all over the world. Apart from these cultures which became indigenous to India, there were widely differing ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural groups which constituted Indian society, even before the influx of external influences. Indian society was never (and even now, is not) homogeneous ethnically, linguistically, religiously or culturally. Tribal animism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and other distinct religio-cultural realities are as much an integral part of Indian society as Hinduism. Even Hinduism is not a homogeneous, monolithic religious entity. There is no orthodoxy in Hinduism; nor is there a central religious authority which determines and promulgates what is orthodox or not. Hinduism embraces all shades of belief from atheism to pantheism; from strictly individual and personal dharma to collective bhakti.
This open and eclectic society, which accepts widely differing intellectual, spiritual and ritual realities, is a model of what a secular society should be. Indian secular society should make every Indian proud of being Indian. The recent trend of intolerance and violent dissent, therefore, is not only regrettable; it is also totally alien to what constitutes Indian culture.
What then is the reason for the rise of religious intolerance?

The first hypothesis is that the real reason for the intolerance is not purely religious. A very insignificant religious minority likes the Christians, who are not more than 2.4 per cent of the total population of India cannot possibly pose a threat to the religious majority in terms of conversions. The factual situation is that the proportion of Christians has in fact declined from 2.8 per cent in 1947 to 2.4 per cent today. Therefore, the attack on Christians and Christian institutions on the grounds that they are forcing conversions is totally untenable.

The existence of educational, social and health institutions cannot possibly pose a threat to the religious convictions of the Hindus. On the contrary, there is intense pressure on Christian educational and health institutions to admit the children of Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi and other religious groups.

The bogey of forced conversions cannot survive logical scrutiny. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere for the motives for the attacks against Christian institutions and personnel.
The second hypothesis is that the motives of the fundamentalists are social and economic. The real reason that there are concerted attacks against Christians and Christian institutions is that Christians preach and propagate the idea of the dignity of all human beings as children of God. This means that all persons are equal and deserve to be respected as equals. This doctrine is not palatable to some persons who still firmly believe that men are not created equal, but that some men belong to a lower status and are destined to serve people of a higher caste. This social inequality is given religious sanction, and any attempt to disturb this situation is a threat to those who stand to benefit from this inequality. It is no secret that Indian society is firmly based on the caste system, which the fundamentalists are striving to preserve at any cost. They feel threatened by the social doctrine, which challenges this age–old system of social inequality. Christianity is the embodiment of the doctrine of the equality of all men and women, notwithstanding that even some Christians fail to live up to this doctrine. Hence, Christianity poses a threat to the fundamentalists.

The third hypothesis is that fundamentalism is a reversion to tradition when modernity poses a threat to social systems. It is a well–accepted sociological phenomenon that when a society or a community of people cannot withstand the pressure of change, it seeks security in a reversion to traditional values and ways of doing things. Rituals are an important aspect of this blanket of security. Hence, fundamentalist movements flaunt symbols and rituals to assert their identity. This explains the widespread use of the trishul and the provocative display of the saffron flag to herald the fundamentalist resistance to change.

This reversion to tradition by the Hindu fundamentalists is also displayed in the pseudo–swadeshi movement on the economic front. The fundamentalist swadeshi movement is not the swadeshi movement of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a distortion of Gandhi’s concept of swadeshi. Gandhi’s swadeshi movement was intended to build up self–reliance in India’s industry, and to reverse India’s dependence on goods and services provided from outside. It was necessary under the circumstances of colonial exploitation.

The fundamentalist swadeshi movement, however, is a blind opposition to anything and everything that is not Indian. The fact remains, however, that the economic context has changed since the time of Indian independence. The fundamentalist swadeshi movement is an anachronism in today’s global and interdependent world.

Unfortunately, the Hindu fundamentalists equate globalisation with Christianity and its social values. This is a totally distorted view of Christianity. Christianity does not stand for any particular economic system; nor does it represent any geopolitical ideology. Christianity has serious concerns about some of the negative aspects of globalisation and the competitive theory of economic development. It is a totally misguided enthusiasm, which drives Hindu fundamentalists to attack Christians on the mistaken belief that Christianity is responsible for the negative consequences of globalisation.

