|
| August 09, 2008 | Saturday | Sha’aban 6, 1429 |
Dr Aafia’s strange case
For poorer and poorer
OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press
Manmohan Singh’s legacy
Not a ‘supermum’
MANMOHAN Singh made his debut in the front line of Indian politics in the 1990s claiming the discovery of an alternative to Nehru’s socio-economic model, though it had more to do with the demise of the Soviet Union.
So the shine has come off Supermum in the UK. According to a report from Cambridge University published this week, more Britons now think that a woman who works does so at the expense of her family: enthusiasm for equality in the workplace peaked in the 90s and is now waning.
WHILE the country is distracted by the politics of Islamabad, elsewhere there are reminders that the crisis of militancy continues to boil over. The operation against militants in Swat and Bajaur agency, however, is a positive sign that for once the government appears to be taking the threat of militancy seriously. A number of senior Tehrik-i-Taliban commanders have been killed in recent days, including Ali Bakht and Hussain Ali alias Tor Mullah, and the militants are clearly on the back foot. The simultaneous operation in Bajaur and Swat is also an indication that a more concerted counter-insurgency strategy has been adopted. (The links between Maulana Faqir Mohammad’s Bajaur militants and Maulana Fazlullah’s Swat militants are long-standing.) The new, more aggressive strategy is also perhaps an outcome of the high-level meeting chaired by Prime Minister Gilani last month in which it was recognised that the situation in the tribal areas and northern Pakistan is not an ordinary law and order situation but a serious insurgency.
Meanwhile, those blindly calling for peace with militants on any terms should be wondering about the status of the 16-point Swat peace agreement signed between the NWFP government and Maulana Fazlullah’s Tanzim Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM) on May 21. Publicly the government has not revoked the peace deal but it is understood to be on the backburner as the militants showed little inclination to abide by its terms. According to the deal the militants were required to, inter alia, not attack security forces and government installations, stop opposing the education of girls and not interfere in the immunisation of children. None of this has happened, and the militants’ complaints that the government has not lived up to its side of the bargain by imposing Shariat in the area and releasing militants are only a weak excuse.
Most important, however, is what happens next. Significantly the ANP-led government in the NWFP seems to have realised the futility of peace deals with militants on the ascendant and has itself requested the latest operation in Swat. The operation is a recognition that peace can only work on the government’s terms. But, worryingly, the goals of the operation currently underway in Swat and Bajaur are not clear. Without setting clear parameters and objectives, it will be difficult to assess when success has been achieved. And with Ramazan nearing there may be political pressure to suspend military action by the state — even though the militants have in the past not shown any respect for the sanctity of Ramazan by suspending attacks and suicide bombings during the holy month. Moreover, the political crisis gripping Islamabad may have unpredictable consequences of its own. The contrast between a corps commanders conference discussing internal security and politicians fixated on the president’s fate could not be more stark. The politicians must not allow one crisis to affect the other.
THE Foreign Office’s claim that it does not have full details regarding the case of US terror suspect Dr Aafia Siddiqui has deepened the mystery of her disappearance five years ago and her recent emergence in US custody. Dr Siddiqui’s family maintains that she disappeared, along with her three children, en route to the airport in Karachi in 2003. The American version is that she was arrested in Afghanistan last month for possessing documents on making explosives and that she tried to attack US officials, leading to retaliatory fire that left her wounded. There have also been media reports that she was detained at the notorious Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Strangely, so far the charges brought against her in a US court of law, where she appeared the other day, pertain to her alleged assault on the American officials, rather than to the militant links that she allegedly harboured. Given the murky depths of the US and Pakistan intelligence network, the truth might never be known. One can only hope that Dr Siddiqui is given proper medical treatment, a fair trial and consular access — and that Pakistani officialdom is not half-hearted about insisting on the latter. It is equally important for the whereabouts of her three children to be ascertained so that they can be reunited with their relatives and she is spared further anguish.
Dr Siddiqui’s case is a grim reminder of the extreme violation of human rights that are being committed in the name of the war on terror. Both Pakistan and the US have disastrous records when it comes to the detention of terror suspects. Hellish stories of prisoner treatment by American soldiers and officials have emerged from detention centres like Guantanamo and Bagram. Thousands have been whisked away secretly, held without being formally charged, and tortured. Their suffering and that of their families has been excruciating. Pakistan’s record is hardly better. Hundreds — whether suspected religious extremists or secular Baloch and Sindhi nationalists — have vanished without a trace. Some who have returned after months of active campaigning by their relatives and activists have spoken of physical and emotional abuse. Is it surprising that such treatment should fuel sympathy for the militants, especially when it is perceived, as in the case of Dr Siddiqui, that women and children too are at the receiving end? No doubt the arrest of suspected terrorists is inevitable in the global fight against religious militancy. But in seeking the facts, the prisoners’ innocence must be presumed until their guilt is established, and fair and transparent legal procedures should be followed to avoid negative repercussions.
BREAKING the brutal wheel of poverty is the most formidable of tasks. Despite Asia’s roaring ahead with tigers such as China and India, recent Unicef statements tell darker tales: in 2006, 40 per cent of the world’s children dying before turning five hailed from Asia Pacific. Meanwhile, State of Asia Pacific’s Children 2008 report was equally ominous as it feared that “the divide between rich and poor is rising at a troubling rate within sub-regions of Asia Pacific”. But some consolation can come from the knowledge that since 1990, the UN’s children’s agency sees a decrease of 34 per cent in the under-five mortality rate in the region.
The picture is murkier on home turf. Pakistan stands at 137 in the UN’s Human Development Index and over 35 per cent of its population lives below the poverty line. Meanwhile local statistics show that 49 million Pakistanis live below subsistence level — over 73 per cent of our people earn under $2 per day — and eight children are born per minute. The dismal human condition is a result of not recognising that where changes in health, education and environment are mandatory, opportunities to pursue autonomous lifestyles are certain to defeat the poverty trap. This makes the ‘poverty’ of such prospects the true culprit. The provision of large scale technical and vocational training and education should be treated with urgency as it promises significant relief from destitution. Narrations and numbers of lost lives produce isolated remedies that are often not accessible to the majority therefore it is undeniably crucial for the government to funnel funds into human capital — beginning with health and education to employment, confronting cultural mores to bring women into the work force, establish open markets and cottage industries, implement social security and ensure that trade policies address development and deprivation. Poverty makes society brutal — reason enough to ensure that Unicef’s target of reducing infant mortality from 59 deaths per 1000 births to 30 by 2015 becomes real.
A wise decision
Daily News
THE step taken by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to order a blackout of all pornographic material from internet websites [will] no doubt … come in for high praise from all right-thinking persons who have the country’s future at heart.
This is because [of] the harm caused to our younger generation who are the country’s future. Today … [the] youth in their teens are glued to their computers with [a] morbid obsession…. It is a timely move by the government therefore to stop this corruption of young minds…. This is also a reflection of the permissive culture that has enveloped our society.
Time was when sex was a taboo subject in Lankan society…. Times have changed since those hush conservative days … [that have now] given way to unbridled liberalism heralding a laissez-faire ethos. Today there is [an] all-round decline in the moral ethos of a once staid society which has been caught up in the vortex of unbridled consumerism and permissive living.
Values that were held sacrosanct in the past are thrown overboard and open display of vulgarity is the norm…. There is no denying that while information technology [has] brought much benefits … it has also contributed to the degeneration of young minds.
Today computers have become common place in middle-class homes where the young are left to their own devices…. [T]here is a tendency … among some parents to turn a blind eye to some of the goings on of their offspring…. [and] some of our adults too are not averse to browsing through the x-rated stuff surreptitiously….
As a result today we have a society which is gradually becoming perverted due to free access to tools of vice. If this is allowed to continue unchecked there is no knowing where the country will end up….
The banning of Internet porn in itself will not mean an end to evil…. In an open society it is difficult to enforce taboos. But the government can exercise supervision and restraint to ensure things don’t go too far posing a [danger] to our cultural norms….
Not only internet porn, today there [is] pornographic literature which is freely available in wayside book shops in the city which are only too well known.
Some time ago the government banned the display of hoardings at cinema halls that depict lewd scenes. This [was] a commendable move that won for it the plaudits of leading clergy.
Similarly the IGP should order raids on book/DVD shops selling porn literature, magazines and videos. No stone should be left unturned to save [our] youth from corrupt influences. — (Aug 8)
What he ‘discovered’ was a softer version of US capitalism that became harder over time.
His model caught on, and the rightist BJP adopted it willingly. Not surprisingly, however, the BJP later admitted that the model didn’t make India ‘shine’. Yet Singh yearns to pass on this model as his legacy even though it won’t make India ‘shine’. That’s what worries the Indians who nearly overthrew Singh’s government a fortnight ago.
Interestingly enough, the cornerstone of Singh’s model is the same as that of Nehru’s, i.e. self-sufficiency. This time round though the focus is on energy, and to that end Singh went overboard by indulging in highly questionable political manoeuvring that tarnished India’s democratic image.
The hurry for executing a nuclear deal with the US at the expense of risking his regime created doubts about the deal. Was Singh worried that with him out of the PM’s office (highly likely) after the scheduled May 2009 elections, the deal may be thrown off the table? Or was he told by President Bush that after his exit from the White House the deal may be set aside?
The worries of both these leaders suggest something fishy about the deal because neither wants the next regime to get a chance to examine it. Hopefully the deal won’t give rise to any questions about its soundness or the integrity of those who pursued it relentlessly, but some deals executed in this fashion did eventually reveal criminal intent.
In contrast to its foot-dragging on allowing NPT signatory Iran to use its nuclear facilities for power generation, the IAEA also hurriedly approved an inspection regime for nuclear power stations to be set up in India although New Delhi, with a record of nuclear tests, is yet to sign the NPT.
Interestingly, Austria, Brazil, Japan, Ireland and Switzerland also softened their initial dissent against the IAEA move.But the way the Congress (in fact, Singh) put India’s largely principled democratic traditions to shame for the sake of executing the nuclear deal was shocking. Never before in parliament had MPs waved bundles of cash given to them as a bribe to cast a confidence vote in favour of Singh’s government after its allies rebelled against the controversial deal.
The many MPs who voted against Singh’s government (just 19 short of the number needed to overthrow the regime) were worried about binding India to a relationship with the US that will weaken India’s loyalty to the Asian region. With India and China pitted against each other yet again, who other than the US stands to benefit, asked the dissenting MPs.
The India-US nuclear deal is an attempt to once again divide Asia that was showing signs of unity after the rapprochement between India and Pakistan, the two Koreas, China and Taiwan, and China and Japan. America’s Democratic Party, which may win the coming presidential election, will find this divisive design too troublesome for a war-weary US.
While a neocon-driven Bush regime would love to leave behind a legacy of divisive issues for the world to keep fighting over, one wonders why Singh wants to join its ranks. Can’t he see that Asia’s poor need a united Asia for themselves as well as for doing good for the poverty-stricken humanity in Africa, Middle East and Latin America?
The way Singh stalled India’s joining the IPI venture reflects the country’s priorities as does its lukewarm attitude to promoting trade within Saarc. What Saarc has achieved in the past 35 years in this context is unworthy of mention. Indian businesses (with government backing) are interested far more in investing in Europe and the US.
Even if for reasons he knows best he believes that India must depend on dangerous nuclear technology, why didn’t he opt for Japan as its supplier, or a European country without imperial ambitions? Again, for reasons he knows best, he is plunging India into a quagmire that becomes the destiny of US allies. His failure to see how Pakistan suffered as a US ally manifests total blindness.
Unless Singh is a visionary who can forecast miracles, he can’t dream of India dominating the globe. Going by the values that Indians (and Pakistanis who have shared those values for centuries) cherish, besides being ignoble this can’t be an Indian ambition. Worse still, pursuing it implies joining hands with the devil.
The recent attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was aimed at convincing the doubting Indians to join hands with the devil although Indian troops joining Nato in Afghanistan would be a bad move. It would send the wrong signals to the Central Asian and Middle Eastern states because it isn’t difficult to see whose interests will be served by such a move.
Whatever the outcome, Singh has set a new tradition in Indian politics. Despite being the member of a minority community, he drove the entire Congress Party off the track and used the party’s (rather government’s) muscle to bribe MPs into voting for a regime that is forcing India into a relationship that will cost its people heavily.
Both Singh and Bush are deluding themselves. India is not a democracy where popular will can be throttled for long. The nuclear deal may be advertised by the Republican Party as a grand success to induce Americans into voting for McCain. But even if he makes it to the White House, the new regime in India after May 2009 could still quash the deal to preserve India’s coveted place in Asia.
Like many other developing countries that went headlong for copying the US free enterprise system, the Indian economy too is drifting. Investors were wrong to count on a 9-10 per cent annual growth, which could be sustained only with rapid economic reform that India’s mutinous democracy may no longer permit — a legacy that Singh won’t feel proud of.
Leaving aside the fact that all this is based on a six-year-old survey, and also that record numbers of women in the UK are now returning to work, who is or was Supermum anyway? I am a woman who works, and who also has a small child. Ninety per cent of the time these two things hang together, and I am in no way super — never have been, never will be.
I meant to wear high heels yesterday, but never changed out of my cycling shoes. My one-year-old daughter went to nursery in her pyjamas, and I couldn’t get her to stand still long enough to brush her hair. But these are details: big picture, it rubs along.
Of all the many myths about motherhood, the one that says you can’t hang on to a demanding job is the worst. I remember worrying in the early months of pregnancy that, some time around the six-month mark, my mind would go to mush and all judgment desert me — because everyone said it would. And it didn’t happen. You can be a mother and not lose your mind. You can also be a mother and work, and still not lose your mind.
I recently heard a senior executive in the City of London, the UK’s financial hub, shrug off the fact that there were only two female company chairs in top 100 British companies. She said that some women (not her) were sensible and stayed at home to look after their kids; others (like her) were a bit crazier and pursued eat-you-alive jobs and didn’t have children.
It was a sad opposition, and one that was very revealing about the City’s all-or-nothing male work ethic. Nearly all the women I know who didn’t go back to work after having children worked in the City — as lawyers, traders, bankers. You could say they made their own choices; I would argue that their arms were powerfully forced.
What does nobody tell you about being a working mother? That it can be a lot of fun. Life feels incredibly full, and often in a good way. So don’t count yourself out because everyone tells you it can’t be done and something will have to give, and that something will be you. And most importantly, don’t count yourself out because without you in the workplace the situation won’t keep improving — which it is.
As a colleague told me after I returned from maternity leave, yes, there will be days when you have to make big decisions after being up all night — but you have had hangovers before, and lived, and on those days when it does work, being a working mother is the best thing in the world. It’s what the suffragettes chained themselves to the railings for. Let’s not quit while we’re ahead.
— The Guardian, London
