The New Nation - Internet Edition

Swami Agnivesh on ideology of Hindutva

Swami Agnivesh is the President of the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha ('World Council of the Arya Samaj'). A well-known social activist, he has played a leading role in the struggle against communalism in India, including against Hindutva terrorism, about which he talks in this interview with Yoginder Sikand.

Q: How do you explain the recent wave of bomb blasts that have taken place across India? How can this dangerous phenomenon be tackled?

A: Clearly, behind such attacks is a certain ideology at work whose major objective is to create hatred between the different communities. That, rather than just killing innocent people, is the real objective of those behind these dastardly and cowardly acts. These forces, who could be both internal as well as external, and who could include extremist Hindus, extremist Muslims or others, clearly do not want people of the different communities to live in peace with each other.

Among the various steps that should be taken to counter this form of terrorism is for people to isolate the forces within their own respective religious communities that seek to foment communal hatred. If a Hindu name emerges as being behind a certain terrorist attack, it is for Hindus, in particular, to fiercely condemn such a person or organization, not just as a criminal but also as anti-Hindu. And the same holds true for how Muslims should respond if the person or outfit behind a terror attack bears a Muslim name. Terrorism cannot be tackled simply by the government machinery without this sort of social or public mobilization against it. In this, it is particularly crucial that we desist from branding or associating any particular community with terrorism, because terrorism does not know any barrier of community. It is wrong to associate t with any religion. It is also crucial, as I suggested, that if a person claiming to belong to a particular community engages in an act of terror, those others who also belong to the same community must fiercely condemn his act as not just being a crime but also a gross violation of the religious teachings of the community in question. Only then can these elements be denied any social sanction or support.

And this is now beginning to happen. A number of leading Muslim clerics have issued fatwas against any form of terrorism, no matter what the religion of the perpetrator. And so I would like Hindu leaders to also begin to say the same thing. Recently, I issued a statement on behalf of the Arya Samaj appealing to all Hindu religious leaders not to support those Hindutva activists who have been accused in the Modassa and Malegaon terror attack cases. I appealed to them to expose Hinduvta terrorists, for they are giving the entire Hindu community a bad name. I pointed out that numerous Muslim ulema or religious leaders have organized mass rallies and have issued fatwas condemning all forms of terrorism, including that engaged in by self-styled jihadist groups. Recently, I attended a huge inter-faith conference in Madrid to denounce all forms of terrorism, which was organized by the King of Saudi Arabia. I suggested that Hindu religious leaders should also do the same and forcefully condemn all forms of terrorism, including that done in the name of Hinduism or by Hindus, as anti-Hindu, anti-religion and anti-human.

I made the same point at the National Integration Council meeting that was recently held in Delhi , where I said that leading Indian maulvis are issuing fatwas against all forms of terrorism and organizing mass rallies, some of which I have also addressed, to denounce it, and I asked why Hindu religious leaders were not doing the same.

Q: What has been the result of this appeal of yours to Hindu religious leaders? Are they coming out to forcefully condemn terror engaged in by Hindutva groups, just as many Muslim clerics are now openly speaking against terrorism done in the name of Islam?

A: Unfortunately, many Hindu religious leaders continue to remain silent on this. To remain silent on such a heinous matter can, in some cases, be construed as tacit approval. But I am still making efforts to make them realize the gravity of the situation.

Q: In recent years there is a growing tendency in some circles to associate Islam, in particular, with terrorism. How do you see this development?

A: I think this is completely unfair. It is a product of the imperialist agenda of certain Western powers that need to create the spectre of radical Islamism as allegedly posing an immense threat to the West so as to help the West justify its continuing hegemony, its global power and its control over West Asian oil resources. Using this warped logic, and without any evidence, America has attacked and devastated Afghanistan and Iraq and seems to be bent on taking on the whole Muslim world. George Bush openly calls for a 'crusade', and thus seeks to lend credence to the thoroughly bankrupt theory of the 'clash of civilisations' . The Western media has been forcefully propagating this thesis, and now, especially after 9/11, large sections of the Indian media are also parroting the same bogus theory.

