REUTERS (FROM OUTLOOK, NOVEMBER 01, 2010)
INTERVIEW
“Media Subdues The Public. It’s So In India, Certainly”
The man NYT called “arguably the most important intellectual alive” finds the media in Pakistan more vibrant than it is in India
AJAZ ASHRAF, ANURADHA RAMAN INTERVIEW NOAM CHOMSKY
PRINT
SHARE
COMMENTS
Special Issue: Media In Crisis
Noam Chomsky has a veritable cult following among those who are sceptical about views the liberal media espouses and government propaganda machinery spawns to suit their often overlapping agendas. Compelling is his criticism, breathtaking is his knowledge, persuasive is his voice, and deep runs his humanity. This 82-year-old Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, has written over 100 books and is considered the doyen of modern linguistics. To the world outside the academia, though, he’s more famous as America’s leading dissident intellectual whose instinct it is to expose the hypocrisy of the powerful. His awesome credentials inspired The New York Times to describe him as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.
On the 15th anniversary of Outlook, Ajaz Ashraf and Anuradha Raman talked to Chomsky over the phone on aspects of the crisis plaguing the media. These included the questions you readers have often wondered about: Is the media really free? Or is it the handmaiden of the elites, the state? And how does one distinguish propaganda from news? Speaking with the candour and brilliance typical of his writing, Chomsky says the crisis in the media is not a result of its declining revenues as much as its intellectual dishonesty. He also sprang a few surprises—for instance, he finds the media in Pakistan more vibrant than it is in India. Excerpts:
Why do you say the idea of a liberal media is a myth?
I don’t. Some of my friends and colleagues do. My own view is that the media, the major media, the New York Times and so on, tend to be what is called liberal. Of course, liberal here implies highly supportive of state power, state violence and state crimes. I, though, don’t deny that liberal means, more or less, being in favour of civil rights, social programmes, roughly what’s called social democratic in much of the world.
Do you think the so-called liberal media really serves that purpose?
Yes, to some extent, but their major commitment is to the centres of power—state and private. For example, there are major attacks on civil rights today but because those are coming from the Obama administration, the liberal media barely discusses the violations.
Statuary Warning" ‘All of Iraq’s current chaos is the result of the US invasion. But one can’t say or think that.’ (Photograph by AP)
“The task of intellectuals and the media is to ensure the public is quiet, obedient. That’s the liberal viewpoint.”
You have in mind America’s recent wars?
As soon as the plan to invade Iraq was announced, the media began serving as a propaganda agency for the government. The same was true for Vietnam, for state violence generally. The media is called liberal because it is liberal in the sense that Obama is. For example, he’s considered as the principled critic of the Iraq war. Why? Because, right at the beginning, he said it was a strategic blunder. That’s the extent of his liberalism. You could read such comments in Pravda in 1985. The people said that the invasion of Afghanistan was a strategic blunder. Even the German general staff said that Stalingrad was a strategic blunder. But we don’t call that principled criticism.
You once said, “Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to totalitarianism.” Do you mean that propaganda enables the elite to dull the will of people, depriving them of the capacity to make political choices?
That clearly is its goal, in fact its stated goal. Back in the 1920s, it used to be frankly called propaganda. But the word acquired a bad flavour with Nazism in the 1930s. So now, it’s not called propaganda any more. But they were right in the 1920s. The huge public relations industry, for example, has its goal to control attitudes and beliefs. Liberal commentators, like Walter Lippmann, said we have to manufacture consent and keep the rabble away from the decision-making. We are the responsible men, we have to make decisions and we have to be protected—and I quote Lippmann—“from the trampling under the rage of the bewildered herd—the public”. In the democratic process, we are the participants, they watch. And the task of intellectuals, media and so on is to make sure that they are quiet, subdued and obedient. That is the view from the liberal end of the spectrum. Yes, I don’t doubt that the media is liberal in that sense.
What is the mechanism through which the media becomes the voice of the government and elite?
