SANSAD News-release February 20, 2014

Suppression of Wendy Doniger’s book undermines democracy

South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD), an organization of South Asian diaspora based in Vancouver, British Columbia, joins its voice to the outrage being expressed by academics, students, writers, intellectuals, and other champions of freedom of enquiry and expression in India and outside at Penguin India’s decision to withdraw and pulp Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History in the face of threats by Hindu right wing forces.

We applaud Arundhati Roy and William Dalrymple for protesting this cowardly act by one of the most powerful publishing houses with a long history of defending freedom of expression and the rights of authors. We applaud the History faculty of Jawaharlal Nehru University for issuing a public statement in condemnation of this surrender to the threats of the Hindu right wing determined to construct a sanitized and strait-jacketed Hinduism against the rich multiplicity of traditions that make historical Hinduism. We congratulate the scholars int North American Universities who have issued a statement of condemnation pointing out that this was a victory for the Hindu right wing organizations in India who have been working with their North American counterparts to suppress alliterative voices, often the with violence.

Penguin’s withdrawal of Doniger’s book has a significance beyond the immediate issue of a publisher’s responsibility to defend its authors and uphold the right to freedom of speech. In its failure of spirit it has become complicit in the viciously anti-democratic and anti-minority, particularly anti-Muslim and anti-Christian, agenda of Hindutva in India. By withdrawing its resistance it has become a partner in the ideological program to dismantle the secular democratic identity of India.

Secularism and democracy are ideals inscribed in the idea of India but are forever under stress. Not only has the state been eager to censor and suppress expression, political and social organizations have been only too eager to demand suppression by the state or engage in violent suppression of scholarship or artistic expression that offended their sentiments. Freedom of thought and expression in India is far too often a hostage to offended sentiments. Penguin’s betrayal of Doniger strengthens this oppressive power of “offended sentiments.” As others have pointed out it is not a sufficient excuse for Penguin to declare that it has acted in fear of the law of the land, specifically Section 295a of the Indian Penal Code.

Professor Doniger’s book must be made available to all who wish to read it in India, and all those who disagree with her findings should challenge them with arguments. We urge all who cherish democracy and the freedom of expression that is its essential underpinning to sign the petition of Ananya Vajpeyi of New Delhi, India on change.org addressed to members of both houses of parliament that they revise Sections 153 A and 295 A of the Indian Penal Code governing intellectual and artistic freedoms and the right to self-expression as well as protecting against insult and injury to communities.

https://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/members-of-both-houses-of-the-indian-parliament-and-the-honorable-law-minister-government-of-india-reconsider-and-revise-sections-153-a-and-295-a-of-the-indian-penal-code-to-protect-freedom-of-expression-in-india#

—Thirty—

SANSAD News-release, December 31, 2013

The Hope of Peace

In this season when people across the earth are wishing each other peace and wellbeing our thoughts go out to all who are facing the organized violence of states and non-state agents. Millions of people in many countries in the world are seeking escape from the bullets, bombs, drone attacks, and other violence that have devastated their lives and drives them every day from their homes into refugee camps or sets them wandering in search of asylum in an increasingly inhospitable world. We echo their cry for peace.

As members of the South Asian diaspora we feel most intimately the aspiration for peace among the people in our homelands. We share their hope that peace will come to their lands and free their effort and enterprise and enable them to flourish.

India and Pakistan being the largest and most powerful of the nations in South Asia, peace between them is of critical importance for the subcontinent, as the hostilities generated at their birth from colonialism have been chiefly responsible for the suffering of the people in the region. Militarism, chauvinism, communalism, and religious extremism have flourished at the expense of the freedom and wellbeing of the people. Attempts at resolving differences and creating conditions of free exchange have always been sabotaged by the vested interests of the elite of both countries. Hope has blossomed only to be trampled into cynicism and despair.

2013 has seen more than 200 violations of the 10-year old ceasefire across the Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan, making it by far the worst year in this regard. Some of these incidents have involved sensational claims, fueling war-mongering by opportunist-chauvinist media and national-chauvinist political parties in India. Yet in Pakistan there has been a historical transition from one democratically elected government to another, and the incoming Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has made strong statements in favor of peace and friendship with India. Mr. Sharif’s meeting with the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh in New York in September set afoot a process toward the resumption of dialogue between the two countries, suspended since the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008.

On December 27 inaugurating the new Foreign Ministry Office in Islamabad Nawaz Sharif declared that Pakistan had been following its foreign policy objectives of resuming dialogue with India, improving relations with Afghanistan, strengthening strategic partnership with China and re-building ties with the US. He affirmed the desire of Pakistan to live peacefully and maintain friendly relations with its neighbors, following a policy of building a peaceful and prosperous neighborhood focused on trade and developing a consensus-based approach to counter terrorism. A few days before this, Shahbaz Sharif, the Chief Minister of Punjab and brother of Nawaz Sharif had communicated a similar message to Manmohan Singh in Delhi, making a strong plea for dialogue and the development of trade and commerce along with the resolution of strategic issues.

