Hey Ram, the Things the Financial Times Group Does!

Posted on September 4, 2009 by beenasarwar

From Counterpunch, Sept 2, 2009

Narendra Modi’s Fanatic Heart

By VIJAY PRASHAD

A city, burning
Smoke billowing through the holes
Spreading into every eye
Every dream.

Adil Mansuri (1936-2008).

Things are at a bad pass for the Indian far right. Its political party, the BJP, is in disarray. At their last “chintan baithak,” (introspection meeting) in Simla, the leadership went at each other for their poor showing in the general election earlier this year. Expulsion followed expulsion, as formerly revered men and women were found guilty of one kind of infraction or another. A book by a former head-man of the party, Jaswant Singh (one time foreign minister and close confidant of Strobe Talbott), on Pakistan’s “father of the nation” Mohammed Ali Jinnah provided the opportunity for more blood letting. Singh gave credence to what the history profession already knew (from Ayesha Jalal’s useful biography of Jinnah), which is that Jinnah was hardly the clownish bigot so carefully portrayed in Richard Attenborough’s Greatest Hits of Gandhi (1983). Singh was shown the door. The Hindu right cut its teeth singing songs against Jinnah. He was always the “bad Muslim.” There are not many “good Muslims” in the Hindu Right’s cosmos.

With Jaswant Singh went Sudheendra Kulkarni, onetime Leftist and journalist turned intellectual bagman for the Hindu Right’s leader, L. K. Advani. A few days later, another former journalist who had done so much to burnish the credentials of the Hindu Right, Arun Shourie, went apoplectic on a television show. He accused the rump leadership of ineffectiveness, and went so far as to quote Mao, asking the cadre to “bombard the headquarters.” In the party of the far right, a call to arms is not made lightly. The fellows often take the thinkers seriously. Fortunately, Shourie’s writ runs in the chattering classes alone, and they were too busy locking up the silver to rush out and throw candelabra at the BJP’s citadel. Shourie is the former Minister for Disinvestment, a surreal post whose portfolio was blocked by massive protests. He was discomforted by the current boss, Rajnath Singh, whom he called Alice in Blunderland. Nothing in the ideology of the far right came under criticism from him, or from others who were on the way out.

The RSS, which operates as a sort of Reichsleitung (party directorate) of the Hindu Right, hastily tried to take charge of the collapse of its parliamentary arm. Mohan Bhagwat, the Sarsangchalak or headman of the RSS, told a press conference that the BJP would “rise from the ashes,” an indication of how bad things had become for the movement. BJP leaders rushed to the RSS headquarters to get the blessings of Bhagwat and to prove their Saffron bonafides. Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi played a crucial role at the Simla introspection meeting. Some accused his prime ministerial ambitions of scuttling the BJP’s electoral chances in this go-around. Modi has a terrible reputation as an extremist of the far right, which gives pause to a population that was fortunately distracted by matters of the stomach to concentrate on jingoism. The murmurs of the BJP dissidents were not taken lightly. Modi is ambitious and has built a strong following among both the RSS and the party’s base. They like his clarity: no wavering from the hard right’s aversion to Muslims. Few contemporary politicians in India have their face on t-shirts. Modi is the far right’s Obama.

As all this transpired before the television cameras, the investigative moles of the Indian State gathered up their paperwork and went before various high and supreme courts, seeking permission to open an investigation against Modi. In April, Mrs. Zakia Jafri, whose husband Congress Member of Parliament Ahsan Jafri was killed in cold blood during the pogrom of 2002, and human rights activist Teesta Setalvad moved the Supreme Court to investigate the Modi government. In June, the Court ordered the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to “take steps as required by Law.” The wheels of justice had finally been wiped of their rust. The BJP tried to stop the process in the Gujarat High Court, but the state court declined and moved the SIT to continue its work (which would include the registration of a First Information Report against those whom it would accuse, including, perhaps the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi). There is ample evidence of Modi’s role in that pogrom, engineered as it was by his state apparatus and party (Human Rights Watch has a very clear report on this, chillingly called We Have No Orders to Save You, 2002). Two thousand people were killed in this state-engineered campaign. A virtuous police officer, Rahul Sharma, at the Ahmedabad police control room taped the calls coming from local Hindu right leaders to the Chief Ministers’ office during the heat of the riot. Modi is said to have egged them on. Now the government has finally taken notice. The boiling oil of legality was set to pour on Modi.

To divert attention from all this, Modi went ahead and banned the book on Jinnah written by his erstwhile comrade-in-arms (or put together by him; my teacher, C. M. Naim wrote a piece in the Indian Express showing several instances of plagiarism). Once expelled from the BJP, Jaswant Singh has let loose. He revealed that after the Gujarat pogrom some in the BJP leadership wanted to remove Modi. They were overruled at that time. Modi had too much support in the party, and besides his views had been given credence by the BJP’s then leader, Atal Bihari Vajpayee (on April 12, 2002, when the pogroms fires had only just begun to simmer, Vajpayee told a gathering in Goa, that Muslims, all Muslims, “tend not to live in co-existence with others, not to mingle with others, and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats” – this is the sort of rude ideology of the far right, shared by its most eloquent and well-regarded leader, Vajpayee). Singh tried to hide behind Vajpayee in this, saying that the grand old leader had been distressed by the Gujarat massacres. No such evidence was given in public. At any rate, Singh’s breach of faith could not be tolerated. Modi struck back by banning the book in his state. The Supreme Court stepped in to prevent the banning, just as the RSS chief Bhagwat is to be in Gujarat to discuss the book and the fallout with Modi. The nadir for Modi is on the horizon.

Personality of the Year

Then comes FDI magazine, a five year old publication devoted to foreign direct investment and owned by the Financial Times’s parent company, the Pearson Group. Its editor, Courtney Fingar points out that her magazine investigates “issues that concern foreign investors,” talks to “leading corporate executives and government leaders” and highlights “the many opportunities and risks that await investors around the world.” It is a classic corporate magazine, little of interest to the general reader, a pretence of real journalism when it is actually filled with corporate and governmental press releases transcribed into better English. For that, FDI provides a real service.

As part of the press release culture, FDI picked Narendra Modi as the Asian Personality of 2009, citing in particular that he had attracted $2.8 billion in foreign direct investment to Gujarat (10.3% of the total FDI coming into India). This was in late August, just as the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan in the chief minister’s Gandhinagar residence. The FDI tribute was a boon to Modi. It was a nice way to take the spotlight off the 2002 investigations. The magazine is either ignorant of Modi’s checkered career, or else some mischief is afoot. It is probably the former. After all, in a manner of speaking, Modi makes the trains run on time.

What is remarkable about this award is that the Financial Times, the flagship of the Group, itself took Modi to pieces after the pogrom. Edward Luce, who was then the FT’s man in India and later wrote a very thoughtful book about India (In Spite of the Gods: the strange rise of India, 2007), put his case in a long piece on July 4, 2003 called “Faith, Caste and Poverty.” Luce didn’t hold back. When the BJP began its ascent in 1990, its leader L. K. Advani went on a national tour to garner support. Modi was his Gujarat man, and when Advani sailed through the state, Modi ran the organization, which included “a trail of anti-Muslim violence wherever [Advani’s cavalcade] went.” Calling Modi “India’s most hardline Hindu nationalist,” Luce described the 2002 pogrom which took the lives of 2000 Muslims and which cleansed Ahmedabad of 800,000 Muslim residents. “The riots followed a ruthlessly well-organized pattern,” Luce continued, “Armed with electoral rolls, mobs moved from one Muslim locality to another.” He quoted from Dr. Hanif Lakdawala, “They raped the women and the children. Then they poured kerosene down their throats and set them on fire. Their male relatives were forced to watch. Afterwards they were killed as well.” The police stood down. So did the other arms of the State. Luce went and interviewed Modi. When asked about the riots and the refugees, he prevaricated: “Your question is very loaded,” or “That is a myth peddled by vested interests,” or indeed, “Your question is factually incorrect.”

