New Hope or Chasing a Mirage?

By Dr. Sarojini Sahoo


‘Christina’s World’, the painting above( source: Wikipedia), a mid 20th century master piece of U.S. painter Andrew Wyeth, depicts the theme of my essay and I think, readers could find a compatibility of this painting with my view on this rare discussed topic.

People often mix up ‘gender’ with ‘sex.’ That is why we put the term LGBT together. Lesbians, Gays or Bisexuals have fixed sexual orientations while transgenders are a different community related to ‘gender identity.’ Gays or bisexuals never think to change their ‘gender’ any day but transgendered people feel their gender expression and identity do not conform to society’s expectations.

They identify and present themselves in many different ways. In doing so, transgendered people push the boundaries of both sex and gender. The dilemma is most of the people don’t know the proper difference between sex and gender and that misconception in people’s mind makes the transgender feel alien from the mainstream. The common attitudes of people towards transgender push them to lead a life of hatred, disgust, transphobia, and discrimination.

We have to make it clear that gender is a social creation, not a natural function of sex. Sex is related to our biological sexual make up (such as our chromosomal arrangements) and uses certain biological markers (like our genitals and other reproductive sex organs). Society pronounced us with the help of those markers; a newborn is a girl or a boy. What is really discovered about each of us at that point is not our gender, per se, but simply our sex.

‘Gender’ is a common social expectation which puts borderlines for each sex and expects that men, for instance, should be more active and dominant than women, and are seen to be rational, objective individuals. Men are more often associated with the public sphere of life, and are expected to be dependable income earners. Men are expected to love and marry a woman and to become fathers. Society has fixed a different set of expectations for ‘men’ about how to act, what to do, and who to love. On the other hand, ‘women’ are generally expected in mainstream society to be more passive, submissive and dependent than men. There are certain expectations of society from them about how to act, what to do, who to love, and so on. Women are often seen to be subjective, emotional beings; are usually associated with the private sphere of life; and tend to be the caregivers. Women are expected to love and marry a man and become mothers. Often from our childhood, we are taught how to be ‘good girls’ or how to be ‘good boys,’ which satisfies the expectations of our respective societies in which we live. From the beginning of the life of a child, society assumed that gender characteristics as natural with the idea that ‘boys will be boys’ and ‘girls will be girls’ suggests that particular behaviours referred to are to be expected from male children and particular behaviours referred to are to be expected from girls. Another meaning of these preoccupied norms is whether behaviours will be tolerated in a boy but would likely not be tolerated in girls and vice versa.

But in a changing society, these descriptions have also been becoming worthless. More and more women are recognized as active, participating members of the public sphere while men are increasingly assuming care-giving roles. It does not mean that there is no rigid division between the two categories. In behavioural characteristics, these gender differences are still prevailing. What I find myself thinking nowadays is that it is usually assumed there are no more differences between ‘women’ and ‘men.’ The two gender categories are, in other words, also interdependent: the idea of ‘feminine’ behaviour says as much about how men are not supposed to act as it does about how women are supposed to act.

Transgenders in Literature

The Well of Loneliness is a 1928 controversial novel by the English author Radclyffe Hall. The protagonist Stephen Gordon finds herself in a wrong body and tries to cross dress. Later, she falls in love with Mary Llewellyn, whom she meets while serving as an ambulance driver in World War I. For decades, it was the best-known lesbian novel in English, and a British court even judged it obscene because it defended “unnatural practices between women.”

Virginia Woolf’s novel Orlando, also published in 1928, is also a much-acclaimed novel which tells the story of a man named Orlando, born in England during the reign of Elizabeth I, who falls asleep for a lengthy period of time, resisting all efforts to rouse him. Upon awakening, he finds that he has metamorphosed into a woman—the same person, with the same personality and intellect, but in a woman’s body. Neither Radclyffe Hall nor Virginia Woolf used the word ‘transgender’ in their novels.

The term ‘transgender’ was first used in 1960 by Prince Virginia (original name: Arnold Lowman), an American transgender activist, who published a magazine Transvestia and started the Society for the Second Self for male heterosexual cross-dressers, where transsexuals and homosexuals were not admitted. Later, Judith Butler made clearer the differences between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ but did not use the term ‘transgender’ in her research. Before Virginia Prince and Judith Butler, the term was not publicly accepted. Even the great pianist Billy Tipton (1914-1989) who passed his whole life as a ‘man’ socially, got married and adopted three sons, was discovered to have been female-bodied after his death. By 1990, the term received wide acceptance and legal support. But, though the meaning of gender variance may vary from culture-to-culture or time-to-time, transgender persons have been documented in myths and in the history of different cultures in both East and West.

Misconceptions About the Transgender Community

Who is a transgender person? There are different sub-groups among transgenders prevailing among this main group. There are intersexual, androgens, transvestites, drag kings and queens, cross-dressers, gender-benders, women who pass as men and men who pass as women, “masculine-looking” women, “feminine-looking” men, bearded women, and women bodybuilders (that is, women who have crossed the line of what is considered socially acceptable for a female body). To put all of them in a single group is the first fallacy I think, as all of them are different and totally opposite to each other. In fact, this gender problem is also the personal creation of each and every one of us.

Among them, intersexuals are totally different from other transgenders as they have a separate biological make-up at birth, which is not exclusively male or female. They exist on the biological continuum between the poles of male and female and they struggle against our rigid two-sex system for the right to physical ambiguity and the acknowledgement that there are more than two sexes. Intersexed babies have a right to grow up and make their own decisions about the body they will live in for the rest of their lives. Other transgenders have totally different problems but still, we put both transsexuals and other transgenders into a single group.

Misleading Ideas

Transgenders often used to think that they have the right soul in the wrong body. Now there are some pop-culture clichés to express these feelings like “man trapped in a woman’s body” or “woman trapped in a man’s body.” A transgender is created when he/she chooses the means of gender expression from a pre-determined set of ‘rules’ provided by society. Transgender people identify in ways that do not correspond to some or all of the acceptable behaviours encouraged in them since birth. In this way, gender can be seen as the product of the complex interaction between the individual and society. But a lot of confusion still remains while we are talking about them as it is an umbrella-termed group and still the actual position and problems have been kept hidden from the public.

The problems of transsexuals and cross-dressers are not the same. There is also no awareness in the mind of the general public who are habituated with a binary gender system. The social acceptance to them is very negative and recently, some activists are trying to make it generalized so that the group should not feel so alien from the mainstream of society. But among them, there are also so many contradictions and confusions which have lead the movement into a mess. The obscene websites make vulgar and porno pictures of some transgenders and try to attract the young people and sometimes create ‘transgender euphoria’ (i.e., the ‘subject’ feels there’s something really great about being perceived as the opposite sex) in them. This is the first and foremost obstacle to detect actual ‘gender dysphoria’ (i.e., the ‘subject’ feels there’s something really bad about being perceived as one’s biological sex) cases.

There are also some activists who are making emotional mistakes to increase the numerical statistics of their community. Some private TV channels are also pursuing talk shows or chat shows in their programming. Recently for my study on this topic, I have surfed for different blogs on transgenders and I found a very critical blog (http://gazalhopes.blogspot.com/) owned by Ghazal Bhaliwal, a transgender activist, film writer and lyricist, who avidly supports surgical transition for the people who think they are trapped in a wrong body.

To deal with the issues of transgenders, our main goal will be to provide a beautiful happy life to those people who could remain in the mainstream. First of all, we have to focus on the need for suitable parameters in which to classify the sub-culture groups of transgenders and would have to eliminate intersexuals or transsexuals (i.e., the ‘subject’ finds and feels something deformed in one’s biological sex) and homosexuals ( gays and lesbians ) from the transgender group. In the case of other transgenders, we should have to keep in mind that the problem is not genetic but a problem related with gender identity. It is strange that we often suggest sex transformation for people who suffer from a gender crisis. Sex transition is not always a solution for these people.

In my homeland Orissa, opera is a popular folk art form and till now, this folk theatre form is prevailing with a boost from commercial support. Up until the 1970s, male performers had been playing female roles by growing their hair long, wearing only ‘lungi’ and ‘banyan’ to make themselves comfortable as woman, and they make their voice and speech style more feminine to better capture the roles they play. But I have seen that these artists also have their own families. They have been married and have offspring. I have also seen many of the intellectuals in India who have hidden feminine characteristics in their personality as well and who are playing leading roles in the mainstream.

The Price of Transition

Transition is also a critical and expensive process. Prince Virginia, the creator of this term transgender, was also against any type of surgical transition. Transition surgery makes the person a patient for his/her whole life. He/she has to take hormone therapy for a long time which also can have adverse reactions over the body and mind. He/she has to have electrolyte therapy, which is also very painful, and costly. The transition process also needs the help of a psychologist. This type of emotional urge to change gender may also have negative results, resulting in the patient experiencing ‘transgender euphoria’ instead of ‘gender dysphoria.’

Accessibility of finances plays a key role for those wishing to change genders. Most of those who have adopted transition are from elite classes or higher income groups and most live in ‘Metro’ cities (in India, big cities are popularly known by this name). What will be the fate, then, for a middle-class transgender who lives in smaller cities like Patna, Lucknow, Kochi or Bhopal?

As a result of the gender change, transgender people in most cities and states can be denied housing or employment, lose custody of their children, or have difficulty achieving legal recognition of their marriages, solely because they are transgender. Many transgender people are the targets of hate crimes. The widespread nature of discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression can cause transgender people to feel unsafe or ashamed, even when they are not directly victimized.

Transgender people experience the same kinds of mental health problems that non-transgender people do. However, the stigma, discrimination, and internal conflict that many transgender people experience may place them at increased risk for certain mental health problems. Discrimination, lack of social support, and inadequate access to care can exacerbate mental health problems in transgender people while support from peers, family, and helping professionals may counteract these problems.

Here I want to quote some advice of transgender scientist Madeline Wyndzen from her article “Questions to Help Thinking about Your Gender Identity.”

Wyndzen, though she has had surgery for her transition, makes it clear that surgical transition is not at all a solution for transgender problems. She writes, “Everybody who transitions is not happy with their decision! I even know several post-op transsexuals who, though they say they’re happier, that are not so easy to tell. I have met several post-op transsexuals who are filled with anger and hate and have never move passed it. I have met several transsexuals who live in a ‘transgender’ sub-culture rather than being a part of the larger world. I’ve seen people who once had families and careers that give up everything and ‘fortunately’ have a huge divorce settlement. I’ve seen people who quit their jobs (with some rationalization about why they couldn’t possibly transition while there) and move into a small apartment. Others are fired. I’ve seen people use their life savings to stay hidden in the ‘transgender’ sub-culture for years but be able to transition because they would spend their life savings. I’ve asked a transsexual who had plenty of money but hid why she didn’t get a job so she could explore what it’s like to live as a woman. Why not get a job as a waitress to interact with other people who aren’t transsexuals? I was worried about her because she became reclusive and she didn’t act anything like what most women act like. But being a waitress was ‘beneath her’ and getting a job in her field was ‘obviously’ not possible because no women could have her resume. I’ve seen people who say I just ‘had’ to transition. They’re ‘happier’ now but all they ever talk about is their past. They never seem to have hopes and dreams for their future. They dwell in anger towards religious institutions, or ex-spouses, or family members, or somebody else who’s to blame. I’ve even had to stop talking to some transsexuals because it was just too much for me to hear their same angry stories over and over again. They couldn’t stop and they couldn’t change their stories because their stories were all about the past. Though how could they change? They had no life except their past as their biological sex.”

She again writes, “I’m not the only one who notices this. When I mentioned it to my therapist, she said she saw the same thing. She said there are transsexuals who ‘rather than coming out of the closet, merely come out into a bigger closet.’ I don’t mean to suggest that this is inherently bad. You might really love a life as part of a ‘transgender’ subculture. But that’s very different from a life as a man or woman. Please be clear about what you’re trying to achieve when you transition. Some people really are transgenderists. Overall, I feel they’re pretty cool even though I don’t personally identify with them. Transgenderists really are happy and self-confident with their choice to challenge a binary gender system. But there are also other people who live outside of their real culture because they’re too scared or angry or lack the confidence to join the world. Throwing out powerful rhetoric of ‘thwarting the binary gender system’ means nothing if it comes from somebody who hates the world, loses his or her confidence to face life, and doesn’t like himself or herself as a person. Sometimes ‘transgenderism’ is just big fancy words for hiding a big mistake.”

Conclusion

I am not against transgender individuals. People often show their sympathy for trees, animals and other inferior species but are often rude in their behaviour towards transgenders while the transgender community, on the other hand, generally do not make any harm to anybody. I can understand the positions of intersexuals or transsexuals who are born with differed biological bodies. There should be rational steps to make all feel comfortable and to mix up everyone into the mainstream.

In the comments area of Ghazal’s blog, I found an anonymous reader asked her, “You say that you were born in a wrong body…well, bending nature according to wishes of mind is not so good, Ghazal. Our mind concocts a hell of a lot of wishes, but you can’t fulfill all of them… it’s impossible. Let’s say after five years from now, you may wish to become a man.. then .. what will you do?” I think that question has potentiality and we should reconsider it.

Finally, I want to quote again Madeline Wyndzen’s few last lines from her essay as my conclusion:

She writes, “It’s doesn’t really matter if you are or aren’t a transsexual. You are you! And people can redefine transsexual, so it means just about anything! There are even many psychologists who define a transsexual solely as somebody who transitions. That’s it. And it’s possible for people to get caught up in debates about if they ‘really are a transsexual.’”

But the real question and the only question you need to answer is this: What path for your life will let you be happy?

Dr. Sarojini Sahoo’s website

Australia’s child-migration horror: Better late than never

Kevin Rudd says sorry for a past evil


Such, such were the joys

CEREMONIES in the Great Hall of Parliament House in Canberra are typically attended by visiting royals, heads of state and other dignitaries. On November 16th several hundred ordinary, middle-aged Australians, with pain in their faces and tears in their eyes, packed the hall to witness a ceremony devoted to them. It seemed a miracle that many were there at all. Shipped from Britain as youngsters, or plucked from broken homes and single mothers in Australia, some suffered childhoods spent in orphanages where violence, sexual abuse and humiliation were rife. Some of their peers killed themselves.

After years of campaigning, survivors gathered to hear Kevin Rudd, the prime minister, offer a formal apology for this “great evil”. It was the second such apology Mr Rudd has offered in under two years. Early last year, he began his government’s first term by apologising to the “stolen generations”: children, many of mixed race, taken by the authorities from aboriginal families. In all, by 1970 over 500,000 “stolen”, migrant and non-indigenous children had been placed in church, charity and government institutions.

Mr Rudd’s latest apology has focused attention on Britain’s grim “child migration” scheme, under which children as young as three were sent to the former colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. One motive was racial: the young countries wanted “British stock”. Australia took about 10,000 children, most of them after Canada reduced its intake in the 1940s.

After a report 12 years ago cast light on the plight of the stolen generations, other victims of institutional mistreatment agitated for redress as well. They found a supporter in Andrew Murray, then a member of the Senate. Mr Murray was born in Britain and placed in an institution, aged two—and sent to Southern Rhodesia two years later. Eventually he was reunited with his mother and emigrated to Australia.
Senate inquiries produced a report (“Lost innocents”) on these child migrants eight years ago, and another on the “forgotten Australians” of the child institutions three years later. Both called for official apologies, which the former conservative coalition government of John Howard refused. Mr Rudd promises to help victims who wish to trace their families or are seeking to make provision for old age.

Economist
(Submitted by reader)

Is Belief in God Hurting America?

By David Villano

According to a new study, prosperity is highest in countries that practice religion the least.

From Dostoyevsky to right-wing commentator Ann Coulter we are warned of the perils of godlessness. “If there is no God,” Dostoyevsky wrote, “everything is permitted.” Coulter routinely attributes our nation’s most intractable troubles to the moral vacuum of atheism.

But a growing body of research in what one sociologist describes as the “emerging field of secularity” is challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship of religion and effective governance.

In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.

Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the “successful societies scale.” He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.

Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.

Paul is quick to point out that his study reveals correlation, not causation. Which came first — prosperity or secularity — is unclear, but Paul ventures a guess. While it’s possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life.

“Popular religion,” Paul proposes, “is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment.” Paul, who was criticized, mostly on statistical grounds, for a similar study published in 2005, says his new findings lend support to the belief that mass acceptance of popular religion is determined more by environmental influences and less by selective, evolutionary forces, as scholars and philosophers have long debated.

In other words, we’re not hardwired for religion.

Paul also believes his study helps refute the controversial notion that the moral foundation of religious doctrine is a requisite for any high-functioning society – what he dubs the “moral-creator hypothesis.”

Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College whose research looks at the link between religion and societal health within the developed world, agrees with that assertion. “The important thing we’re seeing here is that progressive, highly functional societies can answer their problems within a framework of secularity. That’s a big deal, and we should be blasting that message out loud,” he contends.

Alternet

(Submitted by Salim Amersi)

Prey for the BNP

The Sikhs who join in the hatred of Muslims are deluded if they expect to avoid racial exclusion

By Priyamvada Gopal

Rajinder Singh, a British Sikh with an extreme dislike of Muslims, is, according to the BNP, “the kind of immigrant you want if you’re going to have them”. And if, as expected, the party members vote to allow ethnic minorities to join, Singh will be the first to be conferred this “honour”.

Sikh organisations have dismissed him – and fellow BNP wannabe “Ammo Singh” (a pseudonym) – as unrepresentative, and it is easy to write them off as self-hating lunatics or pranksters. But to do so is to obscure the larger realities of how race, religion and hate operate.

What has been lost in the storm over Nick Griffin‘s BBC appearance and the debate over the freedom to voice hatred in the guise of “white rights” is that modern racism survives through a parasitical alliance of vicious groups and ideologies, each of which thinks it is superior to and more entitled to preservation and growth than the others. What they share is a commitment to delusions of absolute racial or religious grandeur and purity even as they compete for victim status.

The two Sikhs’ hostility to Islam is strong enough for them to overlook the contempt in which the BNP ultimately holds all racial minorities. Communities in Britain with links to the Indian subcontinent have, over time, seceded from their rich shared heritage and the assertive “Asian” banner under which they fought successfully for their rights in the 1960s and 1970s. Dispersed into the sectarian religious identities of Sikh, Hindu and Muslim, they have all but forgotten how to mobilise together against the threat of an opportunistic ethnic majoritarianism that does not, ultimately, make fine distinctions among those it perceives as outsiders.

Generalising labels like “Asian” may have their drawbacks but, as Arun Kundnani of the Institute of Race Relations notes of Sunrise Radio’s bizarre decision to drop “Asian” from its banner under sustained pressure from extremist groups like the World Hindu Council, the hope underlying such disaffiliation is that “racist whites could be persuaded to exclude Hindus and Sikhs from their hatred, and focus instead solely on Muslims“. A 2006 Runnymede Trust survey claims that as many as 80% of Hindus and Sikhs in Britain wished to be seen as specifically distinct from Muslims. “Don’t Freak, I’m a Sikh”, urged T-shirts printed after the 7 July bombings.

Griffin’s assertion that “many” Hindus and Sikhs support the BNP is a wild exaggeration. But we need to face up to the messy reality of a society where ethno-religious fragmentation and tensions between minority groups work to the advantage of majority chauvinism. Kundnani points out that as early as 2002 the BNP was able to persuade a tiny Sikh faction called the Shere-e-Punjab to participate in its anti-Muslim campaign. Even if such collaborators are a tiny fringe, minority communities need to be aware of the ways in which their participation in divisive categories and separatist communal warfare only strengthens the positions of the racists who seek to subordinate them entirely.

Guardian

(Submitted by Harsh Kapoor)

Report on LIFE IN STRUGGLE CELEBRATION: Honoring Hari Sharma at 75

By Chinmoy Banerjee

The “Life in Struggle Celebration” in honour of Hari Sharma was held successfully in Surrey, BC over the weekend of November 14-15.

On Saturday, November 14 four scholars and activists from Michigan, North Carolina, California, and Vancouver, British Columbia presented papers at a well-attended conference on “Imperialism, Socialism and Peoples’ Struggles Today” at the Newton Community Recreation Centre in Surrey.

Dr. Dongping Han spoke of his experiences growing up during the Cultural Revolution in China and emphasized the need to challenge the misinformation about it that has been established as truth by the Western media. For himself and millions of peasants and workers in China the Cultural Revolution was enormously empowering, giving them a voice and opportunities they never had and creating a sense of community and solidarity by breaking down the divides of urban/rural, educated/uneducated, and elite/lowly. By following the course of capitalist development and discarding the gains of the Cultural Revolution China was building up a great force of dissatisfaction against its growing inequality and social injustice that would become explosive. The riots in Xinjiang in 2009 were a symptom of this phenomenon.

Dr. Robert Weil also spoke on the Cultural Revolution but focused on the need to reclaim it for the future of socialism in the face of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the turn to capitalism in China. Mao had initiated the Cultural Revolution to take the Chinese revolution forward at a moment when its future was jeopardized by the forces of capitalism within the Communist Party of China. But despite its many achievements the Cultural Revolution was defeated because the resistance and manipulation of those opposed to the policies of Mao entrenched in the party and state, lack of organization, failure of institution building, infighting, and excesses made it possible for the very forces it was supposed to counter to emerge as the savior of Chinese society. Mao’s project is alive today in the Philippines, Nepal, and India, where it has been adapted to include new perspectives and concerns and leftists should learn from the Cultural Revolution to unite in solidarity to achieve a socialist world since it was no longer possible to think of creating socialism in one country.

Dr. Pao-yu Ching argued that the world was facing an unprecedented crisis in agriculture. This was brought about by the colonial arrangement by which lands were subjected to ecological damage by plantations for the production of cash crops for the metropolis. The separation of agricultural production from the food needs of the producer created an unnatural state by breaking the natural connection between agricultural labour and the need for food. This break with the natural was reinforced by the capitalist development that made food into a commodity, merely a product for sale in the market. In the last few decades Imperialist forces have led this unnatural and destructive separation to a crisis: weak bourgeoisies in the newly independent countries have become sharers of Imperialist robbery of their lands and peasants have been increasing deprived of their lands, livelihood, and food. The current regime of agricultural production devastates the environment, produces in the interest of metropolitan and elite consumption and corporate profit, creates crippling dependency, and leads to large scale suicide among farmers and massive hunger and malnutrition. For peasantry in the developing world the struggle against Imperialism and the struggle for socialism are the same.

Dr. Mordecai Briemberg argued that there is a continuous narrative of Canadian imperialist practice from the 19th century to the present that is at odds with the popular image among Canadians of Canada as a well-intentioned peace-keeper and a global force for humanitarianism, symbolized by the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. Nationalists opposing the current war-making by the Canadian government in Afghanistan present it as an exception to the presumed pattern. But Canada has made military, diplomatic, and economic ‘contributions’ to the imperialist world order from Sudan in the late 19th century, to Korea, the Middle East, and Vietnam in the 20th century, and Yugoslavia, Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st . Pearson was ‘honoured’ for his Christian Zionism and his facilitation of the transfer of control of the Middle East from Britain to the US following the Suez invasion by Britain, France and Israel. Canada’s imperial role in Afghanistan is not an exceptional practice but only a more exposed one. Imperial conquest requires the ideological construction of “noble” purpose and dehumanized enemy, and here Canada has made its ‘contribution’ through racist practices and the construction of the 21st century doctrine of the “responsibility to protect.” Therefore, the main guide to struggle in this country is opposition to Canadian imperialism, not national emancipation from US control..

The presentations were followed by a vigorous exchange of ideas.

The celebration concluded with a party at the Grand Taj Banquet Hall in Surrey on Sunday, November 15 at which many people from the community, including Charan Gill, Raj Chouhan, Sarabjit Hundal, Harinder Mahil, Sunil Sharma, Chelliah Premrajah, Sadhu Binning, Ajmer Rode, Promod Puri, Robert Weil, Mordecai Briemberg, Jerry Zaslove and Dr. H. Fox (Hari Sharma’s physician) paid respect to Hari Sharma’s contributions to the community, his kindness to many individuals, and his fineness as a photographer and writer of short stories in Hindi.

Paul Binning contributed a bhangra dance by his students. Amrit Mann presented a gidda dance by her students and a dance about male-female relationship she had choreographed. The cultural presentations were greatly appreciated.

Kinda Garcha, lawyer for Hari Sharma, announced the creation of Hari Sharma Foundation.

The book commemorating this occasion, Celebrating Life in Struggle: A Tribute to Hari Sharma, has been published by Daanish Books of New Delhi in India and is available from www.daanishbooks.com. In the Vancouver area, it could be obtained from Café Kathmandu, 2779 Commercial Drive, Vancouver. Or by writing to the Organizing Committee; Hari_Sharma_at_75@shaw.ca.

Privatising atmosphere

By Vandana Shiva

The UNITED Nations climate change conference at Copenhagen next month is meant to further the goals of a global environmental treaty — the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1988, a resolution of the UN General Assembly considered the climate change matter as a “common concern for mankind”, and the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change was created. On May 9, 1992, the UNFCCC was adopted in New York and opened for signing in June 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. It came into effect on March 21, 1994.

The goal of the Convention, according to Article 2, is to “stabilise the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that prevents all dangerous anthropogenic disturbance of the climate system”. Since the historic polluters were the rich, industrialised countries, the Convention required that by 2000 they stabilise their greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 level.

Under the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto on December 11, 1997. The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets on industrialised countries for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to an average of five per cent against the 1990 levels over a five year period, 2008 to 2012.

However, in 2007, America’s greenhouse gas levels were 16 per cent higher than their 1990 levels. The much-announced Waxman Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” commits the US to 17 per cent emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2020. However, this is a mere four per cent below their 1990 levels.

Further, the emissions trading or offsets, in fact, are a mechanism to not reduce emissions at all. As the Breakthrough Institute in United States, “a small think tank with big ideas”, states “If fully utilised, the emissions ‘offset’ in the American Clean Energy and Security Act would allow continued business as usual growth in the US greenhouse gas emissions until 2030, leading one to wonder: where’s the ‘cap’ in the ‘cap and trade’”.

The Kyoto Protocol allows industrialised countries to trade their allocation of carbon emissions among themselves (Article 17). It also allows an investor in an industrialised country (industry or government) to invest in an eligible carbon mitigation project in a developing country and be credited with Certified Emission Reduction Units that can be used by investors to meet their obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is referred to as the Clean Development Mechanism under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol gave 38 industrialised countries, that were the worst historical polluters, emissions rights. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme rewarded 11,428 industrial installations with carbon dioxide emissions rights. Through emissions trading, Larry Lohmann, the co-author of Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power, observes, “Rights to the earth’s carbon cycling capacity are gravitating into the hands of those who have the most power to appropriate them and the most financial interest to do so”. That such schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than preventing climate change is made clear by the fact that emissions rights given away in the Kyoto Protocol were several times higher than the levels needed to prevent a two-degree-celsius rise in global temperatures.

Just as patents generate super profits for pharmaceutical and seed corporations, emissions rights generate super profits for polluters. The Emissions Trading Scheme granted allowances of 10 per cent more than 2005 emission levels; this translated to 150 million tonnes of surplus carbon credits which, with the 2005 average price of $7.23 per ton, translates to over $1 billion of free money.

The UK’s allocations for the British industry added up to 736 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over three years, which implied no reduction commitments. Since no restrictions are being put on northern industrial polluters, they will continue to pollute and there will be no reduction in CO2 emissions.

Market solutions in the form of emissions trading are thus doing the opposite of the environmental principle that the polluter should pay. Through emissions, trading private polluters are getting more rights and more control over the atmosphere which rightfully belongs to all life on the planet. Emissions trading “solutions” pay the polluter.

Carbon trading is based on inequality because it privatised the commons. It is also based on inequality because it uses the resources of poorer people and poorer regions as “offsets”. It is considered to be 50 to 200 times cheaper to plant trees in poorer countries to absorb CO2 than reducing it at source. The Stern Review states, “Emissions trading schemes can deliver least cost emissions reductions by allowing reductions to occur wherever they are cheapest”. In other words, the burden of “clean up” falls on the poor. In a market calculus, this might appear efficient. In an ecological calculus, it would be far more effective to reduce emissions at source. And in an energy justice perspective, it is perverse to burden the poor twice — first with the externality of impacts of CO2 pollution in the form of climate disasters and then with the burden of remediating the pollution of the rich and powerful.

Deccan Chronicle

(Submitted by Harsh Kapoor)

Old Dhaka at front line in battle for heritage

By Amy Kazmin in Dhaka

The tiny 150-year-old Jagannath Temple in Old Dhaka’s narrow Tati Bazaar, or gold market, was a Victorian gem, with an ornate facade and a graceful cupola. But last year, temple elders decided to rebuild the Hindu shrine to add apartments – a lucrative proposition given the city’s chronic housing shortage.

Architects Taimur Islam and Homaira Zaman, a husband-and-wife team campaigning to preserve Old Dhaka’s heritage buildings, begged the temple’s managing committee to save the building’s unique facade. The elders agreed – if the couple provided funds to reinforce the structure. But during the scramble to secure donations – not a quick task in Muslim-majority Bangladesh – the facade was demolished overnight.

Today, the shrine’s bare exterior – which resembles a garage, with only a poster as adornment – stands as painful evidence that the odds are stacked against saving the eclectic, 400-year-old architectural history of Dhaka, the Bangladeshi capital and the world’s most densely populated city.

“It’s now or never,” says Mr Islam. “In five years’ time, there will be nothing left.”

Conservationists have battled property developers across Asia for decades, as gracious old buildings and bustling neighbourhoods have been razed to make way for the glass-and-steel towers that define many modern Asian cities. These tensions are now roiling Dhaka, where population pressure and steady economic growth have sent property prices spiralling.

In their hunt for land, developers are eyeing Old Dhaka, which thrived as a commercial hub during the Moghul empire, flourished again during a late 19th-century revival, but which has been declining since the end of British colonial rule in 1947.

Bangladesh’s elites, ensconced in newer neighbourhoods, have traditionally paid little heed to Old Dhaka, with its mosques, temples, bazaars and ornate mansions originally built for wealthy Hindu families that later fled to India. Dhaka’s 1958 master-plan even spoke wistfully of the redevelopment potential if only authorities could “sweep away” the narrow lanes and ageing buildings.

“Old Dhaka had always been seen as a junkyard,” says Mr Islam.
But in 2004, an old building in Shakari Bazaar, famed for its traditional conch shell bangles, collapsed, killing 19 people. Criticised over the poor living conditions, officials proposed razing the entire bazaar to build 20-storey housing blocks. Mr Islam and Ms Zaman began a high-profile campaign to save architectural treasures slated for destruction.

“There is no contradiction between human safety and heritage preservation,” Mr Islam says. “Buildings like this have been preserved in every part of the world. Why can’t we do it?”

FT

(Submitted by reader)

Some Indians Find It Tough to Go Home Again

By Heather Timmons

NEW DELHI — When 7-year-old Shiva Ayyadurai left Mumbai with his family nearly 40 years ago, he promised himself he would return to India someday to help his country.

In June, Mr. Ayyadurai, now 45, moved from Boston to New Delhi hoping to make good on that promise. An entrepreneur and lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a fistful of American degrees, he was the first recruit of an ambitious government program to lure talented scientists of the so-called desi diaspora back to their homeland.

“It seemed perfect,” he said recently of the job opportunity.
It wasn’t.

As Mr. Ayyadurai sees it now, his Western business education met India’s notoriously inefficient, opaque government, and things went downhill from there. Within weeks, he and his boss were at loggerheads. Last month, his job offer was withdrawn. Mr. Ayyadurai has moved back to Boston.

In recent years, Mother India has welcomed back tens of thousands of former emigrants and their offspring. When he visited the United States this week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh personally extended an invitation “to all Indian-Americans and nonresident Indians who wish to return home.” But, like Mr. Ayyadurai, many Indians who spent most of their lives in North America and Europe are finding they can’t go home again.

About 100,000 “returnees” will move from the United States to India in the next five years, estimates Vivek Wadhwa, a research associate at Harvard University who has studied the topic. These repats, as they are known, are drawn by India’s booming economic growth, the chance to wrestle with complex problems and the opportunity to learn more about their heritage. They are joining multinational companies, starting new businesses and even becoming part of India’s sleepy government bureaucracy.

But a study by Mr. Wadhwa and other academics found that 34 percent of repats found it difficult to return to India — compared to just 13 percent of Indian immigrants who found it difficult to settle in the United States. The repats complained about traffic, lack of infrastructure, bureaucracy and pollution.

For many returnees the cultural ties and chance to do good that drew them back are overshadowed by workplace cultures that feel unexpectedly foreign, and can be frustrating. Sometimes returnees discover that they share more in their attitudes and perspectives with other Americans or with the British than with other Indians. Some stay just a few months, some return to the West after a few years.

Returnees run into trouble when they “look Indian but think American,” said Anjali Bansal, managing partner in India for Spencer Stuart, the global executive search firm. People expect them to know the country because of how they look, but they may not be familiar with the way things run, she said. Similarly, when things don’t operate the way they do in the United States or Britain, the repats sometimes complain.
“India can seem to have a fairly ambiguous and chaotic way of working, but it works,” Ms. Bansal said. “I’ve heard people say things like ‘It is so inefficient or it is so unprofessional.’ ” She said it was more constructive to just accept customs as being different.

New York Times for more
(Submitted by Al Karim Amersi)

Save the Moon: The New Frontier

By B. R. Gowani

Human beings have always been fascinated by celestial bodies and have speculated their origin and composition. Similarly, people have always fantasized the existence of life in some form elsewhere in the Universe.

The Moon, our earth’s satellite, being the nearest celestial body was the first to be explored when the Soviet Union’s unmanned Luna 9 landed on it in 1966. Three years later the US astronaut declared his landing on the moon as a giant leap for humankind. Four decades later, a fortnight ago, one can say that another giant leap had been made with the discovery of water on the Moon.

It is great news but, like most technological advances, it is also sad news. The destructive and exploitative aspects of this discovery cannot be overlooked. It is foresight for instances like these, that had prompted some countries to draft the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 <1> which prohibits carrying of nuclear or other weapons of destruction in the space or on any celestial body. With similar purpose in mind, United Nations composed the Moon Treaty in 1979; but this document lacks signatures of key nations, i.e., Japan, United States, China, Russian Federation, India, and the European Union. <2>

Territorial ambitions of human beings have usually been beyond the reach of any ethical or moral principle. Although the Moon Treaty “Bans any state from claiming sovereignty over any territory of celestial bodies,” it is no guarantee that this and other articles of the treaty will get the respect they deserve as can be testified by the dozens of UN resolution violations.

When the new frontier is conquered, two things are to be dreaded the most:

1. One is the use of Moon by the United States or even Russia, China, European Union, Japan, or India as a launching pad for nuclear or laser weapons directed at their enemies on earth. (At this stage, India’s deformed Siamese twin, Pakistan, has to be excluded from this club.)

Current technology lacks the means to carry out such actions. Nevertheless, this grim scenario itself should not be dismissed as preposterous. It is hard to imagine that the users of one of the oldest weapons: the spear, which saw its introduction during the Stone Age with a range of a few yards aimed at a single target could foresee today’s reality. By contrast today’s ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missile) have a reach of thousands of miles and an unimaginable devastation capability. Besides, newer technological advances are being made at a super speed. However, the power of the smaller “enemies” on earth should not be underestimated either, even if it may be symbolic. (Remember September 2001?) You never know. The future “enemy/ies” may blow up the whole moon — fully aware that it may doom the future of the planet earth where they reside.

So it is in the interest of all countries that some kind of verifiable treaty be signed among all the nations of the world, under the auspices of the United Nations and backed by the International Court of Justice that restricts transportation or manufacture of any kind of weaponry on the Moon.

2. The other is the use of the moon as a place for the white ruling class or, perhaps, a mixture of white, black, and brown elites to reside while turning earth into a colony which satisfies their consumption needs and greed.

In this case, most of the people of the world will have to unite to stop this scenario. They should just ask the surviving Native Indians in the US whose land became frontier for the invading white Europeans how it feels to live in a Reservation for by then the whole earth will have become a Reservation.

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com