Hindu fundamentalists are propagating the view that Christianity is posing a threat to traditional Indian social values. This charge is patently false. Christianity does not represent modern western social or cultural values. Christianity transcends social and cultural systems. Christianity is at home in any cultural context; and is indigenous to all social systems and cultural climates. However, it comes into conflict with only those systems which deny the fundamental dignity of the human person. It needs to be strongly reiterated that Christianity is built upon the fundamental value that every single person is created by God in His own image and likeness. Any society or culture which transgresses this principle stands in opposition to Christianity. Any social system, which denies, either in theory or in practice, the fundamental dignity of the human person, stands in conflict with Christian principles.

The value system, which is prevalent in the western world today, has emerged out of a culture of competitiveness and aggressive individualism. It is a form of economic Darwinism. It is the new face of post-industrial colonialism. It has given rise not only to economic competition, but is also responsible for the mad rush for military superiority. The limited resources of the earth are being wrongly harnessed to build weapons of mass destruction instead of being invested in promoting human development. It is an insanity of modernism that urgently needs to be reversed.

These values are totally un-Christian. For the Hindu fundamentalists to infer that the spirit of aggressiveness and individualism is derived from Christianity is totally erroneous.
The post–industrial culture has also resulted in the degradation of family values. Women, and even children, are treated as mere commodities to be exploited. The family as the basic unit of a healthy society is under tremendous pressure because of the rampant individualism of an economic system based on the principle of the survival of the fittest.

This is a cultural aberration, which is as abhorrent to Christianity as it is to traditional Hinduism. However, it has to be acknowledged that this culture is NOT the result of any religion. It is the outcome of a culture which has divested itself of religious and moral values.

For the Hindu fundamentalists to aver that Hinduism is under threat from Christianity is to completely misunderstand the sociological processes underway in today’s world. The fact is that not only is Hinduism under threat, but that Christianity is equally under threat from the forces of a godless, selfish and aggressive culture. Instead of mobilising its energy to fight Christianity, enlightened Hindus should join forces with Christianity to reverse the unfortunate trends which are adversely affecting modern society.

This has to be done in a spirit of dialogue and mutual understanding – not in a spirit of confrontation and aggressiveness. The need of the hour is for all religions to pool their resources to create a truly humane society, which works for the proper human development of all humankind. Inter–religious rivalry is misguided and inappropriate.

Instead of religious confrontation, the ills of modern society call for more inter–religious dialogue and a common quest for appropriate remedies. After all, all religions represent the highest aspirations of their adherents. This is a common endeavour. If all the forces of good are harnessed, there is hope still for the regeneration of the social order.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No. 55, Reader's Forum

Factual inaccuracies in CPDR report

December 31, 1999

I would like to point out that I have been misquoted on a number of points and there are a number of factual mistakes in the CPDR report on the riots in Ahmedabad in July 1999, extracts of which have been published by Communalism Combat in its November 1999 issue.

In para 1 of the report on page 12 I am quoted as having said, “Members of the rally shouted anti-Muslim slogans while passing through the Muslim dominated areas”. This is factually incorrect. The rally passed through the Asarwa assembly constituency segments. As there were no Muslim dominated areas on the road, there is no question of members of the rally shouting anti-Muslim slogans during Shri L.K. Advani’s visit. What I had mentioned was the incident which had occurred near Astodia Gate, Manek Chowk and Gheekanta area during the week preceding Rathyatra when rallies were taken out which resulted in law and order problems following provocative slogans. However, this incident had no connection with Shri L.K. Advani’s visit to Meghaninagar. Shri Advani’s visit was meant for a different context.
The date of the Id–e–Milad procession mentioned in para 3 of the report is wrong. Also the report wrongly quotes me as having said that the procession was stoned. I only said that Muslims had a tableau depicting Kargil war and heroism displayed by Indian soldiers. By this I meant that even Muslims were as patriotic and nationalist on this issue and they went to the extent of displaying the same spirit as many Hindus did.
Para 4 says, “the BJP took full advantage of such an atmosphere and opened its office in the area and has stepped up its activities”. The Rathyatra did have communal overtones and also flags of certain fundamentalist organisations were displayed. But to say that an office was opened in the background of Rathyatra is factually incorrect.
The statement about spreading rumours during the communal riots is also far from what I had submitted before the CPDR committee. Rumour does not come out from any particular community. The same was true this time also. Certain people of both the communities were trying to spread rumours. Only a part of this came to the notice of the police and which the police verified.
In the last paragraph, I have been quoted as saying that “there was not even an iota of evidence to support this contention (ISI’s presence in Ahmedabad). This is also loosely drafted. What I submitted before the committee was that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the ISI in starting the present communal riots. My statement about the involvement of ISI was only in the context of the present communal riots and not beyond this. There have been activities of ISI in the past and at present also they have activities in Ahmedabad which has been proved by evidence.