It is very straightforward. In his introduction to Animal Farm—virtually nobody has read the introduction because it was not published—George Orwell writes that the British (the audience for which he was writing) should not be too complacent about his satire on the crimes of the totalitarian enemy. He said in free England unacceptable ideas could be suppressed voluntarily, without the use of force. He says the reasons are that the press is owned by wealthy men who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed. In the more modern period, generally, the media are either big corporations or parts of mega corporations or closely linked to the government. The other reason—maybe more significant—is just that if you have a good education, you would have instilled into you that there are certain things that it just wouldn’t do to say.
Guantanamo: ‘The invasion of Iraq: criminal aggression of the kind for which people were hanged in Nuremburg’ (Photograph by AP)
“Western media submits to an intellectual culture restricting any analysis and criticism of state action.”
Like what?
For example, you don’t say or even think that the invasion of Iraq is a criminal aggression of the kind for which people were hanged in Nuremberg, that what you say was a strategic blunder was precisely what the Communist party said in the 1980s. They were under coercion. In the West, it is not coercion, it is just voluntary submission to an intellectual culture which remains overwhelmingly within narrow limits that restrict analysis, reporting, and condemnation of government action. Take this morning’s (October 5) New York Times. There is an article by a good correspondent, Steven Lee Myers, who says that Iraq is having serious problems with sectarian conflict, with chaos, which are all the results of democracy. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of the American invasion. But you can’t say or think that.
So, in a sense, the structure of the media is basically reflecting the unequal structure of our society.
Yes, it’s reflecting the structure of power, which is not surprising.
In such a scenario, do you think the truth is bound to be elusive?
Take the same New York Times article. Anyone who has paid serious attention to what has been happening in Iraq the last seven years can see, for example, that the sectarian conflict was stirred up not by democracy but by the invasion and atrocities after the invasion. But that’s not what you are going to read in papers. When you read day after day and watch television day after day, a certain picture tends to sink into an overwhelming majority of the population. They don’t have the time to do research projects.
Do you think the people in the West—and it is now happening in India as well—are giving up newspapers and turning to the internet largely because they do not believe what the newspapers say?
In the US, it’s partly true. But that’s also part of a much broader phenomenon which you can easily see in polls. A large majority of the population is disillusioned with everything. They are anti-government, anti-business, opposed to the political parties, Republicans even more than the Democrats; they dislike Congress, they don’t believe the professions, the scientists. It’s as if their lives are falling apart. So, yes, they don’t like the media. Then there is also the propaganda—how the media is socialist and so on.
There are lots of discussions about how the media won’t be able to survive in the days of internet. I am very sceptical about that. I was in Mexico last week—and Mexico, mind you, is a poor country. The second largest newspaper in Mexico, La Jornada, is a very high quality newspaper, one of the best I know. It gets almost no commercial advertising because the government hates it, business hates it. They survive on readership support. Why can’t it happen in a rich country? That’s because people in Mexico trust La Jornada. They are doing their job, you can see people reading it on the streets. You learn from it.
I spent three weeks in India and a week in Pakistan. A friend of mine here, Iqbal Ahmed, told me that I would be surprised to find that the media in Pakistan is more open, free and vibrant than that in India.
In Pakistan, I read the English language media which go to a tiny part of the population. Apparently, the government, no matter how repressive it is, is willing to say to them that you have your fun, we are not going to bother you. So they don’t interfere with it.
“Liberal media doesn’t discuss attacks on civil rights today, for they are coming from the Obama administration.”
The media in India is free, the government doesn’t have the power to control it. But what I saw was that it was pretty restricted, very narrow and provincial and not very informative, leaving out lots of things. What I saw was a small sample. There are very good things in the Indian media, specially the Hindu and a couple of others. But this picture (in India) doesn’t surprise me. In fact, the media situation is not very different in many other countries. The Mexican situation is unusual. La Jornada is the only independent newspaper in the whole hemisphere.
S.M. Krishna faces Pakistani media ‘No matter how repressive, Pakistan’s government leaves the media alone’ (Photograph by AFP, From Outlook, November 01, 2010)
So what is the solution to all this? Is the internet the only way out?