Courtney Fingar- fDi publicity photo

Courtney Fingar- fDi publicity photo

Courtney Fingar could have read this article on the FT’s website, where it is easily available, or else read the section in Luce’s book called “The Imaginary Horse.” It would have been instructive. She might even have run a quick google search and discovered that this is not yesterday’s news, but that the SIT investigation is set to go ahead and revisit the events that Luce so vividly described in the FT. Modi was denied a visa to enter the United States in 2005. This is remarkable, given how licentious the State Department is with visas to mass murderers who are otherwise given over to neoliberal capitalism. When Modi wanted to visit the US once more in 2008, the US Commission on Religious Freedom put the kibosh on the visit. He withdrew his application. It says a lot about the degeneration of standards at a magazine owned by a mainstream media conglomerate, with all the resources at its disposal, that it still wants to associate itself with a man widely regarded as responsible for leading the destruction of Gujarati society.

Then there is the small matter of how magazines like FDI calculate foreign direct investment. They typically look at the Memorandums of Understanding, which are often signed with a lot of hoopla and are not always acted upon. In fact, the MoUs signed by the government of Gujarat have only been acted upon 21% of the time (and a significant number of MoUs are written between government agencies). Modi likes to talk big about Gujarat’s economic development. Robert Kaplan did a cozy interview with him for the Atlantic Monthly (“India’s New Face,” April 2009) in which he did not deviate from the script. Kaplan went over the complaints about Modi, the comparisons with Hitler for example, and concluded, that Modi is really “part CEO with prodigious management abilities, part rabble-rouser with a fierce ideological following.” Modi wanted to talk about development, ducking questions about the 2002 riots. Kaplan ends his piece hoping that this “managerial genius” would pull it together, get rid of the extremism and inhabit his business side. But Luce had questioned that earlier, pointing out that Modi is not responsible for Gujarat’s take-off in the early 1990s. He simply took credit for it.

A few years ago, journalists Dionne Bunsha (for Frontline) and Salil Tripathi (for The Mint) went over the economic evidence and concluded, independently, that Modi is bad for business. In 1995, Gujarat drew in 14.5% of all foreign investment coming into India. Modi became Chief Minister in 2001. In 2002, the rate of investment dropped to 8.78% and then by 2005 it went to 7.67%. Tripathi joined Luce’s doubts, writing, “The sobering reality is that Gujarat had the lead in 1995 which it lost after the [2002] violence, and is trying to regain its erstwhile pre-eminent position. The fundamentals to attract investments-industrial peace, great infrastructure and ancillary industries-preceded Modi’s tenure. The Narmada dams were already under construction, workers polished diamonds in Palanpur, petrochemicals and cars were made in Vadodara, milk flowed from Anand, yarn churned out in Hazira and a refinery was being built in Jamnagar, much before Modi took office. Gujarat’s rural prosperity is substantially, though not entirely, due to significant remittances from overseas Gujaratis.” Human development figures for Gujarat are abysmal, with little improvement during Modi’s tenure.

Even the business community recognized this. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) offered its complaints in 2002. Three CEOs, Airfreight’s Cyrus Guzder, HDFC’s Deepak Parekh and Thermax’s Anu Agha went public with their criticisms. But hastily Gujarat’s business community stood behind Modi, afraid, in many ways, that any less than this would put them into a difficult position. At a Confederation meeting in 2003, historian Jairus Banaji questioned Modi for his blather on corporate governance, when justice was denied to the Muslims of Gujarat. “Why does the CII give credibility to a politician who has blood on his hands,” Banaji asked. When others wanted Banaji thrown out of the gala, Modi stopped them. He offered his defense and then, in speaking of the transparency in his state, smirked, “An individual can check where his file is taking a rest.” The barons of Indian industry smiled and apologized to Modi. In October 2002, a few industrialists formed the Group of American Businesses in Gujarat to promote their interests. Industry Minister Suresh Mehta addressed the founding meeting of this group, created to “re-brand” Gujarat after the 2002 pogrom. “Some doubts have been created in foreign countries,” said Mehta, as the group’s Vice Chairman Kaushal Mehta (CEO of Motif) noted, that industrialists would have to “create brand awareness about Gujarat in US.” FDI magazine has helped the Group of American Businesses in Gujarat “rebrand” Modi.

The head of the Pearson Group, which owns the Financial Times and FDI is Dame Marjorie Scardino. She also sits on the board of the MacArthur Foundation, which is devoted to peace and security. Mira Kamdar and I drafted a letter to her, asking her to act against this atrocity. I’m sure Edward Luce feels the same way as us, and certainly much of the newsroom of the Financial Times must be appalled. Hundreds of people have signed on to the letter which we sent to Dame Scardino. Modi thrives on this kind of naïve publicity. He must not be allowed to get away with it. Within a few hours of the email campaign and our letter to Dame Scardino, we got an email from Courtney Fingar. The FDI has found a way to nuzzle out of a fix. They now say that “the criteria of the award has always remained focused on rewarding a region in attracting foreign investment.” This could not have been all that clear, because Fingar also wrote, “FDI has also decided to highlight the geographic regions of all the other winners.” Now Gujarat will get the award, not Modi. This is something. But not enough. Modi will still take credit for this. He should not be allowed to do so.

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His new book is The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World,New York: The New Press, 2007, which was chosen for the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Award, 2009. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu


Filed under: Communalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

fDi award to Modi going to ‘Gujarat’ instead – Anand’s response

Posted on September 2, 2009 by beenasarwar

Thanks to Vijay Prashad for the use of this graphic

Thanks to Vijay Prashad for the use of this graphic

Thanks to all those who sent in their protests against  the ‘Asian Personality of the Year 2009’ award being given by fDi magazine (a subsidiary of Financial Times) to Narendra Modi. This was a minor victory – offset by the magazine’s decision to give award the ‘state of Gujarat’. This is problematic because the period they are awarding Gujarat for includes the 2002 carnage. In addition, Modi, as Chief Minister, will probably still be the person to receive the award.

Below:
1. Mumbai-based filmmaker Anand Patwardhan’s response to fDi’s change of stance
2. fDi editor Courtney Fingar’s form letter emailed to all those who wrote in to register their protest
3. Vijay Prashad’s press release and compilation of signatures
1. From Anand Patwardhan, Sept 2, 2009:
To Courtney.Fingar@FT.Com
Dear Ms. Fingar

While it may appear to some as a minor relief that you have taken cognizance of the public outcry against the genocide-perpetrating Narendra Modi and decided to give your award to the Gujarat government instead, until such time as Mr. Modi remains the Chief Minister of Gujarat, this is only a cosmetic change.

Would you have felt comfortable giving such a prize to Adolph Hitler in the case that he had invited foreign investment in his dream projects, some of which did actually help in the industrialization of Germany? And if people had protested in time, would you then have given your award to the Third Reich instead?

It is not too late to correct this grave error. If you cancel this award altogether you will not only have a clear conscience, you will also save yourself considerable embarassment and the effort it takes to find arguments to reply to people like me.

Anand Patwardhan

Courtney Fingar- fDi publicity photo

Courtney Fingar- fDi publicity photo

2. From fDi editor Courtney Fingar to those who wrote in to protest the ‘Asian Personality of the Year 2009’ award to Modi:

Thank you for your email and for sharing your views with us — please know that they have been taken onboard.

Following a review prompted by the ongoing investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots, fDi has decided to present its award to Gujarat state, rather than Mr Narendra Modi, the state’s chief minister.

fDi would like to clarify that the criteria of the award has always remained focused on rewarding the success of a region in attracting foreign investment.