To repeat, to seek to associate terrorism with any religion or community is completely wrong. I think, and I have said this publicly, that George Bush is the world's No. 1 terrorist. It was the Western establishment that, along with its client regimes, created the Taliban and armed Saddam, and the Bin Laden family is a business partner of the Bush family. In the same way, the Congress, under Indira Gandhi, propped up Bhindaranwala, but he later turned into a Frankenstein. Likewise, the first victim of terrorism in free India , Mahatma Gandhi, was killed by a Hindu, not a Muslim. It was not a Muslim who killed Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi. And so you can easily see through the falsity of the slogan, 'All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims' that is so frequently mouthed today.

Q: What do you have to say about the recent revelations about some Hindutva groups being involved in fomenting terrorism in India ?

A: Yes, this phenomenon exists and the media is gradually bringing it to light. Hindutva ideologues have been consistently seeking to equate Islam and Muslims with terrorism but now that evidence is surfacing of the close involvement of radical Hindutva outfits in terrorism they are saying that terrorism must not be sought to be associated with any religion. But this is precisely what they were doing all this while with regard to Islam. They are saying that the so-called Sadhvi who has been arrested in connection with the Malegaon blasts should not be called a 'terrorist'. Rather, they say, she should be termed as an 'accused' because the charges against her have not been as yet proved by the courts. But if that is the case, then why do they refer to the Muslims nabbed by the police, but against whom the courts have not passed their verdicts, as 'Islamic terrorists', without demanding the same sort of proof? You can call them 'suspects' or 'accused', but why jump to the conclusion that all of them are actually terrorists without the charges against them being proven?

There is ample evidence to show that Hindutva groups have been involved in planning and executing acts of terror, but, unfortunately, for its own political purposes, the Government has done little to curb this and has sought to play this down. Nor has the media given this the serious attention that it deserves. Such terror attacks obviously help the Hindutva lobby as they widen the Hindu-Muslim chasm, which, in turn, makes it easier to play on Hindu sentiments in order to win Hindu votes. One cannot rule out the possibility of Hindutva elements in being behind some of the other blasts besides the ones in Malegaon, Modassa, Nanded, Kanpur and so on that are now coming to light. Blasts could have been done by any group, Hindu or Muslim or whatever, but it is wrong to jump to a conclusion without proper investigation.

But let me come back to the Malegaon terror case. I recently held a press conference where I pointed out that a television channel, Sudarshan TV, which is very close to the RSS, reported the Malegaon bomb blast almost as soon as it had happened, before other, large channels reported it. This might be additional evidence of Hindutva radicals being behind the terror attack. And, of course, other possible evidence is also emerging. If the so-called Sadhvi and the army officer and others who are accused are found to be guilty, they must be socially ostracized by the Hindu society.

If this so-called Sadhvi, dressed in the saffron robes of a sanyasin, is really involved in this blast it is a matter of great shame for Hindus. Hindutva terrorists are a blot on the name of Hindu society. It seems that they have taken upon themselves the task of giving Hinduism a bad name, to give it the shape of terrorism. In actual fact, they are enemies of Hinduism and the Hindu society. They want to divide and thereby destroy the country, using terror for building their vote-banks.

Q: Do you think there is any ideological link between radical Hindutva and terrorism?

A: The roots of the notion of Hindutva go back to Savarkar, who coined the term in the 1920s. Before that, he appeared to champion Hindu-Muslim solidarity, but following his stay in jail in the Andaman Islands his views completely changed, and he then started claiming that the Hindus and Muslims of India were, in effect, two different nations. He appealed to Hindus to militarise themselves. He argued that those who did not follow religions that were born in India were not real patriots or genuine Indians. And so, according to this poisonous thesis, Muslims and Christians were to be considered as not true Indians, deserving of, at best, second-grade citizenship.

This thesis of Hindutva gave a handle to the proponents of a separate Muslim state of Pakistan . I am convinced that if there was no Hindutva, there would have been no separate Pakistan , and India would have remained one. And the millions of Muslims who stayed behind in India after the Partition I consider to be much more patriotic than the Hindutva-walas, because the former were offered the dream of a seeming utopia, of 'heaven', if they migrated to Pakistan , but they refused to migrate, and, instead, they stayed on in their homeland.

And this they did despite all the immense threats, challenges and fear that they were forced to face, and despite the repeated anti-Muslim pogroms and pervasive discrimination. Who, then, can dare question their patriotism?

So, let me unhesitatingly say, yes, the ideology of Hindutva, as we know it, is inextricably linked to terrorism, in both theory as well as in practice. And I would go further and say that Hindutva is even worse than that-it is sheer fascism. Let me also say that the greatest victims and sufferers of Hindutva fascism will not be Muslims or Christians, but, rather, Hindus themselves.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: I say this because history clearly tells us that if any form of fascism is not combated by the community or people in whose name it claims to speak, it will eventually destroy that people or community. Thus, when Hitler went about massacring the Jews the German Christians remained silent, and because they did not oppose his Nazism they had to face huge loss of German life in the Second World War. When Bhindaranwale and his henchmen went about killing Hindus, many Sikhs remained quiet, and eventually more Sikhs than Hindus were killed by the Khalistanis. In Kashmir , self-styled Islamist extremists have killed many times more Muslims than Hindus. Likewise, because radical Islamist groups in Pakistan were fanned by the state, and there was no effective Muslim protest against them, they now pose a potent threat to the peace and prosperity of the people of Pakistan , the vast majority of who are Muslims, and many Pakistani Muslims have fallen victim to them. So, I find that there is no reason to believe that if Hindus do not speak out and assertively protest against Hindutva fascism they would not have to suffer immensely later. It will prove to be a disaster for them, and, besides this, it would only give India a bad name. I firmly believe that all forces, groups and people that are genuinely concerned about the welfare of India , must stand up against Hindutva fascism.

Q: What do you feel about the way the government has gone about seeking to tackle the problem of terrorism?

A: There is no uniform approach across the country. So, for instance, we witnessed the state-sponsored genocide and massive wave of terror in Gujarat in 2002, that caused the deaths of vast numbers of innocent Muslims. The way this genocide was launched, with such precision, made me suspect that one cannot rule out the possibility that the burning of the coach of Sabarmati Express might have been orchestrated by Modi himself to fan anti-Muslim hatred and garner Hindu votes.

But the role of the state in such heinous violence targeted against innocent people, which is a form of terrorism, did not start with Modi. The nefarious role of top bosses in the Congress Party in orchestrating the large-scale massacre of Sikhs in 1984 is well-known. So, various governments have sought to fan violence against minorities for their own political purposes, and no discussion of terrorism in India can leave out this crucial dimension.

We also have to talk of and speak out against other forms of terrorism. The killing of some 3000 innocent people in America on 9/11 was a terrible crime, and it must be condemned, but the West does not want us to talk of other forms of terrorism in which Western powers and elites are directly implicated. Some 7000 children die in India daily, mainly due to poverty, which is caused by a skewed and totally inhuman notion of 'development' propagated by Indian and Western elites. Is this not a form of terrorism also? In some senses, it is a worse form of terrorism, not only because it is of a far greater magnitude but also because it causes prolonged pain and suffering to its victims, unlike those who die in an instant in a terrorist attack. Some twenty-five thousand dowry-deaths of women are recorded every year in India. Is this not also a form of terrorism? Is not female foeticide a form of terrorism?

The point I am making is that all forms of terrorism, whether in the name of religion, community, nation, gender or whatever, needs to be sternly condemned and struggled against. Let us not be selective in our approach, because terrorism anywhere is a danger to humanity everywhere.

(Swami Agnivesh can be contacted on agnivesh70 @gmail. com. For more details about him and his work, see www. swamiagnivesh. com )

Iraq’s security pact with US

Salah Hemeid

After months of tireless negotiations, tough bargaining and countless drafts, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker signed a security pact on Monday that will allow thousands of US troops to stay in the country until the end of 2011. The signing took place a day after the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal.

The agreement has been hailed by both Baghdad's government and the Bush administration as a "historic" deal, necessary to help sustain stability and security until Iraq is able to build its own army and police force. Officially renamed the Agreement on the Withdrawal of US Troops instead of the original Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), it determines the role of US military forces after their UN mandate expires on 31 December.

Under the plan, which the Iraqi parliament is expected to endorse, US forces in Iraq will be placed under the authority of the Iraqi government and will be banned from searching and raiding homes without Iraqi approval. It also allows the Iraqi government to search shipments of weapons and other packages entering Iraq for US recipients, and contains a vaguely worded passage allowing for the prosecution of American troops for serious crimes.

Announcing the government's approval, spokesman Ali Al-Dabagh described the deal as "the best possible available option". The Bush administration welcomed the Iraqi cabinet's vote, saying it was "an important and positive step" towards stability and security. The new pact provides the cornerstone of US- Iraqi relations for "economy, culture, science, technology, health and trade" said Crocker.

