About the speaker: Michelle Li received her Ph.D. in East Asian Studies from Princeton University in May 2000 with a major in pre-modern Japanese literature and minors in pre-modern Chinese and Japanese religions with an emphasis on Buddhism, and pre-modern Japanese history. Her focus in recent years has been on the grotesque and other modes of representation centered on the physical body in ancient and medieval Japanese literature. She is especially interested in the places in texts where religion, history, and literature meet. Her dissertation, Unfinalized Bodies: Reading the Grotesque in Setsuwa Literature, which she is currently revising as a book, develops a theory of the grotesque in short tales from the Konjaku monogatari shu­ and other collections of short tales compiled between the tenth and fourteenth centuries. She is also presently expanding her understanding of the grotesque by exploring how an aesthetic similar to the grotesque in setsuwa functions in Japanese literature from other genres and historic periods. Her next major project after completing this work will be a cross-disciplinary study of ancient and medieval wet nurses who, in addition to having great psychological impact on individuals, were politically and economically significant. In addition to her years at Princeton, her academic background includes a master's degree from Ochanomizu University in Tokyo in modern Japanese literature, particularly from the Meiji and Taisho­ periods. She has also lived and studied in Beijing. The first time, in 1989, was during the student protests and military crackdown by the government in and around Tiananmen Square. It was a significant period of her personal life as well as she met future husband, Jiayi, then. Chinese language and culture, including Chinese tale literature and its relationship to Japanese tale literature, remain side passions of hers.

Over the last two years in Southeast Asia, acts of terror done in the name of Islam have divided analysts into two broad camps. Academic specialists on Islam in Southeast Asia have tended to emphasize the moderation of the vast majority of Muslims in the region and the local roots of so-called jihadist violence there. While not denying the moderation of most Muslims, Western journalists and officials have relied more on intelligence reports and detainee confessions to situate Southeast Asian jihadists within a global terrorist network organized and inspired by Al Qaeda. Compared with Western journalists and officials, scholars have also tended to portray Islam as a basically tolerant religion and to seek nonreligious explanations and motivations for seemingly Islamist violence. If the scholars have had faith in explanatory contexts--distinctively local, historical, cultural, socioeconomic, and political--their counterparts in media and policy circles have been more inclined to showcase conspiratorial texts: interrogation transcripts, recordings of clandestine conversations, and the selectively Koranic rhetoric of militant Islamists urging global jihad. Which of these contrasting perspectives is superior, analytically and as a basis for counter-terror policy? Are the perpetrators of apparently Islamist terror in Southeast Asia thinking and acting locally? Or globally? Is there a demonstrably Al Qaeda network in the region? If so, what sort of a structure is it? How does it operate? Can a "war" against it succeed? If not, what might be a better approach? Zachary Abuza is an assistant professor of political science and international relations at Simmons College. His most recent book is Renovating Politics in Contemporary Vietnam (2001). Foreign-affairs journals that have published his work include Asian Survey and Contemporary Southeast Asia. He has spoken on Southeast Asian subjects before Congress, at the State Department, on Jim Lehrer's "NewsHour," and in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and Time, among other media. He received his Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1998. In 1995-96 he was a visiting researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Hanoi.

Following the success of the first conference held in January 2002, the Asia/Pacific Research Center and the US Army War College plan to hold a second conference in January 2003. Its theme is "The Prospects for Peace in South Asia." The participants will address several topics: the role of religion in the politics of the region (primarily in Kashmir, but also in Indian and Pakistani politics), the political role of the Pakistani army, and the new challenges that nuclear weapons and the global war on terrorism have introduced. Possible lessons for the United States in trying to prevent war in South Asia as well as furthering its aims in the war on terrorism will be discussed. The conference speakers will provide an understanding of Kashmir, the role of religion in South Asian politics, local culture and attitudes, US military perspectives on South Asia and the situations and politics in India and Pakistan.

When Shorenstein APARC's 2002 South Asia conference was being planned at Shorenstein APARC, the events of September 11, 2001 had not taken place. To Americans, September 11 is mostly associated with the war against terrorism. However, the impact of 9-11 on longstanding political relations between India and Pakistan is less understood. Without such an understanding, it is difficult to explain why India and Pakistan have twice almost gone to war in the past months due to acts of terrorism linked to September 11.

Kashmir is the main locus of the two countries' dispute. There is much history on why disagreements over Kashmir have created political problems: they began with the handing over of Kashmir to India in 1947 and have continued with rigged elections, poor governance, military occupation, and indigenous and Pakistani-supported militancy, up to the present day.

The risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan arising from the Kashmir dispute remains high. Local elections in both Pakistan and Kashmir over the next few months might prevent war till then, while affecting the dynamics of the future. The United States is keenly concerned with the possibility of war and has been actively engaged in diplomacy, with more senior American officials visiting South Asia in 2002 than at any time in the past.

Indian and Pakistani politics have also taken new turns. In India, the ruling NDA is dominated by the BJP, a party with past links to militant Hinduism. India is constitutionally secular and Muslims have played an important political role, though more as a vote-bank (comprising 14 percent of the population) and less, particularly in recent times, as influential decision-makers. This influence may be set to decline further. Economic uncertainties and the polarization of religious communities in some areas (after sectarian riots) have led the BJP to believe that a return to its aggressive roots might be politically successful. This leads to a need for understanding of how India's future will be affected by its great religions, Hinduism and Islam.

