A Factual Response to the Hate Attack on the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF)
 © Friends of India and Authors of the Report
Next >>



The authors of the Sabrang/FOIL report know how to present data selectively.  They have partially accomplished their goal of demonizing the IDRF as can be seen from the flurry of media reports that their report has generated, as well as the number of South Asia area studies academics who have signed the petition affirming the “findings” of Biju Mathew and his cohorts.  The Sabrang/FOIL report has also been used in a series of letter writing campaigns (by people affiliated with Biju Mathew and his group) in ethnic Indian-American newspapers.  But it is only the careful and the patient reader who can discover the chicanery behind the data manipulation in the Sabrang/FOIL report.  For a complete analysis of where and how much money has gone, we draw your attention to Appendix F. 


A. Conceptually Ambiguous, Operationally Invalid    

Both in their original report and the FAQ about Project Saffron Dollar, archived at their website[89], the Sabrang/FOIL authors have claimed that their report is the result of “careful study and analysis,” and their conclusions the product of “meticulous research.”  In this section, we will examine how meticulous the writers’ research actually is, and how well their methodological approach, including conceptual and operational definitions, hold up.  This is significant because without a sound methodological framework, the conclusions of the report become highly suspect and even completely unreliable. 

In a recent article titled, “Attack on IDRF: Little Method to Their Madness,” written for Sulekha.com, Prof. Beloo Mehra takes a closer look at the way Sabrang/FOIL authors describe the purpose, methodology, and organization of the report.  (The article is included as Appendix B).  Starting from the first paragraph of the Sabrang/FOIL report, readers can see how the authors’ agendas instead of their research determine their conclusions.  As Mehra writes:

“In the first paragraph of the report, section 1.1. titled, “Purpose” the last sentence reads, ‘The Foreign Exchange of Hate’ establishes that the IDRF is…’.  Now anyone who has done any semi-academic writing knows that the ‘purpose statement’ is first and foremost about INVESTIGATION rather than ESTABLISHMENT of facts. 

Chapter 1 is titled “Purpose, Methodology and Organization,” but only one page is devoted to these three sections.  Authors then go on to present a two full page “Summary of Findings” – something that is not mentioned in the title.  Why this deceit?  Is the purpose to merely ‘capture’ the reader’s attention (like good writers do), or to ‘sell’ the readers to conclusions of the report, before they even had a chance to evaluate the evidence?  The latter is significant because the purpose of this report is nothing less than stopping the funding for a major Indian-American charity.  This sort of tactic clearly reveals the agenda of the writers and makes this report appear more as propaganda rather than a result of serious inquiry.”

Mehra points out that the entire “methodology” for this 91-page report is presented in one paragraph.  She asks the question:

“The appendices do not contain any methodological information either.  This begs the question—why didn’t the authors make the methodology and actual analytical tools public?”

In the absence of detailed information about methodology and analytical approach, it is left to the reader to decipher the context in which the data, obtained from the selected documents, were analyzed, any boundaries that may have been applied to this analysis, and the target or agenda behind the inferences.  Prof. Mehra continues:

“Some basic assumptions about the context can be made:

1.  Rise of BJP on the Indian national political scene. 

2.  Increasing solidarity among Hindus in USA to promote Hindu causes in India and abroad.

3.  Greater visibility of Hindus in the American social, economic, cultural, academic, and political arenas.

4.  Growing awareness among Hindus in India and elsewhere about the consistent lack of attention paid by the so-called secular and elite media in India to ‘Hindu’ causes, including violence committed against them.  This has resulted in emergence of several public forums (many on the Internet) where such ‘Hindu’ concerns are regularly debated.

5. Increasing connections between Hindu Diaspora and Hindus in India on various levels including social, economic, and political. 

In this context, the authors of Sabrang/FOIL report are perhaps trying to “explain” the recent unfortunate riots in Gujarat in which both Hindus and Muslims were killed.  However, it should be noted that throughout the report there is no mention of Hindus that were killed in these riots. 