An important result of Nawaz Sharif’s initiative for peace has been the meeting of the Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMO) of India and Pakistan in Wagah in Pakistan on December 24, the first time such a meeting had taken place since 1998. At this meeting the DGMO reiterated their commitment to ensure the ceasefire and maintain peace and tranquillity at the LOC and to improve communications, including their hotline contact.

At a less formal level, former officials of Indian and Pakistani intelligence (RAW and ISI) met in Canada at the Ottawa Dialogue organized by Ottawa University in October and produced joint papers calling for greater contact between agencies to prevent regional crisis and promote new thinking on the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. A joint paper by CD Sahay of India and Wajahat Latif of Pakistan maintains that more can be achieved through such contact than through diplomatic channels in preventing panic reactions and unintended mobilizations and forestalling such incidents as that of Mumbai in November 2008. There has been a dialogue process between the intelligence agencies since 1997 and it needs to be developed further.

These are events at the closing of 2013 that give us hope for peace in South Asia. We warmly greet these signs and hope that 2014 will bring a strengthening of the process.  We shall always hope for peace and praise those who work for it.

But remembering that South Asia is more than Pakistan and India, that there are many griefs of peace outside the horrors of war, and that there is no peace and no potential for flourishing without justice, we extend our hearts to all victims of nationalist, ethnic, communalist, caste, gender, heterosexist, and class violence, including Tamils in Sri Lanka,  garment workers in Bangladesh, Rohingyas in Myanmar, in camps, and in transit, and all who are displaced by climate change and the depredations of socially unbound capital. We extend our solidarity to the people of Afghanistan who face the challenge of reconstruction after the exit of the invading forces and to the people of Nepal who have long languished under the inability of political parties to set the people’s interest above their own and await the coming of a constitution that will set them on the path of a prosperous future. We commit ourselves to working hand in hand with all who seek peace and justice.

 —Thirty—

 South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD); 2779 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC; www.sansad.org

SANSAD News Release December 15, 2013

December 15, 2013 is being observed in cities across the world as a “Day Of Rage” against the regressive judgement of the Supreme Court of India on December 11 overturning the historic decision of the Delhi High Court in 2009 that Section 377 of IPC was in violation of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy stands in solidarity with the LGBT community in India and the world on this day of condemnation for a judgment that sets the clock back in the struggle for justice and hunan rights for people who find their sexual identity outside the heterosexual norm,

The Division Bench of Delhi High Court had declared that Section 377 IPC, created in 1860 and based on Victorian morality with notions of carnally and sinfulness was unconstitutional in criminalizing sexual acts of consenting adults in private. The Court had affirmed that the clarification would hold till Parliament chose to amend the law. This decision had been widely hailed as a big step forward in the struggle for Human Rights and effected a huge difference in the lives of LGBT in India and in the culture of the country.

The judgement of the Supreme Court Bench, comprising S J Mukhopadhyaya and G Singhvi in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v Naz Foundation delivered on December 11, 2013 overturns this decision on the ground that as only “a miniscule fraction” of the country’s population was LGBT and less that two hundred people had been prosecuted under Section 377 in the last 150 years, there was no sound reason for considering the section ultra vires. The learned judges also find that the distinction between people who indulge in “carnal intercourse in the ordinary manner” and those who indulge in “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” is non-arbitrary, so that it is legitimate to declare the latter as an offense and prescribe punishment for it. That a provision is prone to abuse in practice and can be used to harass, intimidate, and drive people underground, is not, they rule, a valid argument against its constitutionality. They further rule that in finding Section 377 as violating a person’s right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the Delhi High Court relied extensively on judgment of other jurisdictions which cannot be “applied blindfold” for deciding constitutionality. The constitutional provision of capital punishment in India establishes the difference of the Indian condition.

This judgement, which set back Human Rights in India the day after the International Human Rights Day, has provoked outrage from a broad section of Indian society, including mainstream media and major political parties. It has given an impetus to the ongoing struggle for Human Rights in India. We, members of the South Asian diaspora in British Columbia, Canada, are proud to join with the LGBT community, and all people dedicated to the realization of Human Rights in protesting this decision.

The learned judges of the Supreme Court have supported their conservatism by pointing out that the Indian Parliament has not bothered to deal with the pre-constitution Section 377 in the past 60 years. They have also noted that there has been no attempt by the Legislature to address the recommendation of the 172nd Law Commission Report (2000) that this section be deleted. They end their report with the statement that their decision is only on the issue of constitutionality and that the Legislature is free to consider the desirability of deleting the Section. The struggle for rights is political: the demand now should be for the implementation of the recommendation of the 172nd Law Commission: DELETE SECTION 377 IPC.

—Thirty—

South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD): 2779 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC. www. sansad.org; sansad@sansad.org