My intention was to say that while Hindu mobs were led by leaders belonging to fundamentalist organisations, Muslims had no leaders or organisations supporting the Muslim criminals committing the riots.

Lastly, my name has been incorrectly spelt in the CPDR report as DCP Vinod Mull, instead of Vinod Mall. Also, I am holding charge of deputy commissioner of police, zone-IV and not of Shahibaug police station. Shahibaug Police station is the place where my office is located.

In addition to the above, there are many other factual mistakes.

It has been mentioned that Rathyatra route is 30 kms long and starts from Saraspur. This is incorrect. The route is about 17 kms long and starts from Jagannath temple near Jamalpur.
On Page 3 the report also mentions that the Muslim women made efforts to push back the youth who were standing near the barricade so that there was no provocation from either side. This is incorrect. There were no Muslim women standing on the Rathyatra route, as there was a self–imposed “curfew” by the Muslims in the communally sensitive areas.

It is also not true that only Muslims wanted to prevent the communal trouble. People of both the communities, i.e., Hindus and Muslims were equally eager to prevent communal trouble which was evident from the fact that the Rathyatra passed off peacefully and members of both the communities congratulated each other.
Lastly I congratulate you for publishing the CPDR report.

Vinod Mall
(DCP Zone–IV, Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad)

No patience, no democracy

October 31, 1999

Pakistani people, both the lay person and the majority of the intelligentsia, are simply not prepared to deal with democracy on its terms

WHETHER it is an out right extra–constitutional military coup as now, or the military– supported constitutional” coups under the former dispensation, the rationale offered is always the same: the politicians have failed as a class, and some group of people other than elected representatives can best solve the country’s dire economic and social crises.

Always the coup is greeted with temporary euphoria, only to be followed by bitter disillusionment as yet another tinkering with the democratic set–up inevitably fails to solve long–standing problems.

What is most surprising about the latest coup is the lack of outrage expressed by ordinary Pakistanis as well as most of the intelligentsia. What is most surprising is the ultimate lack of surprise at the coup on the part of those who closely follow Pakistani politics. For anyone observing the dynamics of the 1990, 1993, and 1996 interventions, it was only a matter of time.

What is most disillusioning about the current interruption of democracy is that the same segments of Pakistani society that have greeted previous interruptions refuse to learn from past history. What this clearly shows is that the Pakistani people, both the lay person and the majority of the intelligentsia, are simply not prepared to deal with democracy on its terms.

Understandably, the commercial classes are the least committed to the idea of democracy. They are the first to support any military government; they care less about civil liberties and the rights of the working class. As long as they can be assured of a minimal degree of stability in which to do business, they go along. They don’t realise that anything but democracy only leads in the long term to greater instability. For most of the intelligentsia to be in accord with the commercial classes’ liking for military rule, however, is less expected and less acceptable.

Unrealistic expectations about democracy lead to repeated support for rejecting the very processes of democracy. The missing piece of analysis has to do not with the mechanisms of democracy, which are not at fault, but with our own expectations and desires. Pakistanis want painless, quick, instant gratification. Neither democracy nor any other means of governance can deliver what they want. And yet, in their haste to reach the Promised Land, the people of Pakistan keep diminishing the chance that the desired objective of an egalitarian and prosperous society will ever be met.

It is precisely the sky–high expectations of the people for swift (shading into undemocratic) action on the part of their elected political leaders that leads to the politicians justifying autocracy in the name of expediency. Should the people set their expectations at a more moderate level, politicians would find it more difficult to justify autocratic intervention in the normal workings of state institutions.