The award is in recognition of Gujarat state’s ability to attract an outstanding volume of inward foreign investment. Gujarat increased that volume by more than 50% over the past year for a total of 10.3% of all foreign investment into India.

Mr Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time of the riots. Mr Modi’s alleged role in connection to the riots is under investigation but he denies any responsibility.

fDi has also decided to highlight the geographic regions of all the other winners. The magazine is keen to maintain its primary focus on reporting on the effectiveness of different economic regions and rewarding innovative and effective promotional strategies.

Courtney Fingar
Editor
fDi – Foreign Direct Investment
Financial Times Business
http://www.fdimagazine.com

3. Press Release from activists, September 1, 2009.

When we heard that FDI magazine had chosen Narendra Modi, CM of Gujarat, as Asian Personality of the Year 2009, we were shocked. FDI is run by the Financial Times, whose reporter, Edward Luce covered the aftermath of the Gujarat riots of 2002, and had a very strong condemnation of Mr. Modi in the paper. The Special Investigative Team is getting ready to investigate Mr. Modi as we write this press release. And yet, this publicity. We hastily drafted the letter below, and asked our friends to sign. Before we knew it, hundreds of people sent us notes of support. We have a number of their names below, but there are more. Of those who have signed, there are several luminaries. Well-known academics such as Arjun Appadurai, Gayatri Chakrovarty Spivak, David Ludden, Sheldon Pollock and Sanjay Subrahmanyum. Well regarded artists such as Anand Patwardhan, Meena Alexander and Mallika Sarabhai. Human rights activists such as Teesta Setalvad and Rasheed Ahmed. Journalists such as Beena Sarwar and Amit Sengupta. These are just a few of the people who signed on.

Our letter was sent to Dame Marjorie Scardino, who is the head of the Pearson Group, which owns the Financial Times and the FDI. We hope to hear from her soon.

If you have any further questions, please write to vprashad@trincoll.edu.

Mira Kamdar
Vijay Prashad.

——————

Dear Marjorie Scardino,

We are writing to inform you of what we consider a shocking action taken by one of the publications under the Pearson Group umbrella, an action that begs for your attention. The magazine FDI, of the Financial Times Group, has selected Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat as its Asian Personality of the Year (2009). This award gives Mr. Modi, whose human rights’ reputation is most troubling, a huge boost of legitimacy where he deserves none. We thought it important that you, as Chief Executive Officer of Pearson Group and as someone associated with organizations that work hard to promote peace and security, including the MacArthur Foundation, know of the damage to FDI’s credibility, and thus to the Pearson Group, this award has caused.

India’s National Commission on Human Rights as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have demonstrated the responsibility of Mr. Modi and the government he continues to head for a pogrom against Muslim citizens in his state in 2002 that left some 2,000 men, women and children dead and several hundred thousand citizens homeless. (See the Human Rights Watch report “We Have No Orders to Save You” http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/04/30/we-have-no-orders-save-you). On the basis of these and other reports, the U. S. government denied Mr. Modi a visa to visit the United States in 2005. The United States Commission on Religious Freedom subsequently recommended that he be denied a visa when he applied for one again in 2008, at which point Mr. Modi withdrew his application.

Furthermore, Mr. Modi and key members of his administration are under active current investigation by India’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of India’s Supreme Court for criminal charges relating to his direct responsibility for killings perpetrated during the 2002 pogrom. Here is link to an article in the Times of India from July 29, 2009 reporting that Mr. Modi’s petition requesting a stay on the investigation: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/SIT-free-to-quiz-Modi-in-post-Godhra-riots-case-HC/articleshow/4815592.cms. A simple web search will demonstrate that the ongoing investigation into Mr. Modi’s role has been widely reported in the Indian press. It is astounding that FDI magazine had no knowledge of Mr. Modi’s current legal woes in India, or, if it had knowledge, decided to confer the award upon him anyway.

In terms of Mr. Modi’s financial leadership, FDI magazine seems to have missed the many stories that show how despite the consistently high claims about foreign direct investment into Gujarat, the economy has failed to deliver any significant improvement in the lives of the majority of the people who live there. From 1996 to 2006, despite all the hullabaloo about the economic miracle Modi engineered, Gujarat’s position in India’s human development index actually fell in the categories of education, health, child mortality, infant mortality and in the weight of children. Moreover, and this is relevant to the award, the 2002 pogrom led by Modi had a direct effect on investment in Gujarat, which fell from 14.45% of all investment capital in 1995 to 8.78% in 2002, and by 2005 to 7.67%. In addition, one should bear in mind that less than 21% of the memoranda of understanding signed by the Modi government have been acted upon. Writing in Mint, the Wall Street Journal’s publication in India, Salil Tripathi notes: “It is odd, therefore, to credit Modi with Gujarat’s vibrancy. And it is hard not to blame his government for the colossal failure to protect civilians during the anti-Muslim violence in 2002.” The entire piece bears reading: http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/21220308/The-real-Modi-story.html

Given the above, we are naturally stunned with FDI’s decision to confer upon Narendra Modi, of all people, the Asian Personality of the Year award of 2009.

We are fully confident that you had no role in this decision. But we hope that you will, in your capacity as CEO of the Pearson Group and as someone whose presence on the board of the MacArthur Foundation indicates you to be someone dedicated to high ethical standards, take immediate action to insure that this award is rescinded and a public statement of regret is made by the responsible publication.

Sincerely,

Mira Kamdar, Author, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute, New York
Vijay Prashad, Professor, Trinity College

cc. Robert Galluchi, President, MacArthur Foundation.

The list of signatories to this letter is below:

Abha Sur, Professor, MIT
Aditya Nigam, Centre for the Study of Developing Studies.
Akhil Gupta, Professor, UCLA.
Adley Siddiqi.
Adrien Rebello.
Ajay Skaria, Professor, University of Minnesota.
Ajit Saldanha.
Ali Kazimi, Film maker, Professor, York University, Toronto.
Alliance for South Asians Taking Action, San Francisco.
Allwyn D’Souza.
Ameena Saiyid, Oxford University Press, Karachi
Amit Sengupta, Hard News, New Delhi.
Amitayu Sengupta.
Anand Patwardhan, Filmmaker.
Angana Chatterji, Professor, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Anirvan Chatterjee, Founder, Bookfinder.com [an Amazon.com company]
Ammu Abraham, Feminist and anti-communal activist, Mumbai.
Amrit Wilson, South Asia Solidarity Group, London
Anne Murphy, University of British Columbia.
Anu Mandavilli, San Jose Peace and Justice Center, CA.
Arindam Datta, Associate Professor, MIT.
Asad Jamal, Advocate, Lahore.
Ashwini Hardikar
Ashwini Tambe, Professor, University of Toronto.
Badri Raina, Professor, University of Delhi.
Balmurli Natarajan, Assistant Professor, William Paterson University.
Beena Sarwar, journalist, Karachi, Pakistan.
Bindu T. Desai, neurologist.
Amrita Dhillon, University of Warwick, UK.
Anchita Ghatak.
Andy Nazareth, Bangalore.
Anirudh.
Anju Lavina.
Anuja Gupta.
Arjun Appadurai, Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University.
Arvind Gopal.
Asad Hussain.
Asad Jamal, Advocate, Lahore.
Ashutosh Singh.
Ashwini Rao.
Barbara Foley, Professor, Rutgers University.
Biju Mathew, Professor, Rider University.
Bipin Trivedi.
Bishakha Datta, Executive Director, Point of View, Mumbai.
Brajesh Satya.
Carl W. Ernst, William R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, UNC, Chapel Hill.
Caterina Guenzi, Researcher South Asian Studies, Paris.
Chinmoy Banerjee, SANSAD, Vancouver.
Chukka Srinivas.
Clarissa D’Lima.
Clive Nihal D’Lima.
Col. (Retd.) Dr. M.J. Shamsi, Lucknow.
Corinne Lefevre, EHESS, Paris.
Cyril D’Lima
David Lloyd, Professor, University of Southern California.
Daya Varma, Professor, McGill University, Montreal.
Deepti Misri, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Douglas Haynes, Professor, Dartmouth College.
Dr. Anees Ahmad, Associate Professor, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
David Ludden, Professor, New York University.
Devaki Singh
Devaki Singh.
Dolphy D’souza.
Douglas E Haynes, Dartmouth College
Howard Spodek, Temple University
Ghanshyam Shah.
Dr. A. R. Mookhi
Dr. Wasim Khan, Network of Progressive Muslims.
Durba Ghosh, Professor, Cornell University.
Elisabeth Armstrong, Associate Professor, Smith College.
Fatima S. Alloo, UC Davis.
Felix Padel.
Firoz Vohra, Chicago.
Fr. Cedric Prakash, Director, Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace, Ahmedabad.
Fredric Landy, University of Paris X, CEIAS, CNRS-EHESS, Paris
Garga Chatterjee, Harvard University.
Gautam Babbar, New Delhi.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University.
Gopika Solanki, Carleton University.
Hari Sharma, SANSAD.
Howard Spodek, Temple University.
Hyder Khan, MD.
Imteyaz Ahmad.
Indranil, ANWESHAN, New Delhi.
Irfan Engineer, Director, Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Mumbai, India.
J. Manjrekar, Baroda, India.
Jehangir Merwanji.
John Demmery Green, Canada.
John Ishvaradas Abdallah, World Without Borders.
Justin Podur, York University.
Kamayani Bali-Mahabal, Human Rights Activist, India.
Kanishka Goonewardena, Associate Professor, University of Toronto.
Karthik Ramanathan.
Kasim Salt, Chennai.
Kasturi Ray, Assistant Professor, San Francisco State University.
Kavita Philip, Professor, UC Irvine.
Khalid Azam, IMC.
Kushru Misstry.
Lalit Batra, CUNY.
Lalit Vachani, Filmmaker.
Leena Ganesh, Researcher, Architect, Activist.
Leya Perpetua D’Souza, Bahrain.
M. V. Ramana, Princeton University.
Manu Bhagavan, Assistant Professor, CUNY.
Marika Vicziany, Professor, Monash University.
Mario D’Penha, Rutgers University.
Mehru Jaffer, Writer.
Milan Moudgill.
Minal Hajratwala, author, Leaving India.
Minni Menon.
Mitu Sengupta, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University.
Nadeem Akhtar.
Nandini Majrekar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Nasir Abid.
Nasr Sadruddin.
Eric P. Meyer, INALCO, Paris
Erwin Lazrado, Gujarat.
Faisal Hussain.
Fauzia Minallah, Artist.
Feroze Mithiborwala.
Firoz Vohra, Chicago.
Gopika Solanki, Carleton University.
Hasan Kazi, Schaumburg, Illinois.
Hussein Tayabbhai.
Imteyaz Ahmad.
Ines Zupanov, CNRS, CEIAS-EHESS, Paris.
Iqbal Akhtar.
Irfan Engineer, Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Mumbai
Isobel Nazareth, Bangalore.
J. Manjrekar, Baroda.
J. S. Bandukwala.
Jaffer Ahmed
Jagdish Parikh.
Janaki Andharia.
Jaswant Krishnayya, Systems Research Institute, Pune.
Javed Iqbal.
Jayati Vohra.
Jesse Knutson, University of Chicago
Jyoti Gulati
Jyoti Punwani.
Kabi.
Kadeeja Arif, BBC World Service, New Delhi.
Kalim Irfani.
Kamani Bali-Mahabal, Human Rights Activist
Neville Lobo
Kanika Satyanand, New Delhi.
Kedar Satyanand, New Delhi.
Khozema Mohamed.
Krishna Satyanand, New Delhi.
Kulamarva Balakrishna, Vienna
Kunda Pramila Nilakantha, People’s Media Intiatives, Mumbai
Kushru Misstry.
Laila Halani, Institute of Ismaili Studies, London.
Lena Ganesh, Researcher, Architect, Activist
Lynette Gomes.
Lynette Viegas.
M. Usman Baki.
Mallika Sarabhai, President, Darpana
Mariamma Michael.
Marie Fourcade, EHESS, Paris.
Marika Vicziany, Monash University.
Marina Budhos, Author, Assistant Professor, William Paterson University.
Mary Ganguli.
Masud Sheikh
Mathilde Damoisel, Documentary Film Maker, Paris.
Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor, CUNY.
Milan Moudgill
Jacques Pourchepadass, CNRS/EHESS, Paris
Moazzam Siddiqi.
Mohit Satyanand, Chairman Board of Trustees, Liberty Institute, New Delhi.
Mona Alam Sheikh.
Mona Karim, MD, Morristown, New Jersey.
Mriganka Sur, Professor, MIT.
Mrinalini Sharma.
Nagesh Rao, Assistant Professor, College of New Jersey.
Najia Alavi.
Najid Hussain, Son-in-Law, M.P. Ahsan Jafri, murdered in 2002 genocide, USA.
Nalini Vishvanathan, Silver Springs, MD.
Nancy Lobo.
Nasir Abid.
Nataniel Roberts, USA.
Naveen Qayyum, Thailand.
Nazia Kazi, CUNY.
Neelanjana Mukhia.
Neville Lobo.
Nida Kirmani
Nikhil Aziz, Grassroots International.
Nishaant Choksi, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Nivedita Menon, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India.
Noreen Celine D’Lima.
Nurul Kabir, Cambridge.
Nuzhat Kidvai, Teacher, Karachi, Pakistan.
Omar Ali, Assistant Professor, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Omar Khalidi, Professor, MIT.
Onaiza.
PA Nazareth, Bangalore.
Padma.
Pamposh Dhar
Pankaj Shah.
Pankil Shah.
Patricia Uberoi, Professor, Centre for Developing Societies, Delhi.
Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, UMASS, Amherst.
Pei Wu, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Philomin Raj, Advocate, Madurai.
Pierre Lachaier, École Française d’Extrême Orient, Paris.
Pierre Rousset, ESSF, France.
Poornima C. V.
Porrna.
Prachi Patankar, South Asia Solidarity Initiative.
Prathim Maya Dora Laskey.
Pratima Narayan Chabbi, Southern University of Illinois.
Premila Nazareth Satyanand, New Delhi.
Prerana Reddy, Director, NY Arab & South Asian Film Festival.
Priyadarshini Ghosh.
Puja.
Purnima Mankekar, Associate Professor, UCLA.
Radhika Chandiramani.
Rahul Roy, Filmmaker.
Rajagopal, Researcher, Chennai.
Rajeev
Rajeev Talwar
Rajesh Mishra, Arch Vahini, Gujarat.
Raju Rajagopal, Kuala Lumpur.
Ramki Ramakrishnan, Tiruvanathapuram.
Ranjan Pal, Director, Intercedent Asia.
Rasheed Ahmed, President, Indian Muslim Council, USA.
Raza Mir, Professor, William Paterson University.
Rita Kothari.
Ritty Luokse, Associate Professor, New York University.
Rohit Barot.
Rudolf C. Heredia, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.
Rukmani Ramani, MSSRF, Chennai, India.
Rummana Fakih.
Rupa Viswanath, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania.
Rishab Malik.
Rita Kothari, MICA, Ahmedabad.
Robin A. F.Viegas.
Rohan D’Souza, Professor, JNU.
Rohini Hensman.
Rohit Barot, Bristol University
Rohit Prajapati.
Ruchi Chaturvedi, Assistant Professor, Hunter College, CUNY, New York.
Ruchi Shroff.
Rudolf C. Heredia, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi
Rummana Fakih.
Rupal Oza.
Ruth D’Souza, management consultant.
Saachi Bhalla.
Saadia Toor, Assistant Professor, CUNY.
Saba Dewan, Filmmaker.
Sabeen Mahmud, Director, PeaceNiche, Karachi.
Sadanand Nanjundiah, Professor, Central Connecticut State University.
Sahar Shafqat, Associate Professor, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Sandeep Vaidya, India Support Group, Dublin, Ireland.
Sangay Mishra, Drew University.
Sangeeta Kamat, Professor, UMASS-Amherst.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Professor, UCLA.
Sanjna Singh, Producer/Director, Out of Status.
SANSAD.
Sapna Gupta, Paris, France.
Sayan Bhattacharyya, Ann Arbor, MI.
Shabab Danish, Angelique International, India.
Shahed (Robin) Khundkar, Huntington Beach, Ca.
Shahid Ali, M. D.
Shalini Gera, Hayward, CA.
Shashwati Talukdar, filmmaker.
Shazia Hashmi.
Shishir K. Jha, Professor, IIT Bombay.
Saibal Chatterjee, Film Critic and Writer, New Delhi.
Sam Merchant.
Sameera Khan, Journalist, Mumbai, India.
Samir Sur, Professor, Boston University Medical School.
Samira Sheikh, Vanderbilt University.
Sandipan Dhar.
Sankaranarayan, Bhubaneswar.
Shabab Danish, Angelique International, Delhi.
Shabnum Tejani, SOAS.
Sheldon Pollack, Ransford Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University.
Shyam Bahadur Namra.
Siddhartha Kaundinya
Simona Sawhney, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota.
Snehal Shingavi, Assistant Professor, University of Texas.
South Asia Solidarity Initiative, New York.
Sreekala MG
Sriram Ananth, Editorial Board Member, Elaan.
Srirupa Roy, Associate Professor, UMASS Amherst.
Subhanil Chowdhury, ICRIER, New Delhi.
Sujani Reddy, Professor, Amherst College.
Sukla Sen, EKTA, Mumbai
Sunil Deshmukh, Miami, Florida.
Sunita S. Mukhi, Director, Wang Centre, SUNY Stony Brook.
Swastika Ghosh.
Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace.
Thomas Bärthlein, Deputy Head of South Asia Service, DW-Radio, Bonn, Germany.
Thomas Bärthlein, South Asia Service, DW-Radio/ DW-World, Bonn.
Tina Shrestha, Cornell University.
Umber Khairi, Journalist.
Usman Kazi
Uttara Rajgopal
Uttara Shidore.
Venkatesh Athreya, Professor, Chennai.
Veronica Fernandes
Veronique Benei, Professor, London School of Economics, London.
Véronique Dupont, IRD, Paris.
Victor Edwin, University of Birmingham.
Vinay Gidwani, Professor, The Graduate Center, CUNY.
Vinay Lal, Professor, UCLA.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Professor, UC-Irvine.
Vinod Mubayi, New York.
Vipool Kalyani, Editor, Opinion, London.
Vrijendra.
Walter Fernandes, Director, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Assam, India.
Waquar Ahmed, Professor, Mt. Holyoke College.
Wasim Khan, MD, MPH.
Yasmeen Lari.
Zafar Iqbal, Washington, DC.
Zafar Iqbal.
Zafar Siddiqui, Minnesota.
Zafar Siddiqui.
Zainah Mustansir
Zubin Shroff

