New Page 4

With the advent of new technologies, multinationals and globalisation the impact of key events and political developments in the world is reflected around the globe and South Asia is no exception. The old imperial powers have modified their approaches, and have evolved different economic strategies. Countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, France and Germany dominate the world economy today. International organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and other multilateral organizations are also dominated by these powers. At the same time, China and Japan are emerging as major economic powers, while South Korea and countries such as India are developing rapidly. There is an urgent need for the South Asian countries namely, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as well as the smaller countries in the region such as Nepal, Maldives etc. to take cognisance of the changing political and economic conditions around the globe and respond to these changes.

We aim to participate in, and contribute to, meeting the challenges facing India and the world in the twenty-first century. In this endeavour, we will strive to promote the ideas and vision of Subhas Chandra Bose, and draw lessons from his struggle for freedom for his people from political, social and economic bondage.

We seek to promote his vision of a free and independent India as a strong, vibrant and secular state, with equality of opportunity and the benefits of scientific progress and economic prosperity shared by all; of a society free from the divisions of caste, religion and parochialism, as well as from the evils of poverty, disease and illiteracy - a new nation where the fundamental freedoms and rights of all are guaranteed and respected.

* To establish a network of committed individuals, groups and organizations across the United Kingdom, India and beyond, sharing a common global vision, based on equality, justice and freedom for all, irrespective of birth, gender, religion and ethnicity.

* To promote knowledge and understanding of the contemporary relevance of the political and socio-economic ideas of Bose through public discussion and debate.

* To disseminate accurate information regarding Bose and his role in the Indian independence struggle by making widely available his own writings, historical records, relevant print and audio-visual materials.

* To encourage and support efforts aimed at eradicating discrimination based on caste, religion, ethnicity and gender; and to support the development process in India in all appropriate ways which contribute to a just, tolerant and prosperous society.

1. Background

The Netaji Subhas Foundation (NSF) was founded on 23 January 2000. The principal aim is to establish a network of committed individuals, groups and organisations in the United Kingdom, India and beyond, sharing a common vision based on Subhas Bose’s pragmatic ideology. It also seeks to interact and to co-ordinate efforts with other existing groups and organisations concerned with the history and the future development of the sub-continent.

2. Organisation

The Steering Group of the organisation consists of the following persons;

The Annual Netaji Subhas Lecture June 28, 2010

Subhas Chandra Bose's Vision of Equality & Secularism - Lessons for Today by Lord Dholakia OBE DL

Mon 28 June, 2010 at 6.30 pm

Venue: Nehru Centre, 8 South Audley Street

Nearest Tube Stations: Green Park, Hyde Park Corner, Bond Street

Subhas Bose is known as a freedom fighter as well as a military strategist but his struggle was not just for the independence of India. His thoughts and writing covered economic planning as well as social justice encompassing issues like equality for all citizens and secularism, which are at the forefront of global discussion today.

Appointed Baron Dholakia of Waltham Brooks, Navnit Dholakia was introduced to the House of Lords in 1997. He serves on the House of Lords Appointment Commission and on the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The President of the Liberal Democrats (2000-04), he was subsequently appointed their Deputy Leader in the House of Lords in 2004. He has won a number of prominent awards including Asian of the Year, the Govt of India’s Pravasi Bharatiya Samman and the Hon. Doctor of Laws Degree by the University of Hertfordshire in 2009.

NETAJI SUBHAS FOUNDATION (NSF) U.K

Chair : Suhas Khale

Tel No. 020 8886 0274

E-mail suhas@khale.co.uk

Membership Contact: Sanat Mukerjee

Tel No.01280 812 044

E-Mail san.mukerjee@talktalk.net

The Annual Netaji Subhas Lecture

Meeting was held on 30th July 2009 at 6.30 pm

The Nehru Centre, High Commission of India, 8 South Audley Street, Mayfair, London W1K 1HF

Topic discussed: Subhash Chandra Bose and the Youth Today

1. Subhash Chandra Bose and Youth Today by Chandra Kumar Bose, a young businessman who is a Forward Bloc member and actively involved with Youth by Development.

The Speech:

Mr chairman, Hon Dr Barun Mukherji, Hon Mr Virendra Sharma, distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman

It is indeed an honour to be given this opportunity to introduce today’s theme – Subhas Chandra Bose and Youth Today, and also to say a few words about the youth movement in India.

I want to begin with the words of Subhas Chandra Bose.

In 1923, Bose wrote in what he called dreams of youth – and I quote :

“…we have been born into this world in order to fulfil a purpose – to spread a message. Just as the sun rises to flood the earth with light, as flowers bloom in the forest to spread their fragrance, as the river rushes to the sea to bring the sweet refreshing rain - we have come to this world, full of joy and with the fullness of our hearts, to establish a truth. And that is to discover the unknown and mystical purpose of life, through contemplation and a life of action, which only can make our otherwise senseless existence, meaningful. "

Bose had profound faith in what the youth can do to build a better world. He believed that hope, enthusiasm, sacrifice and courage – are the special attributes of youth. During his student years in Calcutta, he had clearly displayed his inborn qualities of leadership and charisma, and the ability and will to make personal sacrifices for the good of the larger community. Very early on in life he involved himself in community work, and in taking care of the poor and the sick. He was a child of the Indian renaissance and was inspired by the teachings of Ramakrishna Paramahansa and Swami Vivekananda, which he practised throughout his life. His ideas of freedom and social justice were not borrowed from the west, but were drawn from the rich traditions and culture of India.

It is perhaps not widely known that after he returned to India from England in 1921, having resigned from the Indian civil service, he focused on the role of the youth in India’s struggle for independence from British rule, and also actively sought to inspire and engage them in the process of building a new India and a just and egalitarian society. Between frequent arrests and detentions, Bose toured the country and addressed innumerable student, youth and labour conferences. Much of what he said then remain relevant today. Our speakers today will, i am sure, elaborate on the message of Bose to the youth and call upon the youth today to embrace Bose’s ideals and vision in their efforts to promote a better world.

In addressing the first youth conference in Nagpur in the then central provinces, Bose had declared - “every human being – man or woman – is born equal, and he or she shall have equal opportunities of development – that should be our dictum.” He further said that “there should be equal opportunities for education and development”.

Bose firmly believed that in this process of fundamental transformation of society, the youth had a key role to play. But for this the youth needed, together with their characteristic idealism and enthusiasm, thoughts and ideas, character development which comes through action. He said – “thought without action cannot suffice to build character, and for this reason, participation in healthy activity – political, social, artistic etc – is necessary for developing character”. (speech at the Punjab students’ conference, Lahore, 19 October 1929).

The role of the youth thus has to be built on two pillars – a vision of a better world and character. In the absence of this vision and character, life would be rooted in materialism and freedom would become meaningless. At the same time, as Bose said without freedom, an individual and a nation cannot live in dignity. And that is why he wanted the young foot soldiers to develop their minds, strengthen their character, have unwavering faith and determination in the national struggle for freedom and justice, and to be ready to sacrifice for the greater good of the nation.

We have now crossed sixty years as a free nation. But sadly, we have not succeeded in creating the just socio-economic order and a genuine democracy that Bose had envisioned. We are still mired in poverty, illiteracy and diseases. Some of our young people have made great strides in technology and the sciences. But an unacceptable number of our youth have little access to education and life’s opportunities. According to the government of India sources, one quarter of Indians live below the national income poverty line. 296 million people are still illiterate. The situation we have today in India is a far cry from the vision of Subhas Chandra Bose. (total population- 1.2 billion).

Youth power in India, as in other parts of the world, can contribute immensely to nation-building and to creating a just and fair society. We, in India, are developing and working on an agenda for change which i would like to share with you. Our policy and objectives are based on Bose’s vision and programmes which remain very relevant today.

There are three main components of this agenda for change in which the youth have a significant role to play:

I. Promotion of integrity in public life

We are today plagued by corruption in politics, government and business. Greed and irresponsible bahaviour has brought the world economic system to a crisis. The youth can play an important role in several ways:

(I) By their own example, that is by refusing to indulge in activities which have created the current crisis both in the financial sector and in society at large.

(II) By taking steps to expose those who engage in wrongful activities. They can do this most effectively by using the internet, and also by using legal procedures such as the right to information.

Ii. Protection of the environment

In this field the youth, in fact, have a very big stake. They need to save the planet and ensure clean air and water for their own survival and for the benefit of future generations. We can play a very useful role here.

(I) Young people are already involved in cities in India to spread awareness about the dangers of high levels of pollution and depletion of the world’s limited resources. We will be supporting and strengthening these movements by approaching schools and colleges.

(II) We shall be encouraging young people to undertake research in areas such as solar power to find alternative sources of energy.

(III) And we shall encourage the simple process of planting trees in our densely populated cities.

Iii. Access to education

In India today we have hundreds and thousands of high school students and young graduates who are willing to share their knowledge with those who are excluded from access to education. We are looking for ways in which young educated students can provide basic skills of language and subjects such as mathamatics in order that no young person in India today is denied the basic right to education.

With these words, i wish to conclude, and i would like to thank the Netaji Subhas Foundation, London and the Nehru Centre for organising this programme and inviting me.

Jai Hind!!

2. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his relevance to youth today in the UK by Virendra Sharma, who was born in India and speaks fluent Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu. He was elected as MP in the Ealing Southall by-election in 2007. He is a member of Justice Select Committee & Human Rights Committee, Chair of All Party Tamils Group 2008 and Vice Chair of Labour Friends of India Group 2008. Before entering Parliament. He served as Councilor for over 25 years and Mayor of Ealing.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was a man ahead of his time and as such remarkably relevant to today’s youth. How aware they are of that relevance or of the man himself I am not so sure? When referring to his political party Forward Block, set up initially within the Congress movement after his split with Gandhi, the initials of that party FB will bring to mind in today’s youth more the social networking site Facebook than any knowledge of the political party and ideas of Subhas Chandra Bose. Speaking to some of the young people I know they have little, if any knowledge of Netaji and have had to ask their parents for information about his leadership role in the struggle for Indian independence.

It was not always like this. The Raj Punjab government in 1932 when arguing why Netaji should not be transferred to a jail in the Punjab said, “Subhas Chandra Bose has always had a disturbing effect on Lahore students, who always turn out in large numbers whenever he visits the Punjab.” Perhaps the young people in my constituency of Ealing Southall today, a large number of whom have their origins in the Punjab, are suffering from that worldwide malaise amongst young people of not seeing the relevance of politics in general and being focussed instead on music, fashion, social networking and the consumer society?

The second generation of young people born and brought up in the UK have to work hard to bridge that ever widening gap of knowledge between them and those who lived through or were taught in India the story of Netaji and the independence struggle. If you are a second generation young person of Indian origin living in the UK today it will however be a fruitful voyage of discovery if you take the time to study the remarkable life of Subhas Chandra Bose and his guiding philosophy. It will also be an intriguing journey that will reveal many things about your country of origin and about your country of birth.

Subhas Chandra Bose has always been a controversial figure when looked through British eyes but when viewed from an Indian perspective he is legendary and a super hero. To British historians he was a quisling of the Nazis; to Indians he was a dynamic national leader who hastened independence and freedom.

The first thing to say is that he lived his life with great commitment and certainty having developed at an early age his values and political beliefs. Education was the foundation on which he built those values, beliefs and lifetime achievements. From Prison in 1927 he wrote, “One has to love new things, one has to grow mad for the unknown, one has to express himself in the free mind and under the open sky by breaking through all the barriers of life and by razing them to the ground.” He understood and propounded the idea of John Stuart Mill that democracy based on universal suffrage must be preceded by universal education and he advocated primary education for all. If he were alive today he would be disappointed that this aspiration had not been achieved in India yet and he would be working to achieve it. I believe he would also fully support the millennium development goals of giving primary education to all children in the world and would be actively seeking to make this a reality. Our young people should be doing the same.

From an early age he was also actively engaged in the political process. Having made the decision to reject a career of privilege and material well being in the Indian Civil Service he pro-actively sought out his mentor and guru C R Das and entered the world of political activism. When Das was elected Mayor of Calcutta he appointed Subhas Bose as Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation at the youthful age of 27. Bose was in effective charge of the corporation of the second city in the Empire a significant achievement for one so young. Our young people need to have principled ambition like Bose and self belief that they can achieve unlimited things.

Many of Bose’ achievements in life can be attributed to his willingness to subjugate his own individual desires and wants for a higher cause. This ability was partly built on his religious faith and belief. Under the influence of Vivekanada in a letter to his mother at age 15 he wrote, “Mother, how much longer shall we sleep? How much longer shall we go on playing with non-essentials? Shall we turn a deaf ear to the wailings of our nation? Our ancient religion is suffering the pangs of near death – does that not stir our hearts? How long can one sit with folded arms and watch this state of our country and religion? One cannot wait anymore – one cannot sleep anymore – we must now shake off our stupor and lethargy and plunge into action. But alas! How many selfless sons of the Mother are prepared, in this selfish age, to completely give up their personal interests and take the plunge for the mother? Mother, is this son of yours yet ready?” These are stirring and mature words from a young fifteen year old and should challenge all our young people today.

His lifetime of devotion and service to his country and the cause of achieving independence often at the cost of ill health and personal discomfort are inspiring. He was jailed 11 times by the British authorities, almost always without a trial or charges against him and spent many years either in jail or in exile overseas away from his family often in poor living conditions. His mental strength, determination and willingness to sacrifice his own personal comforts and pleasures for a noble cause is in stark contrast to the “me” first attitude that sometimes characterises all sections of our consumerist age and society.

His secular views are also well known and inspiring. He had an attitude of impartiality towards all religions and according to him the Government of Free India must have an absolutely neutral and impartial attitude towards all religions and leave it to the choice of every individual to profess or follow a particular religion; religion is a private affair it cannot be made an affair of the state. Shah Nawaz Khan said that, for Subhas there were no religious or provincial differences. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh soldiers in the Indian National Army were made to realise that they were sons of the same motherland. M.A.H. Ispahani, a Calcutta Muslim League businessman said of Subhas’ efforts to promote unity: “Had Bose remained in India, he may well have boldly struck out for Muslim friendship.” When we look at current day international problems and the need for community cohesion and harmony in local areas like Southall here in the UK the need for a secular approach to governance is as relevant and fresh as ever.

In his public speeches Subhas emphatically advocated the abolition of the caste system in India and introduced the observance of anti-touchability week from April 6^th to 13^th. He supported inter-caste marriages in India and as a true disciple of Vivekananda, Bose understood that the progress of India would only be possible with the uplift of the down-trodden and the so called untouchables who constitute the very essence of society. Caste discrimination in India and in the south Asian community in the UK today is a social evil that still needs to be eradicated. Our young people need to take a lead in this.

