Category: Uncategorized

Lila Thadani’s letter
Date: Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Please wake up sisters, Nafisa Shah and Busha Gohar
To: Nafisa Shah , Busha Gohar

[This letter is being copied (bcc) to Women Activists and members of the press, whom we hope will continue to ask you questions. We are not certain about the correctness of the email addresses of our two parliamentarians. In case the addresses below have been superseded, please forward this letter to the current addresses or send it to them by normal post. Thanks. Lila]

Ms. Nafisa Shah (PPP), Ms. Bushra Gohar (ANP), Members of Pakistan Parliament

Re: Your approach to the Nizam e Adal debate in Parliament.

Dear Sisters,

So what did we end up seeing: [Mr.] Ayaz Amir rising to bravely oppose the Bill, a mullah making a feeble technical protest about what flavor of Sharia one is to adopt, and the MQM like both these individuals merely abstaining just abstaining, not voting against this dastardly Bill.

And then one looked at the sisters, all 60 of them, and it seemed they had wetted their panties –- excuse my French! What happened to the great campaigner for banning Karo Kari [honor killing], and the wonderfully brave Pukhtun lassie?

As a Hindu living in Sindh, and wanting to continue to do so, I am fighting against serious odd hand-in-hand with our revolutionary Muslim and Christian sisters. We know of the killing of my people in Umerkot, about which none of your parties have taken any action or expressed sympathy.

We know that Nafisa’s father is the Chief Minister of Sindh and it is his responsibility to maintain peace in the province. Or is his only task now to bow to his masters, the fascist MQM (whose recent abstaining doesn’t wash off their past sins)?

Razia Bhatti, the founder editor of Newsline (where Nafisa learnt her ropes), will be turning in her grave at how her star reporter Nafisa has become an ardent supporter of one of the most corrupt individuals to lead this country. All this for the sake of PPP loyalty, and transitory power?

Remember dear sisters, your parliamentary slots will not remain for life. You will have to climb down and be with the rest of us. How will you be able to face us and the true reality after selling your soul to power?

You of course you know the way to redeem yourself –- you have recommended it to others in the days when you had tongues. Speak up or ship out, now. You are better outside than inside that pointless white cube of a parliament on Constitution Ave.

Wishing you the strength of your old conscience,
Your sister in strength,

Lila Thadani
Sindh Adyoon Tehreek
Sukkur

Response from Busha Gohar
On Sunday, April 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Dear Lila Thadani:

Salaamoona and Greetings!!

many thanks for sharing your indignation and vehement reaction to the women parliamentarians alleged silence when the Nizam i Adl regulation was taken up in the National Assembly. It has indeed become a national trait to react to events and situations rather than take positions in a timely manner to build sufficient peoples pressure and build consensus on alternatives. Unfortunately we did not witness from the women rights activists a movement against the carnage in Swat, against the peace agreement with Sufi Mohammad and a strong protest outside the Parliament against the Nizam-i-Adl regulation either. Instead to soothe their conscience a few activists have registered their protest through cyberspace or the media channels from their comfort zones. None have tried to understand the complexities of the situation in Swat, its links with the mainstream terror outfits operating in the country and the conditions that led to the peace agreement in Swat. Though I feel the people of Swat are lucky that at least there is some debate in the media and among the activists but there is complete silence on the atrocities being committed in FATA since the military operations started in Waziristan in 2004. Therefore, I too have been very concerned with the eerie silence or mute response from women rights activists mainly from the mainland to the carnage in Swat that was going on for over 8 months both at the hands of the Military and the Militants. It was only after personal appeals to activists and opionion makers mainly from Pakhtunkhwa that we got a few brave ones willing to stick their necks out and speak of the atrocities being committed in the valley. Their writings in the print media drew National and International attention to what was going on in the once most beautiful and peaceful valley of the country. The Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assembly for the first time in the history of this country openly condemned the military’s shady operation allowing the militants to gain ground and strength in Swat. They threatened to march to Swat if the attacks on the innocent people were not stopped by both sides. A direct consequence of this was one of the ANP MPAs was targeted and killed for taking a strong position. More than 136 ANP elected representatives families, office bearers and workers have been targeted and killed in Swat alone. Several had their homes destroyed and were forced to leave the area to live in camps or with families settled outside. Elected representatives were threatened that their families and voters would be targeted if they said anything against the militants. Yet we heard Swat PPP MNA and a few ANP Swat MPAs openly speak out against what was going on in their areas. The women representatives of all political parties and civil society held a massive jirga in Peshawar in March in the wake of life threats to present their perspective on the situation in Swat and the rest of the country and outlined conditions for a peace agreement with the militants.

South Asia Citizens Wire for more

Singer, Noor Jahan; lyricist, Tanveer Naqwi; music, Nisar Bazmi

Pakistani Singer/songwriter Ayman Udas was recently killed by her brothers for singing and appearing on television.

By Mahfuzur Rahman

IN recent months, there has been a spate of headlines about activities of Islamist militants all over the country. A veritable redoubt has been discovered in the south of the country, complete with training facilities, explosives, arms and ammunition, and even a moat to make it impregnable. Militant women have been found with jihadi literature in their possession. There have been reports of renewed activities by militant groups that had been driven underground by police action.

As usual, these have raised an alarm. There has been talk of reforming madrasa education. One important minister has talked about bringing the traditional madrasas within the ambit of general education under government supervision. Alarmed at the prospect, madrasa leaders rushed to meet the prime minister to seek her assurance of their continued academic autonomy and, perhaps more significantly, to assure her that they would themselves fight militancy.

And then there has been silence. This is reminiscent of the many earlier episodes of militant activity, its quick condemnation, warnings from the government that such activities would not be tolerated, and finally, a declaration that Islam was a religion of peace and therefore did not sanction violence. In retrospect, the latest noises are as meaningless as the ensuing silence is dangerous.

Look closely at two features of the latest reaction to militancy; the government’s wish (as far as it can be guessed from ministerial pronouncements) to bring madrasa education in line with general education, and the pledge of the leaders of madrasa education to fight militancy. Both are seriously short on details; both obscure great obstacles.

First, there has been talk of introducing “secular” subjects of general education, such as science and mathematics, into the curriculum of madrasa education. But, to start with, the indications are that madrasa leaders will jealously guard against any such move, except perhaps insofar as the change is only peripheral. If the proposed changes were radical, madrasas would not be madrasas. Would they? That has, in fact, been the assertion of these leaders. And they have a point.

But suppose courses in science and mathematics are introduced, will that make a difference? It is highly unlikely that it will. Teaching of elementary science at school level will do nothing to change attitudes among young minds. The only exceptions are the science of evolution, and an area of astrophysics that places man in relation to the unimaginable vastness of the universe. It is hard to imagine that these areas of science will be favourites in a madrasa curriculum.

The crux of the problem of militancy is the closing of the mind that much of madrasa education accomplishes. That brings us to the second reaction to the recent talks about reform; that leaders of madrasas will themselves fight militancy. It is not at all clear how they propose to that.

The only effective way to entice young minds away from militancy is to encourage them to interpret injunctions in the Quran and hadith in the light of circumstances and the state of human knowledge that are vastly different from those a millennium and a half ago. Madrasa leaders must take a lead here. It is highly unlikely that they will.

The more likely scenario is that literalist Islam will dominate the curriculum. The pledge to fight militancy in that case will surely be an empty one. It will simply not be enough to tell the students that Islam is a religion of peace.

Makers of education policy must go far beyond just talking about reform. Mere tinkering will not do. To begin with, they have to enter into a serious dialogue with the leaders of madrasa education, asking them how precisely they wish to fight militancy, given the considerations briefly mentioned here.

It is also essential to see the entire question of reform of madrasa education in the context of the constitutional commitment of the country to establish a truly pluralist society, where all shades of individual preferences are free to thrive. Leaders of madrsas must explain how their thinking fits in that context.

If this looks like something that goes way beyond just education policy, it is because it does. The questions raised by talks of education reform involve far more than that. The sooner this is realised the better. The silence that has fallen after the recent noise about reform portends the danger of the real issues being shoved under the carpet — again.

Mahfuzur Rahman is a former United Nations economist and an occasional contributor to The Daily Star.

Daily Star

When Pakisan’s president visits the White House next week, he’s sure to ask for another handout. But Fatima Bhutto, niece of the late Benazir Bhutto, says the billions of dollars the U.S. gives are merely propping up a government that’s capitulating to terror.

Fatima Bhutto is a graduate of Columbia University and the School of Oriental and African Studies. She is working on a book to be published by Jonathan Cape in 2010. Fatima lives and works in Karachi, Pakistan.

By Fatima Bhutto

In Pakistan things move at a leisurely South Asian pace. We missed our goals to eradicate polio recently because we, a nuclear nation, could not sustain electricity across the country long enough to refrigerate the vaccines. Garbage disposal is a nonexistent concept, and plush neighborhoods in Karachi boast towers of rubbish piled on street corners and alleyways. Prisons and police cells are full of prisoners awaiting trials, and our justice system, despite the reinstatement of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of meting out free and fair access to justice.
One thing moving ridiculously fast, however, is the Taliban’s stranglehold on the country. After two years of fighting off Taliban insurgents camped out in the lush Swat Valley, Pakistan’s president, Asif Zardari, threw in the towel last week and gave the militants what they wanted—Shariah law.

Never mind that Pakistan’s constitution stipulates that no law contrary to Islam can be passed in the land. The no-goodnik president, who The Wall Street Journal called a “Category 5 disaster,” went ahead and unilaterally—without a vote granted to the citizens of Swat—imposed Shariah. So perhaps it shouldn’t be considered a great surprise that a week after the law was passed, the Taliban, in typical breakneck speed, have now advanced into the Buner district, a mere 70 miles from the capital.

Meanwhile, President Obama is set to meet with President Zardari (who locals have now taken to calling President Ghadari, or “traitor” in Urdu) in 10 days’ time. There is, I’d imagine, much to discuss.
The most important question that will come from Pakistan, however, is a familiar one: Can we have some more please? Money, that is, not Taliban. It may surprise some Americans that even in the midst of this recession, billions of their tax dollars are given directly to the thievery corporation that is Pakistan’s government, never to be seen again. George W. Bush gave Pakistan a whopping $10 billion to fight terror, money that seems to have gone down the drain—or rather, into some pretty deep pockets. And it’s not just the U.S.—last week, international donors from 30 countries met in Tokyo and pledged $5 billion to Pakistan to “fight terror.” The IMF has given the country $7.6 billion in a bailout deal that boggles the mind. Saudi Arabia has generously pledged $700 million over the next four years, and the less-generous European Union an additional $640 million over the same period. And then there’s Obama’s promise of $1.5 billion a year, dependent, the White House says, on results.

It’s phenomenally silly to give that kind of money to a president who, before becoming president, was facing corruption cases in Switzerland, Spain, and England. Zardari and his wife, the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, are estimated to have stolen upwards of $3 billion from the Pakistani Treasury—a figure Zardari doesn’t seem desperate to disprove, he placed his personal assets before becoming president at over $1 billion.

Daily Beast for more
(Submitted by Abdul Hamid Bashani Khan)

As Tamil Nadu goes to the polls, there are fears that the Tamil Tigers will regroup in the Indian state and add to insecurity in the subcontinent

By Padraig Colman

India and Sri Lanka have both been holding elections. Although India is touted as the world’s largest democracy and Sri Lanka praised for peaceful handovers of power since independence in 1948, elections in both countries have potential for violence, and their politics are intertwined. The Sri Lanka government believes it is close to securing a military victory over the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) who have been engaged in a bloody struggle since 1983 to achieve a separate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka.

As the Indian state of Tamil Nadu goes to the polls on 13 May, its chief minister M Karunanidhi and opposition leader Jeyaram Jayalalitha are trying to outdo each other in support for Sri Lanka’s Tamils. Jayalalitha has vowed that if she becomes Tamil Nadu’s chief minister again she will use her influence to send Indian troops into Sri Lanka to create a separate state of Tamil Eelam.

Although the Sinhalese are the majority in Sri Lanka, they have a minority complex: Tamil may be the language of just 11% of the population (of 20 million), but there are more than 62 million Tamil speakers just across the Palk Straits in India.

Meanwhile Tamil Nadu itself has long been fractious, and the Sri Lankan situation has a destabilising effect on its polity: many Indians in Tamil Nadu support the Sri Lankan separatist militants. Continuing civilian casualties in northern Sri Lanka have led to violent protests in Tamil Nadu, and immolations and hunger strikes. Chief Minister Karunanidhi himself went on a brief hunger strike (described as a fast from breakfast to lunch rather than a fast unto death).

Over the years, India has not just played a passive role in Sri Lankan affairs. Its intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), trained Sri Lankan Tamil militants at a RAW base in Uttar Pradesh in 1983. Arms deliveries to various Sri Lankan Tamil separatist groups began in 1984.

In 1982, exiled LTTE leader V Prabakharan had been arrested in Madras, when he was captured by a mob after a shootout with a rival militant. The Sri Lankan authorities were overjoyed that the man they had hunted for seven years for the murder of the mayor of Jaffna was now in custody.

Tamil Nadu’s chief minister was then the former film star MG Ramachandran. He and (current chief minister) Karunanidhi, another graduate of the film industry, were old rivals who saw the Eelam campaign in terms of their own electoral advantage. They used their influence to ensure that Prabakharan was not extradited to Sri Lanka and that the Indian government continued to support the separatist militants.

However, the Indian government discovered that the Sri Lankan militants it harboured were not easy to control. After Indira Gandhi was assassinated, her son Rajiv followed different advice and tried to mediate. Initially the atmosphere between the two nations improved and the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed on 29 July 1987, which led to the Indian army operating in northern Sri Lanka. India then expected the LTTE to hand over its arms, but the LTTE resisted efforts by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to disarm them: the LTTE was as ready to fight the Indians as it was to fight the Sinhalese. The Indians at first sent 10,000 troops but, with unexpected resistance from the LTTE, the number increased to 100,000. The LTTE took control of Jaffna and set about eliminating their Tamil rivals.

Le Monde Diplomatique for more

‘Nuclear Weapons Are Not Kalashnikovs’

The West is concerned about the stability of Pakistan. SPIEGEL spoke with President Asif Ali Zardari, 53, about failed peace talks with the Taliban, the possible whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and the safety of his country’s nuclear arsenal.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the Taliban is advancing deeper and deeper into the heart of Pakistan. Does your army lack the will or the capability to effectively combat the extremists?

Zardari: Neither the one nor the other. Swat itself has a particular nature — its physical boundaries limit our action and capabilities. We had a similar situation in Bajaur along the border to Afghanistan. There, too, we went in with F-16s, tanks, heavy artillery and our forces. At the time, 800,000 people lived in the region, and 500,000 were displaced by the fighting. What we really wanted, though, was for the local population to stay and help resist the Taliban on their land. In the case of Swat, the Taliban used the population as human shields. A more aggressive offensive would have caused greater civilian casualties. For us, the concept of a policy of dialogue has always applied. War is not the solution to every kind of problem.
SPIEGEL: The peace agreement you supported with militant Islamists in Swat Valley just failed like others before it. The Taliban didn’t give up their arms as agreed to in the deal. Are deals with extremists a realistic strategy for peace?

Zardari: During negotiations, we try to differentiate between copycats or criminals and the hardcore. It is an ongoing insurgency which takes time to finish. We go in with our troops, we talk, we retreat, we pull back, and then the Taliban goes on a new offensive. It is a drawn-out issue and there is no encyclopaedia one can turn to for answers. I would advise you to read about the Afghan wars. It’s the way the Taliban, who are Pashtuns, fight: They take you on and then they melt into the mountains. And you often can’t tell who is who or what they are up to. These men are like old Indian chiefs in the US who didn’t want to recognize the fact that, by then, they were ruled by American laws.

SPIEGEL: The chief Taliban negotiator in Swat, Sufi Mohammed, claims that democracy is opposed to Islam. So what are the foundations for a treaty?

Zardari: When he refuses to recognize Pakistan’s constitution, he is breaking the terms of the peace deal. That gives our negotiators and the populace the support they need to take him on. If the deal doesn’t work, then parliament will have to decide on it again. That’s democracy and, as you can see, it works.

Spiegel Online for more

By Elisabeth Rosenthal

VAUBAN, Germany — Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.”

Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, and thus to reduce global warming. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe — a proportion that is growing, according to the European Environment Agency — and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States.
…
In California, the Hayward Area Planning Association is developing a Vauban-like community called Quarry Village on the outskirts of Oakland, accessible without a car to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and to the California State University’s campus in Hayward.
…
In Europe, some governments are thinking on a national scale. In 2000, Britain began a comprehensive effort to reform planning, to discourage car use by requiring that new development be accessible by public transit.

New York Times for more

Dengue fever is the most common infectious disease transmitted by mosquitoes – some 100 million people around the world are infected. Researchers at the Hygiene Institute at Heidelberg University Hospital were the first to present a three-dimensional model of the location in the human cell where the virus is reproduced. Their research provides an insight into the exact process of viral replication and serves as a model for other viruses whose replication is still unclear, such as the hepatitis C virus. In addition, it offers new approaches for developing measures to prevent or treat dengue fever. Up to now, neither a vaccine nor a specific antiviral therapy exists.

Professor Dr. Ralf Bartenschlager, director of the Department of Molecular Virology at the Heidelberg Hygiene Institute and his team, working in cooperation with colleagues from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) have published their study in the latest issue of the prestigious journal Cell Host & Microbes.

Viruses do not have a metabolism and cannot produce proteins from their genetic material (RNA or DNA) on their own. They can replicate only inside a host cell – but where and how exactly does this take place? The answer to this question is crucial for developing therapy.
Viruses transform human cell membranes for their purposes

Biology News for more

By Gwynne Dyer

In the past two years, various non-African countries – China, India, South Korea, Britain and the Arab Gulf states lead the pack – have been taking over huge tracts of farmland in Africa by lease or purchase, to produce food or biofuels for their own use.

Critics call them “neo-colonialists”, but they will not be as successful as the old ones.

The scale of the land grab is truly impressive. In Sudan, South Korea has acquired 690,000ha of land to grow wheat. The United Arab Emirates, which already has 30,000ha in Sudan, is investing in another 378,000ha to grow corn, alfalfa, wheat, potatoes and beans.

In Tanzania, Saudi Arabia is seeking 500,000ha.

Even bigger chunks of land are being leased to produce biofuels.
China has acquired 2.8 million hectares in the Democratic Republic of Congo to create the world’s largest oil-palm plantation (replacing all that messy rainforest and useless wildlife with tidy lines of palm trees), and is negotiating for 2 million hectares in Zambia to grow jatropha. British firms have secured big tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania.

Only rarely is there protest from local people. One striking exception is Madagascar, where the announcement of a 99-year contract to lease 1.3 million hectares to South Korea’s Daewoo Corporation to grow corn helped to trigger the recent revolution. “Madagascar’s land is neither for sale nor for rent,” said the new leader, Andry Rajoelina, who cancelled the deal.

After the revolution, it turned out another 465,000ha of land in Madagascar had been leased to an Indian company, Varun International, to grow rice for consumption in India. That deal is also being cancelled by the new Government – but elsewhere, the acquisition of huge tracts of African land by Asian and European Governments and companies goes ahead almost unopposed.
Why Africa? Because that’s the last place where there are large areas of good agricultural land that aren’t already completely occupied by local farmers. There are usually some peasants scratching a living from the land, but they are few and poor, and they can easily be bought or driven out.

For the foreigners, the lure is profit, or food security, or both.

New Zealand Herald for more