Filed under: Communalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Stop ‘Financial Times’ award to Narendra Modi

Posted on August 31, 2009 by beenasarwar
images Sharing here an email from Shabnam Hashmi in New Delhi. Please write to Financial  Times and the British High Commission in Delhi to  protest the FT award to the ‘butcher of Gujarat’, and ask your friends to also do this. Thank you.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Communalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

Asif Ali Zardari – another perspective

Posted on August 31, 2009 by beenasarwar
Image from Pak Teahouse where the post was also shared (and drew some thoughtful comments)

Image from Pak Teahouse where the post was also shared (and drew some thoughtful comments)

The confessions of Brig Imtiaz have forced other intelligence officers to admit their role in destroying democracy in Pakistan, and establishing that Zardari’s name has been trashed for about 20 years to force Benazir Bhutto out of politics and to destroy the credibility of Pakistan People’s Party, writes Bilal Qureshi in his article Asif Ali Zardari – President of Pakistan, posted at the blog he edits Pakistan Foreign Policy.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

‘Jinnah’s Secularism: A Hindu wrote Pak’s first national anthem’

Posted on August 30, 2009 by beenasarwar
Photo of Jagannath Azad in PIA's 'Hamsafar', Aug 2009

Photo of Jagannath Azad in PIA’s ‘Hamsafar’, Aug 2009

I first learnt about Pakistan’s original national anthem, especially commissioned by Mr Jinnah from the poet Jaganath Azad of Lahore, in ‘Hamsafar‘, Pakistan International Airlines’ monthly magazine in its August issue when flying back to Karachi from Lahore on Aug 9. This national anthem lasted only until a few months after Mr Jinnah’s death – after which his successors commissioned a more Persianised one that Hafeez Jullandari wrote. Please note, you would never have read this in any official literature a couple of years ago, ‘enlightened moderation’ notwithstanding. Continue reading →

Filed under: History | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Jinnah revisited, thank you Jaswant Singh

Posted on August 30, 2009 by beenasarwar

Scan from PIA's 'Hamsafar', Aug 2009 issue with postage stamp featuring Azad

Scan from PIA's 'Hamsafar', Aug 2009 issue, with Azad's lyrics and a picture of the postage stamp featuring Hafeez Jullandari whose lyrics later became Pakistan's national anthem.

I first learnt about Pakistan’s original national anthem, especially commissioned by Mr Jinnah from the poet  Jaganath Azad of Lahore, in ‘Hamsafar‘, Pakistan International Airlines’ monthly magazine in its  August issue when flying back from Lahore on Aug 9. (Please note, no official literature would have carried this information a couple of years ago, enlightened moderation notwithstanding)

This national anthem lasted only until Mr Jinnah’s death – after which his successors commissioned a more Persianised one that Hafeez Jullandari wrote. A subsequent article in The Kashmir Times, confirmed this startling (for me) information, Jinnah’s Secularism: A Hindu wrote Pak’s first national anthem.

Note: Just learnt that Zaheer A. Kidvai talked about this in his blogpost of May 03, 2009,Windmills of my mind – ‘A Tale of Two Anthems’, thanks Zak)

Here’s my article on the Jaswant Singh-Jinnah controversy, published in Hardnews, New Delhi (Sept issue), and The News on Sunday,Pakistan.

Jinnah revisited, thank you Jaswant Singh

How did Mohammad Ali Jinnah — the ‘architect of Hindu-Muslim unity’ — end up founding a ‘Muslim country’?

By Beena Sarwar

Generations have grown up in India and in Pakistan fed on distorted versions of history. Attempts to counter these versions don’t go down too well at home, as Jaswant Singh found when he challenged the Indian version that lays the entire blame for the Partition on the shoulders of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, ignoring the parts played by Nehru, the Congress and the British.

Ironically, while eulogising the country’s founder as the Quaid-e-Azam or Great Leader, Pakistan has also censored him, sweeping aside his guiding principles, secularism and insistence on justice and constitutionalism. Similarly, in I

ndia Mahatma Gandhi is eulogised while his guiding principles and insistence on non-violence are made increasingly irrelevant.

Each side conveniently forgets the extremisms of its dominant faith. Hindu extremism existed well before 1947 (remember who killed Gandhi) as did Muslim extremism, particularly since 1857, when the British drove a wedge between the two religious communities. Both continue to feed off each other.

Official textbooks, policies or public discourse ignore the findings of scholars like Mubarik Ali, Ayesha Jalal and K.K. Aziz in Pakistan, and Romila Thapar, K.N. Panikkar and Sumit Sarkar in India whose work is based on solid research and facts rather than emotive myths. There is no official support for a joint history project.

Jaswant Singh’s latest work on Jinnah had not hit the Pakistani bookstalls at the time of writing. But from reported and televised statements and published extracts his thesis appears to be similar to Ayesha Jalal’s seminal work The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 1985).

The controversy arises not from what Singh has written but from who he is: a founding member of the BJP, a party that has long attempted to communalise or saffronise India’s history. Given this agenda, what is surprising that not that the BJP sacked him or that the Gujarat government banned his book, but that Singh did not expect this. After all, he is not the first BJP leader to acknowledge Jinnah as secular — L.K. Advani did that during his groundbreaking June 2005 visit to his birthplace Karachi. The BJP didn’t go as far as expelling him, but he did have to resign as party head.

In Pakistan, this pettiness triggers off a puerile satisfaction that ‘their’ communal-mindedness has been exposed, for all ‘their’ posturing on democracy. But then, as some Pakistani newspaper columnists and editorials have commented, no one here (let alone from among ‘our’ right-wing nationalists, the BJP’s counterparts), is likely to embark on similar research on an Indian leader.

We know that Jinnah was an unlikely contender for a ‘Muslim leader’. But in Pakistan, there will be no public mention of his non-fasting during Ramzan or ignorance about the Muslim prayer. Jinnah’s marriage to the Zoroastrian Rati Petit is similarly glossed over. Jinnah joined Congress in 1906, remained a member after joining the All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1913, and brokered the Congress-League Lucknow Pact of 1916. Ever the constitutionalist, he played a key role in the formation of the All India Home Rule League pushing for India’s recognition as a British dominion, like Ireland or New Zealand. How did this ‘architect of Hindu-Muslim unity’, as Sarojini Naidu termed him, end up founding a ‘Muslim country’?

Jinnah’s differences with the Congress developed after the arrival on the scene of the populist M.K. Gandhi, coincidentally also a Guajarati lawyer. Jinnah, believing that independence could be achieved through constitutional means alone, opposed Congress adopting Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience movement to gain swaraj (self-rule) and the use of religious symbols to achieve this end — the Hindu symbols used by Gandhi or the Muslim slogans raised by Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali Jauhar. He was aghast when Congress, prompted by Gandhi, decided to join the Indian Khilafat Movement as a means to boost the anti-imperial, nationalist movement in India. Many saw this as a defining point of Hindu-Muslim unity. Jinnah disagreed. He termed the Khilafat as communal and religiously divisive, resigned from the Congress and turned his attention to the Muslim League and the political enfranchisement of Indian Muslims whom he increasingly saw as his constituency.

In The Sole Spokesman, Ayesha Jalal explains that Jinnah was not thinking of a ‘separate Muslim state’ when he argued for ‘weightage’ — giving Muslims representation on the basis of political significance rather than population. He demanded a disproportionate 33 percent representation for Muslims in each state or province where they formed a minority (averaging 15 per cent of the population) except where they formed over half and up to two thirds of the population — Kashmir, Hyderabad (Deccan), Bengal, NWFP, Balochistan, Sindh and the Punjab.

When the Nehru Report of 1928 (authored by Motilal Nehru) rejected this and other demands, Jinnah responded with his Fourteen Points of 1929, enunciating his conviction that Hindus and Muslims would eventually have to part ways politically if Indian Muslims were to obtain political representation. He turned to the idea of a separate state or states for Indian Muslims “within the Indian federation” — his vision right up to the months leading to Partition, according to Jalal. His demand for ‘Pakistan’ was basically a “bargaining counter” to gain leverage: he wanted to keep his options “open for a constitutional arrangement which would cover the whole of India” and steer a path between majority and minority while giving himself a role at the centre. The Muslim League’s famous resolution of Lahore, March 23, 1940, calling for the formation of Hindu and Muslim states in India as a condition of independence, makes no mention of ‘partition’ or ‘Pakistan’.

This is because Jinnah’s vision for ‘Pakistan’ did not entail the partition of India, writes Jalal, but “its regeneration into an union where Pakistan and Hindustan would join to stand together proudly against the hostile world without. This was no clarion call of pan-Islam; this was not pitting Muslim India against Hindustan; rather it was a secular vision of a polity where there was real political choice and safeguards, the India of Jinnah’s dreams.”

This strategy backfired firstly because the British, eager to cut their losses and leave, rushed ahead with Partition. Secondly, rather than agree to Jinnah proposal (an undivided Indian federation with a weak centre), the Congress saw the advantages of an India divided but with a strong centre and separation of the provinces outside its ken (keep those wild western tribes at bay) — even at the cost of dividing Punjab and Bengal. Jinnah found this division abhorrent, resulting in what he called a ‘truncated and moth-eaten’ nation.

Jinnah’s attempts to give Pakistan direction are reflected in the decision to commission a Hindu poet, Jaganath Azad of Lahore, to write Pakistan’s national anthem, in the provisional Assembly’s first constitution-making act — the appointment on August 10 of a Committee on Fundamental Rights and Matters relating to Minorities, headed by Jinnah himself — and in his first speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, outlining his vision for the new nation.

This speech, meant to be his political will and testament according to his official biographer Hector Bolitho (Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan, John Murray, London, 1954), talks first about the inherited problems of the new country — the maintenance of law and order, with the State fully protecting “the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects”, the “curse” of bribery and corruption, the “monster” of black-marketing, and the “great evil” of nepotism. He then discusses the issue of Partition (“the only solution of India’s constitutional problem”) — history would judge its merits or demerits but since it had happened, “we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor.”

He urges the assembly members to “work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet…If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

“I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence…

“Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State… We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State…. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

The issues he outlined still haunt India and Pakistan today. His successors were quick to reject his vision. After Jinnah’s death on September 11, 1948, the assembly commissioned a new national anthem, consigning Jaganath Azad’s lyrics to history. Jinnah’s speech of Aug 11 was literally censored “by hidden hands”, as Zamir Niazi, the late chronicler of media freedoms details in his book ‘Press in Chains’ (Karachi Press Club, 1986). And a month after his death, his successors passed the Safety Act Ordinance of 1948, providing for detention without trial — that Jinnah had in March angrily dismissed as a “black law”. It is inconceivable that Jinnah would have agreed to the ‘Objectives Resolution’ that the Constituent Assembly passed in March 1949, laying the basis for formally recognising Pakistan as a state based on an ideology.

We are still paying the price for these follies. Thank you Jaswant Singh, for reminding us.

Also see: ‘Censoring the Quaid’ by Dr M. Sarwar, Aug 7, 1991 The Frontier Post)

Filed under: History | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

‘Blasphemy laws’ – Stopping the rot

Posted on August 29, 2009 by beenasarwar

My recent article on the ‘blasphemy’ laws, slightly edited version published in Dawn, Aug 29, op-ed as  ‘A misguided mindset’ – http://tinyurl.com/lzx6ux

Karachi, Aug 26

Stopping the rot

Beena Sarwar

The introspection, debate and outrage generated a month ago by the attacks on two villages in Gojra on July 31 and Aug 1 may be out of public sight, as happened all too often in the past, but the nine people murdered and the homes and churches gutted are not out of mind. Neither is Najeeb Zafar, the young factory owner in Sheikhupura, Punjab, killed on August 4 for allegedly desecrating Quranic verses when he removed a calendar from a wall. The following day, police in Sanghar, Sindh, saved a similarly accused 60-year old woman, Akhtari Malkani by taking her in protective custody.

On the surface, these incidents were motivated by passions aroused by allegations of blasphemy or disrespect to the holy Quran. These criminal charges can be punishable by death – but this is a punishment for the state to administer, not private citizens. The real motivation remains settling scores, a pattern identified over twenty years ago when the first ‘blasphemy murder’ took place – that of the Punjabi poet and teacher Naiamat Ahmar in Faisalabad in 1992.

The pattern involves one party targeting another, alleging blasphemy while the real motives are personal enmity or economic rivalry as Zubeida Mustafa noted in a recent column. The accused tend to be poor people who have improved their lot in life, triggering jealousies. Accusations of blasphemy are used to justify the violence. Ms Mustafa also pointed to (mis) education as a factor that makes it easy, when such an allegation is levelled, to rabble-rouse a mob into violence.

The three recent cases bear out these observations. In Gojra, evidence points to a pre-meditated plan aimed at clearing out the village from the area, while the administration turned a deaf ear to the warnings and pleas of observers. A disgruntled employee accused Najeeb Zafar of disrespecting the Quran; the unarmed police sent to protect him could only watch as the mob set upon him. Akhtari Malkani had a monetary dispute with her accuser – he disappeared without registering an FIR. She says she threw a book of accounts on the floor, not the holy Quran.

Last April, there was the horrific case of Jagdish Kumar, the young Hindu factory worker in Karachi, lynched by co-workers for alleged blasphemy. The real reason appears to have been personal enmity based on Kumar’s reported association with a Muslim girl.

Such cases have been taking place since the option of life imprisonment under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (“Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet”), the ‘blasphemy law’, introduced by Gen. Ziaul Haq in 1985 was amended by default in 1992 to make death the mandatory punishment for anyone convicted under this law. Certainly, the law does not provide for these extra-judicial murders. However, it is equally true no such murder took place until death was made the mandatory punishment for 295-C convictions.

People of all faiths, including Muslims (remember the Muslim religious scholar lynched in Gujranwala, 1994?), have been accused and attacked since then. Investigations into blasphemy accusations indicate pre-meditation rather than the heat of passion. Those who commit the violence may be arrested but none has ever been punished. Even the Inquiry Commission Tribunal headed by Justice Tanvir A. Khan of the Lahore High Court examining the destruction of Christian homes and churches in Shantinagar, 1997, was quashed (the Punjab Chief Minister then too was Shahbaz Sharif; will he rise to the occasion this time?).

The public defamation of blasphemy victims is a key tactic preceding such attacks – posters and mosque loudspeakers are routinely used for this.

Naimat Ahmar was killed after posters cropped up warning people that a Christian teacher (Ahmar) was leading their children astray. A hand-written copy in Urdu that I saw at the time warned Muslims that Ahmar was misleading students, telling them that the Prophet (pbuh) ‘stole’ goats – ‘bakriyaN charaya kartey thay’. Replace ‘churaya’ (stole) with ‘charaya’ (grazed) and it’s apparent what Ahmar probably said.

A youngster from the militant outfit Anjuman-e-Sipah-e-Sahaba (later changed to Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) accosted Ahmar outside the Education Department in Faisalabad and knifed him to death. Investigations revealed that the murderer’s uncle wanted Ahmar’s job in the Education Department. The allegation of blasphemy alone was enough to ‘justify’ the murder. Policemen at the lockup housing the murderer, garlanded by his ASS (sic) mentors, embraced and kissed him. The ASS was, in fact, behind just about every ‘blasphemy case’ during the 1990s – the SSP, now banned, is believed to be behind the Gojra carnage as well.

Blasphemy accused are attacked and murdered even in prisons and police lock-ups, sometimes by the very people who are supposed to protect them. In 2004 a police constable attacked Samuel Masih, 27, an under-trial prisoner at Kot Lakhpat jail with a brick-cutter. Samuel had been charged with spitting at the wall of a mosque (Section 295, “defiling a place of worship with the intent of insulting the religion of any class”, maximum sentence up to two years). He succumbed to his injuries the following day. “I wanted to earn a place in heaven by killing him,” Ali reportedly confessed.

The fanatical and misguided mindset cultivated over the past few decades will not disappear by simply repealing 295-C, although this must be done. Embarking on a sensible education policy is also a long-term step that must be taken to stop the rot. What must be an immediate priority is the strict enforcement of law and order.

Those inciting violence and murder from mosque loudspeakers and public accusations, true or false, must be held culpable, charged, tried and punished according to law. This also goes for those who desecrate a holy book or symbol of any religion. There must be accountability for those who allow these murders to take place. The political leadership is responsible for providing police with the training, means and the orders to prevent such violence. Finally, religion cannot be used or allowed to justify murder.

The writer is a freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker

(ends)

Filed under: Blasphemy Laws | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Target killing of doctors; my article of 2002; Dr Sarwar on censoring Jinnah, 1991

Posted on August 21, 2009 by beenasarwar

A press release from PMA condemning the ongoing target killing of doctors in Pakistan reminded me of a piece I had written in 2002, published in the Indian Express – googled the key words and found it. Ah, Internet.

There are also new uploads in the ‘Writings’ section of the blog Dr Sarwar blog – including ‘Censoring the Quaid’, a piece Dr M. Sarwar wrote in 1991 for his fortnightly column ‘Karachi calling’ in The Frontier Post, Lahore. Particularly relevant given the Jaswant Singh and Jinnah controversy.

In its press release of August 21, 2009, the Pakistan Medical Association, Karachi strongly condemns yet another murder of Dr.Sajjad Arain in Hyderabad, killed on his way to work at Civil Hospital, Hyderabad. A similar incident had also occurred a couple of days before in Quetta when Dr.Iqbal Zaidi was killed by unidentified miscreants. “By now this easy phenomena of killing doctors has become a routine, and right to life of those who are providing soles to humanity irrespective of sex, colors, religion or beliefs, is sadly no more available to them in the country,” says PMA, demanding the immediate arrest of culprits. If stern action is not taken with in 24 hrs the doctors community will be forced to stage country wide protest by calling total shut down of health services in the country.  http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanmedicalassociation

Below, my article in Indian Express, April 2002: http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=1097

Targeted doctors ask what about us as Gen fights US war against terror

Apr 19, 2002

Beena Sarwar

For some days now, Karachi has thankfully not woken up to the news of yet another medical doctor shot dead in cold blood. But as an editorial in The News (April 16) cautions, ‘The current let-up in the assassinations does not mean that the issue should be allowed to quietly die down, or overshadowed by the controversial referendum. The question of who is behind the killings and why still begs to be answered, and must be answered sooner rather than later.’

Over the last decade, almost 90 doctors, mostly Shi’ite, have been assassinated, causing widespread fear and insecurity, and leading to a veritable exodus not just of medical practitioners but also their relatives in other professions. Dr Tipu Sultan, Karachi President of the nation-wide Pakistan Medical Association (PMA), knows of at least 28 doctors who left Karachi in one week in March.

Obviously, whoever is behind these murders wants to make an impact: a doctor killed demands media attention, and creates far-reaching ripples, given each doctor’s contact with hundreds of patients and their families; their very public dealing makes them vulnerable.

Assassins turn up at a targeted doctor’s clinic, and ask for him by name to identify him, as in the case of Dr Rashid Mehdi, 39 on February 12. He was shot dead, leaving behind a young wife, also a doctor, a little son, and a five-day-old daughter.

The pattern includes armed motorcyclists intercepting a doctor’s car and shooting him at point blank, as in the case of Kidney Centre nephrologist Dr Alay Safdar Zaidi, killed on his way to work on March 4. Dr Zaidi had returned to Pakistan a year and a half ago, leaving a thriving practice in the States to come back and make a difference here.

His daughter, aged six, and son, only three, are now among the dozens of other children whose fathers were similarly assassinated, despite not being affiliated with any religious or political party or even holding aggressively Shia views.

In one instance, the assailants used a car to force a doctor’s car to a stop. Dr Jafar Naqvi of the philanthropically run Kidney Centre was saved by his driver’s reflexes.

Dr Naqvi, saved by taking refuge in a private house, is now virtually confined to his own house, with round-the-clock police protection.

Most victims are Shi’ite, but they include some Sunnis too, like Dr Fayyaz Karim, 44, shot on Feb 4 as he left a mosque after offering his prayers. His wife, Dr Farahnaz Karim, says bitterly that it’s commendable that the Government is helping Americans wipe out terrorism. ‘‘But what of the terrorists in our midst who are killing our own countrymen?’’

The killings have forced an organised response from doctors, with the PMA calling several strikes (including a six-hour country-wide hunger strike) during which doctors at hospitals and clinics across the country provide only emergency cover. ‘‘This is not the answer,’’ concedes Dr Asghar Mirza, editor of the PMA’s Urdu journal Nabs. ‘‘But how else do we express our rage and fear?’’

When the PMA met the Sindh Governor last month, police officials suggested a ban on motorcycle pillion riding, and arms training and protection to threatened doctors. ‘‘This is not the answer either,’’ says prominent psychiatrist Dr Haroon Ahmed. ‘‘They are trying to use us to push through their own agenda.’’ He argues, like others, that administrative steps alone are not the answer.

‘‘The Government must restore civil and political liberties so that alternative opinions are given space, and tolerance and respect promoted,’’ demanded the Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) at a nation-wide protest on April 5 against violence in the name of religion. ‘‘This will likely provide a necessary challenge to extremism, as well as temper the urge for many frustrated elements to resort to reactionary violence.’’

Political parties in Karachi, including major players like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), joined the protest on the invitation of the Joint Action Committee for Peace Karachi (JAC), an umbrella group for activist groups, and also a PPC member. A March 20 meeting agreed that ‘‘The killings of doctors, lawyers, judges and other sections of society are aimed at instigating fear and retaliation’’ and that the root cause of the problem must be addressed. This includes ‘‘the forces of reaction and regression’’, including the intelligence agencies, which have gained strength since Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war.

The point is reiterated by PPC: ‘‘It is time that the intelligence agencies start protecting citizens from extremist violence rather than harass citizens and activists for their political activities and agitation. The revamping and reorientation of the intelligences agencies is yet another promise that the Government has made and is failing to keep.’’

Meanwhile, ‘‘it is individuals and groups who are fighting for their basic rights that are being targeted by the state, often under the anti-terrorist legislation’’.

Gen Musharraf’s actions against religious extremists since 9/11 are criticised as tokenism. ‘‘Some have been arrested, but why have cases not been registered against them?’’ questions PPP Central Information Secretary Taj Haider. ‘‘Because the Pakistan army’s and the agencies’ role in the matter will be exposed. This permanent axis is dangerous for democracy in Pakistan.’’

Even the police privately acknowledge this axis. ‘‘These extremists have been very useful to the Government, which might need their services again,’’ says an official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He acknowledges that at least some elements of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) still protect the militants they nurtured, trained and armed over the years.

It is significant that while the doctors’ killings are labeled as sectarian because those targeted mostly belong to a particular sect, there is no sectarianism or religious intolerance at the grassroots level.

‘‘The incidents of apparently religiously-motivated violence, like the attack on the Islamabad church or the murder of Daniel Pearl, are planned and executed by individual miscreants with no popular support or public sanction,’’ says The News editorial.

‘Except for one incident in Rahim Yar Khan (instigated by economic reasons), Hindus in Pakistan have not been attacked in retaliation for the carnage of Muslims in Gujarat, as opposed to 1992, when the razing of the Babri Masjid was countered by attacks on Hindu temples in Pakistan (then too, the nexus of vested interests like property developers and ‘‘religious’’ leaders had teamed up to reap the benefits).

Religious parties have never gained more than 3 per cent of the assembly seats in Pakistan, unlike in next door India, where a religious party has actually been voted in, with disastrous results for an avowedly secular polity.’

Former mayor of Karachi and MQM leader Farooq Sattar argues against calling these killings sectarian: ‘‘Let’s not play into the hands of vested interests by calling them that.’’

Dr Sattar urges the easing of regional tensions as a step towards resolving national problems. ‘‘Sixty per cent of India’s trade is with Islamic countries, as compared to only 5 per cent of Pakistan’s, the remaining 95 per cent of our trade is with Western countries.’’

‘‘These issues (violence in the name of religion) are not Pakistan’s alone, they also exist in India and Bangladesh, all of South Asia,’’ argues Sabihudin Ghausi, the outspoken President of the Karachi Press Club and a senior economic reporter.

‘‘We can’t remain isolated from the region, we have to have ties with India, with Bangladesh, and the other South Asian countries.’’

(Beena Sarwar is a senior journalist working with The News)

Filed under: 'War on terror' | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Remembering Saneeya Hussain on her birthday

Posted on August 15, 2009 by beenasarwar

Here’s a note I sent out to the Saneeya Hussain yahoogroup yesterday, Aug 13th, her birthday – please do check out the link about the Saneeya Hussain Trust:Saneeya Homepage

Dear family and friends of Saneeya, scattered all over the world, this huge community of caring and committed people working in all kinds of ways to make the world a better place in their own ways

Here’s to Saneeya – we’ll always miss her. It is wonderful that the Saneeya Hussain Trust is up and running. Please do check it out at http://www.saneeyahussaintrust.com/ – The Trust has already done a lot of valuable work in terms of helping young girls obtain an education.

Several months ago I wrote a chapter for a forthcoming book on environmental journalism being published (eventually, we hope) by Sage, India. It focuses to some extent on Saneeya and Nazeeha had it posted to the SHT website for those who are interested
http://www.saneeyahussaintrust.com/PakistanChapterforSageIndiaAug08.pdf

I finally made a blog (on which I post my own articles and other material that I also send to my issues yahoogroup) – have linked the SHT to it also. I’d encourage all those of you who maintain blogs or websites to do the same.

That’s all for now from hot and muggy Karachi

beena

Filed under: Saneeya Hussain Trust | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Gojra and education, conspiracy theorists and judicial activism

Posted on August 15, 2009 by beenasarwar

‘Gojra and education’ – Zubeida Mustafa correctly identifies economic rivalries and the education rot as the major factors at the root of what are termed ‘communal’ or ‘religious riots’ – not just in Pakistan but also in India. What is also disturbing is how very easy it is for the perpetrators of such crimes to incite people in the name of religion – Dawn oped, 12 Aug, 2009 – http://tinyurl.com/zm-gojra

‘In defence of reason’ – Nadeem Farooq Paracha takes on Pakistan’s king of conspiracy theorists, Zaid Hamid (who after the Mumbai terror attacks held forth on his talk show about the ‘real’ identity of the gunmen. According to him, the red thread around the wrist of one of them proved his Hindu identity – but that he was in fact a Sikh, whose name Hamid disclosed). Dawn, Aug 11, 2009 – http://tinyurl.com/nfp-reason

‘Days of judgments’, by Asma Jahangir – A warning from Pakistan’s most well known human rights activist and lawyer: ‘Musharraf’s head may roll in the streets of Pakistan on charges of treason but that could also open the doors for bigoted nationalists to put a few others in the dungeons of Pakistan on dubious charges of treason’ – The News, op-ed, Aug 12, 2009 – http://tinyurl.com/knq5kv

‘Power with responsibility’ – by Haris Gazdar: The Supreme Court’s ruling on July 31 striking down some of the actions taken by former President Musharraf as unconstitutional has been hailed as historic. This is hyperbole. What is more important is how the judges and their supporters plan to use the power they are acquiring with respect to the key challenges facing the state and society. Dawn, op-ed, 06 Aug, 2009 – http://tinyurl.com/mu9anv

Filed under: Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »