Category: Uncategorized

INSAANIYAT and the Committee For The Release of Binayak Sen

Invite you to:

“ISN’T IT TIME TO END THIS INJUSTICE? FREE BINAYAK SEN!”

a solidarity meeting with short contributions from

film makers Anand Patwardhan & Sudhir Mishra,

Binayak’s friends Drs Sanjay Nagral & Santosh Karmarkar, and Pranita Sen (Binayak’s daughter)

The discussion will be followed by a screening of

Anjaam, a documentary film by Ajay T. G., and a short clip by Anand Patwardhan on the ongoing satyagraha

No political prisoner in independent India has evoked so much support for his release nationally and internationally as Dr Binayak Sen. Dr Sen, held in prison since May 2007, campaigned fearlessly against the Salwa Judum, appealing to the government to terminate its policy of military suppression of the people of Chhattisgarh. He dared to expose the truth about a veritable civil war that has involved the rampant grabbing of land and forest and violent suppression of local adivasi opposition. In response, the state government has gone all out to present Dr Sen’s civil rights activities as a threat to national security. It has trumped up charges against him and continues to make a mockery of the rule of law. To silence the voice of Dr Sen is an attempt to silence all political dissent in society. No wonder the campaign for his release has received such widespread support throughout the world. Come and express your solidarity with him!

Venue: Conference Room, The Press Club, Mumbai

Time and date : 6.30 p.m. Thursday 2nd April 2009

(http://www.sacw.net/)

BRUSSELS – The head of the European Union slammed President Barack Obama’s plan to spend nearly $2 trillion to push the US economy out of recession as “the road to hell” that EU governments must avoid.
The blunt comments by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek to the European Parliament on Wednesday highlighted simmering European differences with Washington ahead of a key summit next week on fixing the world economy.
It was the strongest pushback yet from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from US criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.
Shocked by the outburst, other European politicians went into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the United States. The leaders of EU’s major nations — France, Britain and Germany, among others — largely ignored Topolanek and his remarks.
Obama pays his first official visit to Europe next week, aiming to thrash out reforms to the global financial system with the Group of 20 nations and call on NATO allies to commit more troops to the US war in Afghanistan.
Europeans leaders hope the new US administration will agree with them on tightening oversight over the global financial system — which they see as crucial to fixing the global economy.
Instead, the United States is focusing its efforts on economic stimulus and plans to spend heavily to try and lift itself out of recession with a $787 billion plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.
To encourage banks to lend again, the US government will also pump $1 trillion into the financial system by buying up treasury bonds and mortgage securities in an effort to clear some of the “toxic assets” — devalued and untradeable assets — from banks’ balance sheets.
Obama insisted Tuesday that his massive budget proposal will put the ailing US economy back on its feet. “This budget is inseparable from this recovery,” he said, “because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.”
But Topolanek took aim at Washington’s deficit spending.
“All of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell,” Topolanek said. “We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way.”
“Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market,” Topolanek said.

Read More

23-25 March 2009
Legend Villas, Metro Manila, Philippines
When all the trees have been cut down,
When all the animals have been hunted,
When all the waters are polluted,
When all the air is unsafe to breathe,
Only then will you discover you cannot eat money.- Cree prophecy
Treat the earth well, it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. – Chief Seattle
We, Indigenous Peoples and support organisations from 35 countries around the world and representing many more Indigenous Nations, have gathered together in this International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples. As Indigenous Peoples we have a unique cosmic vision, diversity of languages, histories, spirituality and territories which have existed since time immemorial. However, we now find ourselves within the borders of States which have established norms and laws according to their interests. On account of this situation, we have suffered disproportionately from the impact of extractive industries as our territories are home to over sixty percent of the world’s most coveted mineral resources. This has resulted in many problems to our peoples, as it has attracted extractive industry corporations to unsustainably exploit our lands, territories and recourses without our consent. This exploitation has led to the worst forms of, environmental degradation, human rights violations and land dispossession and is contributing to climate change.
Environmental degradation includes, but is not limited to, erosion of our fragile biological diversity, pollution of land, air and water, and destruction of whole ecological systems. Extractive industries and particularly those relating to fossil fuels, also have significantly contributed to the climate change that is destroying our Mother Earth.
Human rights violations range from violations of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination (which includes the right to determine one’s own economic, social and cultural development), rights to lands, territories and resources, as well as displacement and violations of the most basic civil and political rights, such as arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, enforced disappearances and killings.
Our cultural diversity has also been grossly eroded because of the destruction of biological diversity and lands, territories and resources by extractive industries upon which our cultures are based. This erosion of our cultural diversity is also a result of the imposition of colonial systems and the settlement of non-Indigenous Peoples. Corporations enter into our territories with the promise of “development” through employment, infrastructure building and payment of governmental taxes. Despite these promises, there still exists a situation of dire poverty in those living close to extractive industry projects. This situation has fuelled conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and the State and extractive industry corporations, as well as causing divisions within the Indigenous communities themselves.
On 6-16 May 1996, a first “Mining and Indigenous Peoples Conference” held in London produced the “Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Mining”. This declaration highlighted conflicts occurring between our communities and corporations. It reiterated that Indigenous Peoples need to be the decision makers on whether or not mining should take place in their communities and under what conditions this may occur.
Almost 13 years have passed since this conference was held, but overall our situation on the ground has not noticeably improved. The opportunities and threats since the 1996 conference include:-
• the welcome adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007;
• new UN mechanisms for the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• a greater interest on the relationship between human rights and corporate behaviour, including the work of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises;
• the recognition of corporate social responsibility and a claimed willingness on behalf of corporations to negotiate agreements directly with Indigenous Peoples, although so far much of this seems to be more on paper or promises, as opposed to practice;
• the climate change crisis, coming about mainly because of dependence of the current economy on fossil fuels. These resources are mined on our land and many of our peoples are disproportionately affected by such activities; and
• the global financial crisis, caused by the unregulated liberalisation of finance.
Based on the foregoing observations, we assert that:-
• Indigenous Peoples are rights holders, with an inextricable link to their lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired, and should not be treated merely as stakeholders. We have a right to self-determination of our political condition and to freely choose our economic, social and cultural development (UN DRIP Article 3);
• our rights are inherent and indivisible and seek recognition not only of our full social, cultural and economic rights but also our civil and political rights;
• all doctrines, policies and practices based on the presumed superiority of colonial peoples and worldviews should be condemned;
• we contribute to the diversity and richness of the cultures that make up humanity and believe that we can teach valuable lessons to the rest of the world through our values and world views in how to tread gently upon the earth;
• destruction of Indigenous Peoples sacred sites and areas of spiritual and cultural significance by extractive industries must stop;
• the vulnerable position of women and youth with regard to the impacts of extractive industries, including loss of livelihoods, violence and impacts on health and well-being must be recognized;
• the development model premised on unsustainable consumption and production, and corporate globalisation, which fuels the entry of extractive industries onto our lands must be rejected;
• respect for the preservation of life on earth, and our right to food, must have precedence over extractive industry projects;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over our right to land – regardless of whether our rights are based on legal recognition or usufruct rights;
• there must be an immediate end to the criminalization of community resistance, the violent intimidation, harassment, and murder, of our leaders, activists and lawyers who are working for the defence of our lands and lives;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over the human right to water. Water is especially important in our lives and is sacred to us. In addition the major reserves of fresh water are found in our territories;
• the right to water is a fundamental human right which must be recognized. We therefore condemn the conduct of the World Water Council which demotes the right to water a “basic need”;
• negotiations about climate change should not be conducted by States and international organisations unless there is full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, mitigation and adaptation measures related to climate change must be designed and implemented in keeping with Indigenous Peoples’ rights;
• the failure to hold extractive industries to account in host and home countries must be addressed and mechanisms for accountability and enforcement must be created immediately; and
• implementation of interstate infrastructure initiatives – such as the South American Regional Infrastructure Initiative (IIRSA) – that lead to mega-projects on our lands and territories without first obtaining our free prior and informed consent (FPIC) are destructive to our cultures and survival, and a denial of our right to self determination.
Given the above, in order to ensure respect for the rights recognized in the UN DRIP, as well as the ecological integrity of our planet and communities, we call for:-
• a stop to the plunder of our lands, territories and resources;
• a moratorium on further extractive industry projects that affect or threaten our communities, until structures and processes are in place that ensure respect for our human rights. The determination of when this has been realized can only be made by those communities whose lives, livelihoods and environment are affected by those projects;
• due process and justice to victims of human rights violations who are resisting extractive industries;
• review of all on-going projects that are approved without respect for our FPIC and self determination rights; and
• compensation and restitution for damages inflicted upon our lands, territories and resources, and the rehabilitation of our degraded environments caused by extractive industry projects that did not obtain our FPIC.
We call on Indigenous Communities and their Supporters:-
• to actively participate in the global network of indigenous peoples on extractive industries which was established at this international conference and will be aimed at strengthening the capacities of local organization through sharing of information, education and training programmes, research and advocacy in the defence of our rights;
• to coordinate research on mining companies, processes and investment sources to empower communities, build strategic plans and ensure recognition and respect for our rights;
• to assert their right to control the authorization of projects, and where FPIC has been given, the conduct of extractive activities in indigenous lands and territories through the use of indigenous customary laws;
• to create a mechanism to compile legal precedents from relevant court decisions on Indigenous Peoples and extractive industries;
• to build relationships with non-indigenous groups concerned with the problem of extractive industries, nationally and internationally, to find common ground; and
• to establish a International Day of Action on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples.
We call on Civil Society Organisations:-
• to increase their support, and solidarity in a manner that is sensitive to the issues of Indigenous Peoples;
• especially conservation and other NGOs, not to impose themselves or their views upon us, but respect our legitimate leadership and also seek the FPIC of communities before intervening; this also applies to academics including anthropologists; and
We call on Companies:-
• to respect international standards as elaborated on in the normative framework of indigenous peoples rights, especially the minimum standards as set forth in the UN DRIP, ILO Convention 160 and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which includes in particular, the right to lands, territories and resources and attendant right to FPIC. This also applies to consultants;
• to submit to independent and credible monitoring;
• to be accountable for the environmental disasters, destruction and human rights violations as a result of their operations;
• to employ proven technology and adhere to the precautionary principle at all levels and in each project;
• to recognize the specific vulnerability of indigenous women to the negative impacts involved with extractive industries;
• to respect the traditional knowledge and intellectual property of Indigenous Peoples. This implies not appropriating the language or names of Indigenous Peoples for companies or projects;
• to ensure full transparency in all aspects of their operations, and especially to ensure affected communities have full access to information in forms and languages they can understand; and
• to conduct and implement environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments to the highest international standards ensuring independent review and participation of indigenous peoples;
We call on Investors:-
• to ensure that policies in relation to investments in indigenous territories reflect the rights articulated in the UN DRIP, and that the ethical index listings used should base their investment recommendations on third party information, as opposed solely to information from the company in which they may invest
• to ensure access to information and transparency in relation to all investments in extractive industries in indigenous territories and
• not to invest in fossil fuel related projects.
We call on States:-
• specifically those States that have not done so yet, to endorse the UN DRIP and ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) 169, and for those States who have to uphold the rights articulated therein;
• to establish, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, clear mechanisms and procedures at national levels for the implementation of international juridical instruments, specifically the UN DRIP, ILO 169 and ICERD;
• to review laws and policies on extractive industries that are detrimental to Indigenous Peoples, and ensure consistency with the UN DRIP and international instruments protecting Indigenous Peoples rights;
• to recognize and enforce the rights Indigenous Peoples to FPIC as laid out in UN DRIP, in accordance with our customary laws and traditional practices;
• to recognize and ensure the demarcation and titling of our ancestral lands;
• to recognize our customary laws and traditional mechanisms of conflict resolutions;
• to support the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to develop economic alternatives to extractive industries, in order to alleviate the poverty that creates false dependencies on extractive industries;
• to abolish hedge funds and all forms of private equity that are not transparent and well regulated, and which distort the price of minerals;
• to legislate and regulate thorough processes for independently conducted environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments, with regular monitoring during all of the phases of production and rehabilitation;
• to protect indigenous activists, human rights defenders and lawyers working on human rights issues, and where the State is the violator we demand an end to the violations against our peoples;
• to ban particularly harmful extractive practices, including riverine tailings disposal, gas flaring, effluent discharges, submarine tailings disposal, mountain top removal and large scale open-pit mining. Given the risks posed by climate change, serious re-consideration should be given to the construction of tailings containment in low-lying coastal areas and in areas exposed to increasingly severe weather events and
• to ensure that their development cooperation policies and programmes respect Indigenous Peoples rights’, in particular in the context of extractive industries and our right to FPIC.
We call on the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII):-
• to conduct a study, with the participation of Indigenous Peoples, on the impact of extractive industries on them, by consolidating all recommendations, observations and decisions of UN Treaty and Charter bodies pertaining to the subject and identifying the measures taken by States to adhere with these;
• to elaborate mechanisms and procedures for States to implement the minimum standards set forth in the UN DRIP, including in particular the right to FPIC and to call on other UN procedures, mechanisms, agencies and bodies and other Multilatteral bodies to do likewise;
• to establish procedures which provide indigenous communities with the opportunity to request the relevant UN agencies to assist them in the monitoring and provision of independent information in FPIC processes;
• to support the proposal that there be an international Mother Earth Day, and encourage all UN agencies, mechanisms and bodies to do likewise;
• to demand the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in all discussions and decisions pertaining to international agreements and conventions that address issues of biological diversity and or climate change;
• to emphasize the need to address the direct and indirect impacts of extractive industry on climate change, including those associated with mitigation measures;
• to emphasize the need for the widespread diffusion of information and critical debate between Indigenous Peoples about the ongoing mechanisms and negotiations relative to carbon trading and the carbon market;
• to request that the Special Representative to the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other businesses, John Ruggie, to actively engage with impacted indigenous community through workshops addressing indigenous peoples rights and the extractive industry, and together with other UN procedures, bodies and agencies, promote the enactment of legislation in home states of transnational corporations that provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to their activities;
• to facilitate dialogue between indigenous peoples, investors, fund managers, extractive industry corporations and consultants;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group and other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) update its operational directives and safeguard policies pertaining to Indigenous Peoples to include the right to FPIC, as required under the UN DRIP. Specifically to recommend to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that it include the requirement to obtain FPIC in its safeguard policies on Indigenous Peoples environment and resettlement;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group and other IFIs immediately stop funding, promoting and supporting fossil fuel related projects and large scale mining and hydro electric projects on indigenous lands, and provide a set timeline for ending of all such funding;
• to recommend that the World Bank and other IFIs stop influencing the design of national policies in developing countries in a manner that promotes the interests of transnational mining corporations over the rights of indigenous communities;
• to recommend that the World Health Organisation consider conducting a study on the impact of cyanide and heavy metals on the right to health of communities impacted by mining;
• to address the urgent need for the genuine recognition of indigenous religious, cultural and spiritual rights, including their sacred sites in the context of extractive projects and
• to recommend that all bilateral trade agreements should guarantee that indigenous peoples’ human rights are respected.

(Submitted by Michelle Cook and Cathal Doyle)

Dear friends,
Here I am again with another installment of explanation of Mirza Ghalib’s verses, for your enjoyment. I am sending a link for complete explanation that includes Urdu and Gujarati script. This is probably faster and a better way.
Please hold control key and then click the link; Ghalib’s 52nd installment Kuchh na ki, apne junun-e-na-rasa ne, varna yaaN in Urdu and Gujarati script will open. Please allow ten seconds to download. This is my own work and is stored in my own server-space. It is popup and virus free.
CLICK below, Don’t miss; it is very beautiful.

http://lists.elistx.com/archives/blank/200903/docAEkP9WL3pU.doc

For those who have joined now, let me say few words about this Ghalib series.

Ghalib, his Ghazals, his poems, his genius, and his wits have always fascinated millions of Urdu lovers including myself. Those who want to read my previous work please send me an email request; I will email back my previous explanations just for asking.

This is my 52nd installment. I have received excellent response from many friends, both Urdu and non-Urdu speakers. Please know that this is my own, Asghar Vasanwala’s, work and not a forwarding of someone else’s work as some of you might have thought. Please forward this to your friends. Also, please send me your comments/complements. I will appreciate if you forward me email addresses of your Urdu/non-Urdu friends.

Here is today’s verse (She’r) & its explanation in Urdu, Gujarati, and English.

For past issues and much more please do visit my Ghalib website http://www.mirza-ghalib.org
I guarantee, you’ll enjoy

These are the 4th & 5th verses of Ghalib’s 16th Ghazal.

Verse 4
Kuchh na ki, apne junun-e-na-rasa ne, varna yaaN
My short falling love craze deprived me, otherwise here on this earth,
Zar’ra zar’ra, rookaksh-e-khursheed-e-aalam tab tha
Every particle dares the world-shining mighty sun
Kuch na ki = didn’t do any thing, kept deprived Junun-e-na-rasa = love craze that fell short in reaching the target
Zar’ra Zar’ra= every particle Rookash = Daring, Challenging Khursheed=Sun Aalam taab=world shining

Verse 2
Aaj kyoN parva nahiN, apne aseeroN ki tujhe?
Why you do not care for your love-captives, anymore?
Kal talak, tera bhi dil, mehr-o-vafa ka baab tha
Until yesterday, your heart was a fountain of care and loyalty
parva = care Aseer=captive
Mehr = kindness, vafa=loyalty baab=chapter, door, mother fountain

Meaning:
In the following verses, Ghalib complains about his under reaching love and about his beloved’s indifferent attitude.

Verse 4:- In this verse, Ghalib laments his failed love. He says my short falling love kept me from success. My short falling love craze earned me a defeat. Otherwise, in this world, a tiny valueless particle dares the world shining mighty sun. In other words because my love fell short on its target, I became inferior to even a tiny particle. Had my love succeeded or even if I had perished in love and became dust, every particle of my dust would have dared the world shining mighty sun.

Every particle has capacity to become a sun. Every particle has an urge becoming a sun. Anyone pursuing single-mindedly can become God. However, a weak person cannot achieve this stage. Upanishad mentions that a weak person cannot see his soul.

Verse 5: In this verse, Ghalib talks about the changed attitude of his beloved. He says I do not understand what has happened to you. We, who are captive and bound in love, you do not care for them, anymore. Before, you were not like this. In past, your heart was also was gushing with love and loyalty and you took good care of your captive lovers.

When our own, for whom we forfeit our souls and hearts, keep away from us and become indifferent, this verse comes to our mind.

Salam,

Asghar Vasanwala can be reached at asgharf@att.net

By Ingrid B. Mork

I watch Aljazeera a lot..
In the last episode of Inside Story, the debate was about the US, China, and economy.. One of the panelists, a guy called Max Kaiser, speaking from Paris, made a rather interesting observation. He said that those who tried to subvert US interests had US marines turn up to “sort them out,” Saddam Hussein of Iraq was invaded, captured and beheaded, then the finger started pointing in the direction of Iran, with the sanctions and the threats. I don`t think his observations were so far-fetched. There was the air strike on Syria, a cross border raid on a village in Iran, on the border with Iraq and, more recently, an air strike on a convoy in Sudan. No-one is sure who carried out that airstrike, the US or Israel, to me it`s immaterial, they have the same agenda and have no qualms about doing one another`s “dirty work.”
Now there`s talk of putting troops, whether British or American, into the Gaza Strip. Now, I`m not naive, and I doubt very much that the troops would be there for the benefit of the people of Gaza. I think it may be the gas fields off the coast of Gaza which are probably of interest to the US, the UK, Israel and Egypt. There is also some very nice real estate which is probably of interest to the Israelis, once they`re finished appropriating what they want of the West Bank. Of course, I could be wrong, could be I`m libeling decent caring people, but I doubt it.

Ingrid B. Mork lives in Norway and can be reached at ingridbm.mrk279@gmail.com

By DONNA ABU-NASR

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Before her wedding last year, Huda Batterjee went abroad to buy her bridal lingerie – she just couldn’t bear the humiliation of discussing her most intimate apparel with a man. She had little choice: there are almost no saleswomen in Saudi Arabia. Now a group of Saudi women – sick of having to deal with male sales staff when buying bras or panties, not to mention frilly negligees or thongs – have launched a campaign this week to boycott lingerie stores until they employ women.
It’s an irony of the kingdom’s strict segregation of the sexes. Only men are employed as sales staff to keep women from having to deal with male customers or work around men.
But in lingerie stores, that means men are talking to women about bras or thongs, looking them up and down to determine their cup sizes, even rubbing the underwear to show how stains can be washed out.
The result is mortifying for everyone involved – shoppers, salesmen, even the male relatives who accompany the women.
“When I buy underwear in Saudi, some salesmen say, ‘This is not the right size for you,'” said Batterjee. “You feel almost taken advantage of. Why is he looking at me in this way?”
So for her wedding trousseau, the 26-year-old went to neighboring Dubai to shop. She now lives in Virginia with her husband.
Heba al-Akki, a businesswoman who supports the boycott, said when she shops for underwear, “I go to a store, pick this, this and that and leave quickly. It’s as if I’m buying illegal stuff.”
It’s not easy on the salesmen either.
At one lingerie boutique in a Riyadh mall Wednesday, salesmen blushed when asked about their jobs. All said they back the campaign to hire female sales staff.
“Even in such open regions as the U.S. and Europe, men do not sell underwear to women,” said store manager Husam al-Mutayim, a 27-year-old Egyptian. “I don’t let any of my female relatives buy underwear from men. It’s just too embarrassing.”
Mannequins – headless in keeping with a ban on realistic depictions of women – were displayed in the shop window dressed in modest pajamas. Inside, racks held an array of colorful bras, lacy panties and sexy nighties – along with more day-to-day undergarments.
Under Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islamic law, women are required to cover themselves head-to-toe in black robes in public. But in the privacy of their own homes – and bedrooms – they can wear whatever they want, and sexy undergarments are popular.
But buying them is another story. Fitting rooms are banned in the kingdom – the idea of a woman undressing in a public place with men just outside is unthinkable. So a woman is never sure she has chosen the right size until she gets it home.
“I have bras with sizes ranging from 32 to 38 because I can’t get to try them on,” said Modie Batterjee, Huda’s sister and one of the boycott organizers.
Even male relatives get dragged into the embarrassment. Women are allowed to shop without a male relative, but husbands or brothers sometimes insist on coming along – or the women want them there – to ensure salesmen stay respectful.
Modie Batterjee recalls how her husband fled a lingerie store because he could not bear to hear her explain to a salesman that she wanted high-waisted underwear to hold in her tummy after their daughter’s birth.
The boycott was launched on Tuesday by about 50 women who gathered in the Red Sea port of Jiddah at the Al-Bidaya Breast-feeding Resource and Women’s Awareness Center, which is run by Modie Batterjee.
The aim is to push for implementation of a law that has been on the books since 2006 which says only female staff can be employed in women’s apparel stores.
The law has never been put into effect, partly due to hard-liners in the religious establishment who oppose employing women in mixed environments like malls, where religious police are always on the lookout to keep men and women from interacting.
Hiring women would also deprive men of jobs in a country where more than 10 percent of men are unemployed.
“We are raising awareness and calling for the implementation of the law,” said Reem Asaad, a finance lecturer at Dar al-Hikma Women’s College in Jiddah, who supports the boycott.
The campaign calls on women to shop at the country’s few women-only lingerie stores. Usually stand-alone boutiques or located in malls that have women-only sections, these shops have no windows to ensure passing men cannot look in – and giving women the freedom to actually try things on.
How much impact the boycott call will have is unclear. Almost 1,700 people signed an online petition posted by Asaad on the social networking Web site Facebook. A few Saudi papers have written about it, but the campaign depends mostly on word of mouth.
Not all women support the idea. At the Riyadh lingerie shop on Wednesday, one woman – only her eyes visible through the black veil covering her face – said she is suspicious of women-only lingerie shops.
“Bad things happen there,” she said.
What might that be?
Women can sneak a picture of you changing with their mobile phones, she replied and refused to give her name.
Read More

(Submitted by a reader)

The activity of genes in men’s brains begins to change sooner than it does in women’s brains, a new study shows.

By Tina Hesman Saey

Men and women’s brains age differently, a new study demonstrates.
Researchers led by Carl Cotman and Nicole Berchtold at the University of California, Irvine, find that the activity of genes in men’s brains begins to change earlier than it does in women’s brains. The types of genes that change with age also differ between the sexes.
The study, which appears online September 22 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also found that in both genders, each part of the brain examined had its own pattern of aging.
“This is a very interesting study in what is, curiously, an under-studied area, normal aging,” says Etienne Sibille, a neuroscientist at the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study. “You have a combination of expected and surprises in each finding.” For instance, the fact that men and women’s brains age differently could be predicted based on women’s increased longevity, but the type and scope of the differences were unexpected, he says.
Cotman and Berchtold and their colleagues collected brains from people who had died of various causes between ages 20 and 99. The researchers isolated messenger RNA, or mRNA, from the people’s brains. Messenger RNA is a courier molecule that carries instructions encoded in genes to the cellular machinery that will build proteins using those instructions. Genes that produce higher levels of mRNA are more active.
The researchers examined gene activity in four parts of the brain: the hippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, the postcentral gyrus and the superior frontal gyrus.
Brain scientists expect changes in gene activity as the brain ages, and previous studies have demonstrated some changes in other parts of the brain. Cotman and his colleagues thought the parts of the brain that would have the most change in gene activity would be the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, because they are most vulnerable to diseases of aging, such as Alzheimer’s.
But the team discovered that these disease-susceptible parts of the brain in older people have the least amount of change in gene activity when compared to younger people. In contrast, the postcentral gyrus, a part of the brain dedicated to perception, changes most. Scientists had expected that region to have the least change, if any.
“This is one of those fun head-scratchers, which is what science is all about,” Cotman says.
Overall gene activity was similar in people aged 20 to 59. And people aged 60 to 99 showed similar patterns of overall gene activity. But the team detected variability in their data. Cotman and Berchtold sat down to discuss the source of the variability and decided to see whether gender differences might explain it. “She thought it was the men, and I said it was the women,” Cotman laughs.
Read More

India’s Muslims are prominent in Bollywood but still struggle with their identity. In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, tensions have mounted and loyalties have been tested. Ramachandra Guha on the path forward for India and its Muslim minority.
In October 1947, a bare six weeks after India and Pakistan achieved their independence from British rule, the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote a remarkable letter to the Chief Ministers of the different provinces. Here Nehru pointed out that despite the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, there remained, within India, “a Muslim minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want, go anywhere else. That is a basic fact about which there can be no argument. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilized manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State.”
In the wake of the recent incidents in Mumbai, these words make salutary reading. It seems quite certain that the terrorists who attacked the financial capital were trained in Pakistan. The outrages have sparked a wave of indignation among the middle class. Demonstrations have been held in the major cities, calling for revenge, in particular for strikes against training camps in Pakistan. The models held up here are Israel and the United States; if they can “take out” individual terrorists and invade whole countries, ask some Indians, why not we?

Other commentators have called for a more measured response. They note that the civilian government in Islamabad is not in control of the army, the army not in control of the notorious Inter Services Intelligence agency, the ISI not in control of the extremists it has funded. They point out that Pakistan has itself been a victim of massive terror attacks. India, they say, should make its disapproval manifest in other ways, such as canceling sporting tours and recalling diplomats. At the same time, the United States should be asked to demand of Pakistan, its erratically reliable ally, that it act more decisively against the terrorists who operate from its soil.
One short-term consequence of the terror in Mumbai is a sharpening of hostility between India and Pakistan. And, as is always the case when relations between these two countries deteriorate, right-wing Hindus have begun to scapegoat those Muslims who live in India. They have begun to speculate as to whether the attackers were aided by their Indian co-religionists, and to demand oaths of loyalty from Muslim clerics and political leaders.
There are 150 million Muslims in India. They have gained particular prominence in one area: Bollywood. Several top directors and composers are Muslim, as well as some of India’s biggest movie stars. One, Aamir Khan, was a star and producer in “Lagaan,” a song-and-dance epic about a game of cricket that was nominated for an Academy Award in 2002. But Muslims are massively underrepresented in the professions — few of India’s top lawyers, judges, doctors and professors are Muslim. Many Indian Muslims are poor, and a few are angry.
Pakistan was carved out of the eastern and western portions of British India. To this new nation flocked Muslims from the Indian heartland. Leading the migration were the lawyers, teachers and entrepreneurs who hoped that in a state reserved for people of their faith, they would be free of competition from the more populous (and better educated) Hindus.
Pakistan was created to give a sense of security to the Muslims of the sub-continent. In fact, it only made them more insecure. Nehru’s letter of October 1947 was written in response to a surge of Hindu militancy, which called for retribution against the millions of Muslims who stayed behind in India. Three months later, Mahatma Gandhi, who was both Father of the Indian Nation as well as Nehru’s mentor, was shot dead by a Hindu fanatic. That act shamed the religious right, who retreated into the shadows. There they stayed until the 1970s, when, through a combination of factors elaborated upon below, they came to occupy center-stage in Indian politics.
If the first tragedy of the Indian Muslim was Partition, the second has been the patronage by India’s most influential political party, the Congress, of Muslims who are religious and reactionary rather than liberal and secular. Nehru himself was careful to keep his distance from sectarian leaders whether Hindu or Muslim. However, under the leadership of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, the Congress party came to favor the conservative sections of the Muslim community. Before elections, Congress bosses asked heads of mosques to issue fatwas to their flock to vote for the party; after elections, the party increased government grants to religious schools and colleges. In a defining case in 1985, the Supreme Court called for the enactment of a common civil code, which would abolish polygamy and give all women equal rights regardless of faith — the right to their husband’s or father’s property, for example, or the right to proper alimony once divorced. The prime minister at the time was Rajiv Gandhi. Acting on the advice of the Muslim clergy, he used his party’s majority in Parliament to nullify the court’s verdict. After Rajiv’s widow, Sonia Gandhi, became Congress president in 1998, the party has continued to fund Muslim religious institutions rather than encourage them to engage with the modern world.
Partition and Congress patronage between them dealt a body blow to Muslim liberalism. The first deprived the community of a professional vanguard; the second consolidated the claims to leadership of priests and theologians. In an essay published in the late 1960s, the Marathi writer Hamid Dalwai (a resident of Mumbai) wrote of his community that “the Muslims today are culturally backward.” To be brought “on a level with the Hindus,” argued Dalwai, the Muslims needed an “avant garde liberal elite to lead them.” Otherwise, the consequences were dire for both communities. For “unless a Muslim liberal intellectual class emerges, Indian Muslims will continue to cling to obscurantist medievalism, communalism, and will eventually perish both socially and culturally. A worse possibility is that of Hindu revivalism destroying even Hindu liberalism, for the latter can succeed only with the support of Muslim liberals who would modernize Muslims and try to impress upon these secular democratic ideals.”

Ramachandra Guha is the author of ‘India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy.’ He lives in Bangalore.
Read More
(Submitted by Shahabuddin Haji)

Read the movie’s review
Director Corey Yuen’s work here is fast, exciting and, above all, clean. One of the best action directors in the world, Yuen never sacrifices precision for speed — although at times the pace of the movie is incredibly fast — and he has an infallible sense of camera placement. (He’s aided by Keung Kwok Man’s sleek cinematography and Ka-Fai Cheung’s razor-sharp editing.) Even in the midst of the fastest-moving sequences, you’re always able to tell exactly what’s going on.

Read More