Just International

GANDHIJI AND THE PROPHET (PBUH)

Note: This imaginary dialogue between Gandhiji and the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) is to clarify many misunderstandings which are being spread about Islam and Muslims. My mission in life is to promote peace and inter-religious understanding and to struggle against religious fanaticism and extremism. As I have deep conviction about teachings of Islam, I am also great admirer of Gandhiji and his philosophy of non-violence. (A.E.)

Gandhiji: I have drawn inspiration from Islam as much as from Christianity. Islam’s emphasis on justice, equality and human dignity has always attracted me as love and forgiveness of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount specially attracted my attention. As you know I am deeply committed to philosophy of non-violence and it is in this respect that I am approaching you to know more in depth about Islam’s teachings about non-violence. It is necessary as Islam and terrorism are being equated by some anti Islamic forces and it is you who can help dispel these attacks on Islam. Who can be the better person than you, O Prophet of Islam.

Prophet: I am so much pained that Islam is under attack today whereas 21st century should have been the most appropriate period to appreciate its teachings. Yes, I admit there are all kinds of people in any religion and some may be motivated by their own selfish interests and indulge in violence or other misdeeds but a religion should be judged by its core teachings, not by what some followers do. I hope you will agree with me.

Gandhiji: Yes I do agree with you sir, the great Prophet of Islam.

Prophet: You would agree with me no religion can teach violence and be followed by millions of people. The very purpose of religion is to refine morals and guide its followers to a purposeful and meaningful life with inner peace and deep conviction. Islam is a religion of surrendering to Allah and Allah is Compassionate and Merciful (Rahman and Rahim) and in your devotional song you also mention Ram and Rahim. All Muslims are supposed to invoke Allah, the Compassionate and Merciful before they begin their work (bism Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim). It is very central to Islam. Also one of Allah’s name in Qur’an, you must have noted, is Salam i.e. Peace.

Gandhiji: I understand true meaning of religion and its need for human beings in life. Inner convictions play important role in giving meaning and direction to human life. I have always relied on my own inner convictions before I took any decision. But I want to understand Islam in all its comprehensive way so that there is absolutely no confusion and it would certainly reinforce my own conviction in non-violence.

Prophet: Look when I was chosen by Allah to be His prophet the conditions in Mecca was extremely precarious. There was moral chaos in society, the tribal chiefs were growing wealthier and wealthier as they controlled international trade and were becoming arrogant and neglecting all their moral obligations towards weaker sections of society, the poor, the orphans, the widows, the needy and, in order to achieve greater grip over the minds of people, were promoting all sorts of superstitions and irrational beliefs. All this disturbed me deeply and I retired to the cave of Hira where I received revelation.

The Qur’anic revelation dealt with the situation on two levels: first, it promoted concept of one God – Allah- the creator of all and worship Him alone thus uniting entire human kind and on social level it strongly condemned accumulation of wealth and predicted it will turn into hell fire if the weaker sections of the society are neglected and injustice and oppression prevails. Thirdly, it gave equal rights to women who were denied all rights and treated as mere chattels. Fourthly, it stressed need for knowledge (‘ilm) and compared it with light (noor) and ignorance as darkness.

Gandhiji: How like Upanishads. Upanishad too compares gyan with light and one of its prayers says lead me from darkness to light.

Prophet: Yes indeed, this prayer exists in the Qur’an too. And one other prayer says rabbi zidni ‘ilman (O Sustainer of this Universe increase me in knowledge). Indeed religions (not to be confused with customs, traditions and cultural institutions) do not contradict each other but compliment and stress same values.

Gandhiji: In Hindu tradition we maintain entire humanity is one family (Vasudhaiva kutumbakum).

Prophet: Yes I too have said in one of my hadith al-khalq-u-‘ayalullah (entire creation is Allah’s family.)

Gandhiji: How similar are teachings of two of our great religions. But, Hindus often complain that Muslims call us kafirs. Sir, are we kafirs?

Prophet: No, no. there is great misunderstanding about kufr among Muslims and others. In Qur’an kafir is one who hides truth and actively opposes it. Every religion is embodiment of truth and in every religious tradition Allah or God or Ishwar’s name is Truth, In Qur’an one of Allah’s name is Haq (Truth). So those who hide truth and actively oppose it is a kafir, not one who believes in it and strongly affirms it.

Gandhiji: We Hindus do believe in truth and indeed I always said Truth is God.

Prophet: Yes, yes, how can you be kafir. All those who affirm truth, truth of values and right path cannot be kafirs. Qur’an teaches that every qaum (nation) was given truth through prophets and I have said that Allah has sent 1,24,000 prophets and Qur’an also says “We have sent prophet for every nation.” And some of the Sufis in your country have said Allah must have sent prophets to Hind also to fulfill His promise in the Qur’an. However, I know some Muslims, either out of arrogance or ignorance, call others kafirs. Do not worry about them. Then even one Muslim sect in my ummah, unfortunately call followers of other sects as kafirs. It is nothing but false sense of superiority over others.

Gandhiji: May I request you sir to further throw some light on concept of kafir in Qur’an as there is so much confusion about it among people.

Prophet: When I began to invite people of Mecca to Islam, a religion of truth revealed by Allah to me and it invited the powerful leaders of Mecca too, to accept Islam, their ego as well as their powerful interests were deeply hurt and they began to actively oppose Islam. Firstly they felt how can an orphan, without any wealth and social status could tell us what is the right path and ask us to deviate from the path of our forefathers. Secondly, Qur’an, as I pointed out, attacked accumulation of wealth neglecting weaker sections of society.

This deeply disturbed them as wealth was their main power and there was no state machinery in Mecca to tax them so the Qur’an proposed a voluntary contribution and called it zakat which literally means to purify. The zakat is meant to be distributed among the weaker sections of society, the poor, orphans, widows, needy, travelers and liberating slaves and prisoners. Thus economic justice will prevail and their wealth will be purified. However, so far they had only accumulated wealth and never spared anything for the weaker sections of society. This also created strong resentment among the wealthy of Mecca and they began to actively oppose me and my followers and even using their power persecuted me and my followers, torturing them in most inhuman manner. They even did not allow us to enter Ka’aba, our holy shrine for centuries.

The Qur’an condemned them as kafirs because they actively opposed the truth knowing fully well that I was bearer of truth from Allah. Their arrogance and their pride in their wealth blinded them. It indeed was not their ancestral religion but their arrogance and false pride in wealth which was the problem.

There were those Arabs who did not accept Islam but at the same time did not oppose Islam and hence Qur’an said for them that “O unbelievers for you is your religion and for me is mine”. Thus you will see religion was indeed not the problem, power, wealth and arrogance was. Also, the Qur’an says la ikrah fi’ al-din (i.e. there is no compulsion in matters of religion). No one can be coerced into believing as religion is matter of conscience and deeper conviction. Even an idol worshipper cannot be coerced into abandoning his way of worship. If a kafir (which only means non-believer in Islam) desires to live in peace with Muslims his way of worship has to be respected and protected along with his life and property. Qur’an calls them dhimmis (i.e. those whose responsibility of life and property) is on Muslims and those who harm them amounts to harming me and those who harm me they harm Allah.

Gandhiji: This completely clarifies the meaning of kafir. It is indeed very humane and in keeping with the contemporary world which believes in freedom of worship and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Unto me is my religion and unto you is yours. What more one can expect from any religion.

So sir it is not in keeping with the teaching of Islam that one should use sword to preach Islam. This misconcept is so widespread in the world today.

Prophet: This is sheer monstrosity. How can Qur’an which teaches freedom of conscience can teach such a thing. Qur’an says, on the other hand, call people to the path of Allah with wisdom and goodly words. Those who went out with swords were conqueror of territories, not conquerors of hearts for Allah.

Gandhiji: This clears many of my doubts and my countrymen’s doubts. I always thought Qur’an and Prophet of Islam can never allow such things. Religion is a moral force and can never permit coercion, let alone violence, for its acceptance. The conqueror may coerce some to convert but a religious person can never. Those conversions will be more for political than for religious conviction. In India most of the conquerors also hardly ever used coercion to convert Hindus though many of them supported various Muslim rulers militarily and politically. There may have been few instances but generally Hindus and Muslims lived in peace and harmony and evolved a composite culture.

Prophet: Yes indeed you are right and my mission (da’wah) was generally accepted by weaker sections of the society. In Arabia too it is poor, slaves, women, orphans and widows who responded to my mission promptly. In your country also, it is low caste Hindus who suffered indignities who responded readily as Islam stands for social justice, equality and human dignity.

Gandhiji: Now it brings me to the question of non-violence which I have practiced in my life, even for liberation of my own country from the British rulers. Does Islam accept non-violence as a basic doctrine? Or it accepts it only tactically in certain circumstances as many Islamic theologians maintain?

Prophet: Truth, as you know is very basic to the Qur’an as I told you and it is also one of Allah’s names. Another important names of Allah and Qur’an’s fundamental values are compassion and mercy. Now put all of them (truth, compassion and mercy) together and tell me how violence can ever be part of Qur’anic teachings? It is not merely tactical but non-violence is most fundamental to Islam.

You evolved the concept of satyagraha (insistence on truth) for practicing non-violence for liberation of Hind. Truth and non-violence go together and can never be a sundered apart. One who insists on truth, as you tried to do, can never resort to violence. Truth reflects our deeper conviction and is mirror of our pure conscience and you would agree with me conviction and coercion are poles apart.

Also, truth needs certain virtues most of all patience (sabr) and control over ones anger, desire and greed without which one cannot practice it. Qur’an also lays great emphasis on these virtues, as you also do. In one of the chapters of Qur’an it has been said, “By the time! Surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good, and exhort one another to Truth, and exhort one another to patience.”

Thus it will be seen that truth requires tremendous patience and patience, in turn, curbs anger and desire. Those who have patience cannot be provoked. To practice truth you need these qualities. And hence where there is truth, there will be no violence. Violence is result of impatience, anger, greed and desire.

Gandhiji: You are very right O Prophet of Islam. I also always emphasized truth, non-violence and simple living. Without non-violence truth is not possible and without simple living too, non-violence is not possible. It is greed and desire which leads to more and more violence. In the twentieth and twenty first century more and more consumerism has meant more and more raw materials and western powers in collaboration with the native ruling elite plunder third world countries and for that they have to suppress people and displace them from their ancestral properties resulting in great deal of violence. The naxalite violence in my country is because tribal are being displaced without any dignified rehabilitation in the hunt for minerals.

Prophet: Yes, you are absolutely right. In Mecca when I exhorted the rich and powerful not to neglect the poor and needy and leave life of luxury they turned against me and persecuted me. My emphasis was on simple life and I set a rigorous example of simplicity. I am also known to Islamic historians as kambliwala i.e. one who used rough blanket and often wore patched clothes and used pillows stuffed with just palm leaves.

We have all this in common. But the powerful merchants of Mecca had greed for profit and were used to high life style and accepting my teachings would have meant giving up all this. When finally I left Mecca and migrated to Madina they pursued me and attacked me and first battle of Badr took place. It was the first battle ought by Muslims. It is Meccan merchants who were aggressors. I had to defend.

Absolute non-violence is not possible in the world where injustices abide, inequality and human lust is widespread and powerful are ever ready to exploit and deprive people of their rights and dignity. Violence is not our choice, it is often inflicted on us without we ever desiring it. I, along with my followers left Mecca quietly and yet the Meccan merchants inflicted war on us.

It was in this condition that the Qur’an permitted us to defend ourselves. The permission was granted conditionally that we do not commit aggression. Thus the Qur’an said that fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you and do not be aggressors as Allah does not love aggressors. If we had not defended ourselves we would have been wiped out. Non-violence should essentially mean absence of violence of aggression. And for Qur’an it is matter of basic principle that Muslims should not be first resort to violence..

Gandhiji: I am in perfect agreement with you honourable Prophet. I would also like to know more about the concept of jihad. It is highly misunderstood both among Muslims and non-Muslims. I hope it does not mean war and violence but I want to hear from you.

Prophet: You are right jihad does not even remotely mean war or violence. It means struggle for truth and truth prevails, as we discussed earlier, if we suppress our unjust desires, anger and passion for possession. Thus real jihad means to struggle against ones own selfish desires and this is most difficult struggle. I call it jihad-e-akbar i.e. the greatest jihad. Then I also have said that most meritorious jihad is speaking truth in the face of a tyrant risking ones own life.

People cannot wage such jihad, such struggle as it entails great sacrifices, they wage wars for selfish desires, kill innocent people and exploit the poor and call it jihad to legitimize it. Wars of aggression and territorial possessions can never be called jihad.  Some of my followers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and some other places are killing even fellow Muslims through terrorist attacks and call it jihad. Terrorism is terrorism and most condemnable act of cruelty. How can it be called jihad which is very noble act of upholding truth even at the cost of ones life. It entails self sacrifice and not killing innocent people.

Islam opposes violence of aggression in every form and respects life of even enemy and that is why the Qur’an says with great emphasis that if you kill one person without justification it amounts to killing the whole humanity and if you save one life as if you have saved entire humanity. If this principle is universally accepted there will be peace on our earth.

Gandhiji: Indeed the concept of jihad is very noble as explained by you O Prophet. I wish all Muslims and non-Muslims follow this noble principle and instead of attacking others and launching wars of aggression fight against their own selfish desires and greed for consumption and more and more possession. I have always believed that real peace is inner peace, borne by giving rather than taking from others

Prophet: Yes indeed Qur’an also says that give away what is more than what is left after your basic needs are met. Do not accumulate. It is desire to accumulate that leads to war and violence. Accumulation robs you of inner peace. Inner peace and satisfaction is real paradise as Qur’an says enter (paradise) with complete sense of peace and security. It is our desire for wealth which turns into hell.

Gandhiji: I also advised my followers to serve people and not run after power and self. I even advised Congressmen to turn themselves into an organization of serving people after independence rather than fight for crumbs of power. Serving people by sacrificing our own selfish desires is the highest goal of life. It gives you inner joy and makes your life meaningful.

Prophet: But the modern economy isn’t need based but greed based and hence so much violence in modern world despite so much talk of human rights and dignity, peace and security. It will never be realized until we wage real jihad for these noble ideals of human equality, dignity and justice.

Gandhiji: O Prophet of Islam, it was indeed very ennobling to have the honour of having talked to you. In the end I would thank you profusely for enlightening me on all these issues which have been causing so much confusion in minds of several Muslims and non-Muslims. May Allah’s peace be upon you. Your contribution to culture of justice, peace and human dignity has indeed been immense.

Institute of Islamic Studies

Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Islam and Modern Age, August, 2010)

 

 

 

 

Fallujah, A Disgrace For The USA, An Eternal Curse On Humanity

“It is the people of Fallujah’s cherished right to hold to account the International Community that now has both the mandate and moral responsibility to initiate proceedings to prosecute and hold accountable all those perpetrators, and to seek full restitution and compensations commensurate with the endured suffering and pain throughout the occupation period, continuing till the present day.”

 

Dr. Muhamad Tareq Al-Darraji , President of Conservation Centre of Environment and Reserves in Fallujah – CCERF, Director of Monitoring net of human rights in Iraq – MHRI 

Despite the “end of combat operations”, American forces stepped in with ground troops and air support in three incidents in different parts of Iraq, when their Iraqi counterparts were so-called “threatened by suicide attackers or well-armed gunmen”, according to U.S. and Iraqi military accounts .[1] <#_ftn1>  

One of those” incidents” occurred in Fallujah on Wednesday 15 September, where 7 civilians were killed and 4 injured. Their names will be added to the endless list of victims of the US aggression against this troubled city. May they never be forgotten.  

•      Killed during the raid by US/Iraqi forces on 15 September 2010  

Humadi Jassim Ahmed……….old man  

Manzel Humadi Jassim Ahmed………youngster  

Sameer Humadi Jassim Ahmed……..youngster  

Sadiek Humadi Jassim Ahmed………youngster  

Abid Swissan Ahmed………old man  

Yassein Abid Swissan Ahmed…….youngster  

Yassein Kassar Saad……..Former Iraqi officer in Iraqi army  

•      Injured civilians  

Omar Humadi Jassim…….youngster  

Ibrahim Abid Kassar………youngster  

Hathima Jassim (85 years old)  

Ahmed Humadi Jassim ….youngster  

The raid has raised tensions and angered the city’s inhabitants. On 16 September the city has declared a three-day long mourning. U.S. and Iraqi officials claim that the raid killed a former Iraqi officer linked to al-Qaeda group in the country. But the claim could not be substantiated and eyewitnesses and officials in the city said all the dead and injured were civilians. Schools, offices and shops were closed in Fallujah on Thursday in protest against the attack that was also strongly condemned by provincial officials of Anbar of which the city of Ramadi is the capital. The officials in Anbar have asked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for an independent investigation of the raid, according to Mohammed Fathi, the governor’s advisor.[2]  

In 2003, after the fall of the capital Baghdad following the US lead invasion, Fallujah[3] remained calm and, contrary to what happened elsewhere, there was no looting. But the policy pursued by the US – UK of indiscriminate killing of civilians and of collective punishment, generated resistance in the whole area. In order to eradicate the resistance in and around Fallujah, the invading forces attacked the city and the crimes committed in the course of these attacks are the subject of a new report of Monitoring Net For Human Rights in Iraq (MHRI) called Testimonies of Crimes Against Humanity in Fallujah, Towards a Fair International Criminal Trial [4], presented at the15th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council[5]. This report gives a grim view of a policy of collective punishment, war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed by the US forces between 2003 en 2010:  

–       The killing of peaceful demonstrators  

–       Provocation and killing of the protection and police forces of Fallujah  

–       Arbitrary arrests and torture  

–       The first assault on Fallujah (April, 2004)  

–       The peace talks that could have prevented the second battle of Fallujah but were undermined by the US  

–       The crimes of the US/UK troops in the course of the second assault on Fallujah (November, 2004)  

–       Environmental pollution, its effects on health and the threat to future generations. 

 

Moreover, the city was totally destroyed. Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi, the head of “the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah citizens” reported the following destruction inflicted on Fallujah as a result of the American attack in November 2004:  

– 7000 houses totally destroyed, or nearly totally destroyed, homes in all districts of Fallujah. – 8400 stores, workshops, clinics, warehouses, etc.. destroyed.  

– 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries have been either totally demolished and leveled to the ground or whose minarets and inner halls have been demolished.  

– 59 kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and technical colleges have been destroyed.  

– 13 government buildings leveled to the ground.  

– Destruction of the two electricity substations, the three water purification plants, the two railroad stations and heavy damages to the sewage and rain drainage subsystems throughout the city.  

– The total destruction of a bridge to the West of the city.  

– The death of 100,000 domestic and wild animals due to chemical and/or gaseous munitions.  

– The burning and destruction of four libraries that housed hundreds perhaps thousands of ancient Islamic manuscripts and books.  

– The targeted destruction (which appears to be intentional) of the historical nearby site at Saqlawia and the castle of Abu al-Abbas al-Safah.[6]  

A partial list of people assassinated during the first assault on Fallujah in April 2004 contains 749 names, 580 of which are males and 169 are females.[7] ( Iraq Bodycount lists 26 casualties of this onslaught in its database, many of them different persons! ). The number of civilians assassinated by the US during the 2nd assault on Fallujah in November 2004 is a multitude of the 749 April murders.  

As a cynical token of “good will”, the US helped reconstruct the Fallujah hospital, in which many women now give birth to deformed babies, deformities caused by illegal weaponry used by the occupation forces during the assaults: white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and other chemical and uranium weapons. With a half-life of 4.5 billion years, DU and NDU amount to a permanently available contaminant randomly distributed into the environment. An eternal curse on humanity, inflicted by the “ Champions of the Free World ”.  

The mainstream media has extensively reported how a British woman, Mary Bale, had been filmed dropping a cat into a wheelie bin. The cat was later released unharmed. “Whereas the story of the maltreated cat received heavy coverage for almost one week across the UK media, we (and activist friends in the United States) can find exactly one mention of the Fallujah cancer and infant mortality study in the entire UK and US national press – Patrick Cockburn’s article in the Independent. The story has simply been ignored by every other US-UK national newspaper”, write the editors of Medialens.[8]  

The article by Patrick Cockburn[9] was indeed a rare exception to the mainstream media near-blackout of news about this new scientific study, showing soaring rates of cancer and other indicators of mutagenic disorders in Fallujah[10], the city the U.S. obliterated in 2004. Results of a population-based epidemiological study organized by Malak Hamdan and Chris Busby, published on 03 July 2010 in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health (IJERPH) based in Basle, Switzerland, show increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and perturbations of the normal human population birth sex ratio significantly greater than those reported for the survivors of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.[11]  

As Noam Chomsky has commented, the study’s findings are “vastly more significant” than the Wikileaks Afghan ‘War Diary’ leaks[12]  

The refusal of the mainstream media to write about this report is another proof of cynical negligence.  

On top of that t he city of Fallujah still has no functioning sewage system: Waste pours onto the streets and seeps into drinking water supplies.[13]  

And Fallujah is still under siege. Nahoko Takato, activist and aid worker of the NGO NCCI testifies:  

“When I visited Falluja in 2009, it was very difficult to get permission to enter. It’s surrounded by checkpoints… Basically, only those who have IDs that are provided by the American army can enter. And only cars that get a number from the American army are allowed to enter. The Ramadi citizen can enter Falluja by foot, but he cannot enter Falluja in his own car because he needs special registration that is very difficult to get…Maybe the American army is afraid that an international will collect evidence of the pollution, uranium traces, and so on.”[14] <#_ftn14>  

The demands of the people of Fallujah, formulated in the Testimonies of Crimes Against Humanity in Fallujah, Towards a Fair International Criminal Trial report, are highly justified and should be obligatory advocated and put high on the agenda of all Human Rights Organisations and peace movements worldwide.  

1. The inability of the Iraqi judiciary to undertake any proceedings leading to eventual trials and accountability for the crimes and violations by the U.S.-British soldiers, is clear evidence of the complicity and to the continuation of absolute occupation, thereafter the situation was ratified thereafter with the drafting of the security agreement between U.S. government and the Iraqi government confirming and regularizing this deficiency.  

It is our cherished right to hold to account the International Community who now has both the mandate, and moral responsibility to initiate proceedings to prosecute and hold accountable all those perpetrators and seek full restitution and compensations in appropriate portion and scale, commensurate with the endured suffering and pain throughout the endured periods and continuing till the present day.  

2. We appeal to the international community, to hold the perpetrators of these crimes accountable, and obtain compensation for the victims, including for the suffering and all pain endured.  

3. The establishment of an international criminal court, or at least an independent fact-finding mission to look at all violations happened in Iraq by the United States since 1991.  

4. The reinstitution of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iraq is one of the first steps that the international community can take in order to get at the truth regarding the human rights situation in Iraq.  

5. We call on all visual media and audio, which have documented the crimes of Fallujah, to send a copy to the office of the special procedures in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, to assist victims of Fallujah and help stop these crimes.[15]  

As a final observation I’d like to stress that the people of Fallujah have all the right, according to International law, to defend themselves against the illegal invasion and occupation of their city, their country. Their right to resist should be defended by all.

By Dirk Adriaensens 

22 September, 2010 

Countercurrents.org


(Member of the B Russell s Tribunal executive committee, 21 September 2010)  

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/17/100778/iraqi-forces-struggling-as-us.html  

[2]   http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%5C2010-09-16%5Ckurd.htm  

[3] Fallujah is a city rooted in history, located some 45 km  to the west of the capital Baghdad. It has a population of more than 350.000 inhabitants and is at the crossroad of three rural areas that total 300.000 inhabitants, which brings the overall population of the area of Fallujah to 650000 people. The population of Fallujah is conservative as regards social, religious, traditional and tribal issues  

[4] <http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/MHRI-Fallujah160910.pdf  

[5] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/15session/  

[6] http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=10580&s2=22 

[7] http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/Fallujah.pdf  

[8] http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100907_beyond_hiroshima_the.php  

[9] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html 

[10] http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9836/  

[11] http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Fallujah020710.htm  

[12] http://www.zcommunications.org/wikileaks-and-coverage-in-press-by-noam-chomsky 

[13] http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89829  

[14] http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=69624&s2=10  

[15] http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/MHRI-Fallujah160910.pdf  

—— Einde van doorgestuurd bericht  

—— Einde van doorgestuurd bericht 

Dirk Adriaensens is member of BRussell s Tribunal Executive Committee 

 


 

Cuba Moves Toward Privatization by Big U.S. Businesses; Cuban Workers Stand To Lose Almost Everything

On the list of America’s most-hated leaders, Fidel Castro gets the award for longevity. Outlasting ten U.S. presidents, from Eisenhower through George W. Bush, Castro has managed to maintain his high ranking for over five decades. Though the 84-year-old ex-president of Cuba is unlikely to drop off the list during his lifetime, the persistent image of Cuba as communist dystopia may be on the verge of changing — that is, if the dreams of American big business come true.

The emerging vision of Cuba as a corporate utopia has become especially prominent since September 15, the day Fidel’s brother and current president, Raul Castro, announced that Cuba will cut 500,000 state jobs over the next year as part of a larger program of economic reform. Currently, the state employs 95 percent of Cuba’s 5.1 million workers. The new policy is designed to privatize Cuba’s workforce and encourage the growth of small business. Approximately half the laid-off workers, or 250,000 people, will be issued licenses for self-employment in a wide range of sectors, from transportation and construction to agriculture and retail. Until now, the private sector has been restricted to a narrow range of activities, including barbershops, beauty salons, and restaurants, all of which the state keeps under strict surveillance. In the wake of the global economic downturn and the disastrous hurricanes of 2008, underground businesses and remittances from relatives in the United States have kept many Cubans afloat.

This move toward privatization is not altogether new. Since 1959, Cuba has gone through periodic cycles of economic reform and consolidation. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which drastically reduced Cuba’s subsidy-dependent budget, the government declared the Periodo Especial and relaxed restrictions on private businesses only to tighten them again within a decade. Since he assumed office in 2006, Raul Castro has promised to reform Cuba’s centralized economy. “At times, he has sounded more like Margaret Thatcher than Karl Marx, stressing the need for Cubans to improve their work ethic, efficiency, and productivity,” notes Cuba expert Julia Sweig. Some economic reforms, especially in the agricultural sector, have already been implemented, allowing small farmers to sell directly to the public and keep their profits. Critics have argued that past reforms have been insufficient and ultimately insignificant. The latest reform has not met the same skepticism. Whether or not they support the plan, most analysts agree that it represents the biggest overhaul of Cuba’s economy since the revolution.

Tea Partiers Tout Fidel

The news of this “seismic shift” in Cuba’s economy has made a particular splash in the United States, with experts and pundits on all sides weighing in on the issue. Of course, U.S.-Cuba relations have long been an important element in American domestic politics. Since Castro assumed power in 1959, Cuban exiles, anti-communists, and conservatives of all stripes have made opposition to the regime a hot-button election issue. In recent years, however, fierce opponents of the Castro regime have lost ground. In 2008, Obama won the state of Florida, despite his promise to loosen travel and trade restrictions between the United States and its neighbor 90 miles south of Key West. Nationally, 10 percent more Cuban-Americans voted Democratic in 2008 than they did in 2004.

The newest economic reform plan has put Cuba back on the table during this election season. But the old script has changed, and with Cuba’s economy, the political alliances appear to be shifting. Politics creates strange bedfellows, but this adage doesn’t quite capture the irony of conservatives playing footsie under the sheets with none other than Fidel, el comandante himself.

The recent torrent of media coverage began with the scoop, made by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, that Fidel himself had lost faith in communism. On September 7, Goldberg, the first U.S. journalist to interview Castro since the onset of his illness, blogged about his long leisurely lunch with Fidel, during which el comandante reportedly let slip that, “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.” Castro refuted the story, claiming that Goldberg had misinterpreted him, and that his statement meant just the opposite — that it is American-style capitalism, and not Cuban-style socialism, that has failed. But the media pundits were certainly not going to accept this less juicy interpretation of Castro’s remarks. Collectively, the media has made a point of underscoring the historic nature of the possibility that Fidel is distancing himself from communism.

Conservative talking heads and media hosts have been especially keen to use this story as part of their larger effort to discredit the Democrats’ “big-government” policies and influence the November mid-term elections. On September 15, the late-night Fox News show “Red Eye,” hosted by former Maxim editor Greg Gutfeld, did a segment on Cuba in which he and his panelists made no secret of their contempt for Fidel. In the late-night bar, jackass spirit of the show, they presented the former dictator not as a dangerous demagogue, but instead as an “old coot,” a characterization meant to underscore just how pathetic Fidel and his communist ideology have become. “The Cuban plot,” declared Gutfeld, “was a Cuban flop.”

Of course, this was no surprise to panelist and talk radio host, Monica Crowley, who said, “Anyone with half a brain knows that socialism doesn’t work.” But while Cuba is finally coming to terms with that truth, the Democrats, suggested Crowley, are still not getting it. “But I’m hoping that Fidel picks up that red phone and calls Obama and tells him that,” she said. In the oddest of twists, Crowley transformed Fidel from a pathetic old Marxist to a potential spokesman for the Republican/Tea Party position. By the end of the segment, comedian Tom Van Horn was portraying Cuba as a beacon of hope for the free market while, in full Glenn Beck effect, painting the United States as a country on an existentially dangerous path toward the dreaded “s” word: “They’re gonna go to capitalism and we’re slowly gonna go to socialism.”

Cuba as America’s Playground

Using Cuba as a counter-example of the Democrats’ dangerous socialism is just the most partisan and disingenuous manifestation of a broader and more genuine excitement about what Cuba might look like if and when the country privatizes its economy. This almost childlike anticipation inevitably harkens back to the days before the revolution when Cuba was a proverbial playground for American businessmen. A capitalist Mecca free of most regulations and taxes, Havana was a haven for profit-makers of all sorts. In addition to the famed casinos and nightclubs owned by Meyer Lansky and his U.S. mob affiliates, U.S. business interests had a stake in virtually ever sector of the Cuban economy. In 1956, according to a Department of Commerce survey, U.S. businesses owned 90 percent of Cuba’s telephone and electronic services, 50 percent of the country’s railroads, and 40 percent of the sugar industry. On the eve of the revolution in 1959, private U.S. investment in Cuba totaled $956 million, more than any other Latin American country except for Venezuela.

Ever since Castro nationalized the Cuban economy in the early 1960s, Americans of all political stripes have waxed nostalgic about this era and have fantasized about its return. Havana’s famous nightclub, the Tropicana, was first resurrected on the television screen in I Love Lucy. In 2004, the Atlantic City Tropicana opened “The Quarter,” modeled on the architecture, atmosphere, and food of Old Havana in the 1940s. Jamestown, New York even has a full-scale replica of the Tropicana.

The desire for a return to unfettered capitalism in Cuba extends far beyond the world of casino kitsch, and, politically speaking, it includes more than conservatives. “Free trade” proponents from across the political spectrum are excited about the prospect of Cuba’s economic reforms. A Western diplomat proclaimed in The Economist, “One day we might well look back on this as the perestroika moment,” alluding to the Gorbachev-era restructuring of the Soviet economy that made it possible for foreign investors to do business in the Soviet Union.

For close to five decades, the U.S.-imposed embargo has prevented American companies from doing business in Cuba. Some conservative groups, like the Heritage Foundation, have maintained a hard line on this policy. However, opposition to the embargo has been on the rise for over a decade. Polls show that a majority of Americans support the loosening of diplomatic tensions with Cuba. The case for ending the embargo has been strengthened and given new urgency by the latest developments in Cuba. Washington Post columnist George Will urged Obama to reconsider the embargo in light of Castro’s own doubts about communism. A recent editorial in the L.A. Times put it more directly, arguing that Congress should end the longstanding trade embargo and “get out of the way of U.S. investment in Cuba before American firms lose out to those in Europe, Brazil and elsewhere.” Or, as one panelist put it on “Red Eye,” “Let’s end this silly, silly embargo and start shoving our American crap down their throats.”