What has to be done is not really specific to the media. It is to develop a more functional democratic society, a more democratic culture. As far as the elites are concerned they want the public to be disciplined, passive, obedient and directed to other things. Take a look at the history of the huge public relations and advertising industry that we have today. It developed in the freest countries in the world—England and the US—around the time of the First World War. Incidentally, that was the time Lippmann was writing. It was developed very consciously, out of the understanding that enough freedom had been won by popular struggle and the population could not be controlled by force. Therefore, it was thought necessary to control attitudes and beliefs. In the business press of the 1920s, you can read very openly about the need to divert people to what they call the superficial thing in life like fashionable consumption. If we can direct people to that, they will keep out of our hair, we can run things. You see that in India, certainly.
“From what I saw, the Indian media is very narrow, restricted and provincial. It leaves out a lot of things.”
Family-owned concerns dominate the Indian media. Some people believe it is an advantage because you can play upon the vanity of the owners to have them take up important issues. For instance, the way Katherine Graham took risks by featuring the Watergate scandal in The Washington Post.
The Watergate scandal was just a cover-up. It was almost nothing. Right at the same time as the Watergate exposure—and this tells you a lot of about the media and the culture—a state terrorist government operation was exposed in the courts. It was called Cointelpro, it was essentially an fbi programme that ran through the Johnson, Kennedy and Nixon administrations. It began with targeting the Communist party, Puerto Ricans, the anti-war movement, the women’s movements, the entire new Left....It was a very serious thing, going all the way to political assassination, literally. That was exposed at the very same time as Watergate. No attention was paid to it; it was too serious. Cointelpro really told you something about the government. Therefore, it was basically suppressed, it is still suppressed so that people don’t know anything about it. Watergate, on the other hand, was a minor scandal. The main scandal about the Watergate was that Nixon went after the relatively rich and powerful people.
Nixon/Obama ‘Watergate: a mere cover-up. The extent of Obama’s liberalism: he said Iraq was bad strategy.’
So Watergate was akin to intra-elite fight?
It was a kind of small intra-elite fight that became huge. The Washington Post did a good thing to write about the Watergate scandal, but I can hardly regard it as requiring great courage.
But are family-owned newspapers better in comparison to the corporatisation?
It is hard to choose. Take Rupert Murdoch. He owns a good part of the press. Is that a good thing? What would be a good thing is democratic control.
How do we bring about this democratic control? Do you have in mind community-based ownerships or community-supported media?
Perhaps the period of greatest real press freedom was in the more free societies of Britain and the US in the late 19th century. There was a great variety of newspapers, most often run by the factory workers, ethnic communities and others. There was a lot of popular involvement. These papers reflected a wide variety of opinions, were widely read too. It was the period of greatest vibrancy in the US. There were efforts, especially in England, to control and censor it. These didn’t work. But two things pretty much eliminated them. One, it was possible for the corporate sector to simply put so much capital into their own newspapers that others couldn’t compete. The other factor was advertising; advertiser-reliance. Advertisers are businesses. When newspapers become dependent on advertisers for their income, they are naturally going to bend to the interest of advertisers.
If you look at the New York Times, maybe the world’s greatest newspaper, they have the concept of news hole. What that means is that in the afternoon when they plan for the following day’s newspaper, the first thing they do is to layout where the advertising is going to be, because that’s an important part of a newspaper. You then put the news in the gaps between advertisements. In television there is a concept called content and fill. The content is the advertising, the fill is car chase, the sexy or whatever you put in to try to keep the viewer watching in between the ads. That’s a natural outcome when you have advertiser-reliance.
Of course, these things affect the tenor of the newspaper. Suppose a newspaper started publishing the truth—that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal invasion that destroyed the country. That newspaper or the TV station is not going to get any ads. We, again, come back to Orwell’s point—about an intellectual culture in which elites and great universities are inculcated with the understanding that there are things that just wouldn’t do to say.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, avinash sahay wrote:
Dear Ananya,
What a coincidence. I was about to forward this article to all of you . The message seems to be that we have seen nothing yet. The world is getting wired to the last mile in this global village, and I see a great future for humankind.Prosperity is the birthright of every being and that they shall have.