While Iraq's parliament is expected to endorse the deal, it could still be contested by opponents in the constitutional court. It is not clear if the endorsement requires a simple, or a two thirds, majority of the 275-member legislative -- the latter a constitutional requirement for key legislation. It is also unclear if the assembly will debate the agreement article by article or vote, as the government wants, on the whole package, or what will constitute a quorum should its detractors try to prevent its passage by abstaining or walking out.

On its initial reading on Monday the agreement faced its first hurdle when supporters of Shia firebrand Muqtada Al-Sadr demanded that parliament debate a draft law they have proposed on international treaties and conventions which aims to make it hard for lawmakers to endorse the deal. It remains to be seen if the 30 Sadrist deputies can garner further support for their bill before the vote on the Agreement on the Withdrawal of US Troops, scheduled for 24 November.

The Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, which has 44 seats in parliament, has called for a referendum on the agreement rather than parliamentary endorsement. At a press conference its leader, Adnan Al-Dulaimi, objected to handing over Sunni prisoners, now in American detention centres, to the Shia-led government. Sunni Minister of Women Nawal Al-Samaraei was the only cabinet member who voted against the pact during Sunday's cabinet session and it remains possible that Sunni Vice-President Tariq Al-Hashimi will use his position on the presidency council to veto it.

Even if the pact is approved it could easily serve to further divide Iraq's sectarian and ethnic groups, now vying to consolidate their power bases ahead of next year's local and parliamentary elections. On Friday Al-Sadr threatened to revive armed elements of his Mahdi army militia and return to war with US forces if the agreement is passed. Al-Sadr, who feels the sooner American soldiers are out of Iraq the better chance his movement will have to revive its activities, vowed that he will send his personal brigades into battle against the pact.

The dilemma of the Sunni Arabs is even more complex. While it is embarrassing to publicly urge the Americans to stay longer so that they can negotiate a better deal with the Shias and Kurds, the withdrawal of American soldiers, who sometimes worked as their prolocutor, will leave them isolated. It is not surprising, therefore, that Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, leader of the Sahwa -- Awakening Group -- in Anbar has called for a strategic alliance with the US instead of the security pact the government has concluded with Washington.

Kurds, already at loggerheads with Al-Maliki over who should be in control, are worried that the American withdrawal will further empower the incumbent prime minister. Mahmoud Othman, a key Kurdish lawmaker, noting that the pact does not make any pledge to "protect Kurdistan and the future of Kurds", predicted increased tensions with Al-Maliki after the withdrawal. He also voiced concerns that Al-Maliki might sign agreements with other countries, including Iran, which could come at the expense of Kurds.

Meanwhile, US President-elect Barack Obama reiterated on Monday that when he takes office on 20 January his administration "will start executing a plan that draws down our troops" in Iraq. The pact allows for the next American president to change the agreement as he sees fit. Iran and Syria, both of which see continued US presence in Iraq as a threat to their security, have expressed strong opposition to the agreement. They are sure to try to fill the political and security vacuum created after the American departure.

Is this a sustainable solution for Iraq's woes? With US soldiers out Iraq may disappear from the front pages of American newspapers, though this will not mean that calm and peace prevail in the beleaguered nation. With or without American troops, that day remains a long way off.

(Source: http://weekly. ahram.org. eg/2008/923/ fr1.htm)

The food crisis

Aileen Kwa

The high food prices that have sparked riots in many parts of the developing world - from Indonesia, India and Bangladesh to Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti -should come as no surprise. These are only the latest in a series of events many developing countries have suffered as a result of opening their borders and neglecting domestic agriculture.

A large number of developing countries have conscientiously implemented World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditions and World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. They have applied the given structural adjustment policies - and have seen the damaging consequences to their domestic agricultural sector.

The consequence has been the certain erosion of their capacity to produce their own food.

In the era of stronger state control in the 1970s and even the early 1980s, domestic food markets in the developing world were often in the hands of state marketing boards and cooperatives. Marketing boards would guarantee floor prices, and provide fertilisers and seeds. They also controlled import volumes, redistributed food where there were production shortfalls, and purchased commodities from cooperatives.

These marketing boards were not always run in the best possible way; there were many instances of corruption or inefficiency, but they did fulfill certain critical functions. Farmers were provided a market to sell their produce to, which meant they had a livelihood. Prices were stable even though they were often lower than what farmers would have liked.