In Pakistan, recent political developments have concentrated power almost entirely in the hands of President Musharraf, a situation that may persist after its upcoming elections. This lack of institutionalization of political processes and power poses new risks to the security environment in the subcontinent.

American news from Indonesia has been alarming. "Asian Terror: Al Qaeda Seeks Niche in Indonesia, Officials Fear," headlined the New York Times on 23 January 2002. In the same issue, in a column ambitiously subtitled "What the Muslim World Really Feels," Tom Friedman described "an iron curtain of misunderstanding separating America and the Arab-Muslim world"--a world marked, in his view, by "enormous cultural resistance to believing anything good about America."

Indonesia is mainly Malay, not Arab, but it has more Muslims than any other country. How seriously should signs of jihadism there be taken? Ostensibly Islamist or jihadist movements include Darul Islam, HAMMAS, Laskar Jihad, the Islamic Defenders Front, the Islamic Youth Movement, Jemaah Islamiah, and KISDI. In Maluku and Sulawesi, Christians have killed Muslims and vice versa. Americans and their embassy in Jakarta have been threatened. How should such groups, events, and risks be described, explained, and responded to? In what specific ways are faith, politics, and violence intersecting in Indonesia--and with what implications for Indonesians and Americans?

Analysts have long portrayed Indonesian Muslims as exemplary in their openness and tolerance toward non-Muslims and, within the Muslim community, toward religious diversity, creativity, and reform. Were these observers naive? Or have jihadism and Islamism been grossly overdrawn, and for reasons that involve politics, prejudice, and sensationalism far more than actual conditions? In this volatile context, how realistic are current reformist projects to foster a "liberal Islam," a "moderate Islam," a "feminist Islam," or a distinctively accommodative "Indonesian Islam"--as against an avowedly "militant Islam" that would impose an "Islamic state"?

While Islam is commonly portrayed as a Middle Eastern religion, the majority of the world's Muslims reside in Asia. Indonesia is home to the world's largest Muslim population, with India following close behind. Millions of Muslims are scattered throughout South, Southeast, Central and Northeast Asia. In the wake of the horrific terrorists attacks on September 11th, many non-Muslims have mistakenly identified Islam with political violence. The need to distinguish moderate Islam practiced by the Muslim majority in Asia and the radical extremism used by terrorists has never been greater. In an effort to create a more comprehensive understanding of these complex issues and address misconceptions linking Islam and terrorism, the Asia Society and the Shorenstein Forum will convene a panel of experts to explore Muslim thought and practice in several key Asian countries, namely Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and China. Among the questions that will be addressed by the panel is how recent events will impact the future of Islam in Asia and what role extremist and other groups may play in this process.

Press reports of rising anti-Americanism and Muslim militance in several Southeast Asian countries have fueled speculation that the United States may be planning to intervene against terrorist groups in that part of the world. How credible are these reports? In Indonesia, which has more Muslim citizens than any country with the possible exception of India, Islamist activists have demanded the severing of U.S.-Indonesian relations and threatened to expel Americans. There has been speculation that American advisers may soon arrive in the southern Philippines to help Manila root out ostensibly Islamist rebels operating there. While criticizing the bombing of Afghanistan, Malaysian Premier Mahathir Mohamad has accused his Muslim opposition of links to Islamist subversion. Meanwhile, Malaysian jihadist elements are alleged to have been in touch with Osama bin Laden's network. How real are these perceived dangers? What do they imply for stability and democracy in Southeast Asia, and for the future of America's global coalition against terror? Bambang Harymurti has long been associated with Tempo, the leading newsweekly in Indonesia. He served on its editorial board from 1987. When the magazine was banned in 1994, he moved to the daily newspaper Media Indonesia. He returned to Tempo following its reappearance in printed form in 1998. He has held fellowships at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the East-West Center, among other institutions. He was also a finalist in Indonesia's astronaut program. Fortunately for journalism, he did not make the cut. Don Emmerson convenes the Southeast Asia Forum in the Asia/Pacific Research Center, a unit of Stanford's Institute for International Studies.

Prof. Panikkar will address the relationship of history to issues of power, politics, and censorship in the context of the recent controversy involving the withdrawal of two volumes on modern history by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).

Prof. K. N. Panikkar teaches at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is the Chairman of the Archives on Contemporary History and formerly the Dean of the School of Social Sciences, JNU. He is associated with several universities and institutions in India and abroad. He has been the President of the Modern History Section of the Indian History Congress and a member of the Indian Council for Social Science Research and the Indian Council for Historical Research. He has also been a member of several academic and research organizations and a visiting professor to universities abroad.

Prof. Panikkar's main area of current research is intellectual-cultural history of modern Indian on which he has written extensively. His publications include, Culture, Ideology and Hegemony--Intellectuals and Social Consciousness in Colonial India; Culture and Consciousness in Modern India; Against Lord and State--Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar; Communal Threat, Secular Challenge and British Diplomacy in North India. Among the books he has edited the latest is The Concerned Indian's Guide to Communalism.