You must also have read of the 38 year old Governor-elect, Nikki Haley, from Amritsar. I'm glad all of you are getting great education.You must absorb and be great learners. We must not shut out genius by our two pence worth of judgements. Beyond each sky another sky beckons. History has not ended with our present state of knowledge.If we are curious, persistent and humble, we'll rise to heights beyond our wildest imaginations.
This is precisely my wish for you on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, avinash sahay wrote:
Dear Ananya,
What a coincidence. I was about to forward this article to all of you . The message seems to be that we have seen nothing yet. The world is getting wired to the last mile in this global village, and I see a great future for humankind.Prosperity is the birthright of every being and that they shall have.
You must also have read of the 38 year old Governor-elect, Nikki Haley, from Amritsar. I'm glad all of you are getting great education.You must absorb and be great learners. We must not shut out genius by our two pence worth of judgements. Beyond each sky another sky beckons. History has not ended with our present state of knowledge.If we are curious, persistent and humble, we'll rise to heights beyond our wildest imaginations.
This is precisely my wish for you on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=2&hp
Dear Ananya,
What a coincidence. I was about to forward this article to all of you . The message seems to be that we have seen nothing yet. The world is getting wired to the last mile in this global village, and I see a great future for humankind.Prosperity is the birthright of every being and that they shall have.
You must also have read of the 38 year old Governor-elect, Nikki Haley, from Amritsar. I'm glad all of you are getting great education.You must absorb and be great learners. We must not shut out genius by our two pence worth of judgements. Beyond each sky another sky beckons. History has not ended with our present state of knowledge.If we are curious, persistent and humble, we'll rise to heights beyond our wildest imaginations.
This is precisely my wish for you on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, avinash sahay
Dear Ananya,
What a coincidence. I was about to forward this article to all of you . The message seems to be that we have seen nothing yet. The world is getting wired to the last mile in this global village, and I see a great future for humankind.Prosperity is the birthright of every being and that they shall have.
You must also have read of the 38 year old Governor-elect, Nikki Haley, from Amritsar. I'm glad all of you are getting great education.You must absorb and be great learners. We must not shut out genius by our two pence worth of judgements. Beyond each sky another sky beckons. History has not ended with our present state of knowledge.If we are curious, persistent and humble, we'll rise to heights beyond our wildest imaginations.
This is precisely my wish for you on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=2&hp
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Islam Hijacked by Status Quo
Fw: Culture or Criminality
Those more interested in the subject will do well to read the works of Asghar Ali Engineer, in particular the book entitled, Qur'an,Women and Modern Society. This book will make clear how secular and progressive Islam actually is contrary to it's practise which has been completely hijacked by retrogade elements,not only of Islam but of all religions,who are bent upon preserving the status quo which dehumanises not only it's women,but also 90% of the human race.
We must respect all religions because all religions are meant to essentially help us live in peace and brotherhood and in seeking the truth.Alas, the practise is in stark contrast to theory.But, in the final analysis, it all boils down to us. If we are smart and knowledgable,we'll easily resist the dark ideology of the tyrants and live in bliss , harmony and prosperity for all.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "avinashk.sahay@gmail.com"
To: asahays@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:55:14 PM
Subject: avinash sahay has forwarded a page to you from Deccan Chronicle
Message from Sender:
This article advocates the tremendous benefit that can accrue to society if women were to find their voice in the running of the affairs of the society. Religion and politics have been traditionally misused by men to retain their stronghold over power.It's high time the dispossessed and the oppressed come together in a communitarian spirit to demand a life of dignity, so far denied to them.
To the women of Afghanistan
Women of Afghanistan, it is time to go to the barricades. Now is the hour to claim your rights. Negotiations are under way in earnest; the Taliban are at the table, so are the warlords and bandits, tribal elders and the President. There’s not a woman in sight. Yet everyone knows you are the ones who can yank Afghanistan into the 21st century.
Even über-economists like Jeffrey Sachs of mill
Click here to read more on our site
Those more interested in the subject will do well to read the works of Asghar Ali Engineer, in particular the book entitled, Qur'an,Women and Modern Society. This book will make clear how secular and progressive Islam actually is contrary to it's practise which has been completely hijacked by retrogade elements,not only of Islam but of all religions,who are bent upon preserving the status quo which dehumanises not only it's women,but also 90% of the human race.
We must respect all religions because all religions are meant to essentially help us live in peace and brotherhood and in seeking the truth.Alas, the practise is in stark contrast to theory.But, in the final analysis, it all boils down to us. If we are smart and knowledgable,we'll easily resist the dark ideology of the tyrants and live in bliss , harmony and prosperity for all.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "avinashk.sahay@gmail.com"
To: asahays@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:55:14 PM
Subject: avinash sahay has forwarded a page to you from Deccan Chronicle
Message from Sender:
This article advocates the tremendous benefit that can accrue to society if women were to find their voice in the running of the affairs of the society. Religion and politics have been traditionally misused by men to retain their stronghold over power.It's high time the dispossessed and the oppressed come together in a communitarian spirit to demand a life of dignity, so far denied to them.
To the women of Afghanistan
Women of Afghanistan, it is time to go to the barricades. Now is the hour to claim your rights. Negotiations are under way in earnest; the Taliban are at the table, so are the warlords and bandits, tribal elders and the President. There’s not a woman in sight. Yet everyone knows you are the ones who can yank Afghanistan into the 21st century.
Even über-economists like Jeffrey Sachs of mill
Click here to read more on our site
Know the Light Burning Within You
Fw: There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men....Let us light the Inner lamp this Dipawali
Our brain is a grand receiver of various frequencies from the Ocean of Consciousness that we inhabit. The problem is that we start believing that the various thoughts are us.That's a folly. Thoughts are merely traffic of this grand Ocean.Whereas the real Self, the Charioteer within,lies buried within reams of Maya and false consciousness.
If we will just start with this working hypothesis of ignoring the many thoughts arising in the mind,and fervently wishing that whatever work is on hand we are doing brilliantly with the utmost ease, and which also promotes the common good,we'll start connecting with that great Charioteer within, and then we'll awake to a new life and freedom.Our harsh judgements about people and things in this world is the cause of many of our unhapiness.
There's a saying that if we always do what we are doing, we'll always get what we have been getting.We are all earnest peoples moving heaven and earth for happiness.And, somehow, that peace and happiness always seems to elude us. Friends, that brilliance can only begin with identifying the real bottleneck. Only then we'll be taking that first step.
This is dedicated to our first step on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Prof V K Chilana
To: Prof Vipin Chilana
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:07:56 PM
Subject: There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men....Let us light the Inner lamp this Dipawali!
There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men.......
Let us light the Inner lamp this Dipawali!
Lighting The Inner Lamp
Shri Nath Sahai
The sun rises every morning. It lights up my house, my surroundings – everyone, everything, animate or inanimate. My mind and heart, however, remain clouded by ignorance and doubt. I recollect Herbert Read’s words: “There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men.” And mind is a jungle of cravings, greed and material desires. Diwali, the festival of lights, is a good occasion to re-examine ways to remove darkness from within.
Both Krishna and Rama are central to Diwali celebrations. While Krishna overcomes demon Narakasura, Rama overthrows Ravana. Hence the importance given to Naraka Chaturdasi and the return of Rama to Ayodhya. The celebration with lights symbolises the removal of darkness of ignorance.
During Diwali, diyas or oil lamps are lit inside the house as well as outside. That is, you get illumined from within, and also spread the light of awareness outside, so that one lamp lights another to dispel darkness everywhere. This is in keeping with the philosophy of caring and sharing.
The festival speaks for plurality; it celebrates diversity that is ubiquitous everywhere in the world, reflected in the various traditions and cultures, faiths and beliefs. While in northern parts of India communities celebrate the safe return of Rama to Ayodhya after having dealt successfully with Ravana and his army, signalling the dawn of light and positivity, it is also an occasion to welcome prosperity in the form of Goddess Lakshmi into the house, a sign of the good times ahead. For Sikhs it is the day of return of their sixth Guru Hargovind Ji from captivity; for Jains it is the day of Lord Mahavira’s nirvana; and in Bengal, it is time to adulate Goddess Kali, a manifestation of the Female Principle, Shakti.
The mind is capable of shutting itself in, closing its doors to enlightened living. But by consciously opening the mind, we let in freshness of understanding and the light of wisdom, thereby expanding our horizons and broadening our vision. Light is symbolic of the purity of agni or fire that is essential in our progress towards attaining to enlightenment.
Another symbolic ritual that really refers to cleansing the mind is the tradition of taking dip in the Ganga, washing off past misdeeds and negative thoughts to emerge fresh and receptive to wisdom and knowledge, to nurture fresh hope and make new commitments. While cleaning the external dirt, we need to also remove internal stains as well, for it is believed that Goddess Lakshmi enters only those homes that are clean and illuminated. By discharging the inner dirt that has accumulated with anger, lust and greed we make room for divine attributes that will enhance the quality of life and enable seekers to find the Truth.
We live in a world terrorised by violence and deceit, corruption and cunning, fundamentalism and atrocity. However, it is never too late to exorcise the ghosts of the past and forge a new world of understanding, love and joy, by spreading the light of wisdom from insight and connecting to all with love and gratitude.
“Which else shall beautify a home/ But the flame of a lovely lamp/ Which else shall adorn the mind/ But the light of Wisdom deep,” wrote a poet, and the verse sums up beautifully the spirit of the festival of lamps.
Our brain is a grand receiver of various frequencies from the Ocean of Consciousness that we inhabit. The problem is that we start believing that the various thoughts are us.That's a folly. Thoughts are merely traffic of this grand Ocean.Whereas the real Self, the Charioteer within,lies buried within reams of Maya and false consciousness.
If we will just start with this working hypothesis of ignoring the many thoughts arising in the mind,and fervently wishing that whatever work is on hand we are doing brilliantly with the utmost ease, and which also promotes the common good,we'll start connecting with that great Charioteer within, and then we'll awake to a new life and freedom.Our harsh judgements about people and things in this world is the cause of many of our unhapiness.
There's a saying that if we always do what we are doing, we'll always get what we have been getting.We are all earnest peoples moving heaven and earth for happiness.And, somehow, that peace and happiness always seems to elude us. Friends, that brilliance can only begin with identifying the real bottleneck. Only then we'll be taking that first step.
This is dedicated to our first step on this auspicious Diwali.
Best regards,
Avinash
http://poshaning.blogspot.com/
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Prof V K Chilana
To: Prof Vipin Chilana
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:07:56 PM
Subject: There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men....Let us light the Inner lamp this Dipawali!
There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men.......
Let us light the Inner lamp this Dipawali!
Lighting The Inner Lamp
Shri Nath Sahai
The sun rises every morning. It lights up my house, my surroundings – everyone, everything, animate or inanimate. My mind and heart, however, remain clouded by ignorance and doubt. I recollect Herbert Read’s words: “There are lights everywhere except in the minds of men.” And mind is a jungle of cravings, greed and material desires. Diwali, the festival of lights, is a good occasion to re-examine ways to remove darkness from within.
Both Krishna and Rama are central to Diwali celebrations. While Krishna overcomes demon Narakasura, Rama overthrows Ravana. Hence the importance given to Naraka Chaturdasi and the return of Rama to Ayodhya. The celebration with lights symbolises the removal of darkness of ignorance.
During Diwali, diyas or oil lamps are lit inside the house as well as outside. That is, you get illumined from within, and also spread the light of awareness outside, so that one lamp lights another to dispel darkness everywhere. This is in keeping with the philosophy of caring and sharing.