To the extent that each time the ordinary people and the intelligentsia have refused to outright condemn the previous interventions — those of 1990, 1993, and 1996 — they have been party to the final overthrow of democracy. Imagine a scenario in 1990 when, despite disillusionment with Benazir Bhutto’s first term, an absolute line in the sand had been drawn, and the intelligentsia by and large had refused to accept the presidential intervention. Certainly, the costs of continuing with Benazir Bhutto at that time — as with Nawaz Sharif in his first and second terms, and Benazir in her second term — would have been high. But under no circumstances would the costs have been as high as those that actually did accrue after the disguised coups.

By the same logic, it is inconceivable that any possible benefits could accrue under the present military government that will not be overwhelmingly offset by the long–term setbacks to democratic governance.
It should be clear by now that the first Benazir government was better by far than the first Nawaz government, and so on for the three succeeding governments. The first Benazir government could treat state institutions with far less impunity than the regimes that followed. Doubtless, this logic will hold for the present regime as well. Simply to get back to square one after each intervention takes monumental work. People make the task well–nigh impossible when they keep supporting illegitimate interventions for the sake of expediency.

People seem to lack the basic characteristic for the survival of democracy that the Indian populace seems to have in abundance: patience. None of the long–term, even endemic and perplexing, problems outlined by the new military regime, are susceptible to short–term resolution. A few years are simply not enough to get the economy back on track, or to root out corrupt politicians, or to deal with deep–rooted ethnic and sectarian violence.
These are tasks that ought to occupy generations. No interim set–up of bureaucrats or technocrats, whatever the duration of power — a year, two years, or even five years — can possibly come up with radically different alternatives to what was already being tried under the four different democratically elected governments between 1988 and 1999.

Pakistan’s basic incomprehension of how democracy functions is highlighted by the remarkable progress of democracy in India. An elitist party has gradually seen its power diminish from its heights of autocratic rule, and dynastic politics has declined over the last three decades.

Coalitions of parties representing the lower classes, the outcasts, and the marginalised are in the ascendant. No matter how slow India’s economic or social progress, the Indians refuse to discredit democracy for it. Rather the thought has never even occurred to Pakistan’s more enlightened neighbours.

In Pakistan, whenever problems are found to be intractable, instead of doing everything possible to strengthen the institutional foundations of democracy, individual culprits are hounded out of office and democracy itself is questioned.

Certainly, Nawaz Sharif found it easier to weaken democratic institutions because of all our previous undemocratic interventions. The Supreme Court’s actions in the past justifying the overthrow of democracy under the doctrine of necessity are one example of institutions undermining their own long–term viability in the urge to protect themselves in the short run.

Five decades of playing around with democratic institutions almost guarantees that any representative government will have quite a bit of success in generating the perception that it intends to stay in power for good, and that it will undermine democratic institutions with every increase in power. But precisely the worst way of dealing with a democratically elected government that acts undemocratically is to abolish the very process itself. That will only make future governments, even if democratically elected, more prone to try to ensure their permanent stay in power.

Once again, the people’s lack of patience has made them indirectly party to a whole new series of likely witch–hunts. Accountability as it is understood in Pakistan is a pipe-dream. Who will watch the watch–dogs? No answer to this has been found in fifty–two years in Pakistan, nor in the various doomed experiments in Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

The solution is simply to make sure that the rascals are voted out of power at the end of their term, and that in the meantime they are not allowed to ensure that their stay will be anything except at the pleasure of their constituency.

In short, having degraded democracy, the people of Pakistan seem to want to degrade it even further, and reduce the chances of having a well-functioning democracy in the future. The benefits of this kind of intervention cannot possibly exceed the devastating costs. What is most disturbing is the cheerfulness of the people, or many of them, as they greet the new regime with high hopes. This reflects nothing but the naivete of the common people as they curse and condemn the existing set of politicians. The intelligentsia is equally naive as it sets out to discover yet another set of technocrats and bureaucrats who can magically rescue the country from its own worst instincts.