Subhas Chandra Bose had very firm views on the emancipation of women. He rightly diagnosed that illiteracy and economic dependence were the root cause of the serfdom of women. He spoke in favour of an all round education for women and developed a programme that included literacy, physical and vocational education. Subhas Chandra Bose commended the role women played in the civil disobedience movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in which they had been equal to men in addressing public meetings, conducting election campaigns and undergoing the privation of prison life, torture and humiliation. Netaji also firmly believed that no country could really be free if her women did not enter the arena and fight for freedom and so he formed the Rani Jhansi Regiment, the first all women’s regiment of its kind in the closing months of world war two. He also appointed a woman cabinet minister in his Provisional Government of Azad Hind.

The emancipation of women is still a pressing modern issue. As a Member of Parliament I have spent a significant amount of time campaigning against forced marriages, domestic violence, dowries and I am currently working with ministers to include in UK law a clause making the practice of dowries illegal. I am sure Subhas Chandra Bose would have been my ally if he were alive today.

As a Gandhian myself it is Bose’ views on armed resistance to British rule and his alliance with the Axis powers that make him most controversial. One can argue that by allying himself with the Germans and Japanese he was being an opportunist and negating all the positive values I have been recounting and that he was blind to the impact on India that a world dominated by Hitler’s Nazi Germany would have. Or you can argue that he was merely taking a practical course of action based on calculations of “real politik” where as he said, “If he had to shake hands with the devil to gain Indian independence he would do that.” Bose’s correspondence reflects his deep disapproval of the racist practices of, and annulment of democratic institutions in Nazi Germany. He was also clear in his belief that democracy was the best option for India.

I believe Bose was a pragmatist and a man of action. He was fighting for India’s independence in the here and now not as some future vision.

In deriving his believe in the use of force to gain independence, Bose had studied and recommended the example of the Irish liberation struggle because it combined the strongest form of non co-operation and military action. He concluded that no country had gained independence without bloodshed and his catch cry was “Give me blood and I will give you independence.” Bose was often frustrated that Gandhi did not prosecute the civil disobedience campaign in a strong enough or sustained way and his belief that Swaraj could only be achieved by including force put him on a collision course with Gandhi. There is no getting away from the substantial support Bose had within the nationalist movement and the Congress Party for this position, twice being elected Congress President against Mahatma Gandhi’s wishes in 1938 and 1939.

It can also be argued that Bose’ activities as the leader of the Indian National Army in taking the fight to the British hastened the day when independence was granted. Militarily the campaign was not effective and ended in defeat but the impact on the Indian population after the war was over when the British put on public trial former INA officers was significant. The Indian public rioted and parts of the British Indian Army mutinied at the thought of these Indian patriots who had fought for the freedom of India being punished by the British. The British backed off, gave them pardons and some historians cite Commander in Chief of the British Indian Army, Claude Auchinleck's own assessment of the situation suggesting that this shortened the Raj by at least fifteen to twenty years. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee also acknowledged that this was a factor in the British government’s decision to grant independence in 1947.

So what relevance is all of this to the youth of today? Firstly in the UK we do not have an independence struggle to fight so those difficult decisions about non-violence or force do not have to be made. We do however have democratic institutions and a free society that needs to be valued, participated in and preserved. That means an engagement by young people in politics and the political process. I began by perhaps unkindly suggesting that all young people were interested in were social networking sites like Facebook, their music and their consumerism. I actually do not believe that this is the true face of our young people today. Many of you will remember the recent Make Poverty History Campaign and there is also the ongoing campaigning against climate change. Many young people are associated with these campaigns and others like them. They care deeply about fighting for social justice and protecting our planet. I am sure that if Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was alive today he would be fighting for these same issues and inspiring young people to do the same.

3. Subhas Chandra Bose and Youth Today, by Dr. Barun Mukherji, an Indian MP and the Deputy Chairman of Bengal State Committee, Forward Bloc and member of the Central Secretariat of All India Forward Bloc..He has recently also published a book on Netaji. Director of Chitta Basu Research Foundation, he is also the National Vice-President of Netaji Subhas Foundation.

1. During the freedom movement of the country Subhas Chandra was the most popular youngest national leader of the awakened youth. After a rigorous prison term (1924-27) at Mandalaya jail, Subhas moved all around and addressed hundreds of student and youth conferences and called for a struggle for freedom and socialism. The young generation responded enthusiastically to his call.

Subhas believed that destiny of the country depended on the youth. But a feeling of dissatisfaction with the then current order always haunted them. Same is the position today. Youth today are still haunted by a feeling of uncertainties and restlessness. Subhas Chandra's ideologies can only now lead them to a positive goal of post-independence socialism, free from triple bondage of political, economic and social oppression.

2. Youth today have wider exposure to knowledge, but are denied scope for its implementation. This causes a deeper disappointment to them.

3. Subhas declared in a London conference in 1933 that free India will not be a land of capitalists, landlords and castes. But of late casteism has reappeared as a divisive force. Youth today should combat this menace.

4. Subhas Chandra's exemplary spirit of patriotism can still inspire Youth today

5. Subhas was the pioneer of Indian Planning. He first constituted the National Planning Committee in 1938. He called for socialistic reconstruction of the country through planned economy, equally emphasising on agriculture and industry, including heavy, small and cottage industries and cooperatives. Youth today may derive benefits out of it.

6. Subhas was an ardent follower of socialism. But he asserted that India should evolve her own methods to establish socialism in Indian way under Indian conditions.

7. Subhas Chandra had his unique philosophy of socialism which he explained by asserting that the five principles that should form the basis of our collected life are Justice, Equality, Freedom, Discipline and Love. Youth today may derive solace, inspiration and guidelines from it.

Netaji was a revolutionary leader with a vision for the socio-economic and political development of India.The speaker will cover the following principal points in his presentation:

· Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his vision for a New India: What was that vision and how does it relate both to the situation in pre-Independent India and free India?

· The evolution of Bose’s social and political thoughts: A thumbnail sketch of India today and its major challenges and problems. How different is the situation seen against Bose's vision? What went wrong? Did Subhas forecast some of the problems of today and warn against them? Can we draw from Subhas' thinking and approaches to address some of India's current problems?

Pradip Bose is a writer, journalist and political activist. He is the President of the Indian Centre for Democratic Socialism in New Delhi and has written the following books:

He has done extensive research on Subhas Bose which is available on NSF website (www.nsfoundation.org.uk) under Subhas Bose - His Life, Work & Ideas

Good evening and a very warm welcome to everyone for another anniversary lecture of Netaji Subhas Foundation. At the outset on behalf of NSF I would like to thank the Nehru Centre and specifically the Director, Monica Mohta for hosting this meeting. A special welcome to Dr. Ashok Kumar MP who delivered the anniversary lecture in 2005 , Madhuri Bose a human rights expert who is about to finish a book on Subhas entitled “ Subhas Chandra Bose- Heo of Asia” who has come from Jerusalem for the meeting and . Lalit Mohan Joshi , Director of South Asian Cinema Foundation who enabled us to see the Shyam Benegal film last year You heard some inspiring IRA music as you walked in, our thanks to SACF and Lalit for organising it .

When we started this foundation in the year 2000 one of our objective was to rekindle interest not only in the life of Subhas Chandra Bose but also in his vision as well as political/ social & economic ideas. After eight years we find that a considerable number of people want to know about what he stood for as well as about the historical events in which he was a primary figure. It is heartening to note that there is Netaji International Centre in LA , indo -German association of Germany as well as web based Yahoo groups are keenly interested in understanding this outstanding son of India and know more about him. A lot of research work done by today's speaker Pradip Bose is available on the NSF website www.nsfoundation.org,uk <http://www.nsfondation.org/> under Subhas Bose – His Life, Work & Ideas.

An organisation in India called Mission Netaji has a website which serves as an online archive of Subhas 's work and as a forum for debate and analysis of current events in the light of his philosophy.

Subhas Bose has not been completely understood by many people. Some think of him as military leader who fought against the British in collaboration with fascist Germany , some think of him as a Congress leader who disagreed with Gandhi's and went away in a huff.

Subhas was a complete leader who was a brilliant academic, administrator, political leader, revolutionary, patriot and a military organiser. He was a pragmatic leader who looked at the realities of the situation. What is not known is above all he was a great visionary who had his own vision for India.

The last few years have witnessed changes in the world political and more importantly on the economic canvass. India has witnessed some rapid economic growth and is being considered as an emerging global power along with China. Having said that does economic growth alone makes a country of a billion people a truly a nation free from hunger, poverty and suffering. with equality, social justice?

The current fiscal growth rate is likely to decelerate from 9.2 % to 8.3 % and more importantly the agriculture growth rate is expected to be lower than before.

Decline in poverty during 1994-2005 has been lower than before and According to Ginni coefficient based on the National survey 2004/5 by Mahendra Dev & Ravi inequality has increased,800 Million people are living on less than Rs 20 per day. India occupies 126^th position in human development index. Life expectancy is lower than Bolivia . After China , largest number of infants death take place in the country.

Gender gap index produced by world economic Forum ranks India as 114 among 128 countries.

Politically India has also seen the rise of non-secular parties. We have seen religious atrocities in Gujarat and India's image as a secular state has been tarnished. Abortions of female fetus are carried out regularly, child marriages are still taking place dastardly acts against the Dalits and other untouchables continue unabated at many places.

What if Subhas Bose had been around what vision he would have presented ? what development model he would have pursued for India in the context of the current political and economic situation. Would it have been a model with emphasis on economic issues or a social & human development issues or both or completely innovative and different one ?

Today our speaker Pradip Bose is going to present a perspective on this “What If “ question based on his studied understanding about Netaji.

The Nehru Centre, High Commission of India, 8 South Audley Street, Mayfair, London W1K 1HF

The memorial lecture for Netaji will be given by Dr. Ashok Kumar M.P. on 8th July 2005.The lecture is expected to provide better understanding of the current Indo- British relationship. Dr. Kumar will present a realistic picture of the current relationship and identify how we can strengthen the bond for the future. The lecture will be for half an hour and then there will be an open forum of question and answers and interactions with the audience.

Member for Langbaurgh 1991 - 1992 (by-election) , and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland since 1 May 1997 general election

Parliamentary Private Secretary to Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn, Secretary of State, Department for International Development (2003- ). Member of Trade and Industry Select Committee (2001-2003). Chair of All Party Parliamentary Group for the Chemical Industry (2000-2003). Member of Science & Technology Select Committee (1997-2001). Board Member of Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Member of Parliamentary Scientific Committee, Vice-Chair of Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies, Chair of Northern Group of Labour MPs, Member of Parliamentary Labour Party Trade and Industry Committee, Member of Parliamentary Labour Party Treasury Committee, Parliamentary Labour Party Education and Employment Committee.

The Netaji Subhash Foundation meeting on 8th July at Nehru Centre was reasonably well attended despite the bomb blasts.

Suhas Khale the Convenor of NSF welcomed the audience & the Chair for their courage in attending after the blasts and praised the Speaker for delivering the lecture as planned and forgoing his celebration at India House. He thanked the Nehru Centre for their cooperation over the years for enabling the NSF to hold their annual event. He condemned the bombing by the terrorists and killing of innocent civilians and pointed out that it affected people of all religions, age, races and was an act of criminals. He talked about the completion of Project work of putting about 200 pages about Subhash Bose 's life on the NSF website . He also informed the audience that NSF was going to work to try and show the film produced about Netaji by Sham Benegal. He then paid tribute to Reba Sen (Mrs. Sengupta), who passed away a few weeks ago. She was a member of Rani Jhansi regiment of INA and spoke about her experiences last year at the NSF meeting. One minutes silence was observed in her memory.

Dr Ashok Kumar who delivered the Netaji Memorial Lecture is currently PPS to Hilary Benn Minister of state, Department for International Development The theme for the lecture was: Indo-British Relationship - Current & Future. He spoke of the contribution of Subhash Bose to the Indian independence movement and his fight against the British Imperialism. He pointed out that the progressive Labour Party leaders had supported the cause of Indian independence and how the Indo-British relationship have been intricately mixed. He then expounded how globalisation and fast changing economic situation has influenced the world political and economic scene and emergence of India and China as the upcoming powers. He referred to WTO and World Trade issues like Debt, Aid etc. and the role of the Labour Party and its leaders. He expressed that hope that the Indian Government like the Labour Party in Britain will use the market changing conditions to achieve economic prosperity but with a plus of improving the social conditions of people in the country.

There were very interesting comments and questions from the audience before the meeting was closed.

A joint meeting has been organised by the NSF & Tagore Centre at the Tagore Centre premises on

The subject is " Subhash Chandra Bose & his relationship with Rabindranath Tagore"

Mihir Bose is a noted journalist who has worked with "The Daily Telegraph"for a number of years. He reportsregularly on Sports, Politics & Business.Many a cricket lovers would recollect his exciting and interesting reports on cricket matches. He has written over 20 books on various subjects. In 1982 he published a biography of Subhash Chandra Bose called "The Lost Hero". This was the first full length biography of Netaji using all the then available archival material. He is about to publish a revised version of this book using freshly declassified documents, which so far have not been seen in public His motivation for writing about Netaji was that people at large should know about Netaji's contribution to the Indian struggle for independence and to put across his ideas and work in the context of modern.

Sorry I had to leave in a hurry for another meeting and I apologise for not having taken your leave! Please could you give me the auspices under which the meeting was held? .I know the Netaji Foundation was involved, but what is the name of the gentleman who took over from you and what is his organisation?.I regretted not having brought some copies of Confluence for distribution.It would have gone down well considering that the lead story was about Netaji himself.But if you give me this gentleman's contact number I could send him some copies for distribution to his members.

Shall certainly send you a copy when it is ready with yesterday's event portrayed in the way it deserves. This will be in the first/second week of May.Sorry I don't have a website yet - it is something I need to get down to right away.You are to be congratulated for organising this really superb and totally absorbing event.It deserves a far wider audience and perhaps Confluence might compensate with its next edition. Mihir was indeed the right man and no one else could have done it better - not even Amartya Sen!

The Nehru Centre, High Commission of India, 8 South Audley Street, Mayfair, London W1K 1HF

Madhuri Bose: Rights Specialist & Senior Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London

Supriya was a Member of Rani Jhansi Regiment of Azad Hind Fauj (INA) in Burma from early 1943 for 1.5 years. She will speak about her personal experiences of working in the women’s regiment, Netaji as a leader with special emphasis on his approach to equality of women.

Baroness Uddin has been a life peer at the House of Lords since 1998. She is a former local government councilor and leader of Tower Hamlets Council. During her eight years in office she led in policy development, finance, education and social services. As a member of Parliament she has continued her work in these areas, including focusing on women, race and disability issues. She also acts as advisor to government departments on community relations and moslem women

Rahila is a political activist and writer. She has been a member of Southall Black Sisters since 1989. She is a freelance journalist who has written for a range of national and international newspapers and magazines, including the Guardian. She has written radio drama for the BBC and is currently a writer-in-residence at Bromley by Bow Centre. She has contributed polemical essays, short stories and poems to many anthologies, co-edited Flaming Spirit, a collection of short stories by Asian women, with Rukhsana Ahmad and has co-written the auto/biography of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, Circle of Light, a battered woman who was driven to kill her violent husband. She has edited a collection of political essays, From Homebreakers to Jailbreakers, to be published by Zed Press in November 2003.

Reba Sen ( married name Supriya Sengupta) narrated her experiences of Rani Jhansi regiment in the INA of Subhash Bose. She pointed out how women were treated as equals and respected in the INA. She also said that Subhash Bose worked closely with all the people in the army and ate the same food as that was given to the soldiersand in the same canteen where they ate.

Rahila Gupta spoke about oppression of women in the UK Diaspora, in particular about Domestic Violence. She explained the work done by Southhall Black Sisters in this field and gave examples of two women Krishna Sharma who was driven to suicide and Kiranjit Ahluwalia who was imprisoned for setting her husband alight after suffering brutality at his hands for a number of years. She pointed out hat introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2000 gave women a new language and tools with which to fight for added protection. She said that we need to develop a culture with strong sanctions against interpersonal violence, where women have economic power and autonomy within and outside the home where the definition of masculinity is not linked to male dominance or honour and where there is equality of decision making and resources within the family.

Mihir Bose explained his motivation for writing about Subhash was that people at large should know more about the history and events of the period in which he lived as well as his contribution to the Indian struggle for independence. He also pointed out that it was important to understand his vision for India and South Asia . He said that we should not harp about the mystery of his death but try to understand what he was trying to achieve and put into action his ideas and work in the modern political, economic and social framework.

I will be looking at the changing position of Asian women in Britain mainly through the prism of Southall Black Sisters activism. During this time, I think it is fair to say that we have spearheaded some of the most important campaigns in the recent history of Asian women and marked out the boundaries of the battleground. That ground has been very muddy indeed – race, gender and poverty have continually eroded it.

In common with many black women who are politically active in Britain, I came to an awareness of feminist politics through my involvement initially with anti-racist struggles. That personal journey encapsulates in many ways the central theme of my talk tonight – that Asian women in the diaspora have had to fight for both racial and sexual equality and the two struggles are not separate but inextricably linked and sometimes in very unexpected ways. We have found again and again that if either struggle is waged alone, the other is in danger of being compromised.

This dual allegiance is specific to minority women, wherever they are. The women who came together to form Southall Black Sisters in 1979 had been active in anti-racist struggles too. They had stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the Southall community, facing the police baton and the charge of police horses as they demonstrated against that infamous meeting of the National Front in Southall Town hall. The women had been part of the defence committee that was set up soon after to ensure that justice was handed out to the young men arrested on a variety of charges. However, when a few months later Mrs Dhillon and her five daughters were burnt down by her violent husband and those same women asked for the support of their male comrades against domestic violence, they were turned down. The men said that we shouldn’t be washing our dirty linen in public, that we would attract a racist response from the white community who would see this as typical of the backwardness of minorities. In fact, we faced a greater backlash from self-appointed conservative male leaders of the Asian communities. This is why our book (which is available for sale downstairs) is called, From Homebreakers to Jailbreakers. Because the first epithet was hurled against us as a term of abuse, but we are proud to wear both labels if it means protecting women from community and state injustice.

Somehow violence at home wasn’t as important as violence on the streets, a woman’s life not as important as a man’s – an attitude which was shared by the police and the state until recently. However, at this very moment, there is historic legislation going through Parliament – a bill on domestic violence – which has its weaknesses but nevertheless it indicates the seismic shift in attitudes.

Of course our communities have become much more sensitised to the issue of domestic violence. We have put domestic violence on the agenda. We made it our priority. We marched through the streets of Southall to draw attention to the case of Krishna Sharma who was driven to suicide by her husband and in-laws in 1984. We borrowed tactics from the Indian women’s movement when we stood outside her in-laws’ house and chanted, They say it’s suicide: We say it’s murder, reaching the parts of Asian society that no other kind of campaigning reaches – hitting the ‘H’ spot – HONOUR, izzat, that which is vulnerable to what the neighbours will say.

Similarly our campaign on Kiranjit Ahluwalia hit the television screens and made her a household name. She had set her husband alight in 1989 after having suffered his brutality for 10 years. When she was released on appeal in 1992, her case made legal history. It led to a significant relaxation in the way the law of provocation had been interpreted until that time, allowing the courts to take into account the cumulative provocation that a battered woman suffers. As far as I am aware that was the first time that a campaign by black women led to a change that was to benefit all women.

As this example shows, the state can play a role in protecting women and giving them enhanced rights. We have had a somewhat ambivalent relationship with the state. We had always imagined ourselves to exist outside of it and our interests to be opposed to it although as an organisation we relied on the state for funding to carry out our welfare and advice services. For 17 years we had lived in the shadow of Thatcherism. But today we look for points at which to intervene and influence policy and to demand protection from the state. The introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2000 gave us a new language and tools with which to fight for added protection for women. However, we have found that every time we make a demand for the rights of minority women as in the case of forced marriage, the state responds with racist immigration changes that affect the whole community.

We have had to negotiate a path through the minefield of race and gender carefully. It would be quite easy for us to help or encourage a woman who wants to escape a violent marriage to deport her husband if his immigration status is insecure or dependent on hers. Many women would like us to do just that. But for us it has been an issue of principle that we will not use legislation that is racist in order to advance our own agenda.

There has also been a worrying trend in conflating race with religion, of seeing racial and religious identities as interchangeable. But gender mediated by race is one thing and gender mediated by religion quite another. A major threat to the position of women, especially since the early 90s, has come from the rise of religious fundamentalism. Which relies on the control of women’s minds and bodies for the success of its project. We set up Women Against Fundamentalism in 1990, a diverse group of women from Ireland, Israel, Iraq, the Indian subcontinent and Britain to make the connections between all religious fundamentalisms be they Hindu, Muslim, Catholic or Jewish – because they are all equally pernicious. This remains an important political point because since the days of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and in the post 9/11 period, a growing Islamaphobia has eclipsed the extremism of other religions. We only have to look to Gujarat or Palestine to see how dangerous that can be.

Change is by its very nature uneven. More Asian women are entering the professions and are becoming empowered to live independent lives. The statistics show that Asian women are better educated than white women but there is a higher rate of unemployment and of women in part-time, shift work. This may be attributable to racism, sexism and cultural pressures preventing women from entering the job market. Also, let us not forget that the rate of suicide among Asian women is two and a half times higher than in the wider community.

How we are viewed both by our own communities and society at large is also changing. In the seventies and eighties the overriding stereotype of Asian women was one of passive victim. The famous Grunwick strike in the late 70s that was led by a determined Asian woman, Jayaben Desai went a long way to overturn the stereotype of Asian women. There has been a remarkable tradition of trade union struggles sustained and fought by Asian women, whether it was for union recognition or against privatisation. There is also a thriving sector of advice, welfare and refuge provision run by Asian women. Although - organisations working for political change are few and far between.

We need to develop a culture with strong sanctions against interpersonal violence, where women have economic power and autonomy within and outside the home, where the definition of masculinity is not linked to male dominance or honour and where there is equality of decision making and resources within the family. We have made much progress. We still have a long way to go. Every time we hear of a case like that of Shafilea Ahmed, the young woman who disappeared in mysterious circumstances and whose body may now have been found, who may or may not have been the victim of an honour killing – we have to accept with humility the magnitude of the task in hand.

Activities 2000 - 2002

In the process of its formation at the end of 1999 the NSF had organised a film evening on Netaji where Enemy of Empire produced by Charles Bruce of the BBC was shown. Charles Bruce said that “No film can really capture everything in such a life. It was lived on a grand scale. But he hoped that something of the epic quality of the man and his passionate quest for India’s freedom is captured in this film”. The film was judged to be quite balanced in its portrayal of the momentous years of Indian history, and the role Subhas played in it.

The concept of Equality (gender, caste, race, creed & religion) is a significant one globally and an important one for the NSF. Denise McGuire who is a President of CONNECT and Roland Biosa, a Black Trade Unionist leader, were the speakers who addressed the NSF meeting on 17^th November 2000. They spoke respectively on Gender equality and Race equality issues.

Denise explained the development and progress made in achieving equality of opportunity for women in the various fields with specific reference to the Employment sector and pointed out that the struggle for equal pay and equality of opportunity in employment for women in the UK is being continued by Women’s organisations and Trade Unions. She also emphasised the need to support similar organisations fighting in the South Asia.

Roland spoke about the history of racial discrimination throughout the imperial history and struggle by the individuals. Referring to Stephen Lawrence inquiry he emphasised the need for fighting Institutional racism within UK. Narrating some examples of racial discrimination in promotion in employment and within the Trade Unions, he said that black / Asian organisations need to give high profile to the race discrimination issue along with their cultural activities so that greater awareness can be created amongst the Black and Ethnic Minorities.

There was some lively discussion on the issues/ questions raised by the attendees.

The first major event organised by the NSF in collaboration with The Nehru Centre, the cultural wing of the Indian High Commission in London, was a seminar on "Netaji's Ideology and Work and their Relevance Today" on 24 March 2000 in London. This was the first major meeting on Netaji in London that sought to examine his thoughts and role in the independence movement in relation to India today.

The three speakers at the very well attended function were the distinguished historian Tapan Raychoudhuri, Emeritus Fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford University; Anita Bose Pfaff, University of Augsburg (Germany) and daughter of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose; and Salil Tripathy, a political journalist who has done extensive research in Singapore on the impact of the INA in the 1940s in South East Asia. The speakers dealt with the implications of Netaji's thoughts in contemporary India, and in the context of the revival of communal and ethnic radicalism, a decline in political morals and values, and the increasing strains on the relations among the countries of the Indian sub-continent.

Tapan Raychaudhuri spoke of the paramount importance of secularism and Netaji's total commitment to it. He argued that in the current political and social climate Netaji's ideology is of critical relevance.

Anita Pfaff sketched some of Netaji's personality traits and said that Netaji was a deeply spiritual and a moral man, but that in no way contradicted his tolerance of other religions or cultures. Netaji was also a very modern man and sought social transformation in many different aspects including the promotion of gender equality and egalitarianism. Netaji was also one of the first to think of economic planning, and while there is today more need for pragmatism than ideology, the importance of planning emphasised by Netaji remains valid.

Salil Tripathi, addressed the motivations of lay persons in Singapore who decided to support the INA. He mentioned many interesting individual anecdotes which helped to illustrate the very different reactions of the persons concerned. He pointed out that the commemoration of the INA in 1995 with the unveiling of a plaque in Singapore showed that Singaporeans were finally coming to recognise those momentous events of the first half of the 1940s as part of their own history.

Indian political situation today – 2001

Pradip Bose a noted Indian Journalist and Politician who has written a book about Netaji gave a talk in July on “ Indian situation today & relevance of Netaji’s ideology ”. Pradip commented on issues like poverty, equality, India & Pakistan conflict, political situation in India, need for sound economic planning etc. and clearly demonstrated how Netaji.s thinking, vision, and pragmatic approach many years ago was relevant today to provide solutions to the modern problems of India and South Asia as a whole.

Seminar on Healthcare Planning - 2001

A lecture by Professor Anita Pfaff of the University of Augsburg, Germany on “Cross-national comparison of healthcare systems and their implications for India” on 15 March 2001 in London. Professor Pfaff, daughter of Subhas Chandra Bose, had recently returned from a visit to India where she had an opportunity to meet and discuss with a wide cross-section of people.

The meeting was chaired by the NSF Convenor Suhas Khale. The audience mainly included persons from the countries of South Asia. The chairperson opened the meeting by introducing Dr Pfaff and thanking the NSF Steering Committee Members for organising the meeting.

Referring to her father’s vision of independent India, Dr Pfaff said: Looking at Netaji’s goals and ideals, we can say that his overall concern with empowerment, emancipation and essentially an egalitarian society i.e. one based on socialist orientation, would imply a healthcare which provides universal coverage, redistribution as regards financing, and inclusiveness in terms of social groups and regions. She noted that in principle the welfare regime introduced by Bismarck in Germany in the 1880s and the Beveridge type operating in the UK since the Second World War can be said to incorporate these aspects. She admitted that there are significant differences in the demographic and economic situations in India today as compared to Germany or the United Kingdom. However some useful lessons could still be drawn from their experiences for developing a comprehensive healthcare system in India today.

Dr Pfaff emphasised the critical importance of healthcare as part of human resource development, and that effective healthcare provision improves “human capital” with its positive implications for the economy and society as a whole. She drew attention to the factors underlying improvements in general health which have been more due to prevention of disease rather than because of better treatment including improvements in hygiene, knowledge about infection, better nutrition, improvements in sanitation and housing and safety measures at work.

For India Dr Pfaff supported a policy of publicly financed “minimum healthcare” aimed at more universal coverage. A scheme drawing on the Bismarckian social security system could be developed for the working classes, and for the more well-to-do company plans and private insurances could be introduced. Finally such a system had to be coordinated with the many grassroots health initiatives to give India an effective and comprehensive healthcare system.

This discussion was about greater co-operation in South Asia and distinguished speakers from India, Pakistan & Bangladesh were invited.

NSF convenor Suhas Khale linked the growth of terrorism with prevailing economic conditions. "The root cause is poverty," he argued. It was important to "fight the influence of the multinational companies" through a "greater co-operation of nations" in South Asia.

Madhuri Bose, one of the founders of the NSF addressed the issues of religious intolerance and communal hatred. "Communalism will only go when the mentality behind it goes," she said. What was needed was the "genuinely nationalist outlook" of Netaji. He was "passionately committed" to a "just society" and he "never believed Partition would help either Hindus or Muslims". Ms Bose delved further into the 1940s, quoting Sarat Chandra Bose on the communal violence of the time, before making the idealistic leap forward to a future of "New-Worldism", where there would be "no frontiers, no classes and no races."