These assumptions can help us decipher the boundaries that were probably applied to the analysis.  Only those documents and only selected portions of those documents are ‘analyzed’ that highlight the violence committed against Muslims and other minorities.  One is left wondering if during the entire time that BJP has been in power (the time period of primary concern to the authors of Sabrang/FOIL report) any violence was committed at all against Hindus.  These boundaries of analysis have not been made specific by the authors of the report.”

One should also look at the actual “data collection” methods employed by Sabrang/FOIL authors.  In this regard, Mehra writes:

“Common sense suggests that for someone interested in finding out how the funds of a certain charity are being spent, in addition to looking at the internal documents of the charity, the researcher must also collect some primary data from the charity’s beneficiaries – individuals and/or organizations… there is no mention if any attempt was made to contact these organizations or individuals who have received funds from IDRF.  It is not clear if any of these people—the direct beneficiaries – were interviewed, or if any internal documents of these beneficiary organizations were reviewed or analyzed for specific purpose of how the money disbursed to them was actually spent.”

Taking a critical look to examine the language used by Sabrang/FOIL writer, Prof. Mehra writes:

“The language used in Chapter 1 of Sabrang report appears biased, sensational, and full of generalizations, thus making the report appear as an ideological-discursive structure, which first and foremost expresses the values of an ideological system and of a specific discourse authority (in this case of the organizations responsible for collating and funding this report)…

… Section 1.4 titled, “Summary of Findings” starts with the sentence: “The purpose of this report is to DOCUMENT the links between IDRF and certain violent and sectarian… .” Is this an admission on the part of the writers that their purpose is to DOCUMENT rather than to FIND if any such links exist?  Is the starting assumption of these writers that such links exist?  If that is the case and if the link has already been pre-established (at least in the minds and ideologies of the writers of this report), why use the misleading word “Findings” in the title of this section?  It appears that the ‘researchers’ at Sabrang Communications and The South Asia Citizens Web already had their conclusions before they even started their ‘research. ’ And their purpose was merely to DOCUMENT their pre-established conclusion.  Perhaps a case of accusing IDRF even before “findings” have said so… 


B. Citations from prejudiced sources

We now take a quick look at some of the sources Sabrang/FOIL authors rely on for their “careful study and analysis.”  Are these sources reliable?  Do they present an objective view of ground realities in India?

A number of citations in the Sabrang/FOIL report are from Indian English language newspapers and magazines (including Outlook, and Frontline) whose editors have publicly stated their desire to bring down the BJP-led governments since 1998.  For example, Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief, Outlook, argued at a workshop on combating religious conflict that it was time journalists became activists to dislodge the BJP government at the Center[90].  The editor of the magazine Frontline, N. Ram, has been at the forefront of opposition to the BJP-led government, and of the RSS and its affiliates.  He collaborated with ideologues both in India and in the U.S. to start a “watch group” called “BJP Watch”.  They presented a biased selection of commentaries and reports that proclaimed the BJP was communal and fascist.  The creation of this “watch group” was described benignly by an India Today report as “peculiar” and “adventurous”[91].  The India Today report went on to say:

“The BJW is planned as a committee of social scientists, journalists and assorted Marxist thinkers which will monitor Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Government.  Udayakumar.  says he has ‘at least 10 internationally acclaimed’ scholars ready to back the BJW but can’t reveal their names yet.  The list is a bit of an open secret though – supposedly covering names such as Tanika Sarkar, Gyanendra Pandey, Praful Bidwai and Aijaz Ahmad.    N. Ram, editor of fortnightly Frontline, (says) ‘Given the RSS’ semi-fascist origins, we are suspicious about the BJP’s attitude towards civil society and democracy.     The BJP threatens the institutions of civil society. ”

The Sabrang/FOIL report amply quotes the Human Rights Watch report on the recent Gujarat events.  How credible and objective is this report?  In an article titled, “The HRW Report on Gujarat: Another Assassination[92],“ published on Sulekha.com, Aseem Shukla has this to say about the HRW report:

“Ostensibly written as an account of a tragic, maniacal orgy of murder, this 75-page report evolves into nothing more than a politically charged and hopelessly biased self-serving account.  The first salvo without which this report would not exist—the Godhra train burning—merits exactly 1 paragraph on page 13.  That’s correct -- 3 sentences out of 75 pages describe the killing of innocent Hindus that sparked a national nightmare.  In its haste to blame the government, the report again overlooks the facts of rapid police deployment and the massive police firing that disproportionately killed Hindu rioters: 90 companies of the State Reserve Police were called in on February 27, 2002 itself, and over 3,900 rounds of ammunition killed close to 100 rioters.  The Gujarat Police overlook a population of 50 million (that would rank as the 22nd most populous country in the world) and have largely succeeded in keeping violence at a minimum within one city since the initial days of madness.  If the rest of the 73 pages of anti-Sangh hatred are not enough, though utterly unrelated, almost 2 pages are devoted to anti-Christian violence.  Keep in mind again that the Godhra train killing merited 1 paragraph!”

In a lengthy and careful analysis of the HRW report not only on Gujarat but previous such HRW reports, Arvin Bahl says[93]

“Upon closer examination, however, extensive and systematic bias exists in HRW’s reports on human rights and communal violence in India.  The most glaring defect of HRW’S reports is the lack of concern for the rights and lives of Hindus.  Incidents of communal violence in which both the Hindu majority and a particular minority community are involved in, and share the blame for, are portrayed as one-sided attacks by Hindus against “innocent minorities.”  Human rights abuses against Hindus are ignored or downplayed compared to attacks against other religious groups.  The 1999 report on attacks on Christians goes a step further as it demonstrates hostility to the Hindu religion itself.  In addition, HRW reports, rather than attempting an objective appraisal of communal violence and human rights in India, have become conduits for conducting political warfare against the BJP government and the Sangh Parivar.” 

The above excerpts clearly question the “objectivity” of the sources Sabrang/FOIL writers rely on for their analysis. 


C.  The Network of the Left [94]

1. Biju Mathew

Biju Mathew, the primary author of the Sabran/FOIL report is Associate Professor of Business at Rider University.  He describes his work as follows[95]:

“My work revolves around three primary thematics: Hindutva, Migration, and Globalisation and attempts to explicate the inter-relations between these three nodes of interest for contemporary South Asian scholars and activists.  On Hindutva, my work is largely on Hindutva’s relation to the politics of identity within diasporic Indian-American communities and on the specific aspects of caste and class that make Hindutva such a potent force in diasporic life.  Further, it locates the flourishing of Hindutva in North America within the context of globalisation.  The other mode by which the thematic of globalisation is reflected in my work is through a critical examination of the discourses of globalisation and its (dis)connections with post-80’s South Asian labour migration into the US.  Much of this work is related to my work as a volunteer organizer for the New York Taxi Workers Alliance.”

Thus, we are provided with little information about Biju Mathew’s professional interest in business studies; however, from the above it is quite clear that he has an obsessive interest in Hindutva[96].  What is also missing from the information is Mathew’s ideological background.  From another source[97] we discover, however, that he is a coordinator of the Forum of Indian Leftists (FOIL).  The communists in India, except those who are in electoral politics, rarely talk about themselves as communists.  Instead they arrogate to themselves labels like leftists, liberals, progressives, and secular.  In addition, Biju Mathew has written articles for Communist Party publications in India.  One such article was “Hindutva For a Few Dollars a Day,” co-authored with another known “progressive” (read Communist) of Indian origin, Vijay Prashad[98].  Vijay Prashad, one of the most prolific manufacturers of anti-RSS propaganda, has this to say about "Yankee Hindutva types" (a derogatory label he uses for Indian-Americans who do not support his political ideology): "Their 'patriotism' is simple: they are jingoistic for whomever will allow them the freedom to make money. Whether saffron or red/white/blue, these cats are heavily into the green." [99]. 

While Nazis’ crimes against humanity have been well-documented and commented upon, very little is written about the role of the Communists in this respect.  A study by French authors documents the bloody history of communism[100].  In a review of the book, Gregory McNamee[101] says:

“Communism did kill, Courtois and his fellow historians demonstrate, with ruthless efficiency: 25 million in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras, perhaps 65 million in China under the eyes of Mao Zedong, 2 million in Cambodia, millions more in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America—an astonishingly high toll of victims.  This freely expressed penchant for homicide, Courtois maintains, was no accident, but an integral trait of a philosophy, and a practical politics, that promised to erase class distinctions by erasing classes and the living humans that populated them.  Courtois and his contributors document Communism’s crimes in numbing detail, moving from country to country, revolution to revolution….  A thought-provoking work of history and social criticism, The Black Book of Communism fully merits the broadest possible readership and discussion.”    

The authors of that book have chronicled the extent of devastation perpetrated by Communist governments and rulers.  That devastation was justified in terms of Marxist or Maoist ideologies, and not as mere acts of individuals.  Stalin, Lenin, and Mao are guilty of overseeing the deaths of millions of their own countrymen.  It was not merely the deaths caused by erroneous policies implemented in the name of communism, for example, man-made famine.  Instead, it was also murder of a large number of political opponents.  Few communists are asked to dwell upon such crimes against humanity.  But these same communists will hold forth against allegations of similar misdeeds of others. 

The various communist parties in India have portraits of people like Lenin and Stalin prominently displayed in their offices[102].  Their public meetings have huge cardboard cutouts of such persons in the background.  It is a tragedy of discourse in India that no one has questioned these parties for their blatant display of leaders who engineered horrible crimes against humanity, and even against their own people.  Biju Mathew and his fellow FOIL members have written glowingly of communism and communist leaders[103]. 

We also draw the readers’ attention to the fact that communists in India supported the creation of Pakistan, and even demanded that India should be divided into nineteen nations.  During the Chinese attack on India in 1962, Indian communists also supported the actions of Mao, and went on to say that Chairman Mao was their chairman too[104]!

Indian communists and the Indian communist parties have close ideological ties with China.  The official mouthpiece of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) carries laudatory articles on Mao Zedong, and we provide an excerpt from the article cited above: 

“In 1979 when I reached China across the mountains, the de-Maoisation process had just begun there.  We visited all the important places of the Chinese Revolution and had intimate talks with veteran peasants as well as many other people.  We had developed the feeling that the Chinese people and the broad Party ranks have great faith in and respect for Mao and Mao can never be erased from China.

Standing before the body of Mao lying in state, I whispered to myself: Chairman Mao, you shall remain our Chairman forever – though not as China’s Chairman, but as our guide to the path of Indian revolution.”

Mathew’s links with the Communists in India is further reinforced given the fact that the press conference in Delhi to release the Sabrang/FOIL Report was organized by SAHMAT, a well-known left/communist organization[105].  SAHMAT was founded in 1989, in memory of Safdar Hashmi, who was an activist in the labor movement.  He was killed allegedly by a mob hired by the Congress Party.  Strangely enough, in their battle against the RSS and its affiliates, Indian communists have collaborated with the Congress party, and together they have even paid for political advertisements taken out by Communalism Combat against the BJP[106]!   


2.  Sabrang Communications

What is of equal interest[107] is the background of one of the publishers, namely, Sabrang Communications Private Limited.  (The other is The South Asia Citizens Web, France).  Sabrang is promoted by the husband-wife duo of Javed Anand and Teesta Setalvad.  Together they edit a magazine called Communalism Combat, launched some seven/eight years ago.  They claim to be intrepid fighters of communalism of all hues.  However, in a recent editorial they said:

“Whenever Communalism Combat is blamed for being ‘too pro-minority’, we hold the sangh parivar and the rest of the saffron brotherhood responsible for this editorial ‘tilt’.  Had Hindutva not hijacked the national agenda and targeted the country’s religious minorities, so much time and attention would not have been needed to defend Muslims and Christians from the vitriol, vilification and violence that is deliberately directed at them.  In fact, but for the hate mongers, this magazine itself would not have been necessary.  In such an imagined paradise of communal peace, had your editors still been involved in an issue-based publication, it would have very likely [been] focused on how one half of India (comprising Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and men who respond to other identity markers) treats the other half – women.” (Editorial, “Minorities within minorities”, Communalism Combat, May 2001.)

At the time, the President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Maharashtra Pranth, Ashok Chowgule commented as follows:

“According to the husband-wife duo, the Sangh is a very responsible organization - it is responsible for all the evils in the country!  Secondly, the national agenda was being set by non-Sangh (perhaps anti-Sangh) organizations in the past, but is now being set (their word is ‘hijacked’) by the Sangh.  Third, there are deliberate attacks (physical and non-physical) against the religious minorities.  Fourth, the reason for the existence of Communalism Combat is the Sangh.”

The first allegation that the RSS is responsible for all the evils in India is both farcical and false.  We have pointed out that careful observers believe that “minority” communalism is equally dangerous as “majority” communalism[108].  Varshney says, “It should be possible to accept that just as there is majority communalism, there is also the phenomenon of minority communalism.  Acknowledging this fact is not the same as saying that all Muslims are communal.  The media needs to disaggregate the community, and accurately portray that just as there are innocent and noble Muslim citizens, there are also Muslim gangs and criminals.  The problematic stand of the media has had untoward consequences.”  

The second allegation in many ways is a credit to the RSS.  It is only since 1985 that the RSS has had an impact on the Indian national agenda.  Until that time, the dominant ideology was Nehruvian socialism mixed with a large dose of Russian and Chinese communism.  Those who professed this “public faith” had the run of academic and media institutions, and in addition, they demanded and received more than adequate funding from the people, through state patronage. 

It is therefore correct to assume that Sabrang/FOIL believes that India was a paradise before the RSS began to influence the national agenda. It can be quite easily established, however, that India is better off economically and socially than in the days of Nehruvian socialism and Indira Gandhian personality cultism. 

The problem that Sabrang/FOIL has to deal with is, why India was not a nation of economic prosperity and communal amity before 1985.  Given the Left/Progressive predilection, they will refuse to do this analysis.  A fair and impartial analysis would establish why the RSS has been able to reach the cultural and social center stage today, and how the BJP, its political affiliate has been able to form a government at the Center.     

It is because of the abject failure of those who claim to be Marxists and secularists that people have turned to the RSS and the ideology of Hindutva.  Arun Shourie, the Minister of Divestment in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government at present, in a speech to the RSS cadre, in November 1992, said:

“Causes which the RSS has taken up have (now) been embraced by the country.    That you will persevere for as long as that turning around takes, about that I have little apprehension: the way you have persevered over the last 50 years itself assures us of that.”

As to the “attacks” against Christians by “Hindutva” forces, an English daily[109] commented on a recent incident in the state of Bihar: 

“Seemingly, the act was committed by unknown miscreants to issue threatening notes in Hindi with saffron ink, asking Christians to leave India.  The question is: is it the handiwork of the Pakistan’s ISI, which is bent on fanning communal frenzy, to belittle Indian in the eyes of the world?  Unless the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) or the Centre establishes that, one will assume, it is the design of the old anti-Christian communal outfits, like Bajrang Dal.”

It does not matter to the secularists that there is something called law and order and civil justice.  It does not matter to them that many of the alleged attacks on Christians have been proved to be either acts committed by non-Sangh groups or individuals with a specific grouse or a downright fabrication by the Christian organizations.  For the most recent of such “attacks” – where a visiting American missionary was attacked in the southern state of Kerala, and which American newspapers have been dutifully reporting[110] -- we draw your attention to the report by the National Minorities Commission which has exonerated the RSS or any of its members of having attacked the missionary[111]: 

The probe by the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has revealed startling facts about the attack on US missionary Rev Joseph Cooper in Kerala.  The report stated that the attack was not pre-planned but was a public outcry against the “wrongdoings and immoral acts by Rev Sam’s family in the area” and the US missionary was an unwitting victim. 

The probe by Mr John Joseph, member of the NCM, revealed that the “real target of attack by the public at the Gospel Convention, Kilimanoor, Trivandrum, was one Benson and not the American missionary.”

…The report prepared by the Christian member of the NCM has been sent to the National Human Rights Commission.  Media reports had indicated that the attack had been carried out by suspected RSS members.  Political parties had condemned the violence and had stated that this was the continued attack on the Christian community by members of the Sangh Parivar. 

The probe by the NCM stated that a local girl had allegedly been sexually abused and harassed for four months at the Bible Christian Centre. 

…The report by Mr John Joseph said the wrongdoings of Rev Sam’s family had been reported widely in the local media and residents of the area had held dharnas for their arrests.”

The May 2001 Communalism Combat editorial claims that:    

“The large-scale gender killings through the obnoxious practices of foeticide, infanticide, dowry-related murders and deaths through acute malnutrition of the girl child have led to a situation where the number of women per every thousand population is on a dangerous decline.  It’s an ugly reality that should make every Indian of the male gender hang his head in shame, but the high command of Hindutva particularly so as the ‘national mainstream’ which they claim to represent contributes more than its share to what is nothing short of homicide.”

To this, Ashok Chowgule responded as follows:

“So, you see, the Sangh is not only behind all sorts of abuses against women, but it is actually a murderous organisation!  Since the husband-wife duo is fond of filing public interest litigations, I am sure they will file one in the Supreme Court asking the honourable justices to direct the government to file a case against the Sangh for gender cleansing.”

One of the goals of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which the Left/Marxists parody as some kind of obscurantist and revivalist Hindu group, is “to completely eradicate social evils such as untouchability, dowry system, etc., and to restore due status to woman in the society and to rejuvenate the dynamic holistic Hindu way of life.”[112]

It would not be out of place to mention that even after the response was sent, the same old rhetoric is repeated over and over.  In August 2002, Setalvad said the following in a public speech:

“The tragedy of this country is that with the dominance of the ideology of Hindu Rashtra in public life, with proponents of it gaining power, every real issue that we need to tackle has got sidelined.[113]

We must also consider the fact that during the 1999 general elections in India, Sabrang Communications was actively involved in sponsoring an advertisement campaign against the BJP.  In an interview “The Displaced And The Dispossessed”, Humanscape, November 1999[114], Setalvad said that the initiative was taken by Communalism Combat to seek funds from three political parties - the Congress, the Communist Party of India, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) - and ‘ten prominent individuals.’  The cost of the campaign was 15 million rupees. 

Setalvad’s interview took place after the elections were over.  While the election process was on, Setalvad was asked about the source of money for the advertisement campaign.  In The Asian Age (September 4, 1999), she said that the support came from four political parties, some corporate houses, and certain NGOs.  In India Today (September 13, 1999), she said it was, “from a wide spectrum of well-wishers including corporates, trade unions, women’s groups and NGOs”.  There is an axiom that it is very hard to be consistent when one is telling lies.  The reports also said that Setalvad and her team for this campaign operated from the residence of a Congress Party leader, and worked closely with the media cell of the party. 

Sabrang sees no inconsistency in asking for transparency from others, while obscuring the truth about its own operations, commitments, and collaborations. 

Teesta Setalvad also traveled to Durban (August 31 to September 7, 2002) to attend a United Nations program called “World Conference Against Racism.”  The Statesman (September 30, 2001) showed a picture of her sitting next to John Dayal.  Dayal has a placard around his neck, which says: “Hindutva rapes and kills Dalits, Muslims, Christians in India.”  This is the same Dayal who has been prominent in demonizing the RSS, particularly in the context of the violence against Christians.  Note too that Communalism Combat’s chief reporter is John Dayal. 

It needs to be stated that the link between Mathew and Communalism Combat is nothing new.  In January 1998, Rediff on Net carried a profile, in two parts, of VHP-A by Mathew, which said that it was an arrangement with Communalism Combat[115]. 

Whether Mathew chooses to be a Communist, or whether Communalism Combat chooses to be anti-RSS, is a decision that they are free to take themselves.  However, just as they claim to expose the ideological position of the RSS and the IDRF, it is necessary for them to state their own ideological stance.  And if in this stance, they wish to ideologically oppose the Sangh, then there is an obligation on them to stand up to a higher test of impartiality than others when making allegations against the Sangh. 