Pakistan’s worst problem is that the entire polity has become distorted because of the excessive militaristic or despotic attitude. Priorities at home have been twisted as a result, and civil liberties have had to take a back seat. Absolutely the worst possible response is to further increase the power of the military. Nobody wants to talk about a secular, pacifist, socialist approach to governance, as India shows the capacity to do. But that takes time, and individual and collective commitment. Democracy at all costs would be the slogan then. Right now, it seems to be — whatever works, damned be the ideology. It is a well–set trap, sprung at the least provocation. Escape is
unlikely without massive doses of patience with the workings of democracy.

Until democracy at all costs becomes the desire, democracy will never work at any cost. Until the principle sinks through that the worst possible elected government is always better than the best possible military dictatorship, democratic institutions cannot begin to gain hold. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise. The only solution for the ills of democracy is more democracy.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999. Year 7 No, 53, Neighbours

Advani & Company

October 31, 1999

In a recent interview to Outlook magazine, the Union home minister stated, ‘I abhor communalism’. But the company that he keeps suggests otherwise

IThere was a brief reference made in Parliament to the tirade launched by the sangh parivar against the visit of
the Pope during its brief session in October. The Union home minister, L.K. Advani — a powerful ideologue of the sangh who is also regarded by many as the real power behind the throne — chose his words in Parliament carefully. Even while expressing his “disapproval” of the campaign launched against the arrival of the Pope, Advani appeared very uncomfortable and grudging while “disapproving” the protests.

Two short points need to be made in this regard. Firstly, Advani’s reason for disapproval was on grounds of the Pope being a state guest. By implication this means that if such a vicious campaign was run against a private individual, it may have been permissible in Advani’s worldview. Secondly, the home minister did not propose any remedial step against the hate campaign.

Let us be clear – In a democratic country, demonstrations and protests should never be banned, but civil society must counter any hate campaign systematically launched.

Advani is a highly sophisticated person — his language is refined and courteous. The natural expectation is that his actions should match his outer refinement. Regrettably, they do not.

We need to look back to cite a couple of examples. It seems hardly necessary to go as far back as the bloody rath yatra inspired and led by him which ignited communal killings of a kind that we thought we had left behind us. Advani, we are asked to believe, regrets, in retrospect, his thoughtless actions.

When four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh were raped in 1998, a number of Hindutvawaadi leaders maintained that Christian missionaries represent “anti–national forces working against Hindu interests in the country” and that the gang–rape was “a reaction to those anti–national activities”.

Peace loving and law–abiding citizens of the country expected Advani to condemn this justification. He did not. When the then Shiv Sena–BJP government in Maharashtra rejected the Srikrishna Commission report (on the Mumbai riots in 1992–93 in which the Shiv Sena fuhrer, Bal Thackeray, among others, has been indicted), home minister Advani said that it is the prerogative of the Maharashtra government to reject it.

Advani did not take any action against the fuhrer when he thundered, while addressing a Dussera rally in Mumbai in 1998, “If any government dares arrest me, the entire city will be go up in flames”. This threat was repeated this year, again during the Dussera rally on October 18, when Thackeray proclaimed that he is above the law: “Those who dare to arrest me will not remain alive”.

One should have thought threatening to murder is a cognisable offence. The Union home minister, Advani, however, has chosen to keep his lips sealed. Which means he is defending a criminal. It is painful to recollect that he, as Union home minister, virtually prostrated before Bal Thackeray for allowing the Pakistan cricket team to play in India! When the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two children were brutally murdered, Advani (again as Union home minister) gave a good character certificate to the VHP and Bajrang Dal telling the nation that there were no “criminals among them”. How could a man of Advani’s learning defend criminals?
It was astounding to hear India’s home minister in this context say that he did not know who had organised the rally from Goa to Delhi protesting against the Pope’s visit. Mr. Advani is either an innocent saint who sees no evil, or he a thoroughly incompetent home minister. Or he is, at all times, in search of escape rotes. The truth is that he does not appear to be an upright man. Nor did he have the courage to state on record in Parliament that his colleague on the treasury benches, B.P. Singhal, belonged to the Sanskriti Raksha Manch, a branch of the VHP, and that it was this outfit that had master–minded the hate campaign.

It does not become a leader like Advani to protect his colleagues in the sangh parivar, whose primary source of inspiration is the philosophy of intolerance and anti-minorityism, a philosophy which has disturbed communal harmony in the past and continues to do so now. Proponents of this worldview are terribly upset over the presence of a hundred million citizens who happen to be Muslims. This philosophy appears to have found a fertile soil in our country.

Advani, both as home minister and as the patron saint of the sangh parivar, should prevent the sowing of seeds of disharmony, dissension, and divisiveness. Again, how could a man who presides over the destiny of 1,000 million people allow disintegration of the country?

Advani has not even expressed disgust at what one of his RSS followers (one Dr. Rastogi) recently declared. He was recently quoted saying with pride that he had shot dead a woman during the 1947 communal holocaust in which he was an active participant.

This retired professor writes in his recently published autobiography: “As a strategy for our security, we decided that whenever we got information about Muslim attacks we should attack first. One such incident occurred (in a Muslim locality, Puran Kaliyar) between Hardwar and Roorkee. They were fully prepared to attack us… When we came to know of this we took 250 people, which included goons, and attacked the Muslim locality. Both sides fought and people from both sides died… A strange incident happened as the attackers (Hindus) started fighting with each other over a beautiful woman … claiming (her) … A solution came to my mind. I shot her dead”.
Regarding Nathuram Godse, Dr. Rastogi writes: “The Partition of the country was based on the two-nation theory and all sort of inhuman treatment was meted out to the Hindus in Pakistan, but Gandhiji did not consider the ouster of Muslims from India as correct. Jinnah was even offered the prime ministership of undivided India by Gandhiji. Even after Partition, Pakistan was given crores of rupees for the canal, thanks to Gandhiji. Annoyed at all these acts of Gandhiji, Nathuram Godse silenced him for ever on January 30, 1948 (Source: Mainstream, October 30, 1999).

The appointment of such a man as expert for selecting the academic staff for NCERT could not have been done without a nod from Advani. How could Advani allow himself to be leader of a formation whose members have a criminal mindset like the one Dr. Rastogi exhibits?

The sangh parivar alleges that Christian missionaries have been converting Hindus, specially Adivasis, into Christianity, and that this should be stopped. The parivar wants a “national debate” on conversion. A couple of points need to be made here.

One, should there be a “national debate” on conversion or on the divinely ordained hierarchical system in Hinduism? This oppressive system has been responsible for the conversion of Hindus, mostly of the Dalits, to Islam and Christianity.

Why is it that the self–proclaimed protectors of Hinduism, the sangh parivar and its leaders L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, are silent on this aspect? Why don’t they condemn the system which is opposed to social democracy and start a movement to demolish the hierarchical system which is responsible for conversion to Christianity and Islam?

Two, why is it that Hinduism did not spread in the past nor is it attractive to non–Hindus even today? Where will they place an Adivasi or any other non–Hindu who may like to be converted to Hinduism, in the hierarchical system? Our society will benefit if Advani gives his whole attention to this aspect of Hinduism, joins and leads those who are striving to close the door on our horrendous system, which stands as an ugly relic of our past.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999. Year 7 No, 53, Opinion

Faith of the fanatic

October 31, 1999

The American Southern Baptist Convention’s prayer on the eve of Diwali, for Hindus to ‘become aware of the darkness in their hearts’, drew protest from a wide cross–section of NRIs, including the Indian Catholic clergy

On the eve of the Pope’s visit to India, the clamouring of Hindu communalist and fanatic groups within the country was matched by a statement issued by the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on the eve of Diwali, praying for the deliverance of Hindus from all sin. Protests against this statement were made by both Indian secular groups, members of the Indian Catholic clergy and groups of non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the USA. Here is the text of one such statement issued by the Forum of Indian Leftists (FOIL), USA:

"On Tuesday, October 19, 1999, the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) released a statement instructing their followers to "pray that the world’s Hindus might be convicted of sin and see Jesus is the Light of the World" (www.sbc.net/bpDownload.asp).

This statement has been timed to coincide with one of the most popular festivals celebrated by Hindus, Deepawali or Diwali (Festival of Lights). Supporting this statement is a nine–page prayer booklet, ‘Diwali: festival of Lights. Prayer for Hindus’, that aids those who wish to pray for Hindus during Diwali celebrations (www.imb.org/frontpage.htm). Along similar lines, the SBC booklet, ‘Days of Awe: Prayers for Jews’, also calls on Christians to pray for Jews from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur, while a third pamphlet, ‘Ramadhan Prayer Guide: Prayers for Muslims’, which calls for Christians to pray for Muslims will be re–released during the coming month of Ramadhan (Ramzaan). Yet another pamphlet, directed towards Buddhists is also planned by the SBC.

We, the signatories to this letter, are a collective of various individuals and groups committed to the promotion of secular, democratic and egalitarian principles in the social, economic and political life of South Asians. We believe that the SBC pamphlets promote ignorance, divisiveness and intolerance and concur with Keith Parks, the former president of the SBC’s International Mission Board, when he criticises the campaign for "launching a new crusade that is confrontative and abrasive," and underscores the importance of not caricaturing other religions, insisting that it is "essential that a Christian’s descriptions of other faiths be acceptable to members of those faiths".

It is worth recalling the fact that the SBC argued in the 1950s that racial integration was a sinful idea since "the Good Lord set up customs and practices of segregation" (in the words of John Buchanan of Birmingham). Even as recently as last year, the SBC at their convention amended their statement of beliefs to include a declaration that a woman should "submit herself graciously" to her husband’s leadership and her husband should "provide for, protect and lead his family."

We call upon the SBC leadership to re–evaluate its position on other religions, as well as its position on women’s subordination, in the same spirit that led the SBC to adopt a 1995 resolution repudiating its past advocacy of slavery and lack of support for civil rights. Many of us come from diverse backgrounds and were raised as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etcetera, and have a secular commitment to equal treatment of, and respect for members of all religious communities. We wish to affirm religious diversity and tolerance as important strengths of South Asian society and cultures. The current government of India, whose complicity in the attacks against Muslims, Christians and Dalits has been well–documented, is steadily undermining these values. Despite this climate of intolerance, there have been many dialogues between followers of different faiths. We support the efforts of the citizens of India who continue to affirm tolerance for different religious and cultural practices.

Just as we cannot condone the call by Hindu fundamentalist organisations to "reconvert" Christians and Muslims to Hinduism in India, we cannot condone the Baptist call to "pray" for Hindus, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists to convert to Christianity in the U.S. While prayer for another person or groups of people may be commendable, attempts to clothe bigotry and ignorance with a veneer of theological and cultural analysis is not.

The SBC ‘Prayer for Hindus’ booklet does not show any comprehension of the complex nature of the different theological and philosophical schools that have come to be known as Hinduism. More troubling is the authors’ use of Hindu fundamentalist interpretations of history to suit their own needs. Thus they uncritically accept and reproduce the mythology of a ‘Hindu’ resistance led by the Maratha ruler Shivaji against ‘Islamic’ Mughal rulers of India in the seventeenth century even while calling for active conversions of the Hindu Marathas.

The booklet sometimes veers toward the absurd; for instance, while describing Bangalore "the Silicon Valley of Asia", it calls upon Southern Baptists to pray that all educated Indian computer scientists become "open to the Truth." Moreover, there is not even a pretence of an understanding of, or respect for the cultural context of Indian Christianity.

Nor does the booklet display any knowledge of the historical diversity of Christianity in India, which includes Roman Catholics, Syrian Christians, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other Protestant denominations. Indians of all faiths and creeds have historically been tolerant and accepting of Christianity in India. It is not Hinduism that has led to attacks on Indian Christians but the communal practices of the Hindu fundamentalist organisations and political parties, which have been well documented by human rights organisations.

Ironically, the SBC pamphlets resonate with the increasingly intolerant practices and policies of the Hindu rightwing government and its cohorts in India. In this context, the response of many Indian Christians who have distanced themselves from the SBC literature is to be applauded. At the end of the millennium, we challenge leaders of religious institutions and progressive people of all faiths to propagate words and deeds that will end and not perpetuate hatred and ignorance".

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7 No. 53, Special Report 3

1...2,6842,6852,686...2,696 Page 2,685 of 2,696

Saffron shrouds YKJ 2000 in Gujarat

Erosion in minority rights: India criticised

‘Golden Corridor’ of Gujarat: Who Bears the Cost?

Believers of the world, unite!

Factual inaccuracies in CPDR report

No patience, no democracy

Advani & Company

Faith of the fanatic

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT