Category Archives: Politics

Taslima Nasreen: A Roundup

Posted on by

The Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, about whom I’ve written before, has become the center of controversy again following anti-Taslima riots in Calcutta over the past few days. Exactly why the riots focused on her is a bit of a mystery, since the incident is really inspired by a new violent incident at Nandigram (about which I’ve also written before). At any rate, some Muslim groups are also demanding that Nasreen’s Indian visa be canceled (she’s applied for Indian citizenship; her current visa expires in February 2008), and she seems to have yet again become a bit of a political football.

Since the riots, the Communist government of West Bengal apparently bundled her up in a Burqa (!) and got her out of the state, “for her own protection.” (She’s now in Delhi, after first being sent to Rajasthan, a state governed by the BJP.) The state government has also refused to issue a statement in defense of Taslima, fueling the claims of critics on both the left and right that the Left is pandering (yes, “pandering” again) to demands made by some members of the Muslim minority.

Mahashweta Devi’s statement sums up my own views quite well:

This is why at this critical juncture it is crucial to articulate a Left position that is simultaneously against forcible land acquisition in Nandigram and for the right of Taslima Nasreen to live, write and speak freely in India. (link)

Ritu Menon in the Indian Express gives a long list of outrages to freedom of artistic expression in India in recent years:

These days, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only people whose freedom of expression the state is willing to protect are those who resort to violence in the name of religion — Hindu, Muslim or Christian. (Let’s not forget what happened in progressive Kerala when Mary Roy tried to stage ‘Jesus Christ, Superstar’ at her school. Or when cinema halls screened The Da Vinci Code.) Indeed, not only does it protect their freedom of expression, it looks like it also protects their freedom to criminally assault and violate. Not a single perpetrator of such violence has been apprehended and punished in the last decade or more that has seen an alarming rise in such street or mob censorship. Not in the case of Deepa Mehta’s film; not in the attack on Ajeet Cour’s Academy of Fine Arts in Delhi; not in M.F. Husain’s case; not in the violation of the Bhandarkar Institute; not at MS University in Baroda; not in the assault on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad this August. I could list many, many more. (link)

I was unaware of some of those, in fact. Continue reading →

"Islamophobia has provided a unifying force…"

Posted on by

There has recently been a number of articles in the press about the growing influence of the Indian-American lobby among Washington politicians. With the U.S.-India Nuclear deal taking center stage, the press began to focus more on the dynamics of this relationship. A number of parallels were drawn to the increasing similarity some of these groups share (or would like to share) with some Jewish lobby groups. A month old article in the NYTimes featured the Hindu American Foundation:

When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.

Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.

Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout. [Link]

As long time readers know, I have often (1,2,3) railed against some of the lobbying groups that purport to represent “Indian Americans” (USINPAC chief among those that receive my disdain). I do not feel that USINPAC represents my interests whatsoever and I wish the press would stop assuming they speak for all Indian Americans. Indolink points us to a new paper in the South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (SAMAJ) which examines a number of “Indian-American” lobby groups and how closely they really represent “Indian-American” interests (as opposed to “Hindustani” interests):

The article addresses the issue of the growing influence of the Indian-American lobbies and even more importantly their internal divisions, giving way to the constant formation of new groups. In the face of these divisions, the author shows how Islamophobia has provided a unifying force, whose roots can be found in the articulation between local and transnational factors: especially in the context of the (American) war against terrorism and the furthering of the India-Israel-US strategic partnership. No wonder a spokesperson for USINPAC was reported as saying: “The terrorism directed against India is the same as that directed against the United States and Israel.”

Therwath reveals that fieldwork conducted in New York and in Washington “revealed virulent streaks of Islamophobia and hostility towards Pakistan amongst professional Indian American lobbyists.” The author adds: “While not absolutely systematic, this anti-Muslim sentiment has been prominent in most of the interviews that I conducted…” [Link]
Continue reading →

How to map Muslims and find the best falafels

Posted on by

A couple of diabolically ingenious (or phenomenally stupid) plans have been recently reported on in the media, both plans intended to ascertain where American Muslims be hanging out (so as to keep tabs on the potential terrorists hiding among them). The first was Los Angeles’ Muslim Mapping Project. At first I assumed that the LAPD intended to map the spread of Islam in the world since the birth of Muhammad…but then I realized that the department probably doesn’t employ many history or religion PhDs. “Muslim Mapping” must mean something else. Here is an excerpt from the LAPD officer who briefed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (headed by Joe Lieberman):

“In order to give our officers increased awareness of our local Muslim communities, the LAPD recently launched an initiative with an academic institution to conduct an extensive “community mapping” project. We are also soliciting input of local Muslim groups, so the process can be transparent and inclusive. While this project will lay out the geographic locations of the many different Muslim population groups around Los Angeles, we also intend to take a deeper look at their history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socio-economic status, and social interactions. It is our hope to identify communities, within the larger Muslim community, which may be susceptible to violent ideologically-based extremism and then use a full-spectrum approach guided by an intelligence-led strategy…” [Link]

“We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities,” LAPD Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing was quoted by CBS news as saying Thursday. [Link]

This plan actually makes a lot of sense to me (and doesn’t Downing seem downright neighborly?). It would be much too difficult to move all the Muslims into ghettos with well-defined boundaries. I don’t think Homeland Security has that kind of budget (yet). Why not use GIS data and other high tech strategies to simply make a virtual map of Muslims? I mean, Google Map already has overlays for satellite imagery, traffic, and street view. It wouldn’t be hard for Google to simply add a “Muslim neighborhoods” overlay to their GoogleMaps would it?

We have learned that Muslim communities in the U.S. are mistrustful of the mainstream media. Therefore, they may turn to other sources of information for news and socialization, such as the Internet. Unfortunately, despite all of the positive aspects of the Internet, it allows those individuals and groups with ideological agendas to easily make contact with like-minded individuals and access potentially destructive information. [Link]

Holy crap. I know that Muslims read our site and socialize here with like-minded individuals through comments. Despite the fact that I like this plan I hope we aren’t getting mapped as well.

Continue reading →

Just Your Typical, Slightly Snarky Arranged Marriage Post

Posted on by

A column (thanks, Fuerza Dulce) from the women’s magazine Marie-Claire on Anjali Mansukhani’s enthusiasm for arranged marriages (including her own), didn’t really start in what seemed like the best possible way:

By age 26, after attending more than 150 weddings, I was fast approaching my “expiration date.” (link)

“Expiration date” at age 26? That’s pretty young; personally, I think women get “expired” these days at around 27 or 28…

But it gets so much better. Anjali, a Bombayite, meets a guy who seems like Mr. Right — a New York based banker — and moves to his 40th story Manhattan apartment after three dates (and a marriage). Life there is blissfully happy:

While I craved privacy in India, the lack of neighbors and family dropping in left a shocking void every day as I ate breakfast and lunch alone. My husband worked late most evenings, and I sat in front of the TV, unable to call home because it would be 2 a.m. there.

After a few weeks, I learned that I’d married a “jetrosexual.” He had an exhausting travel schedule (four cities in four days). I joined the ranks of corporate wives who saw every show, opera, and ballet in town, just to fill the hours.

To make friends, I joined a gym, went to the library, and took Italian classes. I discovered that having an arranged marriage was a great icebreaker, and my social circle mushroomed each time I retold my story.

Marriage, I soon learned, wasn’t easy — especially to a modern man. My husband had acquired a mistress, and her name was BlackBerry. She had the power to stop discussions midsentence, her red signal lighting up his face in the way I only dreamed of doing. (link)

Such happiness. It really brightens your day.

Off to a great start, no doubt. But Anjali’s new life really takes off when she learns to name-drop consumer goods and lifestyle choices like a professional New Yorker:

As peers in India opted for motherhood and worked on post-baby waistlines, I took Spinning and pole dancing at the gym to work off exotic dinners of sweetbreads, foie gras, chocolate mousse. After reading about America’s obsession with Venti decaf skim mochas, I went to try one — but came back instead with a spiced chai latte. Amazingly, Starbucks was providing my childhood drink on every corner.

I found a job as a financial consultant. The New York Times in one hand, coffee in the other, I realized that my saris of bright pink, violet, and salmon were not exactly subway wear. Quickly, I succumbed to Levi’s and Ralph Lauren.

I started to realize that I just might have the best of both worlds. I marinated my Indian marriage in the flavors of Manhattan. I kept the sari and bought the Jimmy Choos. I made fabulous curries, seasoned with spices from Dean & Deluca. And after months of enjoying decidedly non-Indian experiences of seders, Saks, and sake, I felt confident enough to direct Indian guests to a hotel, occasionally throwing in a MetroCard.

I’m not hating, really I’m not. In fact, I’m thrilled she’s so happy — with those Jimmy Choos that she got from Bloomie’s, drinking Chai Tea Latte at Starbucks (which is just like the Chai in India, isn’t it?), before her pole-dancing class, where she’ll burn off the foie gras from the night before. Arranged marriage can be great that way. Continue reading →

The campaigns through a brown lens

Posted on by

You’d have to be living in a hole to not know that the Presidential races are heating up. With Al Gore out of the race I’ve been finalizing my decision as to who I will be supporting when I vote in the Texas primary in mid-March. Unfortunately, because of where I live, my primary vote might be marginally more meaningful than my general election vote when it comes to electing our next President. I will have much greater say over state and local politics though, so I absolutely will vote. If I am in the midst of finalizing my decision then I expect that some of you are as well. Therefore, here are some political angles that might be of interest to our largely South Asian American readership as we come down the stretch. First off is a survey from DiversityInc.com that some friends of mine were emailing around [via Mercury Rising]:

As you can see, the Democratic candidates’ campaign staffs seem considerably more diverse than the Republican staffs (if you are willing to believe this survey without questioning the details of the poll). I am not sure though if I believe that Guiliani’s campaign doesn’t have a single minority. There is obviously some margin of error in a poll like this but Diversity.com attributes some of that error to the following:

While DiversityInc.com was able to get extensive feedback from the people involved in the Democratic candidates’ campaigns, nobody on the Republican side would talk to them despite repeated efforts on DiversityInc.com’s part to contact them. [Link]

You notice how Clinton seems to have the most overall diversity and also the most Asian Americans? If Bill Clinton was America’s first African American President can we expect that Hillary would be the first Asian American one were she to win?

Continue reading →

Anti-kara…to Ensure Equality

Posted on by

Well, color me furious after perusing ye olde News tab. Well, the new News tab, but still. Via the Beeb (Thanks, chicagodesidiva): Oh, HELL no, it won't go.jpg

A 14-year-old girl has been excluded from a school in south Wales for wearing a Sikh bangle, or Kara.
Sarika Singh refused to take off the religious symbol because it is “a constant reminder to do good”.

As you can see from the photograph, Sarika’s kara is hardly ostentatious or luxe– I mention that because that was the rational which my private school had for outlawing jewelry…so girls couldn’t flaunt wealth by dripping in gold, diamonds, filthy lucre.

Aberdare Girls School said it has a clear code of conduct and it had temporarily excluded a pupil for refusing to accept a governors’ ruling.

The school also stated that a “code of conduct” had been distributed to every student before they commenced attending Aberdare AND that it was reissued before every semester. Said code only allows a watch and “plain metal stud earrings”. I guess that means crosses, pentagrams, and super-cute star-of-David pendants aren’t permitted. Then again, none of those necklaces are part of anything like the 5 Ks:

The Sikh Federation UK said that the bangle was an “article of faith” and Sikhs had no choice but to wear it.

Sarika’s parent, Sinita Singh, is not being unreasonable:

She said the teenager would remove the bangle for gym classes, or wood and metalwork, for safety reasons.
Mrs Singh said: “It’s not jewellery, it’s part of our faith and symbol of our belief.”
She said they had a meeting with the school and argued the case with the board of governors, but they refused to allow her to wear it.
“We feel very strongly that Sarika has a right to manifest her religion – she’s not asking for anything big and flashy, she’s not making a big fuss, she just wants a reminder of her religion.”

Apparently, Sarika has been suspended (hey, UK types…is that what “excluded” means?) for wanting to wear her kara.

Sarika said of wearing the bangle: “It’s very important to me, it constantly reminds me to do good and not to do bad, especially with my hands.”
Her mother said the Sikh Federation had supported them and she would do “whatever it takes”.

Maybe the law is on Sarika’s side?

Jagtar Singh, secretary of Sikh Federation UK claimed the school was breaching the 1976 Race Relations Act in its treatment of Sarika.

Continue reading →

In Defense of Substantive Democracy

Posted on by

This post is a response of sorts to Abhi’s thought-provoking comments on Musharraf’s State of Emergency, and what he sees as the possible benefits of dictatorship in certain limited conditions. Abhi’s post, as I read it, was a thought experiment, not necessarily a political program — and this is a somewhat speculative thought experiment as well (these ideas are not set in stone). There is some value in the general idea that democracy before stability is not always the best thing for a country, and in the particular claim that Pakistan’s democratic institutions have been severely weakened by years and years of misrule (going back to the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif days; Musharraf did not start this with his 1999 coup).

That said, I’m not ready to give up faith in liberal democracy, and I think it could still happen in Pakistan. As for how to get there, there are probably only two or three paths at this point, none of them easy. One is a popular uprising that would probably turn pretty ugly in the short run — think of the bloody riots in Karachi this past summer, only magnified. If successful (big “if”), mass protests/riots could be followed by a military coup and a provisional dictatorship, and then by open elections — again, if the coup was carried out by the right person. (There could also be more violence during the elections, and possibly more trouble/instability even after they occur.) The other is something accidental, which could be anything. Perhaps a new leadership emerges (Imran Khan, by the way, has managed to escape from house arrest — I wish him luck), or perhaps something unforeseen happens to/with Musharraf that leaves a power vacuum? Perhaps both? Who knows. Either way, in my view there is no question that if democracy is to have a chance in Pakistan, Musharraf has to go.

Another possibility to speculate on is what might happen if either the Bush administration or (more likely) its successor were to withold military and economic aid to pressure Musharraf to cancel this State of Emergency. Here I’m really not sure what the ramifications would be for Musharraf. It might be symbolically bad on the international stage, but would it really hurt him all that much domestically? Here I’m really not sure.

I should also say that I disagree with the calculus, which is widely prevalent amongst American TV pundits right now (and also implied in Abhi’s post), that Musharraf needs to stay because America needs him for its “War on Terror.” There may or may not be any truth in this (as has been pointed out, Musharraf’s net contribution to fighting terrorism is highly debatable), but what I keep thinking is that at this moment it’s not America’s interests that I’m concerned about, it’s the Pakistani people, who deserve good, transparent governance. It’s the Pakistani people who deserve a free press (not blackouts of private news channels), the right to peacefully dissent, and the right to organize politically — who deserve, in short, substantive democracy. Continue reading →

In defense of a dictator

Posted on by

I love the ACLU. I believe that a person shouldn’t be allowed to run for President of the United States unless they are a card-carrying member (as opposed to our current system where you have to be a member of the NRA). Likewise, I think that Human Rights Watch rocks and that any government that questions their findings or calls them inaccurate are doing so mostly because they are annoyed at being caught doing something pretty heinous. However, unlike some of my co-bloggers, I also think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being. Why? Because countries like Iraq (and a few others I can think of) have taught the world a very important lesson in recent years. Insisting that they quickly transition to a democracy because its what we (sitting in our stable homes) are fortunate enough to enjoy, doesn’t always result in the best outcome for them or us. History has repeatedly shown that a weak central government is sometimes much worse for everyone than a dictator who, despite curtailing personal freedoms, provides stability for the vast majority. The key is that a path to an eventual transition or succession be clearly defined. The fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble.

What was it that went wrong in Iraq? We foolishly believed (and by we I really mean those Neocons) that a community of exiled intellectuals could pick up where a brutal strongman (Hussein) left off. We learned the hard way that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses and will end up fighting amongst themselves while emptying the state coffers. Hussein, just like Hitler and Kim Jong Il, was a very bad man responsible for the death of thousands of his own people. That isn’t why we invaded Iraq or decided that they needed to be democratized though. We invaded Iraq in the expectation that we’d bring about greater long-term stability for us (and for them as a secondary benefit). Nobody would suggest that Musharraf is anywhere near as bad as Hussein and the stability he has been providing is not bad, all things considered. And let’s not forget the reason he seized power in the first place and has been popular in Pakistan for most of his tenure:

Nawaz Sharif was also involved in corruption at the highest level during his tenure which brought further mistrust of the people towards his government. The Nawaz government launched a scheme called “Karz utaro, Mulk savaro” whose intent was to pay off debt of the nation through the Pakistani people’s pockets. Pakistanis took part aggressively and emotionally to help Pakistan pay off the debt. Many Pakistanis living abroad took part in this scheme extensively and sent millions (maybe billions) to help pay off the debt. Even the poor living in the country helped, to the extent that women sold their jewellery to help the cause, but to no avail. As of this date, it is not known what happened to the funds and the national debt never decreased. It is widely believed that the scheme was to benefit Nawaz Sharif & family, and not to pay off the country’s debt. [Link]

Continue reading →

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers

Posted on by

Today in Pakistan, lawyers protested their country’s state of Emergency and were punished for it. Via Bloomberg:

Pakistani police charged with clubs and arrested more than 150 lawyers challenging President Pervez Musharraf’s emergency rule as the U.S. said it was reviewing military aid to the country in response to the decree.

Rioting Lawyers.jpg

Police beat lawyers and used tear gas to disperse protesters in cities across Pakistan. Stocks slumped amid speculation that Musharraf was arrested in a coup today, which the military denied, saying it was a rumor.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Beijing for talks with the Chinese government, called on Musharraf to restore democratic rule. Musharraf suspended the constitution on Nov. 3 for the second time since he took power in a 1999 military coup, saying judicial interference in government affairs had sparked terrorism and extremism throughout the country.

I’m sure Mushie is just petrified after hearing this from Condi:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in the West bank city of Ramallah today that Musharraf should restore Pakistan’s democratic institutions “quickly and urgently.” She has said the Bush administration will review its financial aid of more than $1 billion a year to Pakistan.

And props to the UN, for reminding us of the obvious:

“A state of emergency should only be used to deal with a dire security threat to the nation, not to undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” the United Nations High Commissioner Louise Arbour said today in an e-mailed statement.

According to the remainder of the article, the number of detainees is in four digits, court is off-limits to lawyers, Imran Khan has gone underground, judges are under house arrest and Pakistanis who are brave enough to lift their voices in protest are being gassed and beaten for doing so.

Citizens and journalists staged a protest outside the Karachi Press Club today, where they wore black armbands and shouted slogans against the government. Heavy contingents of police beat protesters.

::

If you want to read The Emergency Times, i.e. what was/is on pakistanmartiallaw.blogspot.com, go here. I’m mirroring the often unavailable blog posts which one of you thoughtfully passed on to me via email, out of solidarity.

Let people know. We Are Resisting. Please Join us.

Unity is mutinous. Continue reading →

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Posted on by

Although Musharraf says he declared martial law to protect the country and not his political future, there is a curious preoccupation with dignity and name calling in his words and actions. Although this is a very serious situation, I can’t help but see him as a child who threatens to stop everybody from playing unless they stop making fun of him.

Verboten?

For example, the following complaint was part of the official Proclamation of Emergency, offered forward as a justification for suspending the judiciary:

Whereas the humiliating treatment meted out to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralised the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries… [Link]

Similarly, a new law was passed to stop the media from mocking the President or his friends in government:

Are we making fun yet?

The orders prohibit coverage that “brings into ridicule or disrepute” General Musharraf and other officials, he said. [Link]

When defending his actions to the nation in a televised broadcast, the little General compared himself to the tall President in a stovepipe hat:

He … quoted Abraham Lincoln, saying that America’s 16th president had broken laws, violated the Constitution and trampled on individual liberties to keep the country together during the Civil War. [Link]

So why does he sound so much like Rodney Dangerfield?

Continue reading →