Farooq Sobhan, the Bangladeshi former diplomat who held the post of High Commissioner to Delhi between 1992 and 1995, took Dr Taylor's reference to SAARC as his starting point. The forum's history, he told us, went back 22 years "to January 1980, when I presented the first conference paper on regional cooperation, suggesting the need for SAARC, or something like it." It had been a "pretty bumpy ride since the first SAARC summit in Dhaka," he commented. There were always difficulties in "convincing India and Pakistan that this was the way forward." From the outset, there was "suspicion" and doubt that "regional co-operation was ever going to work." However, the smaller nations were "great believers". Farooq Sobhan further argued that such economic union should operate within the context of a Free Trade Area. "Crucial," he said, was the "willingness of India to open her markets to smaller nations." A "change of heart" was needed from India in this respect. "Another critical factor is the Indo-Pak problem.

Dr Gautam Sen of the London School of Economics is an advisor on economic affairs to the Indian Government. A somewhat nervous speaker, he began by expressing his pleasure at being invited to participate on this occasion. "My grandfather served two years in goal by virtue

of his association with Netaji," he said. Getting into his stride, Dr Sen spoke of the "economic benefits of regional cooperation." It would give the region a "stronger bargaining position" and "foreign exchange could be channeled into development." He contrasted this bright prospect with the present reality of threatened conflict.

Professor Wasim of Pakistan cast a plague on both houses. India and Pakistan each made different interpretations of each other's national positions. There were attempts to rewrite history in both and now the two were "much further apart than they ever have been since 1947." Yet, there was hope. Pakistan's foreign policy was, he asserted, "made in Delhi." The conflict was a battle between two "establishments." "Pressure from inside and from the youth," would change things.

Kashmir – August 2002

Victoria Schofield author of the book “Kashmir in Conflict” spoke about the “Feasible Solutions to Kashmir”. There was lively discussion and debate covering the international aspects of Kashmir issue.

Subhas Chandra Bose: His Vision of Independent India, February 2003

The 2003 Annual Netaji Birth Celebration in London to mark his 106^th birthday took place at the Nehru Centre, the Cultural Wing of the High Commission of India on 13 February 2003 at 18.45 hours. Since the founding year of the NSF in 2000 this annual event has taken place in collaboration with the Nehru Centre. H.E. Ronen Sen High Commissioner for India was present as Chief Guest at the function. Mr Girish Karnad, Director of The Nehru Centre welcomed the speakers and guests.

Suhas Khale, Convenor of the Netaji Subhas Foundation, emphasized at the outset the principal focus of the Organisation which is not only to celebrate the life of a great Indian statesman but much more importantly to address his vision for a new India, and to explore the extent to which his ideology remains valid. Mr Khale noted that NSF had often been approached by interested scholars and members of the public for the writings and works of Subhas Bose, which unfortunately were not easily available. NSF had therefore embarked on an effort to collect materials both written and audio-visual by and on Bose.

H.E. Ronen Sen paid tribute to a ‘truly extraordinary man’. Subhas was not only a great patriot but arguably the most colourful leader of the freedom movement who fired the imagination of the Indian people. Subhas was also a pioneer in many fields. Very early on Subhas had spelled out his vision for independent India free of all forms of inequities, and many of his ideas later found place in the Constitution of India. Interestingly Subhas had also played a key role in the choice of the Indian National Anthem.

The highlight of the meeting was Colonel Hugh Toye’s much revised edition of his book Subhas Chandra Bose: The Springing Tiger which was first published in 1959. It was one of the first detailed biographies of Subhas written by a person who had first-hand experience of the INA in East Asia as a British intelligence officer during the Second World War. Unfortunately Col Hugh Toye who was to be present in person was advised not to travel to London from Oxford due to ill health. Madhuri Bose, Rights Specialist and member of the Steering Committee of the NSF, was asked to introduce the book and read some of the yet unpublished extracts from the book. She noted with appreciation that the author had given her the authority to freely select passages, which she had sought to do not only with an eye to what was interesting but also with objectivity. Ms Bose said in the words of Toye : ‘By the magnitude and humanity of his dream, by the example of burning energy, tenacity and personal force, of the tradition he left of sacrificial patriotism, must be measured the stature of Subhas Chandra Bose. Had he survived he would assuredly have exercised massive influence. What he might have done has not been done.’ In summing up Ms Bose said that in Toye’s view Bose was not a man without any flaws, but his assessment of the man Bose and his life ‘from behind the enemy lines as it were’ was praise indeed.

"The views expressed are those of the author and not of Netaji Subhas Foundation"

To mark the 105th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on January 25th, 2002, NSF organised a panel discussion 'Promoting South Asian Co-operation: Opportunites and Challenges'. The Nehru Centre event featured some distinguished speakers, and attracted a large audience, despite inclement weather.

The discussion was introduced by NSF Convenor Suhas Khale, who expanded on the Mission Statement. The Foundation was "not interested in praising and eulogising Subhas, although it needs to be done," he said. "We want to see the vision, ideology and long-term objectives of Subhas to be implemented. And what these are is what the Foundation really stands for. I am sure that you will agree that significant issues in India and South Asia generally, which need to be addressed, are sustainable economic development, eradication of discrimination and poverty, equality of opportunity for all, particularly women and disabled sections of the community, the removal of corruption and nepotism, and creation of a modern and civilised society with respect for human dignity. But that's nothing new. A lot of people think along those lines. So what's so new about what we are trying to do? I think this is in the context of the current situation. Events of the 11th September in America and 13th December in India underline the growth of terrorism in South Asia and the world as a whole. The root cause of violence has been unemployment and poverty. After 50 years of Independence, the economic development and growth in South Asia as a whole is not rapid. The poverty and illiteracy is high. To fight the impact of globalisation and domination of multinationals, the South Asian region must become not only an economic power but one which is socially and environmentally conscious and is working towards removing the disparities between rich and poor and the creation of a just and humane society. It is important, if we want to achieve that, that countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc., work towards greater co-operation between each of them and strengthen themselves economically and co-exist peacefully. This is the context in which we would like to hold today's discussion."

The Panel's Chairman was Dr David Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Dr Taylor thanked the NSF for organising the event. "I very much endorse what Suhas Khale has said," he continued. "Where one is celebrating the achievements of a major figure like Netaji Subhas Bose, in many ways talking about the future is the best way of doing that, rather than looking back over what is, in some ways, quite familiar ground because his life and achievements are well-known to everybody and to look at the future of South Asia as a region at this very difficult time because, when the programme was first planned, the events of the 11th of September had not happened and that has brought so much focus on the region, on the problems but, also, on the possibilities. The Kathmandu Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation took place quite recently and, although the world noticed the handshakes and so on, there was a great deal of other work that was being done."

Farooq Sobhan, the Bangladeshi former diplomat who held the post of High Commissioner to Delhi between 1992 and 1995, took Dr Taylor's reference to SAARC as his starting point. "Opportunities and Challenges. Let me begin with the challenges first. Quite clearly, the whole process of regional co-operation is really being faced with its most formidable challenge. Going back 22 years, to be precise, January 1980 was when I was asked by my Foreign Minister to produce the first Concept Paper on the whole idea of South Asian regional co-operation. So from that rather modest start we had the first Summit in Dhaka in 1985. It's been a pretty bumpy ride these past 17 years since that first Summit in Dhaka. Perhaps the single greatest challenge which the whole process of regional co-operation faced was going through with this last SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. I think the big problem, even going back to 1980 when we, that's Bangladesh, did the rounds of the South Asian capitals, was really convincing both India and Pakistan that this was the way forward. At that time, India felt that SAARC could well be an organisation where the smaller neighbours of India would gang-up against India. Surprisingly, Pakistan's reaction was exactly the opposite. They felt this would an organisation which would be dominated by India, and they were incredibly suspicious. But I think more important was the feeling and the sense that regional co-operation was ever really going to work, given the enormous problems existing between India and Pakistan. I think, for the smaller neighbours, and this goes for particularly Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, who have been trying to work closely together and who, in some ways, are great believers in SAARC and the co-operation process, one of the difficult roles has been trying to convince India and Pakistan not to expend energy on their problems and differences, to keep those, as it were, aside, and let the process of regional co-operation go forward rather than hold the whole process, of regional co-operation and SAARC itself, hostage to relations between India and Pakistan.

"Well, after a gap of three years, we did have the Summit in Kathmandu. I think what was important about the Kathmandu Summit was a re-affirmation of the whole regional co-operation process. Fortunately, I think the big achievement that has opened to us over the last 17 to 20 years has been the fact that, whilst the governments have moved rather slowly, a great deal has been happening at non-governmental level. So today, quite literally, there are hundreds of organisations which encompass the seven countries of the region and there are hundreds of initiatives. Women are extremely active. Businessmen, architects, accountants, sportsmen - so something which hadn't happened 20 years ago is now happening increasingly, and that is people in the region reaching out to each other and finding areas of common interest. My submission has always been that governments should really play the role of facilitators and let the people of the region get on with the whole process of regional co-operation. We did see a recognition of that at Kathmandu but, clearly, we need much more political will and, above all, economic will because, at the end of the day, what's going to determine success are the achievements in the economic arena, in particular, moving towards a free trade area and, eventually, follow the European Community to an economic union of the countries of South Asia. It is ironic, particularly when we look back to the vision of Netaji Subhas Bose, that we had the advantage of, once upon a time, being a single entity in India and we did end up as separate countries. Now, the effort is to see how we can, at least economically, work together because, one thought I would like to leave you with is that there really is no future for South Asia until and unless we can work together." This latter assertion attracted strong agreement among the audience, several people calling "Hear, hear".

Farooq Sobhan continued: "We have now been involved in many of these studies. The economic cost of non-cooperation has been colossal. If you want to explain why there are six or 700 million of the poorest of the poor in South Asia today, it's because of this lack of co-operation. My estimate, according to studies that we have done, is that you could add as much as two to three percent to current economic growth rates if you have economic co-operation if we were able to develop infrastructure together, if we were able to have a free trade area. Of course, critical to this whole process is going to be the willingness and ability of India in particular, as the country whose economy counts for nearly 75 per cent of the South Asian economy, to be generous in its treatment of others. Critical to this is the willingness of India to open up its markets to the smaller neighbours. We've already done so. India today exports, officially and unofficially, nearly 3 billion dollars-worth of goods to Bangladesh. By contrast, we have, with great difficulty, managed to export only 15 million dollars-worth of goods into India, because of the enormous tariff and non-tariff barriers that still exist. So I think we need to see, if you like, a change of heart as far as India approaches the whole process of regional co-operation. I think that's going to be critical. We must, above all, get India to believe in this and to take a new role. Of course, another key factor in all this is the India-Pakistan conflict. I think that, in some ways, September 11th and 13th December and its aftermath perhaps do provide us with a window of opportunity. We've heard about General Musharraf's speech and hopefully something tangible will come out of it. Because it's not only regional co-operation but it's also the need to have peace and stability and, in a sense, open borders. I think the supreme irony in the 21st century is the fact that it's, even now, so difficult for people in the region to visit each other. Visas are becoming more difficult and, indeed, even air links are few and far between. These are certain basic problems which need to be overcome.

"To conclude, let me say three things. One, that I do believe that a South Asian personality is finally emerging. Today, before every major international conference, the ministers, whether of environment, food, agriculture, health or tourism, the seven ministers of South Asia do meet and try and formulate a common position. I think the second point is that, for foreign investors, and that's critical now to all our countries, to attract foreign investment you have to have a common market. We have to do away with all these barriers and develop our infrastructure, particularly roads, highways. I think we have to accept the fact that without that, investment is going to remain what it is today, a trickle. And the third is political will. And here, we need leaders with a sense of vision. People who don't think from day to day but who plan for tomorrow and for the generations to come. And I think that vision is there, around for us to see quite clearly. Because they've seen the cost of non-cooperation and they can sense the many advantages of working together. Thank you."

Madhuri Bose, one of the founders of the NSF, and a Rights specialist who has been working since 1983 for the UN and the Commonwealth, had arrived directly from the airport during Mr Sobhan's address. She apologised for her "hoarse voice," explaining "I've been on the move for the last 15 hours. Had rather a horrendous journey from my home city of Calcutta, or Kolkata as it is called now. I was supposed to set the tone and the context of today's panel discussion. I'm very glad that Farooq has already done that, and so he has made my task easier. I just want to briefly say that I believe there can't be a more appropriate occasion than the birth anniversary of Subhas Chandra Bose, which we are celebrating today, to renew our commitment to removing hatred and intolerance from our countries. And in this context I'd like to quote a passage from Subhas himself. He wrote in a nationalist newspaper, way back in February 1940, 'Communalism will go only when the communal mentality goes. To destroy communalism is therefore the task of all those Indians - Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians - who have transcended the communal outlook and have developed a genuine nationalist mentality.' "

"Today, I would like to say, all of us South Asians, and people everywhere, need to transcend the communal outlook. This can no longer be a pious wish because I believe, and I'm sure most of you will share my feeling, that, if we fail to transcend the communal outlook and hatred and intolerance, I fear we shall destroy ourselves in every imaginable way."

"The Boses, Subhas and his elder brother Sarat, were passionately committed to a free and united India. They took an uncompromising stand as regards the independence of India, which they believed had to be total, taking full account of the concerns of all communities, and which would lay the foundations of a just society and a strong and thriving economy.

"The Boses never believed that partition of the Subcontinent, on the terms agreed, would be a lasting solution to the problems of the Hindus or the Muslims or any other community in the region. Sarat Chandra Bose, who, during a major part of his political life, remained a key leader of the Indian National Congress, finally left the party in 1947 on the issue of the division of the country. And, if I may, I'd just like to quote what he said on 1st August 1947, in Kolkata. 'The crisis that has overtaken India because of the acceptance of the June 3 plan was not entirely unexpected, considering all that has happened since the year 1939. We have to rally people of all communities - Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and others - who do not subscribe to communalism in any shape or form, and are prepared to undertake the work of reunifying the country on a socialist basis. The communal poison than has entered into our souls has to be completely eradicated if India has to live.' And, if I may add, if South Asia has to survive.

"The Boses were undoubtedly men of action but, at the same time, they were great visionaries. Sarat Bose saw his country as 'an immense melting-point in which the characters of all the races and nationalities comprised in it will be mixed and out of which a new-worldism will arise which will recognise no frontiers, no races and no classes.'

"The big crisis of today is that we have no vision. Politics has become a way of gaining and retaining power for its own sake. The 20th Century has been called 'The People's Century', when people's power made itself felt. I believe governments should and must be made to hear the people's voices. The people in South Asia want peace and good relations between the countries of their region. This is my firm belief. Their biggest challenge is that of poverty and conflict in their region does not help them to fight poverty as a priority.

"We need people's initiatives to forge better understanding and effective and practical co-operation among the countries of South Asia. We need a new leadership, as Farooq before me said, which will have the courage to step away from past mistakes and take new, bold measures in the interests of their peoples.

"I'd like to end here and I trust the panel will address itself to the challenges facing us in the region today but at the same time focus on the opportunities we have today. We know there are many positive initiatives and many individuals who are showing the way, some of whom are present here today. So, with these words, may I end here?"

Dr Gautam Sen, Lecturer in Politics of the World Economy, London School of Economics, is an advisor on economic affairs to the Indian Government. "My thanks to the Netaji Subhas Foundation and Madhuri for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I feel a certain froissant speaking from this particular platform because, many, many decades ago, my grandfather served two years in gaol by virtue of his association with Subhas Bose.

"Let me speak in a slightly contrary way and disagree. I think we can all agree that peace, harmony and economic unity are desirable but basically beyond our scope so we can't do anything about that. Undoubtedly there are some very major costs associated with the way we have managed our affairs in the last fifty years or so. Quite clearly, the economic benefits of forming a larger union are great. I will just quickly refer to them before I start becoming contrary.

"Firstly, market size is a key attribute for all sorts of reasons, economies of scale, a much stronger bargaining position vis-a-vis foreign investors, etc. We could also, again, as Farooq mentioned, economise and increase our growth rate by planning infrastructure jointly. Again, an obvious thing to do. We have been doing a bit of that. For example, the Indus Water Treaty. All these things could be improved. We almost certainly could divert precious foreign exchange into development rather than defence, because a lot of the defence hardware has become extremely expensive nowadays. Some of these jets like Sukhois cost 30 million dollars each.

"So we can accept all this. But, first of all, we need to start with the reality. Today we are on the verge of war. Two modernised armies threatening nuclear war with each other. This is a very serious matter. I've just come from an interview where I was asked 'Do you think there will be a nuclear war?' This is an unhappy reality that we cannot ignore. What we do about it is another matter but this is a problem that should be addressed first. We also have had 15,000 refugees coming to India in the last few months, from Bangladesh. So there are many unhappy things going on.

"In effect, the kind of economic community we are talking about, if it's going to be like Europe, I think we should say 'Are we proposing to reverse Partition?' Now, I think this is a very serious step to take and we need to think about this consciously. We can't just attach this to some throwaway sentiment about 'Brotherhood'. We have very major problems in this area. I've just come back from India, not long ago, and one member of SAARC sought to kill our Prime Minister and the Indian Government. Really, we have to get real. I regret, we cannot ignore these things. I was with the Prime Minister on the 16th. They were talking about war. Some of these things will not go away. I'm not seeking at this moment in simply attaching blame. I'm merely stating, objectively, that there are problems and these are not little problems and vision and goodwill alone will not do.

"I also hasten to add that many of my Pakistani friends, and I count many of them as friends, see themselves, in some ways rightly, as being part of West Asia. They look to Central Asia and, indeed, the whole venture, Afghanistan, Central Asia, means that the ideal of a South Asian region may be illusory for many of these people. On the other hand, the other countries in the region have no choice. For them, geography is the absolute parameter, the determinant which means that they have to be part of the Indian economic unit. I think some partners might find this a very uncomfortable fact but, there we are. They are part of this and they may even feel that we have not always treated them fairly." Dr Sen exchanged smiles with Farooq Sobhan at this point, to laughter from the audience. "I don't personally want to shed any light on this matter for reasons that have come up elsewhere. But I think that I am doing my bit in this regard, unlike both governments, being perfectly nice to each other, or at least keep our feelings a little better concealed. Bangladesh too is stuck with India, whether they like it or not. The geography means that their trade opportunities are going to be with India. But bear in mind Bangladesh will reverse this huge deficit by selling India gas. They do not wish to sell India gas. The sole market for Bangladeshi gas is India. So we have some issues to address before we can jump ahead.

"Am I hopeful that this will happen? I think the one thing which might make us behave differently is because we are progressively bankrupting ourselves. This progressive bankruptcy might make us think about where we can be, regardless of how much we want to be there. This conflict between India and Pakistan is so ruinously expensive. This may be the reason why we pause. We certainly might try getting along with each other. That might be a reasonable first goalpost to reach. But before these sentiments can become reality, we need to take some practical steps.

"First of all, all the countries of the region must talk to each other about what is required. Pakistan has never offered Most Favoured Nation to India. Under Most Favoured Nation, as you know, your neighbours agree to trade with each other on the same terms as everybody else. This, actually, is the very first step. But, if I was negotiating on behalf of Pakistan I actually wouldn't want to give India Most Favoured Nation. If you give India Most Favoured Nation, what will happen is that Pakistan will become a granary for India. It will become like east Punjab. If you look at the relationship of east Punjab to the rest of India, that is what Pakistan will become. They will survive with some textiles and some light industry but India's size means that India will simply overwhelm the Pakistani market. They will be totally dependent. Exactly the same holds true for Bangladesh. All of these small countries, when they unite with a bigger country, the economics tells you that the smaller country reaps the benefit because they have a bigger adjustment of resources, so they actually are much better off compared to the big country. Because what happened to Mexico? It went to join NAFTA with the United States. They are the ones who benefited the most. But the Mexicans actually were happy enough.

"This political issue cannot be fudged. It will have to be done very consciously. My belief is that it is possible, within the SAARC context, because the smaller countries, including Sri Lanka, are so dependent upon India, to push forward economic union with them. Virtual economic union. And it requires Indian political will. Indians have to stop pussyfooting. Indians have to stop making rules and then breaking them. Having second thoughts. They must negotiate...not 'sincerely'. I think they already do that. That is part of the problem. They went to Sri Lanka and set up free trade. Then they came back and the tea producers said 'No, no! Measure your cloth with the Indian producers first.' They set up Nepal free trade. Then they came back home and their producers said 'Oh, but the Nepalis are dumping all sorts of products from copper, wire...'

"Now, you have to do your homework. This is not just an economic problem here. There is a moral obligation for India to offer these countries the only opportunity they have for growth. And we are not doing that. Now, I do believe that the present government is very keen. They are trying very hard. I have met the person who is negotiating on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, a very capable man, and I am optimistic that some of this will happen. But, beyond that, we need to be conscious of the fact that this not an opportune moment, for better or for worse, for us to predict that India and Pakistan will join hands. That is not going to happen. Thank you."

Professor Mohammad Wasim of Pakistan was the final speaker. The Professor, as Dr Taylor pointed out, is currently Ford Foundation Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, has written extensively on Pakistan and also has "quite a sideline as a journalist."

"I am for peace and stability in South Asia," announced Professor Wasim. "First of all, the problem, as we all know, is the gap of understanding between Pakistan and India. Both the countries have been having suspicions, very big suspicions about each other. But that's not enough. The problem is that these suspicions have created certain images, certain profiles, certain views about the other, and that creation of the other is the boundary of any theoretical talk about challenges and opportunities facing South Asia. If we don't face the bitter fact that we do not understand each other, and if we continue to insist that we are part and parcel of the same region, we are, in a way, ignoring each other, unfortunately, then we do down all crystallisation of the problem itself and also the solution.

"As has been hinted by Gautam Sen, Pakistan has opted out of South Asia. We have to understand that. Nepal of course, as we all know, faces South Asia. Bangladesh, with borders on the north and the west and the east, faces India. Burma is moving out. Sri Lanka doesn't have any other neighbour but India. Pakistan, with a kind of aggressive Islam, I would say, Pakistan happens to be the last country in a chain of countries. Pakistan has been seeking to opt out, particularly after 1971, when Bangladesh was gone out of the orbit of the Pakistani state and therefore, after that, Pakistan, in a desperate move, turned its back to India and, in a way, moved out in a big way, both economically and culturally, into the west. And Pakistan, ever since, has been trying to seek an identity in that region and, not only that, in Central Asia. In 1980 Pakistan moved in heavily into Afghanistan in the struggle, in the war there and, after that, after 1990, when Central Asia seemed to be there as an opportunity, Pakistan again started thinking about Central Asia and they thought that Afghanistan would provide an opportunity for Pakistan to go into Central Asia which, of course, didn't happen. This is the kind of framework in which the problem we face today has its root.

"I will try to look into the problem from the perspective of Pakistani and Indian views of each other. For example, India says, as we have said, that Pakistan does not accept BJP ideas. It doesn't seek parity with India, it is true. On the other hand, Pakistanis think that, and this is a very favourable and very favourite view against India, Pakistanis think that India thinks that Pakistan is a traitor in the region, always going out to America, going out to other countries. This tends to emphasise the asymmetrical situation between the two countries. Pakistanis think that India is the local bully. We don't think that it can be permitted to operate in this way, working against an essential asymmetry in the region. Therefore Pakistan again opts out. Again, India, as we understand it, has offensive designs. Look at Kashmir. India says 'Look. Pakistanis have been meddling in Kashmir.' And, of course, there are military governments one after the other and the military has a particular view of India. Therefore it doesn't shy away from interfering in Indian affairs. On the other hand, Masharraf is caught up in the militaristic expansion. For example, we could point out to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, where the Indians have been going through 'deterring'. And therefore there is a kind of a shyness and a suspicion on the Pakistanis' part. Again, terrorism. Pakistan is intervening in Kashmir, have been intervening in Punjab and, for Pakistan, India have been 'patronising' barely 200 Indian nationals in Pakistan. So there is a kind of a trade-off in which you can have suspicions of each other. Islamic terrorism. That's the most typical understanding of Pakistan. It's an Islamic country, Islamic fundamentalist country and, in Pakistani side, we are very much open to the idea that there is a fraudulent secularism, bogus secularism. We do not believe, for example, that India can be, or is, fair towards its indigenous minority. India has so many bigots in the view of Pakistan. And, I would say, the Pakistanis have been rewriting history, Islamising history in a way and, of course, India has also been rewriting history. But what to do? How to go from here onwards?

"We are not moving towards each other. We are growing apart from each other. We are, after fifty years, actually further apart from each other that we ever were in 1947. And here again. Kashmir - what to do? There are certain very important issues. Kashmir is an integral part. It's the unfinished part of Partition. How to reconcile the two positions? I don't know. Full global disarmament, that's the position. If you ask us to disarm, first there should be a global disarmament, Pakistan says, before regional disarmament. Because India has a kind of global position. Pakistan doesn't. Pakistan has a regional position. It's an Indo-centric framework. It's an Indo-centric worldview. That's what Pakistan is constantly trying to adjust itself to, with the thinking, with the foreign policy conditions, with the capacity, with the military back-up of India. And that's why so many people are saying that Pakistan's foreign policy actually is made, not in Karachi and not in Islamabad, but in Delhi. Because, if India goes to Moscow, Pakistan goes to Washington. If India goes nuclear, Pakistan goes nuclear. If India goes the missile way, Pakistan goes the missile way. And therefore, there is a kind of a retaliatory, reactive mode of thinking, with Pakistan constantly having to follow Delhi. And, again, I can go into detail but I don't want to bore you, how India has been against a global nuclear deterrent, has been against an arms control policy, has been against the South Asian Nuclear Weapons Control demand, and it has been saying 'No,' to everything that Pakistan has been talking about.

"So, how to make more meaningful India's policy of 'Hands off South Asia'? Pakistan is at fault here. Pakistan needs to have a sort of an 'equaliser' and that's why Pakistan moves, again and again, outside, to Westernism, to seek the security of Central Asia because Pakistan all the time tries to equalise the relationship in the region and, when that 'equaliser' isn't available, for example, outside, then Pakistan seeks an internal 'equaliser' which is, of course, within Kashmir.

"After all this, after this kind of establishment thinking, we are through. Of course, last year, with President Masharraf, we went to Delhi, and I happened to be part of the so-called intellectual team which was there. Before that, and I have written about it, India talked constantly about 'Confidence-building measures. Let's go through it step-by-step. Let's go. Let's try to be near each other, bypassing the conflict, bypassing Kashmir. Kashmir is a separate issue.' It's not. It's the main issue. 'Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir. Forget about that. Let's move ahead. Let's go ahead and go for peace.' Pakistan, of course, would be taking the other approach. Conflict resolution. There was a hell of a difference, a distance between those two groups. There was no meeting point. So, if these two establishments are not going to meet, then who to go to? I would say this is there for the non-establishment, for the civil society sector, where there is some hope. That's how first we develop a diplomacy, which, of course, started after 1989 and, of course, went into 1990 with the stand-off between India and Pakistan. After that, this type of diplomacy has been discouraged. Unfortunately this is an old-boy network. Until the people, those old generals of the 70s who have been making those policies, that's why there's all this intellectual stagnation, then they turn into the 'summer school' approach, and that's where we see those young people, young boys, young girls, and they have been meeting each other, for example in Pakistan and in India, and here we see that there is some hope. They are looking towards future. There is a kind of a preparation of the younger generation, because my generation, 1950-60, we never met our counterparts in India, but now we are meeting and, at least, that's a kind of a step forward.

"Finally, I would say that, in this framework, we seem to be stuck with a kind of a bind. We can't see a way through. I would say, that the two establishments are not to change unless there is a pressure, and the pressure has been coming from outside, unless there is a pressure from inside, from people who do not belong to these two establishments, only there lies some hope and, again, young people from the 16s, 17s and 18s, from the older generation, I would say the younger generation, they should be linking up within their own countries. Only then there is some hope."

Individual panel members then went on to reiterate these points during a period of questions from the floor. The evening concluded with a dance performance by Sangeeta Ghosh. Her self-choreographed work, 'Ganga', was warmly applauded.

In a lecture titled 'Cross-national comparison of healthcare systems and their implications for India', Professor Anita Pfaff of the University of Augsburg - and daughter of Netaji - outlined her vision of a system of healthcare appropriate to India's needs. The talk, given in London on the 15th March 2001, followed Professor Pfaff's most recent visit to India, where she had taken the opportunity to discuss the issue of healthcare provision with a wide cross section of people.

Referring to her father's vision of an independent India, Dr Pfaff said "Looking at Netaji's goals and ideals, we can say that his overall concern with empowerment, emancipation and essentially an egalitarian society - i.e. one based on socialist orientation - would imply a system of healthcare which provides universal coverage, redistribution as regards financing, and inclusiveness in terms of social groups and regions."

She noted that "In principle, the welfare regime introduced by Bismarck in Germany in the 1880s, and the Beveridge type operating in the UK since the Second World War, can be said to incorporate these aspects."

She admitted that there are significant differences in the demographic and economic situations in India today as compared to Germany or the United Kingdom. However some useful lessons could still be drawn from their experiences for developing a comprehensive healthcare system in India today.

Dr Pfaff emphasised the critical importance of healthcare as part of human resource development, and that effective healthcare provision improves "human capital" with its positive implications for the economy and society as a whole. She drew attention to the factors underlying improvements in general health, which have been more due to prevention of disease rather than because of better treatment, including improvements in hygiene, knowledge about infection, better nutrition, improvements in sanitation and housing, and safety measures at work.

For India, Dr Pfaff supported a policy of publicly financed "minimum healthcare" aimed at more universal coverage. A scheme drawing on the Bismarckian social security system could be developed for the working classes and, for the more well-to-do, company plans and private insurance could be introduced. Finally, such a system had to be co-ordinated with the many grassroots health initiatives to give India an effective and comprehensive healthcare system.

The concept of equality (gender, caste, race & religion) is a significant one globally and an important one for the NSF. Denise McGuire who is the President of CONNECT and Roland Biosa, a black trade unionist leader, were the speakers who addressed the NSF meeting on 17th November 2000. They spoke respectively on gender equality and race equality issues.

Denise explained the development and progress made in achieving equality of opportunity for women in various fields with specific reference to employment issues, and pointed out that the struggle for equal pay and equality of opportunity in employment for women in the UK is being continued by women's organisations and trade unions. She also emphasised the need to support similar organisations fighting in South Asia.

Roland spoke about the history of racial discrimination throughout imperial history and the struggle of individuals. Referring to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry he emphasised the need for fighting 'institutional racism' within the UK. Narrating some examples of racial discrimination in promotion in employment and within the trade unions, he said that black / Asian organisations need to give a higher profile to the race discrimination issue along with their cultural activities so that greater awareness can be created amongst the black and ethnic minorities.

There was some lively discussion on the issues and questions raised by the attendees.

The author is a London-based journalist specializing on Indian arts and entertainment

"The views expressed in this article are exclusively that of the author and not of NSF. The NSF disclaims any responsibility legal or otherwise for any implications or actions emanating from this write up"

There are a number of problems, which we have inherited from the 20th century, and one of these is the unresolved question of Kashmir state. The parties involved in the dispute are India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, and like Northern Ireland and the Israeli Palestinian question, the seeds of the problem are from the past and on the surface seems impossible to resolve. Infact some would say that it is probably the most difficult of all the international problems to resolve. However, this is a negative way to looking at things and my own feeling is that all human problems are for human beings to resolve and as long as there is any breath of life left in one one must always have the will and the determination to try to eliminate conflict and war among individuals and nations.

To give you some idea of the nature of the problem, it is necessary to look at the historical events which brought it about, and for this one has to cast one's mind back fifty-five years ago. August 1947 saw two emerging nations from the then formidable British Empire, India and Pakistan; take their places as sovereign nations in the British Commonwealth. They both obtained dominion status within this Commonwealth and at the same time became members of the United Nations. It was, indeed, an historic event, although the geography and borders of the two dominions were not what the two leading parties, Congress and the Muslim League, actually had hoped for. Congress would have liked a United India where their would be diversity and the Muslim league areas to the North West and the North East where Muslims would be predominant and be able to control their affairs. This was based on a political theory which Mr Jinnah developed known as the 'two nation theory' in which he argued that Hindus and Muslims were so different that they constituted two separate nations and could not live together under one umbrella. Congress argued that if religion was the basis of nationhood then Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Parsis all inherently belong to separate nations.

However, due to the horrendous riots and communal unrest throughout North India the British under the aegis of lord Mountbatten gave way to partitioning the country directly under their rule between India and Pakistan based broadly on the demands of the Muslim league, a wholly Muslim party, except that the Punjab and Bengal, which had only slight Muslim majorities, were further partitioned and absorbed in the two dominions. It was painful enough to divide the country which resulted in a mirgration of population on a massive scale, but the further divisions of the two of largest and colourful of provinces, viz., the Punjab and Bengal, brought unbelievable anguish and violence.

The semi-independent states, which were administered directly by their respective nawabs and maharajas, and of which there were literally thousands, were left to their rulers to decide as to which dominion they should opt to. Mountbatten's advice to them was that if they were surrounded by the territory of the dominions they should accede to it, regardless of the make-up of their populations. However, if they had borders with both, then the rulers could choose which dominion he could opt to join.

The state of Kashmir which had a population of 80% Muslims and 20% of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists together, was one of these states with common borders with the two new emerging countries. The Maharaja or ruler was a Dogra Hindu. He was autocratic and oppressive and at the same times a playboy, who loved his dalliances. There was a peoples struggle against his rule even during British rule and this was led by Sheikh Abdullah, who would have liked the Maharaja to accede to India as he and the national conference party which he led had the same aspirations and ideals. However, he did not have the power to take this decision, which rested wholly with the ruler himself who was averse to opting for India where Congress was now in power. Besides he was responsible for detaining Pandit Nehru when he tried to enter the territory to support the agitation of the Kashmir people against their ruler in earlier years. He was also apprehensive of the socialist leanings of the Prime Minister and his government and he felt that this would mean that he would have to give way to democratic reforms that would lead inevitably to the weakening of his control over the state. All these factors weighed heavily on his mind and he dilly-dallied and failed to come to a final decision on the question.

Pakistan felt that as the state had a preponderance of Muslims, the Maharaja should automatically accede to it. However, as he was not making up his mind, tribesmen from the tribal territories in the northwest of the country were encouraged to invade the territory with the support of the regular forces of Pakistan. Infiltration and large-scale movements of tribesmen had resulted in an invasion of Kashmir, and before long, Gilgit to the north and other areas close to the valley of Kashmir came under their control. In fact, Srinagar, the capital, came within striking distance of regular Pakistan forces and tribesman and perhaps would have fallen had it not been for the fortuitous interest these Pathan tribesmen had for loot, plunder and rape. The Maharaja panicked and sent an urgent appeal to Mountbatten, now the Governor General of free India, for immediate military assistance. Consultations with the prime Minister and the government proceeded with breakneck speed and it was pointed out that the constitution of India did not permit it to defend territory other than its own and hence the only way assistance could be given was if the accession to India took place immediately. The Maharaja readily agreed to this and before the signatures dried on the accession document, Indian airborne forces were parachuted to Srinagar and the neighbouring areas. The battle for the state continued for months on end and finally Indian troops were able to throw the invaders back and reoccupy positions lost earlier by the state militia. However, the Prime Minister of India announced that they were introducing a resolution in the United Nations to condemn Pakistan for its' aggression against the state and that once peace was achieved there would be a plebiscite for the people to determine to which dominion the state should accede, provided all invading forces withdrew and there was an immediate cease-fire. Both countries accepted this. The borders on which the two armies stood is known as the line of control (LOC). Despite subsequent wars in 1975 and 1971, and more recently during the Kargil operation, the LOC separating the two armies have not altered a great deal. Due to interference from the centre over a number of years with the people's representatives in the state, the majority of the people of Indian Kashmir, especially in the Kashmir valley, become disillusioned with the centre. This resulted in agitations and protests against Delhi, which was quickly fanned from across the border. Immediately after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, A1 Queda, Al Jihadi and other fundamental Islamic groups began to send volunteers across the LOC to destabilise Indian Kashmir with the connivance of Pakistan and their military intelligence, ISI. This in turn brought about repression by Indian paramilitary and regular forces in the state. Killing of soldiers and ordinary citizens by these terrorists continued on a regular and systematic basis. In their zeal to enforce law and order there were many instances of human rights violations by Indian forces, especially by the paramilatories, which becomes almost impossible to prevent in a conflict of this nature.

The Kargil operation to dislodge Pakistani forces from high mountain peaks on the Indian side which they had captured secretly and illegally during the winter months, almost resulted in the two countries going to war. India took this violation very seriously and was able to clear all the peaks of Pakistani forces, barring two. India alleged that they had evidence that the invaders were regular Pakistani troops but the other side, which insisted that they were volunteers and freedom fighters from Indian Kashmir, denied this.

After a lapse of few months, despite the intervention of the Americans, a very audacious attempt was made by terrorists to take over the Indian parliament and hold the Indian government hostage, but this was prevented by the alertness of the guards and the help of the security forces. India immediately responded by sending almost a million troops to the border, which was matched by an almost equal number of troops on the other side. There was talk of pursuing the enemy across the border. As both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers, Pakistan immediately threatened rocket attacks by its nuclear forces. India countered by threatening to retaliate in kind and bring about immense destruction to Pakistan, perhaps jeopardising its very existence as a nation state.

What a scenario the people of India and Pakistan and the international community find themselves in? A way has to be found but nuclear war is not the answer.

The possibility of not just conventional but nuclear war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is enough to send a cold shiver down anyone’s spine, regardless of their origins. The cultural traditions, religious beliefs and educational systems of the subcontinent have not prepared us for such an eventuality. None of the great faith traditions or cultures taught us that Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians or for that matter Indians, Pakistanis, English, Germans or Chinese were so different that they could not possibly live together and consequently must be at war with one another. A basic principle of our upbringing was respect for one another and a caring attitude towards those less fortunate than ourselves. There is, therefore, a duty not only to prevent a conflagration but also to try to resolve problems, which appear on a superficial glance to be almost intractable.

The two countries of India and Pakistan came into existence with the British giving up power in the subcontinent in 1947. British India was divided essentially as a compromise between the claims of the Congress and the Muslim League because the two parties could not come to an agreement as to how they could cooperate under a single legal and political entity. United India, where Muslims would have control in the northwest and in the northeast, had been accepted by both parties under the Cabinet Mission Plan, but at the eleventh hour this was rejected because it was felt that the centre would be too weak and that inevitably this would lead to the Balkanisation of India. The direct consequences of the rejection of the plan was communal riots on a horrendous scale all over India, beginning with the ‘great Calcutta killing’ and the British pulling out earlier than expected, and the emergence of two states, India and Pakistan. The fate of the semi-independent states, of which there were thousands, was left to their rulers by Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, who had plenipotentiary powers from His Majesty’s Government in London.

The raison d’etre of the two major parties, Congress and the Muslim League, were diametrically opposite. Congress believed that people of different religions, racial groups and origins could live together peacefully in a single united country and the Muslim League that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations and that they could not live peacefully under one umbrella in a single state. In my view it is difficult to understand why religious differences should be the criteria for deciding whether the people belong to separate nations. If this was true then Christians, Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists would automatically constitute separate nations and, therefore, belong to separate states. One is always reminded of the example of where in one family the individual members have chosen to follow different faiths. Would those individuals’ members, therefore, as a consequence inevitably belong to different nations? The mind boggles at such a prospect!

The principle of the ‘two nations theory’ somehow did not work is now accepted by most people, even in Pakistan. The breaking away of East Pakistan to form an independent Bangladesh, even though the population was predominantly Muslim, dealt a death-knell to this theory. A common faith could not by itself be the basis of forming a single nation. In any modern state there are bound to be minorities who would expect to have the same rights as the majority and these are generally guaranteed under the constitution. As civil and human rights legislations now underpin the basis of any pluralist society, it is generally accepted that this is how states should model themselves.

I believe that the conflict in Kashmir, although territorial in nature , is at bottom a conflict of ideology. The prospect of nuclear war between two heavily armed nations over this territory is, to say the least, most alarming. Those who have been at the receiving end of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki will tell you in no uncertain terms what that means. The consequences of such a war is too serious to leave for contemplation by armchair generals or politicians. The people have to take charge and the people must speak out that they do not want such a war.

However, a solution must be found to the dispute, which is plaguing us. Indeed, a final solution must be found to all the disputes between India and Pakistan which could be the basis of resolving all outstanding disputes in the subcontinent. My own view is that if the India/Pakistan relationship can be resolved or come to terms with, all other disputes between them, including Kashmir, will fall into place and resolve itself. Both India and Pakistan must want this, otherwise it will not succeed. It is in their long-term interest. Who wants the dispute of the 20th century to be the basis of a war in the 21^st century except fanatics and the disorientated? Would England be prepared to go to war with Spain over Gibraltar with nuclear weapons? Of course they would not. We have to grow up and grasp the opportunities that await us economically, culturally and politically once the two countries begin to live in peace and amity.

Both India and Pakistan and people of goodwill all over the world have been banging their heads to find a solution to Kashmir and getting nowhere in the process. Both countries are ideologically entrenched and facing each other with all their might at the line of control (LOC). This will not lead anywhere in the end and at best is just preventing war between the two states. An example to illustrate my point is a case where a divorced husband and wife contest their claims in the court over a certain property. If the relationship between the husband and wife suddenly improved and they decided to come together again, the litigation in the court over the disputed property would not have quite such an impact and may even be irrelevant. In the same way if a long-term solution were to be found between India and Pakistan, which is satisfactory to both countries, then a solution to the Kashmir issue in my view would emerge of its own accord.

This simple but very basic principle has to be applied to the conditions on the ground over this question. There has to be first a realization by both sides that the present situation is fraught with immense danger and will lead us to an abyss. Once this has been truly accepted, then a possible route to a solution is as stated below:

A solution on the lines suggested, if implemented, could be seen to come from the grassroots and be the culmination of the efforts of the peoples of India, Pakistan and Kashmir themselves. War and conflict would result in victory of one side and defeat of the other, or in the event of a nuclear exchange, an assured mutual destruction of combatants and non-combatants alike. If, however, wisdom prevailed and the adversaries decided to pull back from the precipice, this could be a way forward. It would not only be a victory for common sense but also would also show great sagacity and farsightedness and make the world safer for future generations.

Netaji’s Long March.....

Sun, 2006-10-22 01:41

By G.V.G. Krishna Murthy - Syndicate Features

There are five known long marches on the most hazardous road from slavery to freedom. First, Moses led the long march from Egypt to the Promised Land to liberate the Israeli people from the tyranny and oppression of Egyptians. Second, Mahatma Gandhi, in 1913 marched from Natal to Transvaal at the head of 2000 people as a part of his non-violent struggle for basic freedoms denied by the Whites of the South African government.

Third, Duggirala Gopalakrishnayya, a great patriot, in 1921 led the march of 18,000 men, women, children and their live stock from Chirala, a coastal village in Andhra Pradesh for nearly ten miles and stayed in the open till the British government came down on its knees and withdrew its repressive measures. This incident found its echo in the British
Parliament.

Fourth Subhash Chandra Bose led more than 3000 freedom fighters of the Azad Hind Fauz from Singapore to Burma and to Moirang in Manpur in the longest march of nearly 3200 Kilometres from 1943 to 1945, determined to liberate India from the British rule.

Fifth, Chairman Mao led the Chinese people on the road to liberation across China from 1935 to 36.

Amongst all these Long Marches, Netaji’s was undoubtedly was the longest and most hazardous walkathon and entered the golden pages in the history of wars of nations against foreign rule. On October 21, 1943, the Azad Hind Free Government under the presidentship of Netaji took oath in the name of God that they would not rest till India became a free country. The oath taking ceremony took place on the grounds of Singapore Town Hall.

The Indians who had assembled there along with the India National Army and members of the Azad Hind Government also took the oath that till the last drop of their blood they would fight to liberate India from the clutches of the British Government.

The Azad Hind Government was immediately recognised by nine countries i.e. Japan, Germany, Burma, Italy, Philippines, Nanking, Croatia, Munchuko and Siam. The emergence of free India Government in exile not only electrified the then 350 million Indians but also the freedom loving people all over the globe. Millions of congratulatory messages poured in complimenting Netaji.

Nations smouldering and suffering under the yoke of European imperialist powers in Asia, Africa, Latin-America and Australasia saluted the ‘Great Leader’, and the Indian people who supported him and vowed to emulate the Azad Hind Movement in their countries.

*Netaji** Inspired Students*

In those years, I was a high school student. My family was active by then in the freedom movement. My grand father, Turlapati Sambayya Pantulu of Marripudi village in Guntur District was an inspiration to me and many others not only in my native village but also in the entire Guntur district, which was the hot-bed of freedom movement in the state. A farmer by vocation, he jumped into the freedom struggle at the call of the Mahatma in 1921.

Chirala, where I had my early education, was home to towering patriots, some of whom were from my immediate family circle, like freedom fighter-journalists like Kotamraju Punniah, who edited Sind Observer for 17 years and Kotamraju Rama Rao, the first editor of National Herald. Both Punniah and Rama Rao along with my grand father and other uncles participated in the anti-British March of Chirala in 1921, I mentioned at the outset. Thus I was lucky to be brought up in an ambience that stood me good stead throughout my later life and provided a soul stirring experience at an early age.

*Bal Senas- Oath in Blood*

The electrifying declaration of Independence of India by Netaji inspired several head masters and teachers all over the country to start Azad Hind Fauz Bal-Senas in Schools to inspire students to be recruited as freedom-fighters. Our school was no exception.

A captain in INA, Capt. Ramnayya, came from Singapore to our village. Along with another patriot Gadireddy Hanumantha Rao, he started Azad Hind Fauz Bal-Sena in our school and recruited 11 boys, including me. They wanted us to take the oath in our blood. We boys were worried how to sign in our blood. Then they brought a thorned fruit, locally known as unmatha (Dhatura Phal in Hindi). We were made to swing the left hand vigorously and then hit the thorned fruit on the back of the fist. Blood gushed out and we signed dipping in it our pen nibs.

The oath administered to us consisted of three parts. First I will serve our country till the last breath of my life. Second I will not get married till India achieves independence. Third I will say "Jai Hind" instead of "Present Sir" when my name is called at the time of
attendance in the school.

As a member of our Bal-Sena, I was the first to answer with "Jai Hind" instead of the usual "Present Sir", when we entered the school shortly after taking the oath. Immediately, I faced punishment. Our mathematics teacher, Sriharsha Rao came to my seat and slapped me heavily. I was very slim and under the impact of the slap, I fell down. He pushed me out of the class room. I was rusticated for 21 days. This was in the
year 1945.

My home town witnessed freedom riots in 1942. Some 25 British families used to live in the campus of the local tobacco factory (of cigarette maker ITC). Another 25 American families lived in the American Bear Hospital. So, to provide additional security for them, 4 British police officers were posted in Chirala. The British police wore white uniform but the Indian police had khaki uniform. We were really terrified by the police brutalities. With or without provocation, lathis used to dance in the air. One day I was witness to a whole street being lathicharged and later collectively fined.

One day when we, students went on a peaceful protest to the railway station, police attacked us and detained us for the entire day. I was injured in the lathicharge. I still carry the mark of injury on my right leg, daily reminding me of our pre-independence years.

The Police banned our Azad Hind Fauz Bal-Sena. An ‘identification’ parade was held in our school in which, we, the 32 Sena members were made to stand. I escaped since they somehow failed to identify me. The boys who were spotted were arrested, tried and sentenced for imprisonment for periods ranging from 10 days to two months. Following
the ban, the school foot-ball ground became out of bounds for us. It was our venue for our gatherings. Patriotic people naturally condemned the police action.

*Bal-Sena's imprint on our minds*

I was given the duty of selling Netaji’s badges and literature to collect funds for the nationalist activity. I was also the ‘messenger’ for leaders of different freedom fighter groups. Elders thought that I will escape detection because I am still a school going kid. Around this time, our school came to be occupied by the British military as the Second World War had broken out; we missed our classes for days. These and many other incidents had a permanent imprint on my young mind, sowing strong seeds of nationalism and service to the country.

Netaji's life and legacy to the people of our great land remain ever green in the memory of generations. His vision of free India and its glorious future will continue to inspire for all time to come. For anything I did in later years of my life - in journalism and legal
profession in early days, and as legal adviser to the Union government, as member-secretary of the Law Commission, and lastly as Election Commissioner of India - the thought that remained uppermost in my mind was how best to serve and promote the interests of our nation.

For the last forty years, whenever I visited Calcutta, I never missed Elgin Road, where Netaji’s house is located, to pay my tributes to the great leader of India. Similarly whenever I visit Cuttack, his birth place, I never fail to visit the home where he was born. I also visited Moirang, a place closely associated with Netaji and respected till date in Manipur. These visits have always had an electrifying effect on me just as the case it must be for millions of my generation.

Netaji is the king of patriots. There is no need for any commissions to prove his greatness. He richly deserves to be grateful, emulated and saluted by the whole nation for ever for his sacrifices and services to our country.

That October 21, the day the Azad Hind Government took the oath of liberating India at all costs, is not remembered or when remembered not in the way it should be honoured in no way diminishes its importance. Certainly!

- Syndicate Features -

1. That September 11 was a momentous event in our contemporary history is by now an established truism and to attempt to prove it would be a little too trite. So many people all over the world, indeed everyone who witnessed the happening of those harrowing moments on that fateful date, or who soon afterwards became aware of it, has sought to construct a narrative of their own to make sense of it. Each narrative can be considered a perception through a colossal kaleidoscope with the shifting glass pieces composing it and, paraphrasing an Urdu ghazal poet, it is as if lovers returning from the beloved court have been bringing different accounts of the proceedings there.

2. That the majority of people have condemned the outrageous act of terrorism involving the twin towers is acknowledged, but to say that it was universally or almost universally condemned would be irresponsible. In fact, there were many, mainly in the Muslim community, who condoned the act on the basis of their perceived previous or ongoing hurt at the hands of their perceived enemy. There were others who gloated over the event and thought that the outcome of the act of terrorism was a nemesis pursuing their perceived enemy. Non-Muslims were equally divided in their responses. But the majority were shocked. There were some on the Left who felt like those among the Muslims who condoned or praised the attack on the twin towers as an attack on capitalism, globalisation or American imperialism, hence justified or at least explicable in those terms.

3. There is no doubt that the suicide attacks were the act of highly disturbed minds who were seized by free floating aggression. That aggression would have found itself funnelled through any dark ideology for its expression, but in the event it found its motivating force in what I would call the dark version of Islam. That is the ideology that inspired not only the suicides of the twin towers but their inspirers, such as Al-Qaida, the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups.

4. Of immediate relevance to this discussion is the concept of Jihad as understood by the majority of Muslims. That it is essentially defensive in nature is accepted by all, but that Muslims have a duty to propagate Islam by the sword is accepted by a majority. The Jihadis seek their support in the Quran and in the practice of early Muslims. Whether their interpretation is correct or not is of secondary importance.

5. This violent perception of Jihad for the propagation of Islam has a long history generated by what Iqbal was the first to call Arab imperialism and, I would add, subsequent imperialisms.

6. Associated with the concept of violent Jihad is the concept of irtidad (apostasy) and its punishment. Most people do believe that there is no room in Islam for apostasy and that it should be punished by death. It is ironical that those who assert that Islam is a rational and tolerant religion and would demand a right for non-Muslims to choose to be converted to Islam with impunity should deny that same right to Muslims themselves to leave the fold of Islam. Again, that has roots in early Islam and subsequent imperialisms.

7. Reactionary Islam denies equal rights to religious minorities and women. Some Muslims would even justify enslaving non-Muslims who are vanquished in war. Reactionary Islam sanctions unrestricted private property and classes this as God-ordained although, admittedly, there are egalitarian versions too. Jihadi fundamentalists are in fact more egalitarian in approach than less militant right-wing Muslim groups such as the Jamaat i Islami. Hence their appeal to the common man. However, on the social scale, their attitude to women, for instance, is even more reactionary than the Jamaat's.

8. Reactionary Islam rejects modern democracy. The Taliban variety substitute in its stead a supposedly superior democratic but essentially medieval tribal institution, where the amir is advised by a shura, a consultative assembly.

9. These are some of the main elements of reactionary Islam. These are all too familiar to any student of modern history.

10. This dark version of Islam is no more or less authentic than any other. I hold that there are as many texts of Islam as there are readers. Theoretically there would be any number of the Qurans as their readers. If some readers agree on a certain text it is because of the similarity or coincidence of their perspectives, which in turn derive from their biographies and social conditions.

11. The dark version of Islam is an exercise in a literalist reading of the Quran and the rest of the body of knowledge accumulated in the early centuries of Islam. On the other hand, there is a whole body of metaphoricalist or allegorist versions of Islam. Consequently there is, or are, humanistic interpretations of the Quran and versions of Islam.

12. The dark version of Islam claims to trace its origins in the Quran and the practice of the Prophet, more specifically, the Medinese period of the Prophet, when he was called upon to shape his vision into reality. A large part of the Medinese Quran is concerned with the administrative issues of the period. It is secular.

13. After the Prophet, Islam inevitably embarked on a journey of imperialism.

14. Most content of the dark Islam is therefore informed by the ideology and practices of that period.

15. What we call religion is essentially a highly complex affair. Those who call themselves Muslims agree on the centrality of the Prophet and the Quran. But the centrality does not mean that they agree on what the Prophet embodied and what the Quran says. Most sects disagree on almost everything religious. Muslims also share a common history, in which they have not always been on the same side of the fence. For instance the Shias and Sunnis have been adversaries locked in what I would call eternal ambivalence.

16. Thus overall, Muslims have always been a commonwealth of cultures who are more united by their strife than by their commonality. Islam, like any other religion, has become a mythology or a set of mythologies.

17. It would be naïve to hope that a common unifying version of Islam could be imposed on Muslims or that they would be persuaded to accept one. Mythologies do not die; they only change with time. An atheist born a Muslim will remain a Muslim culturally.

18. There have been attempts to re-assert the humanist outlook of Islam in the past few entries, mainly in response to the challenges of colonialism.

19. Iqbal's term of Arab imperialism is a seminal idea. Taking the cue from him, we could characterise the history of those people who are known as Muslims as a history of various imperialisms, Indian and Ottoman, to name just two. The concept of Muslim imperialisms can be a useful tool not only in understanding the evolution of Islam over the centuries but also for trying to disengage the essential humanist message of Islam from history, more precisely the mythical history.

20. The need to stress this is nowhere more relevant than in South Asia. It is forgotten that those who invaded India in the Middle Ages were Arabs, then Pathans and Mughals, who used Islam to maintain their hegemony over the local population. Unfortunately South Asian Muslims, most of whom are descendants of converts from Hinduism -whatever that term may mean - regard themselves as descendants of the Syeds, Pathan and Mughals, this present writer included (Ayesha Jalal has made excellent studies of South Asian Muslims' dilemmas). The desire to hitch their genealogies to foreigners from Arabia, Afghanistan and central Asia gained momentum during the Raj. It has bedevilled our South Asian history, particularly that of the Muslims. A significant product of that mythology was the tragic, disastrous, senseless, criminal partition of South Asia in 1947.

21. Allied with the imperialist past is our inability to create a distance between soldier and politician. If a Muslim soldier is a soldier of God, and if he wins lands for Islam, and in certain cases, as in Pakistan, just invades his own country's lands and thus helps to create conditions for the propagation of Islam, he is doing a sacred duty. That explains why the names Khalid and Tariq have been so popular with the Muslims of South Asia. Repeated interventions by the military in countries like Pakistan may not be due to the close ideological bond between the soldier and politics, but that bond at least creates acceptance for the sword among large sections of the Muslim masses. In any case it creates conditions inimical to the growth of democracy in Muslim lands.

22. Disengaging history from religion is disengaging the spiritual from the secular. The process should start from the beginning.

23. If it is accepted with Iqbal that Islam is not a legal code, it may readily be accepted that the Medinese Quran is more to do with day to day reality of the Medina period, while the guiding principles of Islam have mainly been embodied in the Meccan part of the Quran. The Medinese verses should be accepted as possible approaches to day to day problems of the Muslim community, but the fount of inspiration for guidance will be the Meccan Quran. What is needed is what I would call a creative application of the Quran. I may suggest here that several scholars within the fold of Islam have already spoken on these lines.

24. Muslim jurists have spoken of the pillars of Islam being the Quran, the Traditions of the Prophet, ijma (that is consensus), and qiyas (ratiocination or speculation). Iqbal has dealt with these and, inspired by Kemalist Turkey, highlighted the importance of consensus, ijma, to the extent that, for him, caliphate should be embodied in a parliament rather than a single person. Muslims here might be reminded of a saying of the Prophet that his community cannot agree on error. But can a parliament abrogate any part of the Quran? Iqbal raises the issue, does not give a clear reply, but points out that the issue had in fact been discussed by Muslim jurists in the past.

25. In his democratic zeal, Iqbal even opposes the establishment of a council of Muslim scholars outside the parliament to oversee its work, although he concedes its possibility in Iran, in concession to Shia Islam.

26. The discussion is relevant today. Iqbal's concept of parliament is to be welcomed and his interpretation of ijma is broad enough to encompass all Muslims, laity and clergy alike, but it is not broad enough to embrace the entire population of a Muslim majority state, which would include non-Muslims. And, of course, his parliament and ijma are utterly irrelevant to a country like India or the United Kingdom.

27. On the contrary, the modern concept of democracy embraces the entire population, including religious minorities and women. Suppose, following the lead given by Iqbal, we employ the whole mechanism, including the Quran, the Traditions, ijma, etc, and yet fail to accommodate the modern concept of democracy in Islamic polity?

