Herr Haider, a new Hitler?

January 31, 2000

A xenophobic, extremist right–wing party — whose leader seems like a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler to many people and political leaders in Europe — is now an equal partner in the new government in Austria. The rise to power of such a man in the heart of democratic Europe has thrown the entire European community in an agonising soul–search. Quite apart from the spectre of a new fascist movement on the ascendant, there is the more immediate problem of the Austrian example providing a powerful boost to racist and xenophobic extremist organisations all over Europe.

Joerg Haider is the name of the man whose far–right Freedom Party (FPO) notched up 27 per cent of the popular votes in the general elections last October to emerge as Austria’s second largest party, with 52 of the total 183 seats. First in the electoral race but short of a majority, the Social Democrats failed to reach an agreement on renewing their 13–year–old coalition with Austria’s conservative People’s Party but refused any truck with the FPO. It was then that Herr Haider struck a deal and a very reluctant President Thomas Klestil finally swore in a new government on February 4.

(A throwback to 1933, when President Paul von Hindenberg had invited Hitler’s party into the German government? Not many had then foreseen the threat that Hitler’s 33 per cent of the vote posed to German democracy or world peace, no one had then anticipated the Nazi party’s aggressive military intent, its rampant anti-Semitism, or the ‘Final Solution’).

Herr Haider’s politics is as much a cause for concern as his background. The main plank of his party in the last election was his populist demand that the immigrants from the Balkans and Eastern Europe, who now constitute around five per cent of Austria’s population, be sent back to their countries. With unemployment running at nearly 11 per cent, the FPO attracted the votes of half of all male voters under 30. Haider also strongly opposes the entry of East European countries into the presently 15–member European Union of which Austria is a part.

That is not all. The FPO’s Nazi roots are well known. Haider’s own parents were strong Nazi supporters and the large estate he inherited from them was Jewish–owned until it was "Aryanised" in 1938. Recently, Haider publicly praised Hitler’s "orderly" employment policy, but subsequently apologised.

To compound matters further, unlike Germany, Austria as a country and Austrians as a people have yet to come to terms with their pro–Nazi past. Austrians see themselves as Nazism’s "first victim" while the rest of the West sees them as Hitler’s "first willing accomplice". When Hitler annexed Austria, there were jubilant crowds on the streets of Vienna and elsewhere; and spontaneous incidents of anti–Semitism followed. (Among other ignominies, Jewish women were made to scrub the streets on their hands and knees while Austrian Nazis urinated all over them).

This, incidentally is the second time in 14 years that Austria is troubling the European conscience. In 1986, the country elected Kurt Waldheim as its President ignoring his involvement in Nazi atrocities. Waldheim pretended he could not remember what he did many decades ago.

Now faced with a leader like Herr Haider in its midst, Europe is divided over how to respond to the challenge: No compromise on "principles and values", no truck with racism, rabid nationalism and crypto–fascism of the FPO variety? Or, adherence to the "first principle of democracy" ("parliamentary majority must be respected") and non–interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state?

The other 14 members of the European Union, besides Austria, had threatened to sever relations with one of its own partners if Haider’s chauvinist party became a part of the Austrian government. To make itself more presentable to the western world, the coalition government has evolved a formula which includes the following: Haider himself did not join the national government but continues as a regional governor; two, despite him being Haider’s first choice for the post, Thomas Prinzhorn does not occupy the vice–chancellor’s chair; and, three, the coalition partners have pledged themselves to an extraordinary declaration which reads — "Austria accepts her responsibility arising out of the tragic history of the 20th century and the horrendous crimes of the National Socialist regime. Our country is facing up to the light and dark sides of its past and to the deeds of all Austrians, good and evil, as its responsibility". The declaration also pledges the future government to work for "an Austria in which xenophobia, anti-Semitism and racism have no place".

Despite this, several European governments — with Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal in the lead – took the first steps towards the political isolation of Austria the moment the new government was sworn–in. But some are worried that penal action against Austria will only increase Herr Haider’s appeal: the latest opinion poll in Austria indicates that if elections were held today, 33 per cent would vote for his party against the 27 per cent last October.

Is there some parallel between what Europe is now experiencing and India, where the political wing of the sangh parivar — the BJP — was a political pariah for other political parties for some years but now leads a coalition government at the Centre?

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No, 56, International

Myth of the Islamist threat to US

January 31, 2000

The American government and media is once again promoting anti–Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria under the guise of vigilance against terroris

Are recent warnings by the US government about the threat of terrorism a reasonable precaution to a real and present danger, or are the media and government once again promoting anti–Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria under the guise of vigilance against terrorism? Whatever the case, the arrest of an Algerian man last December, allegedly for trying to enter the United States from Canada with bomb–making materials, has set off yet another free–for–all of media speculation about vicious Muslim plots to blow up the United States on the eve of the millennium. (The article was posted on the Internet on December 22).

To many people this hysteria appears to be nothing more than a reasonable response to a frightening possibility. But if we examine the US government’s own data about terrorism, it is a completely unjustified overreaction which puts at risk civil liberties and freedoms of all Americans, but especially those of Arab and Muslim Americans who are, despite all the lessons of Oklahoma City, TWA 800 and other incidents, still the first to fall under suspicion and to be victimised by repressive measures such as the use of secret evidence and passenger profiling.

So, is all the focus on the threat of "Islamic" terrorism justified and based in fact?

To put the issue in perspective, I examined the State Department’s own annual report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1998."

Below I have summarised some facts from the report about events that the State Department defines as international terrorist incidents (in other words, excluding domestic terrorism by purely US–based groups, such as anti–abortion groups). The report uses the following definitions: "The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non–combatant targets by sub–national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practising, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."

1) Terrorism worldwide is decreasing significantly and consistently:

There has been a significant and consistent downward trend in international terrorist incidents in the period 1979–1998. In 1998, the number of international terrorist incidents, at 273, was the lowest ever in the period, and the annual number has shown a consistent downward trend since it reached a peak of 666 in 1987.

2) The vast majority of international terrorist incidents are not related to the Middle East, Muslim ‘extremists’ or Arabs:

Since 1995, Latin America has consistently had the highest annual number of international terrorist incidents of any region, followed by Western Europe. In 1998 there were 110 attacks in Latin America, 48 in Western Europe and 31 in the Middle East. There were 21 in Africa and zero in North America.

The incidents in Latin America are primarily connected to conflicts in Colombia and Peru, while the vast majority of incidents in Europe are, according to the State Department, attributable to Basque separatists in Spain, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the Kurdish movement in Turkey and various anarchist groups in Greece. Middle East or "Islamic" terrorism was not a significant factor in either region.

In terms of casualties (deaths + injuries), the highest number has consistently been in Asia since 1993. In 1998 there were over 5,000 in Africa, 635 in Asia, 405 in Western Europe, 68 in the Middle East and zero in North America.

3) Eighty percent of attacks against US targets are in Latin America:

Consistently, the vast majority of events defined by the State Department as "anti–US attacks" occur in Latin America. In 1998, there were a total of 111 anti–US attacks. Eighty–seven were in Latin America, 13 in Western Europe, 5 in the Middle East and 3 each in Africa and Eurasia.

By far the most common target of terrorists are businesses. Attacks on diplomats, military or government installations are relatively rare. The total number of US fatalities from these attacks in 1998 was 12, all related to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

4) Very few Americans are killed by terrorists:

Here are the numbers for the total U.S. citizen casualties caused by international attacks, 1993–98. Note that the figures show no upward trend:

1993 – 7 ; 1994 – 6 ; 1995 10 ;

1996– 25 ; 1997– 6 ; 1998 12

(The 1998 attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania caused a large number of non–US casualties in addition to the US victims).

These numbers suggest that terrorism is a relatively insignificant cause of death and injury to Americans compared with other forms of violence. For example, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, 14 children are killed every day in the United States by handguns. In the state of Illinois alone, 320 are killed each year (National Centre for Health Statistics, 1997).

5) Middle East violence is related to local political conflicts, not ‘hatred of the West:’

Although the level of international terrorist events in the Middle East has been lower than in other parts of the world, such violence as occurs is principally related to local political conflicts, not to generalised "hatred of the West" as often portrayed in the media. The numbers and descriptions of patterns of violence in the Middle East suggest that as in other regions, like Northern Ireland, violence diminishes when broad–based political processes or solutions are set in motion. The State Department report acknowledges that the downward trend in terrorism "reflects the improved political climate that has diminished terrorist activity in recent years in various parts of the world."

Conclusion:

There is a complete disparity between the facts about international terrorism as presented by the government on the one hand, and the media, official and popular response to the issue on the other. There is no objective connection between the frequency of terrorist attacks originating from and occurring in the Middle East, and the amount of attention that such attacks receive. President Clinton and other government officials have repeatedly defined terrorism as one of the greatest threats facing the world.

There is little or no media attention to the facts about terrorism, as reported by the government, and a generalised willingness to continue to blame and speculate about the Middle East as a principal purveyor of violence. This situation continues to hurt and marginalise Arab and Muslim citizens of the US, and to distort public perceptions about the Middle East, a region in which US taxpayers are being asked to invest a lot of money, often in the name of "security."

Each and every life lost due to terrorism is one too many and of course there must be vigilance against terrorism, and support for genuine efforts to prevent it. But clearly other policy agendas, totally unrelated to public security, are being served by the obsessive focus on Middle East terrorism, when the facts suggest a more balanced approach would be appropriate.

(ahabunim@midway.uchicago.edu http://www.abunimah.org).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No. 56, Opinion

Of courage, caste and ‘Hindu cowardice’

January 31, 2000

The ‘Hindu cowardice’ bogey must not shut the mouths of the brave followers of Swami Dayanand Saraswati when they are confronted by the very forces against which Swamiji fought and laid down his life

Ill–informed attempts have been made of late to project the concessions made to the hijackers of the Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu to Delhi, as yet another illustration of the proverbial Hindu cowardice. Occasional and misleading references have been made, in this context, to the history and mission of the Arya Samaj. This calls for clarification on some basic issues.

The Arya Samaj was essentially a spiritual movement whose mission was to renew and reinforce the Vedic foundations of the Hindu society. The attempt to re–construct the ‘Hindu identity’ that historians and political analysts see in this movement needs to be seen in this light. Swami Dayanand Saraswati and, later, Swami Sraddhanand were reacting reformatively to the social and spiritual paralysis of the Hindu society on account of its apostasy vis–à–vis the eternal principles and ideals embedded in the Vedas.

"Back to the Vedas" was, hence, their battle cry. To them the solution for our chronic and all–round disabilities was not the propagation of a macho culture of physical assertiveness or ideological aggression. It was the creation of a wholesome and dynamic society undergirded by equality, truth, justice and human dignity.

Shuddhi was as much a protest against the caste–bound socio–religious paralysis of the Hindu society as it was to facilitate the home–coming of those who had left the fold, in case they wished to. It was a constructive criticism of the aberration that had been imposed on the Hindu social order by the high castes by making merit entirely birth–based. This turned the Hindu religious community into a semi–closed order from which people were free to escape but not free to return. And the oppressiveness of the caste system provided ample motivation for the lower castes to escape en masse. Out of this there arose a situation that exposed the inner–contradictions and non–viability of the caste system in a situation of free choice.

Such a situation leaves us with two options. The first is to dismantle the caste system and to replace it with the Varna Ashram Vyvastha as laid down in the Vedas. Birth–based human merit has no place in the Vedas. The Vedic worldview, as I have argued time and again, is a dynamic spiritual vision that militates against burying people alive in the graves of caste degradation. This was what the founders of the Arya Samaj advocated. The other option is to put down the rebellion against the caste system in the form of conversion to other theoretically more egalitarian faiths. This is done in two ways by the custodians of the caste system: (a) by creating an anti–conversion dogma, ruling out thereby freedom of choice leading to conversions, or (b) by the use of force either against those who convert or those who encourage conversion or against both. It was a return to the Varna Vyvastha that the Arya Samaj advocated. The logic of the times confirms that only the Arya Samaj approach to this problem is valid and feasible.

Globalisation, among other things, is the unconditional acceptance of a new global order based on free choice. Perpetuation of any birth–based handicap or advantage is utterly incompatible with its ethos. The custodians of casteism, if they are serious about their business, must fight global-isation with all their might as their foremost caste enemy.

But that is not what is happening. Most of them are in league with this pernicious process, conspiratorially crafted to rob the rest of the world for the greater affluence of the richer nations. The hijack drama is a milestone also in the globalisation of terrorism, in which the role–model was set by arbitrary American transnational aggressions in recent times.

While I am unhappy that the hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane got away with some of their demands, after inflicting unspeakable suffering on more than 150 innocent passengers, I cannot fault the government on the way this crisis has been handled. On the contrary, I endorse the government’s concern that innocent lives be not lost through tactical dogmatism and ideological inflexibility. The courage to be inflexible at the cost of other people’s lives is embarrassingly cheap. The hijack crisis provided a glorious opportunity for the RSS leaders to prove their newly acquired Hindu virility. They could have offered themselves as substitute hostages, procured the release of the innocent passengers, and then advocated total inflexibility. It does no credit either to the Hindu community or to their macho image to have hid themselves in safety until the crisis was defused and to emerge soon thereafter to strike up comic–strip–like postures of courage that costs them nothing.

May be that is an illustration of the alleged Hindu cowardice! We need to get out of it. But, then, courage is not an abstract thing. It has to be exemplified in respect of addressing the real issues, irrespective of the cost involved. In Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Sraddhanand we have two good examples of human courage imbued with spiritual significance. Both of them risked their life in pursuing their mission.

The most basic cowardice is flight from reality. This is what is writ large over the whole of our country today. As a society we are running away from the basic issues of social injustice, discrimination against the poor and the underprivileged, our moral and social degradation, and the large-scale sell-out of our country in the name of globalisation. This country could do better with a little more courage to speak the truth, to resist the forces of evil and injustice, the courage above all to live with the projected ‘backwardness’ and global isolation that we are warned against, unless we allow ourselves to be colonised by the West. True Vedic courage calls for doing battle with the predators of hedonist consumerism that assault human dignity and worth. It mandates a relentless struggle to free the Indian society from the evils of casteism, communalism and religious obscurantism so that we re-create the true Aryavarta: a country of noble men and women.

This was the vision that inspired the Arya Samaj movement. Swami Dayanand Saraswati was a liberated soul who maintained excellent relationships with people of other faiths. The very first donation of Rs. 5000 to the cause of the Arya Samaj came from a Muslim in Bombay in 1875. It was in the house of a Muslim, Rahmatullah Ansari of Lahore, that Swamiji formulated the ten basic principles of the Samaj. When Swamiji was poisoned by a Hindu cook, Jagannath, it was to a Muslim — Dr. Ali Mardan Khan — that he entrusted his treatment. Swami Dayanand’s concerns extended to the welfare of other religious faiths and he encouraged Bhai Jawahar Singh, who was general secretary of Arya Samaj, Lahore, to launch the Guru Singh Sabha around 1877.

Swamiji had excellent relationships with all religious leaders, including the Christians, besides being a good friend of Sir Syed Ahmed of the Aligarh Muslim University. The spirit of religious intolerance that is packaged as Hindu revivalism would have been roundly denounced by him. So also the compromise that some sections of the Arya Samaj have struck with the Sangh Parivar by providing the ritualistic paraphernalia for re–conversion into a caste-ridden Hindu order, rather than insist that the Hindu society be rid of this ultimate spiritual anathema. I do hope that "Hindu cowardice" will not shut the mouths of the brave followers of Swami Dayanand Saraswati when they are confronted by the very forces against which Swamiji fought and laid down his life.

(An abridged version of this article was first published by The Indian Express).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No, 56, Faith

Saffron babus in khaki shorts

January 31, 2000

Government servants in India cannot be allowed to belong to a political party committed to values that are the very opposite of parliamentary democracy and secularism

The recent decision of the government of Gujarat to lift the long–standing ban on government servants being members of the RSS has aroused much controversy. Many, already distressed by the policies of the state government of encouraging extremist Hindu parties, have seen it as yet another instance of a fanatical fascist group using its power to destroy the secular basis of our country. Others see nothing wrong in the decision; why not let civil servants belong to a party, they say, particularly as several ministers belong to, or are sympathetic to that very party?

A dispassionate discussion of this issue is called for. The issues involve a consideration of our Constitution, and the basic underlying principles of our parliamentary democracy.

Our Constitution declares that India is to be a secular republic. The Supreme Court has held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution which cannot be amended. What secularism means has been the discussed by the Supreme Court in the famous Bommai Case, when a large bench of the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of several BJP–controlled state governments after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Some observations in the judgements delivered in that case deserve to be quoted:

"Under our Constitution … religion cannot be mixed with any secular activities of the state. In fact, the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited."

"In matters of State, religion has no place."

"The Constitution does not recognise, does not permit, mixing religion and state power. Both must be kept apart."

The Constitution contains fundamental rights which include the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of association. These rights are not absolute, and can be curtailed in appropriate cases in the interests of public order or the integrity of India. The Constitution also contains Article 25 which confers on all citizens the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of their choice, and it is settled law that whilst conversions from one religion to another by threats or inducement can be prohibited, voluntary conversions cannot be restricted.

Our Constitution also contains a chapter on fundamental duties under which all citizens are under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, to uphold and protect the sovereignty, integrity and unity of India, and to promote the harmony and spirit of common brotherhood among the people of India transcending differences of religion, language, etc. These fundamental duties cannot be directly enforced, but are relevant in determining the legality and constitutionality of laws and restrictions on fundamental rights.

Government servants do not cease to be citizens, and have the right to enjoy fundamental rights, but restrictions can be imposed on their enjoyment of such rights which are necessary in the interests of the sovereignty or integrity of India.

We are a parliamentary democracy. This is also a basic feature of our Constitution. In a parliamentary democracy, power is enjoyed by a council of ministers which commands the majority support in the legislature. The ministers run the country with the assistance of the vast civil service which is permanent; the civil service does not change with a change in the government. It is expected to conscientiously discharge its duties, and execute the policies determined by the ministers. Parliamentary democracy cannot function efficiently unless the civil service is, and remains, wholly independent or impartial. The whole system would break down if members of the civil service get identified with political parties as they could not possibly execute the policies of another, rival, political party. Any identification of the civil service with a political party is also dangerous as there is then every likelihood of the politically inclined civil service using the machinery of the State, and its vast resources, to favour that political party.

A compromise has generally been struck between ensuring, on the one hand, an independent and impartial civil service, and ensuring that the civil servants themselves can enjoy the basic rights of citizens such as the right to vote, and the right even to belong to political parties. The right to belong to a political party enjoyed by civil servants is not, however, absolute, and must be restricted in the interests of parliamentary democracy and secularism.

The position in England is instructive. Civil servants generally cannot belong to organisations which are committed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy. Even as far as ordinary and democratic parties are concerned, a civil servant cannot publicly support any political party or its policies.

As we also are a parliamentary democracy, the principles followed in England are instructive. We also have to constantly bear in mind the basic principles of our Constitution and the fundamental duties imposed on all citizens. Obviously, government servants must discharge the same duties, and the obligation on them to do so is greater, as they occupy a pivotal position in the State.

Whilst government servants in India can undoubtedly belong to political parties which are committed to parliamentary democracy, and secularism, they cannot be allowed to belong to a political party which is committed to the very opposite. Let me give an illustration. Would the government of Gujarat allow its government servants to belong to an organisation, which recommends that Junagadh should be handed over to Pakistan, or the government of India allow its government servants to belong to organisations which recommend an independent Nagaland? Clearly not.

In fact any such political parties would be working against the integrity of India which it is the duties of all citizens, including government servants, to uphold. Any government which does not prohibit government servants from being in any way associated with such parties would be failing in its duty.

Suppose we have a political party, which proclaims that Hindus are bigoted and full of superstition, and should not be employed in public service. Surely, propagation of that point of view does the very opposite of what the Constitution enjoins as a fundamental duty on all citizens; not only does it not promote harmony amongst people belonging to different religions, it does its best to bring about discord and disharmony. If ordinary citizens do this, it is, to say the least, unfortunate. If, however, a government servant does it, it may well have calamitous consequences, as whatever he says would, at least in the minds of very many people, particularly those who are not well-educated, and live in rural areas, carry behind it the weight of official approval. Government servants must, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion. That is why there has to be imposed a much higher standard of care and circumspection on all government servants than on ordinary citizens. They cannot be permitted to be associated with any political party which is associated with any policy which destroys or threatens the integrity or unity of India or inter–religious harmony.

What is the RSS? It is not like other political parties. Historically, let us not forget, people of the RSS–mindset were responsible for the heinous murder of the greatest Indian of modern times, Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji has been, and is, revered all over the world, but many members of the RSS are still full of praise for those who murdered him. The RSS is a group of people who are fascist in their thinking, and openly recommend the substitution of our parliamentary democracy and secular republic. Many of their policies are violently anti–Muslim, and, of late, particularly in the state of Gujarat, viciously anti–Christian. It is impossible to be a member of the RSS and also abide by the fundamental duty of every citizen, that is, to abide by the Constitution, or to respect its ideals and institutions, or to promote harmony and brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians. Further, a member of the RSS, if also a government servant, cannot by reason of the very tenets of the RSS keep the Hindu religion and state power apart. The long-standing ban on membership of the RSS and other communal organisations, was, therefore, right.

For any state government to allow government servants to belong to the RSS or, indeed, to any communal or secessionist organisation, would be wrong. The ban has been in force for many years. For a government run by the BJP, which has close links with the RSS, to revoke the ban is doubly wrong. It is favouring its own party, and jeopardising the impartiality and independence of the civil service. It is sending a message to the whole State, and in particular, to the citizens belonging to the minorities, that the whole State government will be run as the RSS wants.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No, 56, Controversy

Change for what?

January 31, 2000

The BJP is curiously silent about the need for, or the area of change, in the Indian Constitution

The BJP coalition government wants to change the Constitution. But why? On this, the BJP is obscure. The coalition partners, who used to be vocal in their pre–coalition incarnation, are silent. There is little indication about the need for or the area of change. There is no White Paper. No document. Even the constitutional changes proposed in 1976 during the Emergency were preceded by a long eclectic, anonymous, unsigned document which provoked a sitting judge, Justice Krishna Iyer, to demand that someone claim ownership of the illegitimate child. White Papers are not unknown to the BJP. They published an embarrassingly communal White Paper on Babri Masjid in 1993 which some of us were pained to read to the Supreme Court in the Babri Masjid proceedings. This time the BJP is silent.

There is to be constitutional change. But, for whom? And, for what? Are these changes to benefit the BJP? Are they to benefit the coalition partners? Are they for the nation? Are they really about constitutional changes? Or are they about governance? Or, is all this to be left to Justice Venkatachaliah who is to head the commission? We do not even have the benefit of a statement from the government, or a debate in Parliament.

We do have some glimpses about what the changes may be about. The first glimpse was about a possible switch to the presidential system. This has been in the air for some time, but acquires vitality in today’s electoral context. The BJP has failed on three occasions to get a single party majority — in 1995, 1997 and 1999.

Like Mrs. Gandhi in 1976, it feels that if it fields a directly elected President it might win. Yet, we think that the presidential system is a self–fulfilling prophecy. As in the US in 1992 and many other occasions, there could be a paralytic situation between the legislature and the President. With 200 years experience, the US could handle this crisis. In India, the 50 years of mal–experience suggests that we cannot handle it. Political capital will be made about confrontation to precipitate paralysis.

This is also true of the second glimpse of proposed change which vouchsafes continuity of the government in power (in our case, the BJP) unless there is a positive vote of no-confidence and a viable alternative. The requirement of a positive vote of no–confidence is no problem because that is how the system functions. Thus, Mrs. Thatcher was defeated on major policy matters on 21 occasions and the Narsimha Rao government was defeated on TADA and the Patents Bill in 1995 without yielding to a resignation.

However, a guaranteed term in the absence of an alternative government for three, if not five, years may deal with the problem of frequency of elections, but it does not deal with the problem of paralysis between the executive and the legislature. In fact, the interposition of a viable alternative will increase suitcase bribery from which the legislators will have criminal immunity after the Supreme Court’s judgement in the JMM case (1998).

The third glimpse of what is possibly on the agenda appears to relate to the electoral process. The BJP feels that despite a decline in the popular vote, it can command a greater proportion of the popular vote. But, in order to do this it needs to alter the electoral system. To its rescue comes a report of the Law Commission which seeks to run Indian democracy on German lines. The presence of independent candidates is seen as a nuisance.

So, Indian democracy is proposed to be run through political parties. Independents are out. It is not clear how new parties will come into being. More significantly, the Law Commission’s proposals suggest that the size of Parliament be extended by about 100 members to reflect the popular vote for particular parties. The Law Commission’s proposals were criticised. But, Justice Jeewan Reddy is adamant that he has found the German and cosmopolitan elixir which will cure Indian democracy.

He has a penchant for new ideas within an overall statist approach. Thus, on the bench he virtually nationalised technical education in 1993, provided for a limited judicial review of President’s Rule with awkward results by approving President’s Rule for states where there were no problems and has, recently, veered the Law Commission to support the revival of TADA. He is to be on the Commission on the Constitution. We do not know whether he is overtly committed to re–structuring India’s democracy on German lines. We know he is passionately committed to his own final reports on electoral change.

Fourth, there is the BJP’s agenda of silencing the President. In 1979, the Constitution was amended to give formal recognition to the power of the President to refer back matters for re–consideration by the Cabinet. The BJP were not happy when President Narayanan used this power to refer back the government’s decision to impose President’s Rule in Bihar in 1998. Nor have they been happy about some of the President’s pronouncements. But, both in general parliamentary practice, as well as due to the provisions of Art. 78 (which give the President the power to obtain information), the President has the duty to advise, encourage and warn.

As Justice Krishna Iyer, explaining the parliamentary system in Shamsher’s case (1973) put it: the President is not, and was not intended to be, a cipher. Indeed, it would be sad and inimical to governance if he became that.

Fifth, there is Ram Jethmalani’s agenda about bringing accountability in judicial appointments and misdemeanours by the higher judiciary. In the Third Judges case (1998) — provoked by a reference suggested by Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and perforce, Mr. Jethmalani and others — the judges have purloined and virtually taken over the system of appointment of judges. This has led to awkward results. Judges rejected by previous collegiums have found acceptance by recent ones.

Mr. Jethmalani and others (no less myself as a little inconsequential voice of a student of this process) feel a proper National Judicial Commission is required. No less, the ‘acquittal’ of Justice Ramaswami by a block Congress abstention in 1992 and Justice Venkatachaliah’s internal report that judges publicly accused of wrong behaviour cannot be denied work has led to a situation that judges of the higher judiciary cannot be disciplined; and, do not always exercise self–discipline. Here, there is a specific need for re–examination. But, one does not have to review the whole Constitution simply to deal with this.

Sixth, there is a fear that the Union may want to rewrite Indian federalism and the panchayat system to centralise power. We already have the Sarkaria Committee Report (1987) which has lain fallow for many years. Do we need another Commission? Surely, a White Paper on Sarkaria is overdue before we venture nebulously into yet another Commission?

Seventh, one of the great dangers faced by India is the lumpenization of its governance. This is startlingly affirmed by the Vohra Committee (1995), which expresses the concern of the major security agencies that India ‘s governance is run by thugs and hoodlums at every level of governance. This is a problem of governance and politics. Its needs examination; but not necessarily under the aegis of constitutional review.

Eighth, India’s democracy is imperfect and stunted in its rigour. It is a matter of tribute that the people of India have discerningly evolved the right to throw out their rulers from time to time. But, apart from this aspect of electoral democracy, Indian democracy is weak and lacks both the discourse and accountability to make it work in a strongly democratic way.

Information is not available. Reports on grievous atrocities and corruption are not dealt with. But, these are all matters of governance and of making democracy work. If the political parties want, they can include less, or no, thugs in the electoral process. When Mr. Jethmalani wanted to evolve a new democratic system of information–on–demand, he was shot down by the Cabinet secretariat.

These are all matters of governance. This is equally true of the ninth area of general — albeit not BJP concern — that social justice is denied to most Indian’s, especially the 350 million living below the absolute poverty line.

Finally, there appears to a somewhat arbitrary celebratory millennial and golden jubilee view that a review must take place after 50 years of the republic which coincides with the advent of a new century. There is a difference between reviewing aspects of governance and arbitrarily reviewing the fundamental law simply because 50 years have passed.

In the light of all this, it is understandable that the proposal to review the Constitution is looked at with suspicion. But, there is another reason to fear a sweeping proposal of this nature. It will open up Pandora’s box. As soon as one speaks of a general constitutional review, innumerable demands for change will be made. We have only to read the debates of the Constituent Assembly of 1946–49 to realise the nature and sweep of demands. We were lucky to pledge these demands to peace in 1949. I doubt whether we will be so lucky now. If India would even try to draft a new Constitution today, we would not succeed. We have not even been able to put through the Bill for Women’s reservation. Israel was not able to evolve a consensus for an agreed Constitution in 1949 or thereafter. Pakistan’s Constitution took 8 years to evolve (1947–56); and, that too, after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1954! Since then in Pakistan as also in Bangladesh, constitutions have constantly been usurped into breakdown. The Constitution and constitutional change should not be treated as a political toy.

India’s Constitution has a theory of change. In 1973, a Supreme Court judge put it very elegantly when he said that a Constitution was not in a state of ‘being’ but ‘becoming’. The Constitution catered for adjustments and adaptations. This is what made our linguistic States possible. The Constitution also invited a re–examination of its working and strengthening of its democratic processes. Examples of this include the Anti-Defection Amendments (1985) and the Panchayat Amendments of 1992. There was a cap on changes of the basic structure by the Supreme Court in the Fundamental Rights case (1973). But, it is not clear what the basic structure is. In the Bommai (1993) and the Babri Masjid case (1995), the Court declared that secularism is part of the basic structure. In both the 1973 case and thereafter, judicial review has been declared part of the basic structure.

Presumably, democracy is part of the basic structure, but it may not follow that a particular form of democracy is part of the basic structure. ‘Socialism’ — in terms of social and distributive justice — may be part of the basic structure; otherwise the Constitution is meaningless for the millions living unequally, generation after generation, in penury below the poverty line. Yet, intimations of the ‘basic structure’ should not frighten us into not making Indian democracy and the rule of law more workable.

The contemporary proposal to review the Constitution began life as a political proposal to achieve political results. Justice Venkatachaliah’s interventions may have provided some focus. What we seem to fail to do is to make the vital distinction between constitutional reform and governance.

The governance of a nation requires constant re–examination — even more so the governance of a nation like India which has an imperfect democracy, is overrun by lumpen elements and which has failed to provide social justice to the bulk of its people. But to invite a general constitutional review has ‘Pandora box’ implications. India’s Constitution was devised for a complex civilisation. Neither the Constitution nor plans to change it should lend itself to usurpatory appropriation — least of all to suit the agendas of political parties.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No, 56, Debate

Butchery in Chechnya

January 9, 2000

The world has left the Chechen to be ground into bloody pulp by Russia’s killing machine — a crime largely financed by U.S. and western dollars

A month ago, this column predicted that Russian hard-liners were on the verge of seizing total power in a “stealthy” coup. Twenty–six days later, President Boris Yeltsin stunned the world by resigning and handing over power to a junta of KGB “Chekists” and senior generals led by former spy and now acting president, Vladimir Putin.

Yeltsin agreed to resign in return for immunity for himself and his family from prosecution for massive corruption. The era of Weimar Russia was ended, and the West’s $100 billion–plus investment in Yeltsin’s “democratic Russia” a total loss. The Clinton administration and its media backers tried to cover up the magnitude of this catastrophe by echoing Russian propaganda claims that Putin and his cronies were “clean”, “youthful reformers,” “covert democrats” and crusaders against terrorism.

Far from reform, what we are seeing in Moscow is the seizure of political and, increasingly, economic power by a younger generation of KGB officers, like Putin, from the old First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence). Forget the beetle–browed KGB thugs of the 1950s. These ’80s– and ’90s–vintage agents are hard–edged, sophisticated, worldly professionals.
Putin and his junta gained power by whipping up traditional Russian racial and religious hatred for Muslim Chechen, then launching a merciless campaign to exterminate the Caucasian rebels. Moscow, in the usual style of international malefactors, used the Christmas/New Year holidays to mask its attempted storming of the Chechen capital, Grozny, and laying waste to the rest of the tiny republic of 1.5 million people.

The valiant Chechen mujahedin, however, refused to surrender. Some 1,500 Chechen fighters dug into the ruins of Grozny have managed to defend the city against ferocious assaults of some 60,000–80,000 Russian troops for the past month.

Russian generals claimed they would conquer Grozny two weeks ago. Russian forces are mercilessly pounding the city to rubble with massed batteries of heavy artillery and rocket launchers, as well as carpet–bombing and strikes by ground–attack aircraft and helicopter gunships. Forty thousand Chechen civilians are trapped in the city, cowering in shelters with little food or water.

Russia is violating all norms of warfare and numerous international conventions by making extensive use of fuel air explosives delivered by aircraft and rockets. These weapons release a fine mist of explosive fuel over a target, then detonate. The resulting blasts are of enormous destructive power second only to tactical nuclear weapons. All of the oxygen under the blast zone’s footprint — the size of a football-field — is burned up, sucking the air out of the lungs of victims. Devastating overpressure ruptures internal organs and kills anyone sheltering in basements or bunkers.

Grozny and most other Chechen towns have been blasted to ruins by fuel air and conventional explosives. The Russians have showered tens of thousands of anti–personnel mines in Chechnya’s mountainous south in an effort to seal the border with Georgia. Foreign journalists are being kept out of the war zone lest they report details of Russia’s latest slaughter of the rebellious Chechen. Almost all news on the conflict comes from Moscow’s propaganda organs, which keep repeating the mantra that Chechen are “Islamic terrorists” — where have we heard this before? — who must be “cleansed.”

Ironically, while the U.S. wrung its hands over the possible threat of terrorism during millennium celebrations, Russia was committing one of the worst acts of international terrorism of our era in Chechnya.

Washington issued a few tut-tuts over Russia’s brutal actions, but continued to back Moscow with diplomatic support and billions of cash.
As Russians poured shells on the Chechen for daring to seek independence from 300 year’s of brutal colonial rule by Moscow, President Bill Clinton actually described Russia’s siege of Grozny a “liberation.” The same Clinton hailed Yeltsin as “a Russian Abraham Lincoln” after his forces massacred 100,000 Chechen in 1994–96.

Why this nauseating sycophancy? Because Clinton agreed to give Moscow a free hand in Chechnya in exchange for Moscow allowing the U.S. to keep bashing away at Iraq. Clinton’s key financial backers want Iraq destroyed.

Meanwhile, bands of fierce Chechen fighters continue one of our era’s most heroic struggles. The courage of these mountain men is almost beyond comprehension. They are lightly armed, surrounded, low on munitions and supplies, hopelessly outnumbered 100-1, under constant bombardment … and forgotten.

Clinton has hailed the Putin regime as “new, democratic Russian leaders.” In fact, the Chekists and generals now running the Kremlin look very much like the old, brutal Soviet Russia, only this time less ideological and more efficiently ruthless.

(Reproduced from The Ottawa Sun, January 10, 2000. We are grateful to Asif and Ahmed Shaikh for drawing our attention to the above article. E-mail: as@alumni.indiana.edu)

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

Dalits demand justice, now

December 31, 1999

Dalit Rights activists release ‘Black Paper’, march to Parliament and submit 25 lakh signatures to PM; a ‘White Paper’ and ‘Ambedkar Decade’ demanded

“They say we are untouchables, let’s be untouchables by be coming live wire,” was the call given last week by minister for communications Ram Vilas Paswan to hundreds of Dalit activists who had converged upon Delhi for the release of the ‘Black Paper’ on the status of Dalit Human Rights, a report published by the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR).

The next day, on December 9, charged and electrified by the resounding rhythm of Dalit drummers and the rallying slogans of hundreds of Dalit activists who had marched with them from Mandi House to the Parliament, an NCDHR delegation met with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. They were accompanied in solidarity by Paswan, Ramdas Athawale, Member of Parliament, Bandaru Dattathreya, deputy minister for urban development, and Bangaru Lakshman, Member of Parliament.

Collectively, the group called upon the PM to implement the demands listed in the ‘Black Paper’, and to support the tabling of a ‘White Paper’ in Parliament on the actual condition of Dalits today and the performance of the Indian State since Independence in the area of Dalit Human Rights. They also urged him to declare the next decade as ‘Ambedkar Decade’ in order to implement the demands spelt out in the Black Paper’.

The ‘Black Paper’ is a severe indictment of the State for its denial of Dalit rights to livelihood, education, reservation and employment, land and labour, life and security, and gender equity for Dalit women. It is a well–researched document containing enormous data on the socio–economic situation of Dalits today.

Upon releasing the ‘Black Paper’ the previous day, Athawale, who is also secretary, SC/ST Parliamentarians’ Forum, called the ‘Black Paper’ the “announcement of our fight for human rights and social justice. The rights in the ‘Black Paper’ are very important. If we gain these rights no one in the world can oppress us.”

He made an urgent and vigorous call to implement ‘Black Paper’ demands, including lowering the ceiling limit in the Land Ceiling Act and implementing the reservation policy and compulsory and universal education. Citing ‘Black Paper’ statistics, which show that 2/3rds of Dalits are illiterate and primary school enrolment among Dalit children is only 16.2 per cent, Athawale called upon the government to provide free and compulsory education to Dalits at all levels and to launch a total literacy program for Dalits to be achieved in ten years.

The link between landlessness and atrocities, noted Athawale, needs to be crucially addressed by taking stringent measures against culprits who perpetrate atrocities and by distributing five acres of cultivable land to each Dalit household. 86 per cent of Dalit households are landless or near landless. That struggle for land is a root cause of atrocities against Dalits is evident in the killing of 277 Dalits in Bihar between August 1994 and February 1999 by the Ranavir Sena, a militia of upper-caste landlords. Almost all those killed were poor and landless agricultural labourers who had dared to demand land and minimum wages.

“We should demand land. If by asking we don’t get it, we should build up our strength to fight and get it,” exhorted Athawale. “What is of urgent importance, therefore, is that Dalits have to be militant. When we start insisting on our rights, there will be resistance, but we should not be afraid,” he added, while minister Paswan appealed to the Dalits to join others on social justice issues.

“Irrespective of the parties to which one belongs, the cause of Dalit rights should be our priority concern and commitment,” said Paswan.

Paswan, Athawale, the NCDHR delegates, along with Dr. Dattathreya and Lakshman took up many of these same demands and issues the next day in their meeting with the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister commented that untouchability was on the decline, the group cited numerous surveys from the ‘Black Paper’ which show that a large majority of villages in rural India still practice various and numerous forms of untouchability, including the two glass system in hotels, barring temple entry, and separate water sources. Also, almost 9 lakh Dalits in India today continue to earn their livelihood as manual scavengers, 15,000 of them in the national capital itself.

They went on to urge the PM to bring an amendment to Article 21, Part 3, Fundamental Rights, to ensure livelihood rights and the passage of the Basic Rights Agenda 2000 in the 13th Lok Sabha for the upliftment of Dalits.

Today, Dalits are denied even basic livelihood rights. Over 20 per cent of the community do not have access to safe drinking water, almost 50 per cent live below the poverty line, 70 per cent lack electricity, and 90 per cent lack sanitation. To ensure the livelihood rights to Dalits, the NCHDR calls for the allocation of 20 per cent of GDP and a 15 per cent annual income tax on the corporate sector.

For the protection of Dalit life and security, the campaign urged the Prime Minister to promote and enforce effective implementation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Rules, 1995. This would be further backed up by recruiting a proportional percentage of Dalits to different classes of the police force, providing arms and training for self–defence against the perpetrators of atrocities and violence, and establishing special courts at the Supreme Court and district levels to speedily try cases of atrocities and untouchability covered by the act.

Reiterating the necessity for continuing the reservation policy, Paswan emphasised the need for reservation in the judiciary and in promotion to all the services in the bureaucracy. He underlined the duty of the government to fill in all the Class I & II reserved posts that are currently being occupied by non–SC/STs. The backlog of SC/ST appointments is supposed to be enormous — around 10 lakhs in the Union Government Services, not to mention many more in different states.

The Prime Minister assured the group that he is committed to the empowerment of Dalits as has been forcefully stated in his party’s manifesto. Earlier in the week, Athawale had submitted to the Prime Minister a memorandum reiterating the demands of the NCDHR that had been signed by many other Dalit and pro–Dalit MPs.

Over 300 hundred Dalit women delegates also met on December 8 for a National Dalit Women’s Conference, the outcome of which was ‘The Dalit Women Declaration of Gender Rights and Demands’ to be presented to the Indian public and the government for immediate consideration and action.

(Press release dated December 14, 1999 of the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights).

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No, 55, Dalit Drishti 1

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

1...2,6832,6842,685...2,696 Page 2,684 of 2,696

Herr Haider, a new Hitler?

Myth of the Islamist threat to US

Of courage, caste and ‘Hindu cowardice’

Saffron babus in khaki shorts

Change for what?

Butchery in Chechnya

Dalits demand justice, now

Saffron shrouds YKJ 2000 in Gujarat

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT