The strange case of Zahira & Teesta

Source: http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/apr/28guest.htm

The strange case of Zahira & Teesta
- Sandhya Jain
April 28, 2005

Now that the hullabaloo over the US denial of a visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has died down, it would be worth our while to scrutinise the actions and motivations of Narendra Modi's tormentors, which resulted in this denouement. Because while political analysts admit that the post-Godhra riots were no worse than riots that had previously rocked the state after Independence, social activists in Gujarat claim that media reports of 2,000 dead are false since compensation claims filed by next-of-kin of those who died number around 700.

The possibility that 1,300 'victims' never existed certainly calls for a rethink on the Gujarat imbroglio.

Indeed, with hindsight one can discern an NGO-media synergy in targeting the Modi regime throughout the riots and thereafter, and taking considerable liberties with the truth while doing so. With opinions being paraded as facts, it is time to ask some hard questions, especially since the issue has been internationalised in a manner detrimental to national dignity.

Aside from the actual number of victims in the riots, we must begin our quest for truth by scrutinising 'facts' we have not been allowed to question hitherto. The most critical of these is the so-called 'Face of the Riots,' which has been splashed across the national and international media for three long years.

Media reports claim the Rehmatnagar chawl of Gomtipur, Ahmedabad, was attacked by a mob on March 1, 2002 (after the Godhra carnage). One tailor, Qutubuddin Ansari, was immortalised as a cameraman took a picture of him standing with folded hands, tears in his eyes, pleading for mercy. The bloodthirsty mob supposedly threatening him is never shown in any picture of this incident, though it is inconceivable that a cameraman would shoot any a single frame of such a poignant event.

Yet the picture was so powerful that it silenced many who felt that the widespread nature of the Gujarat rioting indicated deeper societal tensions and could not be explained as State-sponsored violence against minorities. Hence it was something of a shock to discover that Mr Ansari was alive and well, and was desperate to evade continuing media publicity and usage of his picture. Far from perishing in the riots, he made his way to Mumbai, lived there for three years, and in February this year returned to his native city to resume his old way of life.

The media has never told us how Qutubuddin Ansari made it out of the chawl alive, why he alone from his family fled to Mumbai, who settled him there, and who indicated it was safe to come back. Since the Ansari family has also survived, and now wish to spurn the media, the question may legitimately be asked: was there a mob at all?

The second sensational, and international, face of the riots is Zahira Sheikh, who lost several family members in the attack on the Best Bakery, owned by them. Zahira famously damned Narendra Modi when she surfaced dramatically in Mumbai, claiming that her testimony in the Vadodra fast track court that led to the acquittal of 21 accused persons was inspired by fear.

A combined media-NGO synergy whipped up such a campaign that the National Human Rights Commission jumped into the fray, roundly condemned the state government and petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer the riot cases out of the state. The apex court sent the Zahira and Bilkis Bano cases to Mumbai, and asked the Gujarat government to re-examine all other cases.

Now, however, it seems that the Gujarat government may have the last laugh as Zahira Sheikh accuses Mumbai activist Teesta Setalvad of physically controlling her from July 6, 2003 to November 3, 2004 and tutoring her to give a certain type of testimony in the court. The state government also pounced upon the fact that an affidavit submitted to the NHRC in the name of Zahira was actually signed by Teesta Setalvad.

When Zahira Sheikh turned against Teesta Setalvad last year and insisted she had not signed any affidavit before the NHRC seeking transfer of the Best Bakery Case outside Vadodra, the NHRC discovered that the 600-odd pages of documentation filed by Setalvad's Citizens for Peace and Justice, did not contain a single signature by Zahira.

They were, as Zahira sneered, mere pamphlets, and it is truly shameful that the NHRC was so swayed by NGO-cum-media rhetoric that it moved the Supreme Court to take the cases out of Gujarat without scrutinising the records placed before it! The apex court has appointed a probe committee headed by Registrar General B M Gupta to ascertain the truth.

Zahira is therefore within her rights to demand the right to cross-examine the NHRC chairperson on this matter. She claims she visited the Commission along with Setalvad, who 'tutored' her on what to say there, and that she made an oral submission which was recorded by the chairperson and two other members. Zahira wishes to examine them because she says her oral testimony differs from the record which NHRC has presented to the Supreme Court. This is a serious charge and the probe committee would do well to summon the NHRC records and permit examination of the chairperson and members, if justice is to be seen to be done.

