Desicritics Category: Politics: Pakistan

Teenage Girls Buried Alive in Pakistan

Ashish — Tue, 2 Sep 2008 04:21:14 EDT

There are some things that the free world takes so much for granted that when you read about incidents such as the one that I am going to describe below, something cold and clammy catches you. Unfortunately, the incident below is related to the concept of 'honor' killing, and is seen as acceptable (or at least something that is thought to be acceptable and practiced) in some cultures. A lot of these are in the countries of South and West Asia, where there is more or a tribal/clan culture, and typically in a society which is totally male dominated. So, what is honor killing?

From Wikipedia,

"An honor killing or honour killing is generally the murder of a female member of a family by the family, when they (and maybe the wider community) believe her to have brought dishonor upon them. A woman can be targeted commonly for: refusing an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or committing adultery or fornication. These killings result from the perception that defense of family honour justifies killing a woman whose behavior dishonours her family."

Read a bit about the incident:

Three teenage girls have been buried alive by their tribe in a remote part of Pakistan to punish them for attempting to choose their own husbands, in an "honour" killing case. After news of the deaths emerged, male politicians from their province, Baluchistan, defended the killings in parliament, claiming the practice was part of "our tribal custom".

The girls, thought to have been aged between 16 and 18, were kidnapped by a group of men from their Umrani tribe. They were driven to a rural area and then injured by being shot. Then, while still alive, they were dragged bleeding to a pit, where they were covered with earth and stones, according to the findings of Human Rights Watch, the international campaigning group. Officials, speaking off the record, confirmed the killings. Some reports said that two older relatives of the girls had tried to intervene, but they too were shot and buried with the girls while still alive.

This is an absolutely despicable act, and the fact that the Government refuses to take any action on this even 6 weeks after this cold-blooded murder (in Baba Kot, a remote village in Jafferabad) makes it even more horrible. The Pakistani Government as well as the Government of Baluchistan are both run by the Pakistan People's Party, the party that was run by Benazir Bhutto for the last 2 decades before her assassination, and the refusal to get the people involved arrested (for fear of antagonizing the tribes involved) is a political act. Even Musharraf was better than this, since in a major honor case (where a girl was raped as a means of punishment), he had got the people involved arrested and tried. In this case, what the girls wanted to do was to get married in a civil court, and this was enough to get them killed.

Unfortunately, this custom (should one dignify this sort of act by calling it a custom?) is prevalent in other countries in the region as well to varying degrees - the denial of many rights such as being able to select their own partners, being arrested for meeting people of the other sex, harassed and arrested for not wearing a full length gown, and in the more extreme cases, being ordered to be killed by tribal/caste gatherings that assume the power of life and death. These need to be combated through more education, bringing in more development; at the same time, they need to be accompanied by swift and merciless punishment for the people involved.

Why is Kashmir Important?

Desh — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:26:39 EDT

Disclaimer: I am writing this purely with statecraft as the basis. I have deliberately left out the influence of value systems and principles, as in prevalent in most discussions

Kashmir is a major problem between India and Pakistan. Most often the cloak on every issue and problem between state is sewn from the thread of emotions and principles in public opinion. Actually and in hard reality it is rarely so.

At the expense of sounding nonchalant, let me state that never have I ever believed, notwithstanding the public emotion, that Pakistan's establishment had ever coveted Kashmir because of its Muslim residents and India because of its secular credentials.

If there was ever any secularism worth the name in that land of Kashmir, then conversions and Islamic invasion had long destroyed it. What was being dragged on for last few centuries was the coffin of that secularism.

Secondly, if Islamic brotherhood was the concern of the Pakistanis then they should have had a better track record at home to convince even a weak critic.

Of course, my eternal question o Pakistan always strikes at the root of this "Islamic Brotherhood" claim:

Which "Muslim" and "Islam" are we talking about?

The truth about Pakistan's Islamic brotherhood is that its boundaries extend to only Punjabi Sunnis and then it abruptly stops. It assumes vicious forms as soon as it crosses over into the territory of those who believe in Prophet-hood beyond Mohammad. It is then that the love and acceptance that are the hallmark of any brotherhood should - ideally - be exemplified. And that is where it has failed and failed miserably!

Actually, and honestly, the frail "love" fails at the boundary of language itself. Bengalis, Mohajirs are living exhibits of that failure. So, to say that Kashmiri Muslim is any more important than Bengali Muslim.. .or that a Kashmiri Shia will have any more luck than a Punjabi or Sindhi Shia is a tough sell to anyone not unlucky enough to have been brainwashed!

Now, if the interests of Kashmiris and their land was any concern then the quid pro quo, where a third of Jammu & Kashmir (5800 sq.km) - Trans-Karakoram Tract (1963 agreement and 1987 ratification of Chinese ownership) - was bartered to China by Pakistan would not have occurred.

There is a reason why I or you cannot sell the Taj Mahal. Because we do not own it! It is the same case with the land that we hold in "good trust". A trustee does not have absolute rights on the property of the original owner. Trustee of a property cannot therefore sell a property held under trusteeship any more than you or I cannot sell Taj Mahal. That is how a logical law works. But it becomes a completely different matter if the trustee assumes the absolute rights and without any ratification from the original owner goes about wheeling-dealing in the property!

So, two tthe hings are very clear to me - for Pakistan, Kashmir is NOT about Islamic brotherhood and it is also NOT about love and care for Kashmiri interests.

What about India? If indeed Kashmir was the benchmark for secularism, without which the practice of this blessed principle would utterly fail and devastate India, then Kashmiri Pandits would not have been a casualty and that too in such a terrible way. The day the first Pandit was threatened and harmed and the Indian Government turned its eyes away, that pretense of Kashmir's importance for holding together our secular culture collapsed an unsung death! It has never been resurrected since. It never will.

True "Secularism" - if one insists on extolling this word, in my view, and since it has been a point of so much debate in one of my earlier post, resides in people's hearts. It is none other than love - pure love.

When the narrow minded look at Love being expressed to a person who swears by another "God", they call that territory as "Secularism". And Tolerance is basic building block of its definition by such a narrow mind. What they really mean is that Love was not a "natural" state when it saw a "different" opinion, yet this person exhibited it! It is quite obviously an unflattering characterization of "Love" to begin with, but to hide their own short-coming of terming Tolerance as a virtue, such people put Secularism on a high pedestal!

Acceptance of all is a virtue. And acceptance is not despite the differences, but irrespective and beyond the narrow boundaries of similarities and differences.

Love of Heer, of Shirin, of Juliet could not even dwell on such boundaries or mind-blocks. It was just love.

In my view, THAT can be the ONLY true "Secularism" - if you still want to use that semantics. Love and Secularism are, therefore, the same. Anything less than that is just a pretense and hypocrisy! Just as Jesus' unbounded and unconditioned love cannot be characterized and defined in narrow terms... similarly Love of One's own "God" - if it is really a God and not its cheap surrogate - has to and should include everyone's "God"! So where is the reason or need for uncomfortably pretended "love" famously called "Tolerance" and its derivative "Secularism"!!

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote something for Sherlock Holmes that remains - in my book - an excellent benchmark for getting to any truth - "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth!"

So, now, if the public stances of India and Pakistan were never honest or even plausible ones to begin with, then why has so much of blood been shed over it? And its corollary - Is Kashmir even important and if yes, Why?

I am sure, there are many who will keep arguing on the above negated "principles" and "virtues" no end as the major issues in Kashmir, but it is quite obvious, given the actions and track record on the ground that they are akin to fleeting flirtings of schizophrenic administrations. No more defensible or believe-able than promises of love and faithfulness from a playboy Casanova, who pretends love and screws women because...well.. he can!!

The women who believe such playboys and jump into bed with them, usually keep bearing bastards and crying over their "bad fortune". I have little sympathy or serious concern for such blind idealists. That is why I want to move on to the real (as opposed to pretended) reasons for so much importance of Kashmir and let the lovers of political Cassanovas cry over bastardization of the most coveted principles and blame the "bad fortune" and villainous world for all that. Too bad.

Blood and money is generally spilled by "intelligent", though bluffing regimes, always because and if, that land provides "Net Benefits". When "Revenue" over a long time period is higher than the costs to sustain and hold that land. When the Net Return turned below the accepted "Investment threshold" for British, they quietly handed over the sub-continent to its impoverished residents and made it look as an act of greatness. That was political stage-craft... and victory of independence for the romantics!

A Nigerian friend recently made an interesting - and telling - remark (Nigeria was freed in 1960) "If the oil had been discovered in Nigeria before the Brits decided to leave our country, we would have been forever colonized. Our luck was their mis-fortune".

That is why Darfur is not as important as Iraq or two small provinces of Georgia are to the big powers of the world. Benefits outweigh the costs and the risks in those ventures, and Darfur, by contrast, is a net-net loss.

Kashmir has no oil. But it is a gateway. Yes, to Central Asia. But more importantly to the Himalayas - the ONLY consistent and bountiful source of water to the sub continent. For centuries, sub continent has seen its civilization been decided by that one element. While Saraswati enabled a flourishing civilization, its vanishing destroyed it. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to lose that source.

While Pakistan's hurry is that before India assumes un-beatable dominance in the region, to cut its life-force itself. India has the same aim. It also has a large population that any semi-honest political administration would want to plan for.

Revolution? You Kill My Guests I'll Kill Yours

temporal — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:25:13 EDT

The sudden surge in violence after Musharraf resigned is significant and telling.The Fasadi Pakistani Talebans are exploiting the leadership vacuum and making inroads. The losers are the civilians, who face death unexpectedly, the army whose morale is sagging, and the fledgling civilian administration trying to rebuild democratic institutions.

There is a way out, but the political and military rulers and their Western backers have always ignored it: serious land reforms, the creation of a proper social infrastructure and the establishment of at least a dozen teacher-training universities to lay the basis for a proper educational system. Malaysia has done so. Why not Pakistan?Tariq Ali's Way Out of Pakistan's Impasse.

In response to above iFaqeer wrote:...who's going to bell the cat? That's the basic question...Pakistan's headed for a revolution. The question is of what nature it will be and when it will happen. Today...the obvious option is scary...

Until recently my definition of revolution in the Pakistani context was: transfer of power from one un-elected representative to another.

But given the rise of religious militancy and extremism this definition is out the window. The revolution alluded to by iFaqeer will be unpredictable, chaotic and murderous.

I had heard this story growing up. The Pathans were very hospitable people and in one of their village they had a tradition. After sunset the villagers would head for the outskirts. If they found a tired hungry traveler headed in their direction they would jostle with each other for the privilege to play the host to the traveler. One evening, in the jostling between Badshah Khan and Peer Khan to play host to the lone traveler, the old Enfield rifle went off accidentally killing the traveler.

Said Badshah Khan to Peer Khan, "Khocha tum fik'r mut karo. Tum nay amara aik maimaan mara hum tumara dus maimaan maray ga." (Don't worry friend, you killed one guest of mine I will kill off ten of yours some day.)

Earlier today, near the entrance to a high security ordnance factory at Wah, suicide bombers killed 70 plus Pakistanis. [Death toll in Wah blasts climbs to 70]

Later on ARY TV, Maulvi Omar (not the one eyed Afghan Taliban leader) admitted responsibility for the suicide attack. He claimed that that suicide attack was in response to the government attacks in Bajaur and Kurram Agency. He also boasted that his forces were capable of carrying out attacks anywhere in Pakistan.

So in this political game, of killing guests the innocent Muslims are killed.

The Pakistan Army is at the receiving end and failing miserably. Like other classic armies, its Achilles heel is a sustained guerrilla fight. Their training and motivation becomes suspect and they open themselves up to ridicule. And with the fledgling civilian politicians bashing them openly, their morale suffers.

The Pakistani Talibans have the edge. Theirs is a guerrilla movement. They do not need planes and tanks and heavy artillery. They are mobile. They can disappear in the crowd. And they are armed with belief. Belief in their cause that may appear suspect and unfounded in western and Muslim scholarly eyes, but is unshakable and firm like K2.

Lessons learned fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan have been polished. They have also demonstrated formidable political savvy. The weak Gilani government, under pressure from the West, from their own people, is desperate to find a solution - any solution that may work. And when they open negotiations, these Taliban groups use the pauses to regroup and re arm. Ho Chi Minh would have chuckled.

With encouragement and support from the Indians and the Iranians, the Mayor of Kabul accuses the Pakistani Administration of being spineless. The Pakistani government bristles. They opened their homes and welcomed millions of Afghan refugees. They still play host to nearly three million of them. The embattled and lame duck US Administration leans on Pakistanis to do more.

The civilian government of Yusuf Raza Gilani, rife with infighting and intrigues, and plagued with incompetence and inexperience is rowing furiously with one oar. Mohsin Hamid, author of The Reluctant Fundamentalist disagrees:

The US, for its part, will need to adjust to a Pakistan in which anti-America sentiment could seriously undermine US interests. The US can best do this by offering Pakistan not the appearance of an alliance but the equality and mutual respect that constitutes the substance of one. Pakistan's people have already demonstrated through the ballot that they reject the Taliban worldview, and the number of Pakistanis who died in terrorist attacks last year alone exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11. Pakistan should be allowed to determine how best to fight extremists on its soil. Pakistani solutions are likely to be slower and more cautious than US ones, but also, crucially, more sustained and popular, and therefore more effective in the long run. Pakistan is at last finding its voice. The US would be wise not to gag it - Mohsin Hamid.

Through ballot the people have turfed out the fundamentalists for now. But the key question is whether the people can withstand their bullets?

It is well to remember that for a short while after the lawlessness, mayhem and chaos in Afghanistan, following the Soviet withdrawal, the Afghanis did welcome Mullah Omar's Talebans the first time around. Will it be repeated in Pakistan? Will there be a rural-urban divide? One embracing the neo-Talebans the other rejecting them?

The population is divided. If there is a retrogressive Fasadi Revolution the rural population I suspect would welcome it, much like the Afghans did. But I suspect the Fasadi would have a tougher fight on their hands in the urban centers. For they have learned what havoc the orthodox and rigid Talebans have caused in Afghanistan earlier.

Meanwhile, in this revolution to come expect murder and mayhem in the name of Allah the Merciful.

Book Review: Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:16:09 EDT

A few years ago when Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan appeared on television and confessed to having orchestrated the proliferation of nuclear technology to various ‘rogue’ states like Iran, North Korea and Libya all on his own, I had my doubts. I’m sure many of you also thought along the same lines. Surely all this could not have been done by one man without the consent of his government? However, I had shrugged it off thinking that it would be too much to expect anyone else within the Pakistani establishment to be held to task. Especially not when Pakistan and its CEO were both playing such a crucial role in the War on Terror.

Deception is a gripping book which confirms the suspicions which so many of us felt at that time and on various other occasions. Levy and Scott-Clark track in excruciating detail, almost on a blow-by-blow basis, the development of Pakistan's nuclear programme from its inception till the present day. It is a scholarly tome created with a lot of attention to detail. The notes to this book alone run to over eighty five pages. It has an elaborate index and a lengthy bibliography. The main book spans over 449 pages. In fact, at times the amount of minute detail crammed into this book makes it slightly heavy reading, even though it is mostly riveting stuff.

Deception is a mix of political and personal detail. It has details of A.Q. Khan’s household, stories about Zia-ul-Haq, Benazir and Musharraf, power play in Washington D.C., Delhi, Islamabad etc. According to Levy and Scott-Clark, deception took places at various levels all over the world. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Americans choose to turn the Nelson’s eye towards Pakistan’s activities. Later when they knew that proliferation was taking place on a large scale from Pakistan and were about to act on it, 9/11 occurred. The US needed Pakistan’s services once again. Therefore, rather than take Pakistan to task, Khan’s confession was stage managed so that everyone else could be off the hook.

Even thought most of what’s detailed in Deception consists of stuff we know or would have guessed, there were a few surprises for me. For example, Levy and Scott-Clark say that the Americans came to know Iraq had received nuclear technology and know-how from Pakistan under a deal made in 1990 only after the Iraq invasion.

If there is to be something negative to be said about this book, it is that at times Levy and Scott-Clark adopt a tone that has too much shock and bitterness written into it, the sort of bitterness that can only be caused by deception and betrayal by someone you deeply trusted. The chapters in this book have names oozing melodrama such as “Into the Valley of Death”, “A Fragment of the Zionist Mind”, “Gangsters in Bangles” etc. There is no attempt made to examine whether Khan’s activities could ever be justified, even to a limited extent. India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”) which prohibits its signatories from developing nuclear weapons or passing them to anyone else. That is, all signatories except the established five nuclear powers. If Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, why should it be restricted from selling or passing on nuclear technology to other countries? If Khan acted with the full knowledge and consent of the Pakistani government (as argued by Levy and Scott-Clark), then his actions were those of a sovereign state not constrained by the NPT.

I am not for a movement arguing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good idea. However, it is possible to argue that if the USA, UK, China, Russia and France can possess nuclear weapons, so can Pakistan, India, Libya and Sierra Leone. The proponents of the NPT have always adopted the attitude that many wanna-be nuclear powers are too irresponsible to be given access to such powerful weapons. In other words, a nuclear armed Iran or Libya is much more likely to use the N-bomb, than say, France or the United States. Even though it is possible to pick holes in this argument, it cannot be denied that if the number of nuclear powers in the world were to go up, the chances of a nuclear conflagration somewhere in the world will also undoubtedly increase. Therefore, I do agree with Levy and Scott-Clark that the actions of Khan and his sponsors and abettors have placed the world in much greater jeopardy than it would have been otherwise.

Despite this irritant, I really enjoyed reading Deception. The authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark currently work for The Guardian as senior correspondents. They are the authors of two highly acclaimed books, The Amber Room: The Fate of the World’s Greatest Lost Treasure and The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Secret History of Imperial Green Jade. Currently Adrian Levy lives in London and Catherine Scott-Clark is based in France.

Stingers: Sores That Hardly Heal

Harold Bergsma — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:45 EDT

The pain was almost intolerable. Burning, searing fire that ran down the side of my face onto my neck made me shout and scrabble about like a mad man. I had been picking oranges from a tree in our central Nigerian compound when I disturbed a nest of wasps that had taken residence in that tree, not more than two feet above my head. Six of these warriors descended on me and began to sting, each one multiple times. Wasps do not commit suicide when they attack, they use their stingers again. Years later, in 1985 I was reading on the verandah of our Model Town home in Lahore and a bee landed on my neck. I brushed it aside, but not quick enough and got stung. It was not as painful as the wasps had been but there was one difference. It left its stinger behind, and in doing so had committed suicide, tearing out its guts as it was brushed aside. Pindi, my cook pulled the stinger out with a tweezers, warning me not to leave it in as it would create a bad sore and become infected. I had to hear the terrible stories of children in his village that had been stung and had suffered terribly because the parents did not know enough to get rid of the deadly stingers and not to leave them embedded.

I had been reading the Pakistan newspaper, Dawn, at the time and news about the very beginning of the defeats and withdrawals of the Soviet military forces from Afghanistan because of such effective rebel fighting, like “persistent wasps”. This withdrawal eventually culminated in 1989, supported by the many small victories of the Mujahideen in their fight against the cursed invaders, and the support given by the Americans to this effort of the guerrillas during Operation Cyclone, support by the supply of arms and weapons to the freedom fighters. Stingers! Yes, these were supplied by the CIA in the hundreds to the forces fighting the Soviets. Some sources say as many as two thousand stingers were given to the Mujahideen. After the withdrawal of the Russians there was a concern that the Taliban now had many of these weapons, Stingers, which, with their heat seeking devices had been lethal against Soviet helicopters and low-flying aircraft. Now American forces could become targets of these very weapons.

But, allied experts said, the battery systems which operated these weapons became useless after a few years. (But the technology to repair and put in new battery systems existed; in fact Pakistan now has its own version of the old Stinger) I love the title of the article by Ken Silverstein in the State Oct.2, 2001, “Stinger, Stingers, Who’s Got the Stingers?” In that article he reviews the Reagan administration’s programs to arm the Mujahideen with Stingers to battle Soviet aircraft, he says that the Taliban now possess many of these weapons as do others to whom they were sold who ‘reverse-engineered’ these and made their own. Many worried about this because Islamic fundamentalist who loathed the West, about as much as they hated the Soviets, could possibly share these wonderful high tech weapons with, and think of this, with terrorist groups.

In 1986, Congress had approved the deal and CIA then shipped 300 Stingers to the rebels and the next year 700 more. The Stingers were now embedded, not only among the rebel forces, but according to some sources, Pakistan stock piled the Stingers it got, and some say, sold a few to the Chinese for sums unknown, who were clever and reverse-engineered them and produced their own, and since there was a hot market for these, reverse sold these to the ones who first had them. According to Silverstein’s article these weapons now were dispersed by the rebels to Tajikistan, Chechnya and Algeria. And, he says that the Pentagon approved the sale of Stingers to at least 21 countries, mostly NATO of course, such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. ( I love the word mostly. The selling of American weapons by Americans is a really big business, and this does not just include little Stingers, it includes weapons of pretty ‘mass destruction’ in the form of high tech aircraft and their missile systems. You know, keep the economy going.) The Soviets stole the design and made their own SAM-14 Gremlin, a virtual copy of the Stinger. Oh my! What a hornet’s nest!

The CIA later, in its $65 million program, (It is as if they gave each Afghan citizen $2) offered $150,000 to $200,000 to the very ones they had supported by giving them these amazing weapons. This was more than production cost, but cheaper than having their planes shot down. This buy-back program resulted in the return of very few of the Stingers and the authorities were concerned that the Taliban, who later waged a bloody insurgency, had stockpiled these weapons. In fact, the coalition authorities had no idea where most of these lethal Stingers were. These were a hidden threat and are still a threat today, imbedded, festering Stingers. This was a sore spot. The buy-back flopped, by and large. If the Americans thought that Stingers were worth about Rupees 1,200,000 each, these must be pretty good things to keep around, just in case. And it is a well know fact that in bargain situations, when one party seems a bit desperate to buy something, it may be a good strategy to hold back a bit and wait and see if the buy back price will rise. Imagine getting the Stingers free and then later selling them back at highly inflated prices to the donor and making a few dealers rich in the process. Riches buys land, good land for growing poppies.

These embedded Stingers may still be around. India claimed that in a 1999 attack Muslim rebels in Kashmir used a Stinger to down a military aircraft.

Kathy Gannon’s book I is for Infidel: From the Holy War to Holy Terror: 18 Years Inside Afghanistan, 2005, Perseus Book Group, speaks about the war in Afghanistan as being “yesterday’s war”. “The wider world had done the most dangerous of things. It had stuffed this tiny country with massive amounts of weapons, including the precious Stingers, turned over the countryside to the volatile discordant mix of mujahadeen factions—and then walked away.”

In 2001, following the Sept.11 attack the U.S. launched “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a military campaign to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist camps inside Afghanistan, the very ones with whom they had had a common cause, you know, the Afghan Mujahideen and who now said thanks for the free Stingers. The Stingers were not like those of the wasps, burning, searing, but temporary. They were like those of bees, which left imbedded, make their way deep into the flesh while pumping venom all the while and leaving a festering sore that hardly heals.

In the 2008 political campaigns new political solutions are being suggested about Afghanistan, new efforts that will need to be made to subdue the rebels in their mountain dens in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan and hopefully get the really bad guy, bin Laden in the process. What a holy terror our soldiers will face once again when ‘Yesterday’s War’, thanks Kathy, becomes Today’s Military Operation in which, on their turf, using our weapons, our Stingers, they, the bad guys, face off against us, defending their holy land with religious Islamic zeal, cursing oaths of vengeance.

Not to worry folks. Dear Wikipedia gives us the answers, “The US inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000.” Let’s see, if we divided this by the population of Afghanistan which is about 33 million people it could set up the entire population with a nest egg for small business development that would put it on its economic feet, peacefully. Imagine what that money could do to build schools for Afghani boys and girls. I forgot; inventory means that the money has already been spent by U.S. tax payers to engineer and manufacture these arms which now exist and are waiting for new batteries and need to be used.

That is a lot of bees to contend with, a pretty big hive. Let the Taliban be warned, our hive is bigger than yours. The pain will be intolerable, a real pain in the neck! But for whom?

The Human DNA

Shantanu Dutta — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:48:48 EDT

As the violence in Jammu and Kashmir escalates beyond what bounces of our television screens, the vibrations are also cascading across our borders. Pakistan has of course reacted harshly to the “excessive use of force” to control the civil unrest there and in a typical knee jerk response, the Indian government has condemned the comments from the Pakistani Foreign Minister as an interference in India’s internal affairs.

There is this much to be said in that all countries in the sub continent are from the same genetic make up very literally and all can be blackened with the same brush. A lot can be perhaps said about Pakistan or any other country around making pious statements about human rights considering the overall record of every one here. But still the question begs to be asked – when do political boundaries blur and our human identity begins asserting itself?

When do we feel free and are given the freedom to express a genuine agony and anguish at the violence, broken and bereaved families that every unplanned funeral brings in its wake? This is not about fishing in troubled waters or scoring political brownie points at all. But I wonder - does it become treason to mourn the loss and grief of another because they live across a border that is not even a century old when cultural and ethnic bonds go back a thousand years or more?

When a lament from a neighboring country at the violence that is prevailing here and is flashing globally across television channels and internet news sites is understood to be interference, then the question arises for Indians as to what should they do. People with ethnic backgrounds and languages spoken in India live in all countries that surround us – Bengalis – even Bengali Hindus (for those whom this distinction matters) in Bangladesh, Tamils in Sri Lanka being the most prominent but by no means the only ones.

It seems easier to reach out across borders when natural disasters strike – like tsunamis or earthquakes or cyclones; but some how there is an insurmountable barrier when it comes to even making statements of empathy and condolence when the tragedy is manmade. Even a word can impute a motive when at least at the level of the common man or woman, none is intended,

Most of us are it the political establishment or those who are part of civil society will find it well nigh difficult to look the other way in the guise of non interference in the internal affairs of another country. If Tamils were to be in the midst of widely publicized media footage be subjected to violence or the Bengalis were, it would be politically inexpedient to sit back and do nothing.

If non interference in the affairs of others is the norm, then nobody in the international community should be speaking into what is happening in Zimbabwe, or Sudan, and India itself should not have moved resolutions in the United Nations when South Africa was still practicing racism. But it is good at times, indeed necessary for people to speak up, take note and make a point in the international communities and forums so that what would otherwise have gone unnoticed and remained hidden in shadows

Of course there is such a thing as undue interest in the affairs of another country; as perhaps best exemplified by the US invasion of Iraq. But there is also such a thing as too little of an interest in the affairs of the world. After all, it is only those who live in glass houses who are scared of stones and so they do not throw any. The world’s largest democracy should not be fighting shy of facing criticism when there are plenty within the country’s own borders who are concerned. Let us own up to the fact there is a common human DNA that makes us all speak up.

The Grey Lady of Bagram: Dr. Aafia Siddiqui - Kidnapped, Tortured and Now Arraigned

temporal — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:33:36 EDT

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

One day in March 2003, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui ordered a cab to take her and her three children (oldest 4, youngest an infant) to the Karachi Airport from her residence in Gulshan. She had not been seen since until her arraignment in US District Court two days ago, Aug. 5.

Her recent appearance has to do with a series of events that began with an appeal by the Asian Human Rights Commission.

Aafia Siddiqui has a biology degree from MIT and earned her PhD in cognitive neuroscience from Brandeis University. The only charge claimed by FBI (Newsweek June 23, 2003) against Dr. Siddiqui is one of renting a post office box in the name of a Majid Khan, an alleged Al Qaeda suspect.

The US was forced to admit that it had Dr. Siddiqui when two weeks ago in a press conference British journalist Yvonne Ridley demanded that the US hand over Prisoner 650, whom she dubbed The Grey Lady of Bagram. Yvonne Ridley quoted Elaine Whitfield Sharp, A human rights advocate and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's lawyer: "We believe Aafia has been in custody ever since she disappeared and we're not willing to believe that the discovery of Aafia in Afghanistan is coincidence."

Teeth Maestro writes:

"Ms Ridley, who went to Pakistan to appeal for help, said the case came to her attention when she read the book, The Enemy Combatant, by a former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg. After being seized in February 2002 in Islamabad, Mr. Begg was held in detention centres in Kandahar and Bagram for about a year before he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. He recounted his experiences in the book after his release in 2005. Mr. Imran Khan, the leader of Justice Party (T.I) suspects that prisoner 650 is Dr. Afia Siddiqui and USA and Pakistani authorities are hiding facts of 'Prisoner 650'."

Three months prior to her kidnapping on March 30, 2003 she divorced her husband, Dr. Amjad Ali, a US based anesthesiologist. In May 2003, Mazhar Abbas wrote for Newsline:

"In yet another twist, her husband Amjad Khan, whom Afia divorced three months before her disappearance, is also apparently under suspicion*. According to Ismat Siddiqui, Amjad had wanted his eldest son to go to a madrassa, while Afia wanted her children to get an "English education." Mrs. Siddiqui hinted that her former son-in-law was wanted by the FBI, but was not sure in what connection. Amjad Khan has no political background nor is he affiliated with any group, but his staunch Islamic beliefs may have motivated him to back or support Islamic extremist groups. According to Mrs. Siddiqui, he used to call his wife and mother-in-law "American agents." [* Dr. Siddiqui’s husband allegedly purchased night-vision goggles and body armour on the internet.]

In a news report filed Aug. 5 from New York City, Khalid Hasan writes: "According to a FBI announcement, officers of the Ghazni province Afghanistan National Police arrested Siddiqui when they searched her handbag and found numerous documents describing the creation of explosives, excerpts from the Anarchist’s Arsenal, and descriptions of various US landmarks. It says that on July 18, a party of US personnel, including two FBI special agents, a US Army warrant officer, a US Army captain, and US military interpreters, arrived at the Afghan facility where Siddiqui was being held."

The kidnapping, detention, and allegations of rape and torture of this frail woman, her disappearance from Karachi in 2003, her reappearance in NYC Tuesday under intense public scrutiny, the "ridiculous" statements put out by FBI, all led to a travesty of justice for this woman.

If there was a fair trial, the truth would come out.

And while the truth would emerge, it is too far fetched to speculate that all the participants — the Agencies in Pakistan, the Afghan Agencies, the FBI and US forces and the Bush Administration official involved — will face the music they should if found guilty.

The Hague, anyone?

Book Review: Qissat: Short Stories by Palestinian Women

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:18:46 EDT

I tried to approach this collection of short stories with an open mind, but I can’t say I fully succeeded. How could I ignore the various images I had in my mind, images accumulated over the years, images of Palestinian children throwing stones at soldiers during the intifada, images of check points, barriers and the like?

Qissat, a collection of short stories by Palestinian women edited by Jo Glanville, did not do away with those images. However, it did not accentuate or bolster them. Instead, it gave me a picture of Palestinian people that showed them in their human forms. I could see them argue, quarrel and fight each other, shout, cheat and love. This is not to say that the occupation is ignored. It is not, it is always in the background, always affecting people’s lives in more ways than one.

The stories that form this collection are set in various locales. Most are based in the occupied territories, but there are stories set in Kuwait during Saddam’s invasion, in Lebanon during the civil war and in Arab Jerusalem. There are a few which are narrated by children or teenagers.

Selma Debbagh’s ‘Me (Bitch) and Bustanji’ is about a (Palestinian) teenager’s life in Kuwait. A foreigner living among many thousands of other foreigners, the narrator is dying of boredom until Saddam’s 1991 invasion. The narrator calls herself a ‘bitch’ as a reaction to the way the average Kuwaiti male looks at her.

After the invasion, the teenager and her father flee Kuwait, crossing checkpoints set up by Saddam’s soldiers that are no different from the Israeli checkpoints in Palestine. It doesn’t ease matters when Palestinians, perceived to be pro-Saddam, are targeted by Kuwaitis after Saddam’s army is driven out of Kuwait.

In Basima Takkouri’s ‘Tales from the Azzinar Quarter,’ the children are constantly at war with each other. These stories are not unlike the feel-good stories of children playing war-games one reads in Readers Digest until they talk of an entire village taking up positions behind a boulder to watch a Purim carnival. At once, I conjured up images of villagers in an isolated West Bank village watching a bunch of relatively well-off settlers celebrate Purim. After the event, the children continue with their war games.

Liana Badr’s ‘Other Cities’ is the story of a woman who makes a nerve-wracking trip from Hebron to Ramallah. It is not an essential trip and Umm Hasan, the wife of a poor labourer, is only after some shopping and leisure in Ramallah. The journey is not nerve-wracking because of the Israeli check-points, but mainly because Umm Hasan is traveling on a fake ID. At Ramallah, Umm Hasan runs out of money faster than she expected and is forced to return earlier than she had planned. On her return, their vehicle is held up at a checkpoint for a longer-then usual period of time. The Israeli soldiers don’t really care when Umm Hasan’s baby starts bawling until she walks out and confronts them. Does Umm Hasan make it back? Read this beautiful story and find out.

Nuha Samara’s ‘The Tables Outlived Amin’ is set in Lebanon during the civil war. The idealist narrator’s best friend is a militia fighter who gets killed. The narrator cannot stomach the tragedy and he loses his pacifism with deadly consequences.

Laila Al-Atrash's story, "The Letter", is narrated by a teenage letter-writer and deals with a situation when a pretty woman (whom the narrator admires) runs off with a taxi driver. In patriarchal Palestinian society, the cuckolded husband is derided as a weakling for not killing his wife and avenging his honour. The letter writer has helped the pretty woman correspond with her paramour. Towards the end, one sees the teenage narrator showing mixed emotions. He is scared of being labeled an accomplice to the infidelity and also feels sorry for the woman. Read this story if you want to find out which emotion dominates.

"A Thread Snaps", by Huzama Habayeb, is set in a Palestinian refugee camp. The protagonist spends all her time doing household chores, but is slowly aware of her bodily desires. The story uses symbolism in a big way. Shoes and slippers are symbols of repression, but the protagonist uses them as a means to escape and meet the man she pines away for. Habayeb's story was first published in a journal and was banned in Jordan. Whoever said Israelis are Palestinians biggest enemies was so obviously wrong!

The most touching story for me was Donia El Amad Ismaeel’s ‘Dates and Bitter Coffee.’ After a Palestinian youth is induced to carry out a suicide mission, his group organises festivities at his home to celebrate his martyrdom. All those who attend are given dates and black coffee, including the parents of the youth. The total lack of control which the parents have over the whole affair is brought home to the reader by this story.

For me, one very striking feature of these stories was that even when Palestinian poverty is described, it is nowhere comparable to the sort of poverty one sees in India. A poor man or woman is one who cannot afford to shop or travel or eat meat. There is no mention of starvation or of children dying of hunger. I don’t mean to belittle Palestinian suffering, but more than anything else, these stories brought to me the depth of poverty in India.

US Allows Pakistan Aid To Be Used For Fighter Upgrades

Ashish — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:31:05 EDT

For the last several years, there has been an ongoing political discussion about whether the United States is following the correct policies with regard to getting rid of terrorism emanating from the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, rated by many as the most likely place to generate the next big terrorist attack in the Western World. Part of that discussion is whether the United States has relied too much on Pakistan, and not pushed it hard enough to get rid of the entire support structure for terrorism in the tribal border regions. Implicit in this discussion is that Pakistan is not really doing all it can to get rid of terrorism in the region, to take on the vast support for the Taleban and terrorist elements in the wild ungoverned regions. Now, Pakistan has always claimed that this was a difficult task, that these regions have historically had a reputation for resisting any attempts to enforce a central governance; and that periodic pushes by the Army and border guards have only met fierce resistance and let to further embittering of the population in these regions, thus leading to a further support for the so-called resistance fighters.

At some point it is difficult to blame only Pakistan for this. The US has had a huge amount of analysis that claims that there is a lack of governance, civil reconstruction, and enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan. What was required that there be a push to strengthen the regional paramilitary forces, combined with an active and huge construction program in these regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is when the affected population see only a military push, and the same old bad conditions with no scope for improvement that they tend to move further towards the extremist position. And in Pakistan, the Bush Administration seems to have had a blinkered vision with taking the actions of President Musharraf at face value, not applying the pressure that might have made things much better. For example, there has never been much pressure to improve the condition and training of the regional paramilitary force that might be able to help turn the tide.

All this came to my mind when I read this news report:

The United States plans to shift about $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counterterrorism programs to upgrading the nation's aging F-16 fighter jets. The new government is facing "a terrible financial crisis with food and fuel problems," the official said, and the Pakistani government "would rather tell its public they are spending their money on food and fuel," so it asked the United States to pay for the F-16 upgrades from the U.S. aid fund. Last year, Congress mandated that $300 million in aid to Pakistan go toward fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, partly by beefing up law enforcement and developing tribal areas of the country that are hostile to the United States.

Skeptical lawmakers worry that the F-16 upgrades will divert funding from crucial counterterrorism programs and could be more about helping Pakistan competing with its rival, India, than fighting terror. Nita Lowey, chairwoman of a House subcommittee on foreign operations, said the request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reprogram the funding "raises serious concerns." Lowey is asking for more information before signing off on the change. "Congress provided these funds specifically for counterterrorism and law enforcement activities," Lowey said in a written statement.

This is about as short-sighted as can be. It is of critical importance that funds be spent on improving the lot of the tribal areas and improve the force that works over there. Instead, if these funds are used for improving F-16's, machines that are hardly of much use in anti-terrorism except when a force needs the support in a head-on fight with the terrorist, not something that is typically seen in the border regions.

Book Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:00:23 EDT

This monologue of a novel traces the journey of an upper class Pakistani-Punjabi youth from Lahore to Manhattan – and back. Changez, the protagonist, wins a scholarship to Princeton, lands a dream job at Underwood Samson, a very reputed valuation firm, dates Erica, a trophy WASP girl, rubs shoulders with the best of America, identifies with New York, and then gives it all up and returns to Pakistan.

Why does he do that? Because Changez realizes that he is a mercenary, not unlike the Janissary soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, trained from childhood to fight for the Sultan, even against their own homelands. Changez’s revolt starts after 9/11. When the World Trade Center towers fall, Changez is in Manila on work. Until then, Changez has nothing but admiration for Princeton, Samson Underwood and America in general. But when the twin towers fall, Changez is surprisingly happy. It takes him a bit of time to sort out his feelings, but soon he realizes that he identifies more with Pakistan and Muslims than with Americans or even New Yorkers. The antagonism towards Muslims post 9/11, America’s unwillingness to shield Pakistan when India threatens to invade Pakistan (in retaliation for terrorists attacking the Indian parliament) makes it easy for him to make the journey back to his roots.

The narration, addressed to a visiting American in a Lahori restaurant, is almost lyrical at times and is brilliant. Changez the protagonist does not make any attempt to understand the other side’s point of view. Not once does Changez find any fault with the Taliban or with Pakistani society, which is hardly egalitarian. While constantly blaming the US for not standing by Pakistan when threatened by India, the author does not for a moment pause to wonder whether Pakistan invited some of the trouble on itself by training the terrorists who attacked the Indian parliament. Until 9/11, Changez’s values are solidly rooted in the can-do liberal spirit of New York. But after the attack, he quickly slides into feudal values. Changez’s people have been attacked and he will have nothing more to do with the attackers. By staying on in New York and working for Samson Underwood, he will be helping America continue its attack on Afghanistan. So, even though he needs to hold on to his job very badly (so that he can help his once elite family stay on its feet), he quits his job and goes back to Lahore.

If Changez had lived in the US all his life instead of having moved there after finishing school in Pakistan, would he have behaved as he did? This is one of the numerous questions left unanswered. However, these gaps do not do the novel any harm as it unashamedly projects a single point of view in beautiful prose.

This novel is Mohsin Hamid’s second book. The first one, Moth Smoke was published eight years ago and won various awards and prizes, including the Betty Trask Award. The Reluctant Fundamentalist was (quite deservedly) shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 2007. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand how a human being may react when his collective ego is hurt or his nationalistic feelings are bruised.