Although Cuban exiles have historically supported the embargo, many are similarly looking forward to the possibility of trade and investment prospects in Cuba. Along these lines, Tomás Estrada Palma, the grandson of the first president of Cuba by the same name, envisions Cuba in the 21st century as the English philosopher John Locke envisioned America in the 17th — a land of rich, untapped resources just waiting to be made productive. “Much of Cuba is unused,” Estrada-Palma wrote recently on his blog. Like other Cuban exiles, his family had to cede land given to them by Queen Isabella to the state. Estrada-Palma is nothing short of exuberant about Cuba’s economic future. He anticipates that Cuba will be “the hottest tourist Mecca and investment location on the planet!”

According to this vision, returning exiles will be an important part of Cuba’s revved-up economic engine. If returning entrepreneurs like him get tax relief, argues Estrada-Palma, “Investment will roar into Cuba lifting everyone’s existence.” Estrada-Palma would have Cuba eliminate all taxes on income and capital investments. Elite conservatives have been touting this kind of trickle-down economics for decades, and the Tea Party has been campaigning on a similar theme in the name of populism. Now, Cuba, of all places, is becoming a key site for the conservatives’ embattled vision of America.

Ignoring Labor and Other Human Rights

Economic analysts have been comparing Cuba’s proposed reforms to those of China and Vietnam. Cuba, this comparison suggests, will be the next Asian tiger. And as with China and Vietnam, the most informed observers do not expect economic reform in Cuba to coincide with political reform, at least not in the near future. Sweig, a strong supporter of opening ties with Cuba, has nonetheless warned Obama against expectations of democracy in a country that had little of it even before the revolution: “To think that an end to the embargo will speedily usher in an era of multiparty elections and market capitalism would be to set your administration up for failure,” wrote Sweig in an open letter to Obama in 2008. “Cuba is today and will remain for some time a one-party state with a controlled press and significant impediments to public freedoms.”

What about the economic security of the average Cuban worker? Currently, Cubans who work for the state earn an average monthly income of only $20, a paltry sum that has sufficed for so long only because the state provides free healthcare, education, and food subsidies. Over the long run, economic reform is expected to increase these wages. At the same time, however, the state will likely cut health, education, and food benefits, creating a significant gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, this is already happening. In recent years, as Cuba has experimented with market reform, studies have found a widening income gap between the country’s most wealthy and the poor. Since Castro reduced the food subsidy in 2009, Cuba’s poorest have faced serious hunger and malnutrition for the first time since the revolution.

Economic reform will not likely empower workers to advocate for their own economic rights and security. Currently, Cuban workers belong to the state labor union and are not allowed to form independent unions. International labor groups have long argued that this, and related policies limiting worker autonomy, constitute a transgression of international labor laws. Globalization advocates typically argue that liberal economic policies stand to benefit workers. However, as leaders in the movement for an independent labor movement in Cuba argue, unless labor has a real voice in the new Cuban economy, the economic reforms will probably not increase the economic wellbeing of ordinary workers.

The latest announcement of economic reform comes more than a decade after Cuba opened its doors to foreign direct investment from capitalist countries. Since the mid-1990s, Cuba has succeeded in attracting international investors and has become a hotspot for European and Latin American business in particular. A 2004 study of foreign direct investment in Cuba showed Spain, Canada, Chile, France, and the United Kingdom at the top of the list, with tourism, real estate, mining, and processed foods as the key sectors of investment. Little known to the American public is the fact that the U.S. agricultural industry is also already doing business with Cuba, thanks to amendments to the U.S. embargo in 2000. According to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, between 2001 and 2009, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba totaled more than $2.8 million and are expected to rise in the near future.

Instead of reducing labor abuses, foreign direct investment actually exacerbates them. Under the current laws, the state union, not the foreign company, hires and fires all workers. In practice, these laws give preferential treatment to individuals that are loyal to the state and, especially in the tourist industry, to light-skinned individuals. Once hired, anyone who works for a foreign-owned company is paid through the state, which garnishes wages and takes a cut from every dollar or euro converted into pesos. Cuban workers see only four cents for every dollar invested by foreign companies. If a worker has a grievance against a foreign company, her only recourse is the very state union that suppresses her right to organize.

The current reform plan has no provisions to alter this system. According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, the current restrictions on labor rights constitute “Cuba’s virtual guarantee that no investor will face any independent union organizing in the workplace.” Far from deterring foreign companies, these measures “were created to attract foreign investors.”

What Cubans Actually Want

Opponents of the Castro regime in the United States have long spoken on behalf of the Cuban people. Typically, their arguments tell us much more about what they want than what Cubans actually want. Many Cubans, especially those who have been running under-the-table businesses, are happy about the latest reforms and are looking forward to life in the private sector. A recently laid-off computer scientist named Silvia has decided to take a chance at her own business renting clothes for birthday parties and is moderately optimistic: “I have never thought about working for myself and really I don’t expect to become a millionaire, just to live better,” she said.

At the same time, many others are skeptical. “What do I gain by asking for a business license if the state then won’t sell me lumber?” asks Ricardo Aldana. Polls confirm broad dissatisfaction with the reforms that have already been implemented and marked ambivalence about the likely impact of the new economic policies. In a recent survey conducted by Freedom House, 40 percent of respondents claimed their economic condition has gotten worse in the last two years, citing low salaries and the high cost of living as the largest problems. The same survey found that many Cubans fear the crime, violence, and insecurity that they associate with capitalist societies. Freedom House analysts concluded that, “While Cubans have a negative view of life in their country, they tend to fear that change may make matters worse. Given the option of continuing to live in their current circumstances or returning to the Periodo Especial (or worse), many Cubans seem inclined to accept the status quo.” These and other polls suggest that Cubans are at best lukewarm about their country’s turn to a capitalist system.

Cuba as Mirror

Jokes about Fox News aside, Cuba’s capitalist turn has special importance in the context of current political and economic trends here in the United States. Ever since Obama took office and the Democrats assumed control of Congress, conservatives have been painting apocalyptic pictures of the United States as a socialist state. If anything, the evidence suggests the opposite.

In the same week that Raul Castro made his announcement, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey announced his plan to slash benefits and pensions for state workers, just the latest initiative in his larger effort to roll back the size of the state budget. In the current climate of fiscal austerity, governors across the country are similarly cutting back spending while refusing, in many cases, to raise taxes.

On the national level, the corporate agenda has dominated the move to extend the Bush tax cuts to the country’s wealthiest. As usual, supporters of the extension say this is in the interest of small business. But the same people have spoken out against President Obama’s incentive plan for small business—which would give a 100 percent tax credit for spending on equipment and physical improvements and renew an expired tax credit on research and development.

Cuba’s hasty privatization may well offer lessons to American policymakers, but not the ones that Tea Partiers would like to draw. Along these lines, Cuba expert Phil Peters writes, “Republicans should go to Cuba to find out what downsizing actually looks like.” It is too early to say whether Cuba’s latest economic reform is just another temporary experiment or will really stick this time. But for the first time in over five decades, Cuba is looking less like a relic of the Cold War past and more like the hyper-capitalized future of corporate fantasy.

By Hannah Gurman, Foreign Policy in Focus

Posted on October 5, 2010, Printed on October 7, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/148416/

Hannah Gurman is an assistant professor at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

 

© 2010 Foreign Policy in Focus All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148416/

FACING UP TO THE “TERROR OF OTHERNESS”: A REFLECTION

Recently, a couple of weeks after I returned to the U.S. from a two-month research internship at JUST, I had the following exchange with a hygienist at a dentist’s office:

“I’m studying religion,” I said, “Uh, comparative religion, that is.”

“Oh, okay.…What did you do this summer, anything interesting?” she replied.

“Well, I just got back from some work in Malaysia. It was incredibly eye-opening.”

“Malaysia, huh? Wow, that’s great. You were doing missionary work there?”

I exhaled sharply, incredulous that my well-meaning interlocutor, smiling down at me as she poked at my teeth, had come so naturally to such an abhorrent conclusion. The subtext of her reply was unmistakable: Why would an American with a professed interest in religion go to a “faraway land” in the “Orient,” if not to proselytize the “poor backward natives”?

Sweetly, offhandedly, and with perhaps the best of intentions, the good woman had committed a grave cultural foul. And yet I said nothing. I felt neither indignation nor pity. I was, rather, terrified. For I heard something chillingly familiar in the woman’s glib speculation, and it struck a nerve—a nerve newly hardwired to a haunting memory from my time in Malaysia….

My second week at JUST, I submitted a research proposal soliciting “Malaysian” perspectives on “Western” self-critiques of Enlightenment rationalism. Truth is, I felt—and indeed am in some measure—complicit in the American-led hegemony of which JUST is rightly critical. To ease my “liberal guilt,” I tried to locate the error of my culture’s ways—longing, like a deathbed convert, to right some terrible wrongs before it is “too late.”

I pitched the proposal to Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, who had agreed to supervise my research. He acknowledged the tenacity of my bid for “Western self-help,” which involved developing a case for an ethics of embodiment, a literal “fleshing out” of disembodied Western epistemologies. I intended to present the work of Malaysian scholar–activists of various ethno-religious backgrounds as case studies in this moral tradition, which I had traced to the work of feminist, postcolonial, and anti-oppression legal scholars from the U.S. and Europe. But I was startled when, almost without explanation, Dr. Chandra urged me to rethink my research angle. He was terse and nondirective—for reasons that I, exasperated at the time, would only later come to appreciate.

I began to think a great deal about Dr. Chandra’s dissuasion. After work that day, I went for a walk in downtown Petaling Jaya. I kept seeing passersby looking at me askance—or was I merely imagining it? I passed silently by and later reasoned with myself: “Well, they have every right to look at me that way, given the baggage of representation I bring with me wherever I go. If only I could harness that tacit critique of my ‘Westernness,’ I could finally justify my now-abandoned project ‘from the ground up’!”

And then, one feverishly hot night, as I lay prone on my bed in a rented room, it dawned on me. I began to shiver with an inner tremor, the kind that originates in the pit of your stomach, radiates across your chest, surfaces at your skin and makes it crawl. It was the “terror of otherness” come to shatter my ego’s all-consuming horizon. I felt what I had only before thought: what it is like, paraphrasing Levinas, to be demanded, disposed, obsessed, and judged by “the other.” The indictment rained down on me “from on high,” eroding the martyrdom of my self-chiding research gambit, until all that remained was the chiseled form of a face. It was Dr. Chandra’s face and the face of the woman who handed me a towel at the gym and the faces of the pedestrians who wondered what on earth I was doing in P.J. It was a prophetic face; its weathered lines foretold a trespass old as the “New World.” My self-serving agenda would have exploited the lives of my Malaysian contacts, mining them for empirical data to support my a priori theories about “embodied agency” and “religious subjectivity,” objectifying them with “the best of intentions.”

But for those faces, and the felt obligation to listen to them, to “be” as much for them as for my self, I would have seen what I had wanted to see: a social trend, a religious phenomenon, a philosophical construct to assimilate into my identity, easing my guilt and acquitting me of my complicity in a system of global hegemony. All this I would have projected onto and in place of the other, denying her the capacities for sight, sense, and salvation—the very capacities she, by the ineliminable fact of her being, always already makes intelligible and possible for me, as another self, to exercise at all.

And so I trembled in the dentist’s chair, remembering how I, no less than the hygienist who called me on my “mission,” had adopted the totalizing logic of neocolonialism. But as I learned from the balance of my research at JUST, there is more to raising human dignity than the transcendent accountability of fear and trembling. The ghostly face of the other took on positive form and immanent context in my subsequent interviews with 16 people—Islamic scholars, Buddhist laypeople, a Hindu activist, and “non-confessional” social scientists in Malaysia and Singapore. Their warmth and goodwill welled forth from the hopeful certainty that, as several of them agreed, in every way that really matters, we are all far more alike than we are different. At each interview, disparities in privilege and power invariably conspired in the background; indeed, these structural realities can and often do ward off would-be collaborators from the tables of interreligious and civilizational dialogue. Some of my interviewees chose to foreground the asymmetries at our periphery (e.g., those due to North-dominated academic discourses)—asymmetries which, if overlooked or elided, would suppress or skew the measured accountability that solidarity against hegemony would require of different parties. But however they may have dealt with our differences, all of the people with whom I spoke made at least an effort to reach across the table to embrace our commonality.

At a time when a proposed Muslim community center and prayer space in New York City elicits raw fear and blind suspicion, the prophetic terror of otherness remains a vital, but hardly sufficient, stimulus to adopting reflexive ways of being “selves” as individuals and as communities. All too often, in fact, fear stymies our soul-searching and provokes an outturned rage, a rage against the dying of an identity we cannot bear to let slip through our fingers. Terrified but also emboldened by the example of my interlocutors, I managed to “let go for dear life” this summer long enough to learn that identity need not be a zero-sum game, a missionary’s quest; that what binds us fast goes deeper than our differences, deeper than the individual or group ascriptions we covet and abhor; that it goes “all the way down” to where even terror cannot touch it, to “shared human experiences,” “eternal values.” Here, beyond the pale of the particular, there is no “self” or “other”; here we can take heart but must not linger, lest our dialogue attenuate into facile platitudes. For how can we negotiate the pressing demands of “global citizenship,” if not as situated selves, with all the historical asymmetry that entails? Solidarity, I have learned, means prizing what is universal as it necessarily manifests itself: in and through particular lives, at the meeting of real faces that are too terrified, and too captivated, to gaze with impunity or look away in shame.

 

By Seth P. Robinson

(robinson_seth@wheatonma.edu), research intern at JUST from June to August 2010, is currently completing an undergraduate degree in religious studies at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, USA. He plans to pursue graduate study in religious ethics with a focus on issues surrounding religious pluralism, religion and politics, and constructive responses to globalization.

Color Of Terror: Saffron, Green or Black?

Can terrorism be labeled or given the prefix of a holy color associated with religious sentiments? This debate came to the surface with P. Chidmbaram stating, “There has been a recent uncovered phenomenon of saffron terrorism that has been implicated in many bomb blasts in the past. My advice to you is that we must remain ever vigilant and continue to build, at both Central and state level, our capacities in counter-terrorism,” to the top policemen (August 25, 2010). There was a strong reaction to this from the Hindutva parties, parties working for the goal of Hindu Nation, BJP and Shiv Sena. The Congress spokespersons were also in a quandary, one of them supported the statement and the other one disowned it, saying that terrorism has just one color black. BJP spokesperson demanded apology. Shiv Sena’s Uddhav Thackeray demanded resignation of Mr. Chidambaram, while his father, the supreme dictator of Shiv Sena Bal Thackeray, demanded to know the color of bloodshed in Kashmir and Delhi anti Sikh violence.

Chidambaram’s statement has a background of multiple acts of terror coming to light since the Malegaon blast of Sept 2008, when role of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey, and Swami Aseemanand came to surface. It was Hemant Karkre, Chief of Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad, who successfully unearthed the whole conspiracy by these saffron clad people. They had other associates in Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Retired Major Upadhayay and many others, who are working for the goal of Hindu Rashtra. This blast was preceded by many similar one’s in which associates of Abhinav Bharat, Sanatan Prabhat and Bajrang Dal were suspected. Just to recall, when this conspiracy by all those inspired by the ideology of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ came to surface, there was a great discomfort in BJP-Shiv Sena RSS quarters. Shiv Sena mouth piece Samana stated ‘we spit on Karkare who is investigating this case’. On the other hand a major BJP leader stated that Karkare is anti National (Deshdrohi). Same Karkare was killed when the terror attack took place in Mumbai on 26/11, 2008. The real undercurrent of this complex story is yet to be unraveled and recognized fully, still the situation leading to the death of Karkare led the then minority affairs Minister A R Antulay to say that there might have been terrorism plus something, which led to the killing of Karkare the man investigating these terror blasts.

It is after this event that the word Saffron Terror, Hindu terror came to be coined and got wide currency. This prefixing of religion and a holy color of a religion came in the backdrop of wide usage of another word Islamic terrorism, Jihadi terrorism, the words coined by American media and picked up world over. Surely these terminologies Islamic terrorism and Hindu terrorism are misnomers. The word Jihadi Terrorism and Saffron terrorism have been used to describe a pattern in these acts of terror. Jihadi word was a deliberate concoction as Jihad does not mean killing, it stands for striving for betterment etc.

What about Saffron Terrorism, the term used by Chidambaram and many other scholars-activists-journalists? It can be explained in the context of this word, saffron, being high jacked by the believers of ‘Hindu Nation’, the believers of Hindutva, a political ideology using the identity of Hindu religion. One knows that to use the word Hindutva is fraught with dangers. It is a politics but gives the impression of being a religion. This word was coined by Savarkar, the ideologue of Hindu Mahasabha. As per him it means whole of Hinduness, race (Aryan) geographical area between Sindhu to Seas and Culture (Vedic). This was a word parallel to political Islam, which was made the base of politics of Muslim League. Muslim League used a green flag, Hindu Mahsabha used saffron flag. Later RSS from 1925 picked up the ideology of Hindutva to attain Hindu Rashtra.

In contrast to Indian tricolor, RSS insisted on using Saffron flag. Saffron color which stands for renunciation and devotion in Hindu tradition was usurped for political goals, the goals which were opposed to the goals of Indian National Movement. Indian National Movement was struggling for plural, secular democratic India, while the bearers of green flag, Muslim league wanted and Islamic Nation and those waving saffron flag wanted Hindu Nation, both these political currents were a throw back to times when the concept of democracy, human rights was absent and the status of dalits and women was subordinate to men of high social status.

During the decade of 1980, RSS, VHP and associates launched their campaign for Ram Temple and there was a blatant use of religious imagery and symbols for political goals. As such the political goals of RSS progeny, the agenda of Hindu nation harps to the values of Manu Smiriti in modern form. Surely this politics asserts the supremacy of social system prevalent in ancient times. No wonder, Ambedkar burnt the Manusmirit and later drafted the Indian Constitution to project the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

RSS and company used the symbols of saffron flag in its mobilization campaigns all through 1980s and 1990s. There was extensive use of saffron stickers for political propaganda for Ram Temple and Hindu Rashtra. RSS has a whole wing of assorted saffron clad sadhus, asserting that Hindu holy books have a primacy over Indian legal system; Indian Constitution. VHP, to which these sadhus belong is the other major RSS associate. VHP stated that decision of the Holy, saffron clad, Sadhus is more important than that of Indian courts. In nutshell saffron color, the color associated with religious sentiments came to be abused by this political outfit for its political goals. No wonder its politics came to be associated with saffron color. During NDA regime when BJP’s Murli Manohar Joshi was communalizing the school text books and education system, it came to be labeled as Saffronization of education. It is pity that a holy color of renunciation has been

associated with a political ideology.

The present statement by Chidambaram is just a continuation of the popular association of the word saffron with Hindutva-RSS politics in the political arena. In the present era of monopolar World, dictated by the ambitions of US greed for oil and plunder of the global resources, politics has been given the veneer of religion. That’s why they use the word ‘Clash of Civilizations’ for their political goals. That’s why so far Islam and Muslims have been demonized. U.S. and large section of globe, India in particular are in the grip of Islamophobia. It is time we see the sanctity of religions and oppose the use of religious symbols, colors and terminologies for political goals.

By Ram Puniyani

29 August, 2010

Countercurrents.org

 

Capital Controls Gain Credence

Capital controls are back in fashion. In June 2010, South Korea and Indonesia announced several policy measures to regulate potentially destabilising capital flows, which could pose a threat to their economies and financial systems.

South Korea it announced a series of currency controls in June to protect its economy from external shocks. Indonesia quickly followed suit when its central bank deployed measures to control short-term capital inflows. In October 2009, Brazil announced a 2 per cent tax on foreign purchases of fixed income securities and stocks. Taiwan also restricted overseas investors from buying time deposits.

The policy measures introduced by South Korea’s central bank have three major components: restrictions on currency derivatives trades; enhanced restrictions on the use of bank loans in foreign currency; and, further tightening of the existing regulations on foreign currency liquidity ratio of domestic banks.

The new restrictions on currency derivatives trades include non-deliverable currency forwards, cross-currency swaps and forwards. New ceilings have been imposed on domestic banks and branches of foreign banks dealing with forex forwards and derivatives.

OBJECTIVES OF CONTROLS

The overarching aim of currency controls in South Korea is to limit the risks arising out of sharp reversals in capital flows. Despite its strong economic fundamentals, South Korea witnessed sudden and large capital outflows due to de-leveraging during the global financial crisis. It has been reported that almost $65 billion left the country in the five months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

Another objective of these policy measures is to curb the country’s rapidly growing short-term foreign debt. At $154 billion, its short-term external debt accounts for as much as 57 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves. A sudden shift in global market sentiment can trigger large reversals in short-term capital flows, thereby precipitating a financial crisis of one sort or another.

Bank Indonesia, the country’s central bank, announced a one-month minimum holding period on Sertifikat Bank Indonesia (SBIs). During the one-month period, ownership of SBIs cannot be transferred.

Issued by the central bank, the one-month SBIs are the favourite debt instruments among foreign and local investors because of their high yield (an interest rate of 6.5 per cent in early June 2010) and greater liquidity than other debt instruments.

The central bank will also increase the maturity range of its debt instruments to encourage investors to park their money for longer periods. These new curbs are in response to growing concerns over short-term capital inflows. Indonesia’s relatively better economic performance has attracted large capital inflows in the form of portfolio investments, since early 2009.

Consequently, Indonesia’s stock market index was up 85 per cent in 2009, the best performer in the entire Southeast Asian region. The rupiah rose 17 per cent against the dollar last year.

ASSET PRICE BUBBLE

However, the Indonesian authorities remain concerned that its economy might be destabilised if foreign investors decide to pull their money out quickly. Analysts believe that these new measures may deter hot money inflows into the country and monetary policy may become more effective. Despite recovering faster than developed countries, many emerging markets are finding it difficult to cope with large capital inflows. Apart from currency appreciation pressures, the fears of inflation and asset bubbles are very strong in many emerging markets.

The signs of asset price bubbles are more pronounced in Asia as the region’s economic growth will continue to outperform the rest of the world. As a result, the authorities are adopting a cautious approach towards hot money flows and considering a variety of policy measures (from taxing specific sectors to capital controls) to regulate such flows.

USE OF CAPITAL CONTROLS

Contrary to popular perception, capital controls have been extensively used by both the developed and developing countries in the past. Although mainstream theory suggests that controls are distortionary, rent-seeking and ineffective, several successful economies have used them in the past. China and India, two major Asian economies and “success stories” of economic globalisation, still use capital controls today.

Post-crisis, there is a renewed interest in capital controls. It is increasingly being accepted in international policy circles that due to the limited effectiveness of other measures, such as higher international reserves, capital controls could protect and insulate the domestic economy from volatile capital flows.

Even the IMF these days endorses the use of capital controls, albeit temporarily, and subject to exceptional circumstances. In the present uncertain times, imposition of capital controls becomes imperative since the regulatory mechanisms to deal with capital flows are national whereas the financial markets operate on a global scale.

Yet, it would be incorrect to view capital controls as a panacea to all the ills plaguing the present-day global financial system. The imposition of controls by South Korea and Indonesia assume greater significance because both countries are members of G-20. It remains to be seen how the G-20 responds to the use of capital controls. Will it take a collective stand on the issue?

(The author is Director, Public Interest Research Centre, New Delhi (www.madhyam.org.in).

This article was originally published in The Hindu Business Line on September 18, 2010 and is published here with the author’s kind permission.

URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/09/18/stories/2010091850010800.htm

By Kavaljit Singh

18 September, 2010

Countercurrents.org

 

 

Boxed into a Corner on Iran

There has been considerable concern expressed in the media over the date August 21st.  It was the day when Russian technicians were to insert the fuel rods to begin the activation of the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr. No less a voice out of the past than John Bolton, UN Ambassador under George W. Bush, called for an immediate attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities before the reactor became operational.  Bolton and his neoconservative friends reasoned that no attack against Iran would be “complete” if Bushehr were not taken out as it is part of the broader Iranian nuclear program.  In their view, its destruction would have the same impact as the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by Israel in 1981, which was intended to derail Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.

Well, the 21st has come and gone and neither Israel nor the United States took the initiative to destroy Bushehr.  Indeed, the entire argument about attacking it has something of a surreal quality.  Bushehr is not a reactor that can be used to concentrate its fuel, meaning that it can generate electricity but cannot itself produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium.  The entire argument about attacking it seems to center on its symbolic value as Iran’s only soon-to-be operating reactor combined with the notion that its fuel could be removed and enriched somewhere else.  The reactor is located in a relatively heavily populated coastal area and the demand to hit it before it became operational was based on the possible consequences of having to do so after it is up and running.  Destroying an operating reactor would produce considerable radioactive contamination that would devastate a wide area both within Iran and in neighboring countries and would kill many civilians.  Comparisons with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island spring to mind.  Whoever would bomb and destroy such a target would be vilified by most of the international community, and rightly so.  While Israel and the United States both regularly ignore such criticism, the deaths of thousands in a deliberate bombing directed against a country that poses no immediate threat would be a bit hard to explain, even in the New York Times and Washington Post.

To be completely and cold bloodedly serious about the respective positions being staked out by Iran and its chief antagonists in Washington and Tel Aviv, one must first of all remember that Tehran does not currently have a nuclear weapon and there is no real evidence that it even has a program to produce one.  It has been basically compliant with the UN inspection regime mandated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory.  Nor is there any evidence that the Mullahs are suicidal, suggesting that they would not want to develop a weapon in a secret program at great cost to hand off to terrorists and thereby guarantee the annihilation of their nation and millions of their people.  And they have good reason to be just a bit paranoid about their own security.  The repeated threats coming out of Israel and the United States that “all options are on the table” with Iran is a not exactly subtle suggestion that many policymakers in both countries consider it perfectly acceptable to begin bombing, all in spite of the fact that it would be an attack on a country based on what might happen without any evidence that there is an actual intention to develop and use a weapon of mass destruction.  Bombing a country under those circumstances would be a war crime, one more crime among many.

The real problem is that the public utterances of the policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv have backed them into a corner, reducing their options and committing them to a policy that has no real attainable objective and makes absolutely no sense.  If Iran is a threat at all, which can be disputed, it can be easily contained by either Israel or the United States, both of which have large nuclear and conventional arsenals. Iran is a military midget compared to either country, though admittedly it has the capability to strike back hard in asymmetrical ways if it is attacked.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu both appreciate very clearly that Iran does not pose a serious threat and both know that the often cited claim that Tehran has called for wiping Israel off the map is bogus. Such knowledge is widespread even among hawks in Israel, though apparently less so among American neocons.  In September 2009 former Israeli Prime Minister and current Minister of Defense Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that “I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel.”  A few years earlier, Foreign Minister Livni argued against the idea that a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat. This summer, ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi made the same point and added that speaking of Iran as an existential threat exaggerates Iran’s power and suggests instead the false and dangerous narrative that Israel might be vulnerable.

But in spite of their certain knowledge of the fragility of the Iranian threat, both Obama and Netanyahu have unfortunately let themselves wallow in rhetoric that hypes the danger.  If it sounds and smells exactly like the lead up to Iraq, it should. And, like the case of Iraq, the fearmongering does not end with the intemperate comments made by the two leaders.  The US Congress with its proposed House Resolution 1553 is engaged in giving the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, indicating in advance its support for such an action.  HR 1553 comes on top of harsh sanctions approved in early July, measures that could lead to US Navy vessels attempting to board Iranian flagged merchant ships. Even tougher sanctions, steps that would almost certainly lead to war are endorsed by many legislators, particularly those who are regarded as close to Israel. Congressman Brad Sherman of California explains “Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”  At least Congress shows consistency when it is knee jerking spasmodically to demonstrate support for Israel.  Sherman’s view of Iranians is somewhat similar to his punishing the Gazans for voting for Hamas or pillorying the Turks for trying to send aid to the Palestinians.  Or, not so long ago, sending the 500,000 Iraqi children to their deaths à la Madeleine Albright.

And the White House rhetoric blends harmoniously with the congressional ire.  President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all repeatedly stated that Israel is completely free to make its own decisions relating to its security.  That assertion presumably plays well in certain quarters, but as an Israeli attack will have to be enabled by the United States they also know that bombing courtesy of Tel Aviv would mean Iranian retaliation directed against American troops in the Middle East.  In other words, America’s leaders have abdicated all responsibility for maintaining a rational policy in an unstable part of the world and have instead granted the authority to make key decisions to Israel.  How many Americans will die as a result?

Both the Israeli and American people have been prepared for war by all of the truculent noises coming out of Washington and the propaganda appearing in the media.  The conversation on Iran, such as it is, has been expressly designed to bring about a war rather than avoid it.  The mainstream media disinformation campaign orchestrated by AIPAC has worked just fine.  Most Americans already believe incorrectly that Iran has a nuclear weapon and most also support attacking it, a product of the steady diet of hokum that they have been fed.  The moral turpitude of America and Israel’s leaders combined with the popular consensus that they have willy-nilly allowed to develop grants the concept of war with Iran a certain inevitability.  Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has described the process as “inexorable.”

So we have dodged the bullet on the war that might have begun on August 21st because our leaders really do know that Iran is not a threat and when it came to gut check time were ultimately unwilling to start World War III.  But the bomb is still ticking because those selfsame politicians, lacking any sense of true leadership, have set the forces in play that will almost inevitably produce a war.  It is somewhat reminiscent of Iraq surely, but it also recalls the 1914 European security environment in which an entangling web of alliances and arrangements virtually guaranteed that a war would take place.  The only way to stop the rot is for President Obama to consider for a moment what is good for the United States rather than for his political party’s hold on power.  He should act like a true statesman instead of a used car salesman.  If he is uncertain how to do that there are a number of good nineteenth century political biographies that he can read up on to learn the ropes.  He must stand up before the American people and state simply and unequivocally that Washington opposes any new military action in the Middle East and that the United States is not threatened by Iran and will take no part in any military action directed against it.  He might add that the US will further consider anyone staging such an attack as an aggressor nation and will immediately break off relations before demanding a UN Security Council vote to condemn the action.  Will that happen?  Fat chance.

Posted By Philip Giraldi On August 25, 2010

Read more by Philip Giraldi


Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com

URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/08/25/boxed-into-a-corner-on-iran/

 

 

ASI is the handmaiden of Hindutva

The ASI’s role in marshalling dubious evidence in support of the existence of a Ram temple at Ayodhya is the right occasion to assess its activities as a handmaiden of Hindutva, says Omar Khalidi

As India reinvents itself through archaeology and tourism, official organisations such as the ASI, state archaeology departments and tourism bureaus lend themselves as the handmaidens of Hindutva, points out Omar Khalidi

Justice DV Sharma’s judgment in the Babri masjid case given on Thursday claimed that ‘the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after demolition of the same. And that the Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure’.

What Justice Sharma was referring to was the ASI’s report of 2003 of dubious value on Ayodhya. What the ASI claimed were the base of pillars which held up the temple, were in fact not pillar bases at all. The Siva shrine at a lower level adds no strength to the claim of a Ram temple. The terracotta from different levels has been so jumbled that it can be linked to no particular stratum and period. Moreover, the presence of animal bones and glazed earthenware found at the site makes it difficult to claim that a Ram temple existed on this site between the 12th and 16th centuries.

The ASI’s role in marshalling dubious evidence in support of the existence of a Ram temple at Ayodhya is the right occasion to assess its activities as a handmaiden of Hindutva.

Four traits that mark archaeology

Four characteristics mark Indian archaeology since colonial times: it is a monument-specific archaeology based on geographical surveys, literary traditions and Orientalist scholarship. These characteristics combine to form a traditionalist, location-driven excavation agenda that privileged some sites to the Hindus without regard to the historical provenance of any site or monument.

Taken together, the four characteristics privilege ancient references to monuments, whether in legend or literature, as authentic, while all medieval and modern ones are perceived as tales of depredations.

The ASI’s colonial origins are transparent in its philosophy and operation. Mortimer Wheeler, director-general of the Archaeological Survey of India between 1944 and 1948, advised Indian archaeologists that ‘Partition has robbed us of the Indus Valley… We now have therefore no excuse for deferring any longer the overdue exploration of the Ganges Valley. After all if the Indus gave India a name, it may almost be said that the Ganges gave India a faith.”

His student BB Lal (ASI director, 1968 to 1972) took his advice. He excavated the Gangetic sites in search of evidence for the mythical periods described in the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana identifying two kinds of pottery — painted greyware as an indicator of the former and northern black polishedware of the latter. He then attempted to match archaeological sites with places named in the epics.

The ASI used this “evidence” to propagate the myth that underneath the 16th century Purana Qila built by Sher Shah Suri lay the site of Indraprastha, city of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata. This theory of Muslim rulers building over Hindu structures has certainly gained ground. By the 1990s, most publications about India’s capital describe Indraprastha as the first of the ‘seven cities of Delhi’

Lal used similar ‘evidence’ at Ayodhya to support his claim of the identification of Lord Rama’s birthplace, which was used as justification for the demolition of the Babri masjid in 1992. The story of Ayodhya then became the prototype for Hindutva claims on innumerable mosques, mausoleums, dargahs, and idgahs, all of which were to be reclaimed as former Hindu sites or temples.

In ASI terminology, the term Hindu is a catch-all, homogenised category for all schools of Sanatan Dharma — Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism, Vaishnavism and the cult of Shakti. The ASI deploys such a convenient term to efface the long and bloody Hindu sectarian wars or Saivite appropriation of Buddhist sites. The ASI’s methods serve to perpetuate the Hindutva groups’ myth of Muslim depredation of Indian heritage.

Hindu temples under monuments

The ASI has been looking for Hindu temples under every medieval monument. The unearthing of Jain idols in the vicinity of Fatehpur Sikri in the 1990s was the occasion to blame Emperor Akbar for destroying temples. When the annual meeting of the World Archaeological Congress in New Delhi coincided with the second anniversary of the Babri masjid demolition in December 1994, its two Indian organisers barred discussion of the event, since they were closely associated with the Ayodhya movement.

Numerous examples of the ASI’s role in transforming medieval heritage can be seen across India.

In 2007, the ASI cooked up history at Chittorgarh, a fort near Udaipur, Rajasthan , by signposting an underground passage as the location of Padmini’s jauhar or self-immolation, based on the myth of Emperor Alauddin Khilji’s alleged atrocities. Numerous modern temples abound in the medieval fort.

In 2003, the ASI virtually converted the 15th century Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, into a temple by allowing Hindu worship in it.

Since 1977, the ASI has allowed the construction of three new Hindu temples in the precincts of Sher Shah Suri’s mausoleum in Sasaram, Bihar. These bathroom-tiled temples with their calendar-art frescos mar the magnificent mausoleum’s vistas.

In 1970, the ASI allowed a kumkum sprinkled stone on the southeast corner of Charminar in Hyderabad to be converted into a full-fledged Bhagya Laxmi temple. A modern temple is protruding out of a major medieval monument in defiance of the ASI’s own rules.

At the turn of the 21st century, almost all the grand gates in historic Golconda fort and Hyderabad are riddled with Hindu temples, signs and icons flying in the face of the ASI’s preservation mission.

In 1948, the ASI converted the Jama Masjid in the Daulatabad fort near Aurangabad into a Bharata Mata Mandir (Mother India temple). The very name is so candidly, crassly contemporary as to make a mockery of a medieval site.

ASI’s impact on heritage tourism

The ASI’s representation of India’s archaeological legacy in Hindu terms has had a direct impact on heritage tourism. Unlike ecotourism, medical tourism and such like, heritage tourism has had vast appeal to the increasingly rich, upwardly mobile, tech-savvy upper caste Hindus at home and abroad.

The ASI’s representation of Indian archaeological sites as essentially Hindu is revealed by a close scrutiny of the web sites and printed tourist guides and promotional literature. In the Indian tourism ministry and state tourism department web sites and literature, India’s past is invariably described as the ‘Hindu golden age’ and all subsequent eras until the colonial era as the age of Muslim tyranny. Such representations of India as Hindu is most blatant and obvious in the Incredible India promotion directed toward the diaspora in North America, Europe and wherever it is the rich live.

When tourists come to the sites and monuments, they learn who they are and where they come from. If they come through the promotions by the tourism ministry and state tourism departments, they learn that they are Hindus and the Muslims caused all the depredations. To anyone who has been a tourist in India, the various self-appointed touts and guides at the sites are ubiquitous. They provide a spicy supplement to the official narrative of Muslim vandalism.

The wide appeal of Hindutva among the Indian diaspora can be partly explained by their experiences at tourism sites. The ASI and the official tourism bureaus’ characterisation of Indian archaeological sites as the focus of Muslim vandalism reinforces what was learnt through biased textbooks. The growing Islamophobia in the West further adds to the mental images of Muslims as violent bigots.

As India reinvents itself through archaeology and tourism, official organisations such as the ASI, state archaeology departments and tourism bureaus lend themselves as the handmaidens of Hindutva.

By OMAR KHALIDI

October 01, 2010 14:26 IST

REDIFF

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/oct/01/column-asi-is-the-handmaiden-of-hindutva-writes-omar-khalidi.htm

Omar Khalidi, independent scholar and staff member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is also the author of Khaki and Ethnic Violence in India and Muslims in Indian Economy

 

THE MEDIA: UNIVERSALIZING JUSTICE

When does media content become truly universal? When it resonates with people everywhere, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, religion or culture, class or gender.  The World Cup, which begins next month, is an example of a media event that is universal in terms of its appeal.

Massive natural calamities such as earthquakes and cyclones and the colossal human suffering that accompany them, are yet other examples of happenings, publicized by the media, that elicit sympathy across borders and boundaries.

Even a man-made catastrophe, like an imminent war, can provoke a huge response from people in different countries and continents. We witnessed that in the weeks before the US helmed invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. The media — especially the alternative media— played a very significant role in the mass mobilization of men, women and children against the war. Though the citizens of the world failed to stop the war, they succeeded nonetheless to de-legitimize it.

In the eighties, sections of the print and electronic media played a role in spreading awareness about the evil of apartheid and the imperative need to eliminate the apartheid regime in Pretoria. The anti-apartheid movement became a global movement and campaigns to shun multinational corporations that did business with the apartheid regime gathered momentum leading eventually to the demise of the regime in the nineties.

The South African and Iraqi episodes show that the media can play a role in universalizing or globalizing struggles for justice and human dignity. Enhancing knowledge of, and disseminating information on, struggles for justice and human dignity should be one of the primary goals of the media in the 21st century. The multiple crises facing humanity today —- from the environmental crisis to the economic crisis—- which threatens the very survival of the human race, compels the media to re-evaluate its role. The media can no longer just report and analyze.  It has to be proactive. It has to take a stand.

Can the media help to universalize the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination? Can the print and electronic media make people in the East and the West aware of the terrible injustice done to the Palestinians and why recognizing their legitimate right to nationhood is vital for world peace?  If some of the most important media channels in the world dare not speak up for the Palestinians, is it because of the inordinate power and influence exercised by Zionist elements over the media?

Can the media make more people in the Global North and the Global South aware of other noble causes as well— causes such as the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the abolition of the veto in the United Nations Security Council, to name but two?  It is significant that many important media outlets have not championed these causes. Is it because of powerful vested interests that they are beholden to?

What about some other concerns that the mainstream print and electronic media could have focused upon such as the eradication of poverty, the elimination of illiteracy, and the expansion of primary health care facilities to those at the bottom of the heap— concerns which are akin to some of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG)? If raising mass consciousness in relation to these concerns has not been the top priority of the mainstream media at national and global level, is it because of the media’s own failing, or is it because the media, especially in the case of state-run entities, is reluctant to evaluate the state’s performance vis-à-vis these goals, or is it because of global capitalism itself which subordinates anti-poverty measures, and pro- primary education and pro-basic health care programs to profits and markets?

Whatever the explanation, it is only too obvious that any endeavor to universalize justice through the media is bound to face formidable obstacles. It is not quite the same as universalizing a sport or a song. Universalizing charity in the wake of some natural calamity, as we have seen, is also not an onerous task.  Because universalizing justice means challenging dominant power structures and vested interests that impact upon the media, it is destined to be a long and arduous struggle.

Be that as it may, committed, courageous individuals and groups within and without the media cannot afford to surrender.  To surrender is to abandon humanity at its most perilous hour.

 

Remarks by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, and President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST).







 

Dr. Afia Siddiqui: A Travesty Of Justice

Not unexpectedly, the 86 years jail sentence against Dr. Afia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist once dubbed by the US media as Al-Qaeda Lady, triggered outrage across the country with protesters taking to the streets in many places. It was 10 p.m. Thursday (Sept. 23) in Pakistan when US District Court in Manhattan by Judge Richard M. Berman announced the judgment but protesters were up in arms in several cities of the country. There were demonstrations, mainly from students in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar burning US flags and effigies of US leaders. They chanted anti-American slogans. In Lahore, a young demonstrator was shown on a Pakistani TV network saying that “we will burn the US consulate.”

In Karachi, a large number of people gathered at the residence of Dr. Afia’s sister Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui. She said “This decision proves that the system of justice that the US believes is its pride is no longer effective.”

Shahbaz Sharif, Chief Minister of the Punjab Province with largest population, described it a verdict against humanity. Mufti Munibur Rehman, a prominent religious leader said that the verdict will foment extremism in Pakistan.

Maulana Fazalur Rehman, Chairman of parliament’s Kashmir Committee, announced that he will cancel his forthcoming visit to the US in protest against the US verdict.

Tellingly, Dr. Afia was quoted by Associated Press as telling the court Thursday: ”I am not sad. I am not distressed. … They are not torturing me.” ”This is a myth and lie and it’s being spread among the Muslims.” Commenting on this statement, Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui said that she was perplexed with this statement that has been given under duress.

It may be recalled that in July 2009, Dr. Afia told the court that she was being tortured. The BBC reported on July 7, 2009: “While denying charges against her, she also told the court about her mistreatment in prison and desecration of the Holy Quran. She said that the Holy Quran was put in her feet. At one time she turned toward the court room packed with journalists and her well wishers and said they should tell the world that she is innocent, she is being tortured and there is a conspiracy against her.

Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui also accused the Pakistani government of collaborating with the US government in Dr. Afia’s plight. “The conviction clearly shows how enslaved our government is. The previous government (President Pervez Musharraf’s) had sold Aafia once, but the present government has sold her time and again,” she said.

The Justice for Aafia Coalition (JFAC), an umbrella body for a number of organizations, groups, and activists created in February 2010 to campaign for the opening of a full investigation into the circumstances of her detention, expressed shock at the harsh sentence passed on Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The JFAC’s statement, released soon after Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was sentenced to 86 years imprisonment, said: “We are deeply saddened by the harsh sentence passed on Dr. Aafia Siddiqui by Judge Richard Berman today. “It has now been over seven and a half years since Dr. Siddiqui was abducted with her three young children by Pakistani and American agencies. She has since been separated from her children and family, detained in a series of secret prisons and physically and psychologically abused by her captors. Following a blatantly prejudiced and unfair trial in which little conclusive evidence of her guilt was presented, she was found guilty…. While we are disappointed by Judge Berman’s decision, we condemn in the strongest terms the stance of the Pakistani government towards this beloved daughter of the nation. While we must never look to the wolf for protection, we expect the shepherd to care for his flock. The Pakistani government has from the outset been complicit in Aafia’s disappearance and detention, and has displayed nothing but contempt for its people and dignity through its cowardly stance in requesting her repatriation….”

Dr Aafia says an appeal would be a waste of time

In New York, hundreds of supporters of Dr Siddiqui had gathered Thursday on the court grounds and adjoining areas protesting against her trial and conviction. “It is my judgment that Dr Siddiqui is sentenced to a period of incarceration of 86 years,” said Judge Richard Berman. Dr Aafia Siddiqui denounced the trial and said an appeal would be “a waste of time. I appeal to God.” When her lawyer Dawn Cardi said in the court that they would appeal the sentence, Dr Siddiqui shouted “they are not my lawyers”.

On February 3, 2010, a jury in New York found Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, guilty of attempted murder charges on all seven counts listed in the complaint against her. She was tried on charges of trying to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan on July 28, 2008. According to the prosecution, Dr. Siddiqui grabbed a US warrant officer’s rifle while she was detained for questioning in July 2008 at a police station in Ghazni and fired at FBI agents and military personnel as she was pushed down to the ground. None of the US soldiers or FBI agents was injured, but US-educated Dr.Siddiqui was shot. She was charged with attempted murder and assault and other crimes.

To borrow Stephen Lendman, “her trial was a travesty of justice based on the preposterous charge that in the presence of two FBI agents, two Army interpreters, and three US Army officers, she (110 pounds and frail) assaulted three of them, seized one of their rifles, opened fire at close range, hit no one, yet she was severely wounded. No credible evidence was presented. Some was kept secret. The proceedings were carefully orchestrated. Witnesses were either enlisted, pressured, coerced, and/or bought off to cooperate, then jurors were intimidated to convict her.”

According to prosecution Siddiqui was arrested by the Afghan police in the town of Ghazni with notes indicating plans to attack the Statue of Liberty and other New York landmarks. However, she was not charged with terrorism but charged only with attempted murder.

During the trial, the prosecution admitted that there were no fingerprints on the gun she was supposed to have wrested from one of the soldiers. No bullets were recovered from the cell.

Early in the case Siddiqui’s defense team suggested she was a victim of the “dark side,” picked up by Pakistani or U.S. intelligence, but prosecutors insisted they found no evidence she’d ever been illegally detained. By the time of the trial, no mention was made of Siddiqui’s whereabouts during her five missing years.

No explanation was given as to why a would-be terrorist would wander around openly with a slew of almost theatrically incriminating materials in her possession.

No questions were raised about the whereabouts of her two missing children, one of whom is a U.S. citizen. (Her daughter Maryam and son Ahmed later recovered from Afghanistan and handed over to Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui.)

By keeping the focus on Ghazni, the prosecution avoided the main issue in Dr. Aafia’s case: Where was she from March 2003 to July 2008 when she suddenly appeared in US custody in Afghanistan.

Four allegations

Perhaps, there were four allegations, not one, that required deliberation:

1. The first allegation against Dr. Aafia: In 2003, US authorities alleged that she had links with Al-Qaeda. Throughout March 2003 flashes of the particulars of Dr. Aafia were telecast with her photo on American TV channels and radios painting her as a dangerous Al Qaeda person needed by the FBI for interrogation. At a news conference in May 2004, US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that the FBI was looking for seven people with suspected ties to Al Qaeda. MIT graduate and former Boston resident Aafia Siddiqui was the only woman on the list.

2. The second allegation: The US authorities claimed on July 17, 2008, that Dr. Aafia was found to be in possession of some objectionable and dangerous material. According to US officials, Afghani police, acting on an anonymous tip that a foreign woman was planning terrorist activities, arrested Aafia Siddiqui outside the governor’s compound in Ghazni, and discovered in her purse bottles of liquids, bomb making instructions, and a map of New York City landmarks.

3. The third allegation: International human rights group, prior to July 17, 2008, alleged that Dr. Aafia was being held in a secret prison. She was unlawfully abducted and sexually tortured. This needed to be addressed before moving on. This allegation was against the US and Pakistani authorities.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui left her mother’s house in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Sindh province, along with her three children, in a Metro-cab on March 30, 2003 to catch a flight for Islamabad, but never reached the airport. The press reports claimed that Dr. Aafia had been picked-up by Pakistani intelligence agencies while on her way to the airport and initial reports suggested that she was handed over to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). At the time of her arrest she was 30 years and the mother of Mirryam, 4 (daughter) and two sons Ahmad, 6 and Sulyman, six months.

A few days later an American news channel, NBC, reported that Aafia had been arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of facilitating money transfers for terror networks of Osama Bin Laden. A Monthly English magazine of Karachi in a special coverage on Dr. Aafia reported that one week after her disappearance, a plain clothed intelligence went to her mother’s house and warned her, “We know that you are connected to higher-ups but do not make an issue out of your daughter’s disappearance.” According to the report the mother was threatened her with ‘dire consequences’ if she made a fuss.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, for about 10 years and did her PhD in genetics, returned to Pakistan in 2002. Having failed to get a suitable job, she again visited the US on a valid visa in February 2003 to search for a job and to submit an application to the US immigration authorities. She moved there freely and came back to Karachi by the end of February 2003 after renting a post office box in her name in Maryland for the receipt of her mail. It has been claimed by the FBI (Newsweek International, June 23, 2003, issue) that the box was hired for one Mr Majid Khan, an alleged member of Al Qaeda residing in Baltimore.

Throughout March 2003 flashes of the particulars of Dr. Aafia were telecast with her photo on American TV channels and radios painting her as a dangerous Al Qaeda person needed by the FBI for interrogation. On learning of the FBI campaign against her she went underground in Karachi and remained so till her kidnapping. The June 23, 2003, issue of Newsweek International was exclusively devoted to Al Qaeda. The core of the issue was an article “Al Qaeda’s Network in America”. The article has three photographs of so-called Al Qaeda members – Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Dr. Afia Siddiqui and Ali S. Al Marri of Qatar who has studied in the US like Dr. Siddiqui and had long since returned to his homeland. In this article, which has been authored by eight journalists who had access to FBI records, the only charge leveled against Dr. Aafia is that “she rented a post-office box to help a former resident of Baltimore named Majid Khan (alleged Al Qaeda suspect) to help establish his US identity. Dr. Aafia faded into limbo for more than a year, until summer 2004 when the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI announced that she was one of seven terrorists who were planning to disrupt the American presidential elections.

Dr. Aafia’s plight was highlighted by a British journalist and peace activist, Yvonne Ridley, who flew to Pakistan to address a press conference in Islamabad on July 7, 2008. “Today I am crying out for help, not for myself but for a Pakistani woman neither you nor I have ever met. She has been held in isolation by the Americans in Afghanistan and she needs help,” Ridley told a crowded press conference.

Ridley first learnt about the woman while reading a book by Guantanamo ex-detainee Moazzam Begg. One of the four Arabs who escaped from the infamous Bagram cell in July 2005 also told a television channel that he had heard a woman’s cries and screams in the prison but never saw her.

Ridley called her the Grey Lady of Bagram because she was almost a ghost, a spectre whose cries and screams continue to haunt those who heard her. The woman is registered as Prisoner number 650 and the US officials can’t deny the fact, Ridley said. “I demand that the US military free the Grey Lady immediately. We don’t know her identity, we don’t know her state of mind and we don’t know the extent of the abuse or torture she has been subjected to.”

On 24th July, 2008 the Asian Human Rights Commission issued an Urgent Appeal in the case of the disappearance of a lady doctor. Amid public protests in Pakistan, on August 1, an FBI official visited the house of Dr. Aafia’s brother in Houston to deliver the news that she is alive and in custody.

One week later she was produced in a New York court where even the Judge expressed surprise at the quick extradition of Dr. Aafia from Afghanistan to New York noting that in such a short period one could not extradite a person from Bronx (a New York Borough) to Manhattan.

4. The fourth allegation: The US authorities alleged that she fired at some US soldiers, etc. while she was being interrogated, after her alleged arrest. This is the only allegation on which Aafia has been tried. In the pre-trial hearing on January 18 the prosecution admitted: Dr Aafia is not a member of al-Qaida. She has no links to any terrorist organization.

The question is why the FBI chose to charge her only with firing at the US soldiers and agents? Why she is not charged with links to Al Qaed? Why she is not charged with planning attacks on targets in New York? Remember, a map of New York land marks was found on her when she was taken into custody in Ghazni, according to prosecution. We may find answers to these questions in the post-9/11 trials of Muslims in the US. A number of Muslims were arrested on terror suspicion but never charged with terrorism or acquitted in terrorism charges. They were put on trial with flimsy charges of immigration violation, tax evasion or some other charges which have nothing to do with terrorism. Just two examples may suffice to prove my point:

Anwar Mahmood, a Pakistani immigrant, was picked up in October 2001 for taking photographs of an upstate New York reservoir. No terror-related charges were ever filed against him but investigators found him in minor violation of immigration law. After spending three years in jail, he was deported to Pakistan in August 2004 for violating immigration law.

In February 2007, a jury acquitted Dr. Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a Palestinian-American former professor at Washington’s HowardUniversity, of terror-related charges. Tellingly, in November 2007 he was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for refusing to testify in 2003 before a grand jury investigating the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Dr. Ashqar was convicted of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice.

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

24 September, 2010

Countercurrents.org