In this connection, Zahira is justified in demanding a probe into Teesta Setalvad's post-Gujarat assets, particularly since Setalvad and her NGO-media friends have spared no efforts in maligning Sheikh, insinuating that she had been 'purchased.' That Zahira is an intelligent and educated woman is obvious. She has compelled Setalvad to admit that Communal Combat is not an NGO, but a business venture of a privately-owned company called Sabrang Publications.

I think things went wrong for Setalvad because Zahira was a 'bad' victim. She just did not know how to act oppressed. Not satisfied with having made mincemeat of her former benefactress, Zahira has gone on to take potshots at the US State Department for calling Best Bakery a 'notorious case' in communalised Gujarat in its 2003-04 report.

As America has assigned millions of dollars to fund litigation on behalf of Gujarat Muslims, the riots' most irrepressible witness quipped: 'I am applying to this programme for aid and assistance so that I may be able to explain to the world at large the exploitation in the name of secularism and protection of Muslims.'

Zahira's guts and gumption give us much to think (rethink) about. Those who lament that well organised NGOs made the Bush administration deny Modi a visa should ponder if it was the other way round, namely, that the White House nudged certain groups to protest so that it could act in a pre-decided manner. The latter strikes me as far more likely, for if genuine public anger could not stop the invasion of Iraq, a couple of well-heeled NGOs could hardly make President Bush wag his tail on the Modi issue if he didn't want to.

Internet search engine for Hindi soon

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/2005/Apr/24/181_1334487,0008.htm

Internet search engine for Hindi soon
Press Trust of India
Chennai, April 24, 2005

After developing the world's first search engine for Tamil language websites, city-based Anna University-KB Chandrasekar Foundation is now in the process of developing an Internet search engine for Hindi.

"We are at the second stage (alpha level) of the development of Hindi search engine," S Bhaskar, a research scientist at the Language Technologies division of the Foundation, said.

The Language Technologies division, which comprises of 16 research scientists, last year developed a search engine for Tamil Websites, which can do both site specific and web searches.

Bhaskar said the Hindi search engine, perhaps a first of this sort, would be ready in the coming months. Now, only 'Webduniya.Com' possess a Hindi search engine.

The Hindi search engine would search the contents of several Hindi websites to produce a result, which is not possible in the existing search engines.

The Foundation is a novel private-public initiative, where the land was provided by the University and the initial seed capital of Rs seven crore from Chadrasekhar who belongs to the 1983 batch of Madras Institute of Technology.

Secular India - State Mourning for Pope?

Pope John Paul II passes away, Catholics mourn for pope, Bush hails Pope as a ‘Hero for the ages’, Special services in churches to mark Pope’s death, Cuba has ‘surprise’ Pope mourning, Indian leaders pay homage to the pope. So far the headlines read OK. But, suddenly my eyes focussed on a small boxed news item, even while my mind was trying to understand the rational. It read "3-day state mourning in India", and went on further ... government has declared a three day state mourning from Sunday ... Non-sense, what the hell is happening, why for pope?

I could not help, but to think about the last time the secular India mourned for a religious leader. No doubt, we have so many faiths and innumerable religious leaders, but when did we had a state mourning for any head of religion- Hindu or otherwise? I tried hard to recollect about Shri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi, the then head of one of the India's most respected Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. And few other instances, but in vain. So, the grappling question, why pope?

He is not an Indian, not even the head of all christians in the world but only for catholics. I became curious and wanted to know the Catholic population in India and when I found the page it showed a mere 1.54% translating to roughly about 16 millions. So, the question still lingers? What is so special about pope, which was not accorded to any other religious head? Or could it be that somebody is behind the decision taken with Catholic Sonia in mind?

Probably it would do good to see what our neighbours in Asia do. After all, Asia despite the massive evangelical attempts by the church is yet to be fully harvested. Except for Philippines, East timor and Australia, christians are in minority in other Asian countries. Understandably these two states have national mourning. Look at SAARC nations- No... further east Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam- No... China, Taiwan- No... not even Hong Kong (which anyway needs orders from mainland)... west asia (Egypt mourns for three days). Interestingly, I came across a report in Irish Examiner, where Dan Buckley argues that pope deserves one day mourning in Ireland considering all he has done for Ireland. As of now Ireland, which has about 76% catholics - hasn't announced national mourning. That's surprising, isn't it. Consider China, where christianity is practiced by about 5 millions underground fearing state persecution even now. When pope visited Asia in 1999, China denied him permission to travel Hong Kong and it didn't allowed any bishops from mainland to attend the Asian Bishops meet in Delhi addressed by pope. Recently, after pope's death it even blocked messages being posted in the web expressing grief. Our own comrades, who don't let go any opportunity without raising hue and cry about BJP, RSS et. al. wouldn't talk against China, but thats for another story.

Lets have a look at what he did to earn our sympathy? His last visit to India was in 1999 November, which saw large scale protests by Hindu organisations against the visit with the central theme being pope’s call for christian asia. Sensing this, church assured that visit doesn’t have any hidden agenda for evangelisation, especially in the context of proposed promulgation of report of the Asian synod in Delhi by pope. Malankara Archbishop Mar Basellios (from Kerala, who in the previous year has attended the synod held in the Vatican) told that the report mainly contains plans chalked out by the Synod to attain universal brotherhood in the next millennium in tune with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Also read about the inter-religious meeting organised by the church to remove the misgivings. Fine. But what happened later.

The Asian synod, Ecclesia in Asia promulgated by pope called upon Church leaders on the continent to step up conversion and evangelisation and spread Jesus Christ's mission of service and love. Let me quote some excerpts from other reports below.

• … "Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent," he said…, even while calling for a “fruitful dialogue leading to a new relationship of understanding and solidarity among the followers of all religions”…
• … document that the Pontiff signed and released at New Delhi's Sacred Heart Cathedral reaffirms the Catholic Church's “ardent affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour”… (emphasis mine)
• … While acknowledging that Christ is often perceived as "foreign" in Asia, he (pope) said: "The peoples of Asia need Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give." … (emphasis mine)

And contrast these statements with what Latin catholic bishop Dr M Soosai Packyam (before pope’s visit) said, … there was no basis for the Sangh Parivar's argument that the Catholic Church did not recognise the values of other religions. Catholicism realises that salvation is possible through other religions also … (emphasis mine).

But, after the visit the church didn’t saw any reason to speak about fruitful dialogue and we had the Archbishop Alan de Lastic tutoring us that evangelisation did not amount to a call for religious conversion. In the same report, Dr Dominic Emmanuel of the CBCI sought to clarify that mention of the word ‘conversion’ in the Asian Synod document did not mean religious conversion, but “a change of heart and for the Christians to become better human beings”.

When it comes to the Indianisation of the church as demanded by BJP, RSS etc. Vatican never answers. That’s alright, but what about a section of the church itself demanding Indianisation. It would be worth to remember that coinciding with the pope’s visit in 1999, Syro-Malabar church raked up the old question and even brought out the Liturgical Action Supplement, highlighting their demand from oriental congregation. A follow-up article is here. But, as I understand that nothing happened later.

In effect we are observing a national mourning for a man who tried to destroy our shared culture - hindus, sikhs, parsis, buddhists, jains all together. All this in the name of spreading the gospel by exploiting the poor and illiterates of the third world mostly by means of pecuniary benefits.

When majority of the nations move along with their work after expressing grief, why are we mourning? Again, I could not help but think about Catholic Sonia and her coterie that goes to any extent to please her. Was the decision taken by the home ministry headed by Shivraj Patil? Or was it taken at the highest level? Sorry, you've got me wrong. I am not talking about the poor prime minister, but about Sonia aka Manmohan's boss.

This nation deserves an answer for these questions. Mr. Prime minister, do you have anything to say?

Asiaweek reported that, during his visit to Raj Ghat – M K Gandhi’s samadhi (mausoleum) - pope used Gandhi’s own quote, while writing in the memorial guest book. I use the same quote here to conclude this. Christians better remember this.

"A culture, cannot survive if it attempts to be exclusive."

Tailpiece

1. Forget about pope. We’ve seen numerous instances where hindus and hindu gods have been ridiculed openly by the baptists. Paintings of hindu gods in toilet seats and lingerie are samples. Here is a sample that shows the hatred of Christians against not only hinduism but against any other religion.
2. As I was just finishing this, Google News had captured this - The US Media and the pope – an assault on separation of church and state from World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Offers an insightful analysis.

Forthcoming. I might also write about these when I get some time. Keep checking the page.

1. Papal double standards

· Part-1: Euthanasia – Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo

· Part-2: India to Mexico – How conversion changes from “basic human rights” to “vigorously defend your faith”

2. Why the next pope shouldn’t be an Indian?