[90] Workshop On Covering Communal Conflict, by Jyoti Punwani, June 2002, http://www.symonds.net/pipermail/goajourno/2002-July/000149.html

[91] A. Malik & A. J. Pais, “Conspiracy Theory: An NRI left-right battle may lead to an international group monitoring Vajpayee’s Ministry”, India Today, April 13, 1998.

[93] Arvin Bahl, “Politics by Other Means: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s report On India.” In Gujarat after Godhra: Real Violence, Selective Outrage, Ramesh Rao and Koenraad Elst, (Eds.), New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, (2002). 

[94] For details on the individuals and organizations involved in this propaganda network, see http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/essays/commie_paki_orgs.html

[98] This article appeared in “People's Democracy,” Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), March 25, 2001.  http://pd.  cpim.org/2001/march25/march25_biju_vijay.htm

[99] Caswell, Michelle, “Smashing the Myth of the Model Minority: An Interview with Vijay Prashad,”  Asia Source, http://www.asiasource.org/society/Prashad.cfm  

[100] The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, by Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer (Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator), Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin.  Harvard University Press, (1999).

[101] Editorial review in Amazon.com. For information about Gregory McNamee, see http://www.gregorymcnamee.com/

[102] Koenraad Elst, The Saffron Swastika: The Notion of “Hindu Fascism, New Delhi: Voice of India, p. 980, (2001).

[103] Vijay Prashad writes: “Unlike so many of my colleagues who, like some sort of red Judases, deny knowledge of what is a theoretical and political force, I feel that it’s important to pay tribute to the Soviets, for all their failings.  And too many of us make much of those failures far more than we acknowledge the merits of the experiment, or that the experiment is alive and well.  Cuba, Vietnam, West Bengal, Kerala--in the realm of necessity, people struggle to produce some form of social justice, while we, here in the realm of freedom, unctuously suck up to the powers that be with our post-Marxisms and other fallacies,” http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/radical_history_review/v079/79.1prashad.html

[105] “Sahmat sore with CPI(M)”, by Hasan Suroor, The Hindu, January 1, 1997”.  Either glasnost has finally arrived in the CPI(M) or the right hand of the party does not know what the left is doing, judging from its free-wheeling approach to the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (Sahmat), an organisation of left-wing artists and writers which commemorates the death anniversary of Safdar Hashmi tomorrow amid a controversy over its aim and some of the means it has used to achieve them.  A CPI(M) activist, Hashmi was killed while performing a street play, critical of the Government, near Delhi on January 1, 1997. 

[106] “… BJP Vice-President K Jana Krishnamurthi, on Tuesday moved an application before the Election Commission, protesting against advertisements appearing in the Press in the name of Communalism Combat and wondered whether "benami" advertisements defied the code of conduct”.  The very fact that a person or a party does not want to reveal the name openly and hide himself as a sponsor goes to show that he does not want to own the responsibility for such advertisements or to face consequence for his act,” Krishnamurthi's letter said….  The cat was, however, out of the bag as the sponsors appeared certainly from the Congress as otherwise Kapil Sibal had no reason to criticise the BJP for trying to gag the publication of advertisements issued "issued in public interest and in the interest of secularism.” For more, see -  http://www.angelfire.com/in/jalnews/19992.html

[107] This section draws extensively from An analysis of the report: 'The Foreign Exchange of Hate - IDRF and the American funding of Hindutva'” prepared by Ashok Chowgule in association with Hindu Vivek Kendra (http://www.hvk.org)

[108]Small steps go a long way”: An Interview with Ashutosh Varshney, March 11, 2002.  http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/csas/media%20outreach/smallsteps.html

[109] “Protect places of worship!”, Editorial, Gomantak Times, Panaji, Goa, May 11, 2001.

[110] “Hindus attack missionary from New Castle in India”, by Jack Kelly, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 16, 2003.

[111]Missionary ‘was not’ target”, by R.  Suryamurthy, Tribune News Service, January 17, 2003.


Next >>