As a result of these policies, many developing countries were either net food exporters, or at least were nearly food self-sufficient.

All that has changed over the last 20 years. Investment support to farmers was done away with. Small farmers were told to produce for the international market, and their markets were opened to producers from outside. Rather than supporting staple crops, government support went to the export sector. Since all would specialise in the products where they had 'comparative advantage', gains were supposed to accrue all round.

But rather than producing winners, millions of the poorest subsistence farmers were knocked out of their own markets. Imports took over what was previously produced by local people. Over the last 20 years, the production capacity in many countries has severely diminished.

The Philippines has been one prime example of such policies. "During the 60s and 70s, we were self-sufficient," Jowen Berber of Centro Saka, an NGO working on agrarian issues with farmers, told IPS. "That was the time that the government was heavily investing in rice - irrigation, infrastructure, marketing support and production support such as credits and inputs. But when the government stopped those incentives and subsidies, rice production slowly decreased."

Berber said "the acreage of irrigated land has also been falling because the government has not been maintaining irrigation facilities. We also have a very high level of post- harvest losses in rice - up to 35 percent because our post-harvest facilities are very old."

Instead of supporting farmers with guaranteed prices as before, Berber said "the government now intervenes to buy less than 1 percent of the domestic rice that is produced. They are buying more imported rice than our own local rice."

A study on import surges by David Pingpoh and Joean Senahoun, commissioned by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2006, noted that the Cameroon government support to the rice sector was removed in 1994 through implementation of IMF and World Bank policies. The fertiliser market was privatised. Rice yields of poor farmers dropped as fertilisers became unaffordable. Tariffs were liberalised, and annual rice imports doubled from 152,000 tonnes to 301,000 tonnes between 1999 and 2004.

This opening rendered the country vulnerable to the policies of other countries. At the time, India was de-stocking its rice surplus, and rice imports from India increased from 7,900 tonnes in 2001 to 60,300 tonnes in 2002. As a result of this import surge, rice farmers were hard hit, and many left the sector. Land for rice cultivation dropped 31.2 percent between 1999 and 2004.

According to the FAO, Cote d'Ivoire also saw imports flooding in when the market was opened up. As a result of implementing commitments at the WTO, Cote d'Ivoire removed import restrictions on key agricultural goods, particularly rice. Duty on all agricultural products was set at a maximum of 15 percent, except for 25 tariff lines.

As a result, rice imports increased at an annual rate of 6 percent from 470,000 tonnes to 715,000 tonnes between 1997 and 2004. Imports were mainly from Thailand, China and India. Domestic production dropped 40 percent over this period.

In Nepal, the civil society organisation ActionAid documents that rice import surges came in 1994, 1996 and 2000, with imports increasing by 175 percent, 55 percent and 800 percent respectively. From 24,500 tonnes imported in 1999, by the year 2000 imports had hit 195,000 tonnes. The porous borders between Nepal and India, and the Nepal-India Trade Treaty were widely seen as the cause of these surges. In certain areas of Nepal, domestic prices fell by nearly 20 percent. The southern belt bordering India saw a multitude of rice plants and rice mills shutting down.

Today, in the latest twist of events, food prices have increased due to global shortfalls. Food production has been redirected towards biofuel production. Drought in Australia has contributed to shortages on the world market. Speculators playing on commodity markets have further increased prices.

Up to 37 countries have been gripped by protests and riots. In Cameroon, seven people were killed in the unrest in February. Food riots also took hold of Abidjan in the Cote d'Ivoire in March this year.

At meetings in Berne in Switzerland to address the global food crisis, UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-Moon, World Bank president Robert Zollick and WTO director-general Pascal Lamy again made a plea for more free trade as the panacea. But farmers remain unconvinced that more of the same policies that have contributed to the last two decades of destruction of agriculture can help.

Reacting to the push by the WTO leadership, the World Bank and the UN to stitch up the Doha Round so that further liberalisation can assist in resolving the food crisis, Henri Saragih, international coordinator of the global network of peasant farmers La Via Campesina writes, "Protecting food has become a crime under free trade rules. Protectionism has become a dirty word. Meanwhile, countries have become addicted to cheap food imports, and now that prices are shooting up, hunger is raising its ugly head."

(Source: Just commentary)