28. That is where the need to take a different approach to the Islamic religion, the Quran and other sources of Islam will become relevant. That would be an allegorist approach to the Quran and other sources of Islam. The Prophet would be the first person to grant equality to women today. Indeed, he did at one time, and he would have been the first person to outlaw slavery today. His message should be understood in spirit, not necessarily in letter.

29. This metaphorical approach will liberate the creative energies of the Muslims who can once again travel to China for gaining knowledge. That will be the true spirit of ijtihad.

30. The metaphorical approach has the merit of releasing the Quran from the shackles in which the orthodox elites in collusion with the political and social elites have held Islam for so long.

31. I have stressed the need to seek inspiration from the Meccan Quran and make a creative application of the guiding principles of Islam. At the same time, I have also stressed the need to extend equal voting rights in the parliament to non-Muslim members. There appears to be a contradiction lurking somewhere. I believe that is not the case. First of all, it has to be stated that everyone all the time has an ideology, a set of beliefs and a method of approaching reality to hand; in other words, echoing Gramsci, one might say that everyone is an intellectual. If the Muslim members are inspired by the message of Islam, the non-Muslim members will have their own mental and spiritual baggage to carry. But votes will decide. Of course, the objection may arise that, in that eventuality, a Muslim majority will ride roughshod over the minority. I will come to that weighty objection shortly.

32. In the meantime the question will arise: How shall we decide that the guiding principles of Islam should be implemented in a particular way and not in another? The question can only be answered in practice, in action, and the consideration would of course be: Will a particular measure being contemplated realise the spirit of humanistic Islam? Again, this question properly belongs in the domain of ideas as well as practice. It will obviously involve an appeal to reason and scientific evidence available at a given time.

33. But there may be a general conceptual framework to measure up to. That is, putting it crudely, the United Nations declaration of universal rights, its various charters, conventions and protocols. Humanistic Islam would require that all Muslim majority states subscribe to the United Nations instruments and order not only their own internal policies but also employ them in their relations with the rest of the world. I am not suggesting that the UN conceptual and practical frameworks are perfect, but then no human instituition is. And yet they represent the consensus of the entire world on the vital issues of our social and private lives. They represent the ijma of the entire world at a given time of history. They may be only the common denominator of what we humans have thought, felt and practised but they are the crystallisation of the best human endeavour. If I have been swayed into poetical flourishes, it is because I have in mind the Prophet's last sermon. The UN instruments are the elaboration of that sermon. They provide a blueprint with the help of which we can construct humanist Islam.

34. With the anchoring of our polities to the United Nations, the possibility of a predominant Muslim majority suppressing the will of weaker sections in and outside a parliament will be minimised. Parenthetically, may I suggest that the military establishment in Pakistan ratify all UN instruments? One can reasonably hope that no civilian successors will ever rescind their decision.

35. I concede that this vision is just a part of a whole strategy to be evolved by Muslim communities and the battle for a more equal, more just and more prosperous and therefore more fulfilling human community will be fought in tears and toil and perhaps in blood. But so be it.

36. It is not only Islam that has a rich and diverse humanist tradition. All other communities all over the world have their own humanist traditions. Otherwise there would have been no consensus on UN frameworks. Taking an example, one should not forget that the legislators in the Indian parliament and state assemblies, taken together, are committed to the ideals of secularism. Large sections of Hindus there have fought for the rights of Muslims, dalits and other 'backward' sections of the population. We should not ignore those brave Jews in Israel and elsewhere who have championed the cause of Palestinians, or at least for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine issue. If that be the case, there is a real possibility that we may build, in fact continue to build, bridges among various diverse communities. Those bridges will be of humanist material but all different varieties of humanism will be embodied in their own specific images, symbols, metaphors, mythology.

37. There will never be a kingdom of God on earth but we will continue to move towards it.

Presented at a seminar organised by Khidmet International, London, 23 March 2002

Indian freedom struggle had an unique distinction interms of its spirit and content. This movement could cut across all the narrow barriers of caste, religion, and ethnic bottlenecks in upholding the dignity & pride of ‘Humanity’ and promoted spirit of tolerance, non-violence and co-existence.

Freedom struggle not only opposed the colonial rule but also questioned the socio-economic disparities in civil society. The strength and success of this struggle was its “Peoples’ base and voluntary initiatives” but not the ‘Arms & Ammunitions’. Freedom was achieved through peaceful struggles but not through violent acts of brutal force. Need of the hour is to sensitize and educate the present generation on the spirit of freedom struggle.

March 23^rd marks an important event in the history of Indian Freedom Struggle. On this day, Sri Bhagat Singh along with his colleagues was sentenced to death. Sri Singh refused to appeal to higher court for mercy and said “Let my sacrifice for the freedom of Indian inspire others”.

March 23^rd, also happens to be the “National Day” of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This day carries dual importance one to spread the message of spirit of freedom struggle and two to promote spirit of co-existence, universal brotherhood and peace in the region and world.

Pledge

On this day, March 23^rd, 2002, we the concerned citizens and civil groups of India appeal to people of South Asia to strengthen citizens initiatives, and facilitate process of peaceful negotiations in resolving conflicts across the table.

Keeping in view of present fragile socio-political solutions and realizing the challenges. We, take a pledge in rededicating ourselves to uphold the Dignity, Pride and Spirit of Indian Freedom Struggle in promoting Peace, Harmony and Universal Brotherhood, not only in India and South Asia but, also all over the world.

A.P. Freedom Fighters Cultural Committee, Date: March 23^rd 2002. Time: 4.00 p.m,Venue: Apna Bhavan, Near Ravindrabharathi, Saifabad , Hyderabad-500 004 .

Gen. Musharaf, President Date: 20/3/2002

Islamic Republic of Pakistan Islamabad

I on behalf of Indo-Pak Jubilee Cultural Society, Hyderabad extend hearty congratulations to you and to people of Pakistan on the occasion of ‘Pakistan National Day’ on 23/03/2002.

Your initiatives in checking the growing militant activities during the recent times is commendable and received due appreciation from the peace lovers across the South Asia and World. We request and hope that you will sustain these Peace initiatives and facilitate in restoring Peace & Harmony not only between India and Pakistan but also in the entire South Asia.

Freedom fighters had a single mission, goal and dream to liberate people of this sub-continent from the clutches of colonial rule. They could achieve it through struggle and sacrifice.

Keeping this noble cause of freedom fighters in mind, we took pledge to work towards promoting Peace, Harmony & Universal Brotherhood. And, also, spread the message of ‘Spirit of Freedom Struggle’. We also, received solidarity from concerned civil groups from different parts of South Asia.

We wish that under your leadership Pakistan will take adequate initiatives in restoring Peace & Harmony between Pakistan and India.

K. B. Tilak

Like many political disputes in Sourh Asia, to understand the tragedy in Sri Lanka one must study the historical decisions. The decisions taken by the rulers of British empire have contributed to the problem. Having said that the Sri Lanakan

Politicians could have and should have tried to understand the needs and aspirations of both Tamils & Singahlese to find a solution.

Sri Lankan society consists of different religions and ethnic groups. Within the ethnic groups, there are clear religious divisions as well. About a million Indian Tamils were disenfranchised in 1948 under the Ceylon Citizenship Act. Of this, approximately 350,000 were repatriated to India under the Indo-Ceylon Agreement of 1964. Over the years, subsequent governments conferred citizenship rights to the rest. The Ceylon Citizenship Act served to reinforce ethnic politics and reduced the electoral leverage of the Indian Tamils who remain an impoverished and marginalised community today.

The crisis in the Sri Lankan has arisen primarily because in a country which is multi- ethnic and multi-religious, the leadership is dominated by Singhalese community. whilst numerically smaller ethnic groups like the Tamils & Muslims communities have not had their due share of recognition & power. This has resulted in the minorities being sidelined and becoming alienated from the Sri Lankan State. The language issue in many ways brought the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict into the forefront of Sri Lankan politics. During the British rule language and education policies enabled the Tamils to be over represented in employment, especially in the administrative and professional ranks Post independence governments decided to offset this situation with various schemes which were biased in favour of Buddhist Singhalese

A number of pacts have been formulated for devolution of power, including the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact in July 1957 that offered a framework for regional devolution. Due to various political & community pressures, the provisions of the pact were never implemented. To add insult to injury, during her period in office from 1970-77, Bandaranaike instituted sweeping policies that systematically discriminated against Tamils in every sphere of life, including university places, government jobs, business and the legal system

The failure to honour agreements by the political leaders and the entrenchment of ethnic politics led to frustration among Tamil youth. and idea of the Tamil homeland became a strong notion in Tamil minds. Eventually some of these youth organized themselves to form armed groups for the purpose of seeking independence from Singhalese domination. The first of these groups was the Tamil Tigers which later came to be known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or LTTE.

To resolve a conflict there is a need to understand the reasons for conflict and the perceptions and grievances of the communities Let us review these reasons just to understand the underlying interests of both the communities. Some of the commonly known grievances felt by the Tamil communities are:

1. The successive Singhalese dominated governments have discriminated against Tamils in respect of language and diminished their employment prospects.

3. When Tamils protested against discrimination, strong arm tactics were employed against them.

4. Singhalese political leaders have broken agreements and pacts which were agreed..

Tamil grievances appear to be justified. The question is why are the Singhalese leadership determined to resist any attempt to the demands of the Tamils ? According to the Singhalese leadership,

1. Demands for independent Tamil Eelam state threatens the sovereignty of the country.

2. The discrimination that the Tamils claim to have suffered was simply taking away the privileges they had enjoyed under the British

3. The Tamil people do not want Tamil Eelam, it is only a few terrorists and fanatics who want it.

4. Creation of an independent Tamil Eelam state will increase the dominance of Tamils and threaten the existence of the Singhala Buddhist society.

Under these circumstances the goal of peace should be to provide a form of governance that accommodates the different ethnic/religious interests as well as those of the poor & marginalized communities like the Muslims within one country The need is to ensure unity in diversity, through constitutional & democratic reform.

To secure peace and reconciliation it is important for the Sri Lanka government and the Sinhala people to understand the reasons which led the Tamil people to demand Tamil Eelam and to take to arms to secure it Equally it is necessary for Tamil people to understand the interests that the Sinhala people seek to protect, .Creation of mutual trust is very important as each side questions the good faith of the other and accusations are made that the other side cannot be trusted. Rather than sticking to the ideological and inflexible positions , both the parties will have to use imagination, courage and flexibility to look beyond fixed positions. It is absolutely necessary to understand the cultural, social, religious & political interests of the other party.

One cannot expect the peace to be achieved overnight or in a short time. It has to be a step by step process The first thing is for both the parties to start communicating with each other with a view to establish trust more. Once some degree of trust is established only then the negotiating process can begin. The next step is to create mechanisms & structures which could lead to establish the path to justice, equality, prosperity & stability and then finally continuous monitoring by an impartial third party. India could play a major role in this by being a friendly neighbour and helpful third party.

If European countries were able to put their differences and animosities aside despite the two world wars, it should not be impossible for Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka to resolve their differences . It is not going to be easy, the negotiating process is likely to be complex and protracted. Agreement on new structures and mechanisms is necessary. This requires a lot of imagination, give and take and flexibility. In the case of Europe, the European Union evolved over a number of years and was underpinned by NATO. In the case of the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka, there may be a need to secure the help of India to bring he two parties together and then provide support for strengthening the union.

India and Sri Lanka are geographical neighbours and culturally close. People of these two countries share many similarities in terms of culture, family traditions ,customs and ways of life. Logically, India should have helped to resolve the conflict long time ago, .however, India’s involvement in Sri Lankan conflict between 1987/1990 led to some disastrous consequences. Having burned its fingers badly, India has steered clear of the conflict ever since. New Delhi has been a bystander to a bloody conflict which has taken lives of thousands of innocent civilians. India watched as the LTTE grew politically powerful and militarily militant and the Sri Lankan national leadership adopted conservative, short-sighted and intransigent policies. Indian leadership has failed to play an assertive, positive, constructive and fair role in this part of South Asia..

However the political conditions have changed over a period. India's confidence and diplomatic credibility has risen following its efforts in Nepal. It is high time for India to bury its version of "Vietnam Syndrome", ,shed its "hands off" policy and take a more active role in resolving the conflict to create regional peace and stability. It is not just the Government of India but the NGOs and other political parties should work towards peace.

"Given India's dominance in the region, India's intervention could make a world of difference," says Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu,

Even Mr. Rajpaksh the current leader of Sri Lanka recently said on Feb. 2007 in New Delhi “ India had played a role in diffusing tension in Nepal last year, helping to restore democracy in the Himalayan kingdom, played a role in diffusing the Indian agency reported . That is why I think and I believe India can still play a major role in this issue, as compared to any other country, It is a union that will reflect the compelling and inevitable need for a common market and a common defence and will be rooted in the common heritage that we share with our brothers and sisters of not only Tamil Nadu but also of India. It is a shared heritage that we freely acknowledge and it is a shared heritage from which we derive strength.”

It is necessary for India to re-establish the influence with both the current Government in Sri Lanka and the LTTE leadership. Economic development is one of the key factors. Considering the fast economic growth of India, it is in a position to offer “Marshall Plan “ type of aid to the future government provided the warring parties agree to conciliation and reach a peaceful solution.

India could use its prominent stature in South Asia, to put diplomatic pressure to bring both sides back to the negotiating table.

India has already offered a devolution formula, based on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations, which could take care of the interests and aspirations of all sections of the society of the island nation. and resolve the crisis and also conveyed its readiness to provide constitutional experts to help Colombo reframe the national Constitution.. These should be pursued.

Both the countries realize that restrictions on trade between the two are detrimental to their economic growth and prosperity. There is a greater potential for further enhancing and strengthening bilateral economic cooperation...

Indian NGOs should work with local & international NGOs operating in Sri Lanka to address the problems of Human Rights, development of local infrastructure, mediation between the Tamil and Singhalese communities

LTTE is more likely to accept the mediation from the Socialist, Communist and other left parties in India. Like Nepal they should talk to LTTE leadership and convince them to bring to the negotiating table to ensure equal rights for all the communities in Sri Lanka.

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF THE VISION OF SUBHASH BOSE

&

Netaji Subhas Foundation

1. Background

2. Organisation

The Steering Group of the organisation consists of the following persons;

Activities 2000 - 2002

Indian political situation today – 2001

Seminar on Healthcare Planning - 2001

Kashmir – August 2002

Subhas Chandra Bose: His Vision of Independent India, February 2003

Pledge

Gen. Musharaf, President Date: 20/3/2002

Islamic Republic of Pakistan Islamabad

K. B. Tilak