The festival speaks for plurality; it celebrates diversity that is ubiquitous everywhere in the world, reflected in the various traditions and cultures, faiths and beliefs. While in northern parts of India communities celebrate the safe return of Rama to Ayodhya after having dealt successfully with Ravana and his army, signalling the dawn of light and positivity, it is also an occasion to welcome prosperity in the form of Goddess Lakshmi into the house, a sign of the good times ahead. For Sikhs it is the day of return of their sixth Guru Hargovind Ji from captivity; for Jains it is the day of Lord Mahavira’s nirvana; and in Bengal, it is time to adulate Goddess Kali, a manifestation of the Female Principle, Shakti.
The mind is capable of shutting itself in, closing its doors to enlightened living. But by consciously opening the mind, we let in freshness of understanding and the light of wisdom, thereby expanding our horizons and broadening our vision. Light is symbolic of the purity of agni or fire that is essential in our progress towards attaining to enlightenment.
Another symbolic ritual that really refers to cleansing the mind is the tradition of taking dip in the Ganga, washing off past misdeeds and negative thoughts to emerge fresh and receptive to wisdom and knowledge, to nurture fresh hope and make new commitments. While cleaning the external dirt, we need to also remove internal stains as well, for it is believed that Goddess Lakshmi enters only those homes that are clean and illuminated. By discharging the inner dirt that has accumulated with anger, lust and greed we make room for divine attributes that will enhance the quality of life and enable seekers to find the Truth.
We live in a world terrorised by violence and deceit, corruption and cunning, fundamentalism and atrocity. However, it is never too late to exorcise the ghosts of the past and forge a new world of understanding, love and joy, by spreading the light of wisdom from insight and connecting to all with love and gratitude.
“Which else shall beautify a home/ But the flame of a lovely lamp/ Which else shall adorn the mind/ But the light of Wisdom deep,” wrote a poet, and the verse sums up beautifully the spirit of the festival of lamps.
Prosperity for all is a Realizable Dream
New Delhi
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
The Hindustan Times carried a small news item the other day that, depending on your perspective, is good news or a sign of the apocalypse. It reported that a Nepali telecommunications firm had just started providing third-generation mobile network service, or 3G, at the summit of Mount Everest, the world’s tallest mountain, to “allow thousands of climbers and trekkers who throng the region every year access to high-speed Internet and video calls using their mobile phones.”
I can hear it already: “Hi, mom! You’ll never guess where I’m calling from ...”
This is just one small node in what is the single most important trend unfolding in the world today: globalization — the distribution of cheap tools of communication and innovation that are wiring together the world’s citizens, governments, businesses, terrorists and now mountaintops — is going to a whole new level. In India alone, some 15 million new cellphone users are being added each month.
Having traveled to both China and India in the last few weeks, here’s a scary thought I have: What if — for all the hype about China, India and globalization — they’re actually underhyped? What if these sleeping giants are just finishing a 20-year process of getting the basic technological and educational infrastructure in place to become innovation hubs and that we haven’t seen anything yet?
Here’s an example of why I ask these questions. It’s a typical Indian start-up I visited in a garage in South Delhi, EKO India Financial Services. Its founders, Abhishek Sinha and his brother Abhinav, began with a small insight — that low-wage Indian migrant workers flocking to Delhi from poorer states like Bihar had no place to put their savings and no secure way to send money home to their families. India has relatively few bank branches for a country its size, so many migrants stuff money in their mattresses or send cash home through traditional “hawala,” or hand-to-hand networks.
The brothers had an idea. In every Indian neighborhood or village there’s usually a mom-and-pop kiosk that sells drinks, cigarettes, candy and a few groceries. Why not turn each one into a virtual bank? So they created a software program whereby a migrant worker in Delhi using his cellphone, and proof of identity, could open a bank account registered on his cellphone text system. Mom-and-pop shopkeepers would act as the friendly neighborhood local banker and do the same.
Then the worker in New Delhi could give a kiosk owner in his slum 1,000 rupees (about $20), the shopkeeper would record it on his phone and text receipt of the deposit to the system’s mother bank, the State Bank of India. Then the worker’s wife back in Bihar could just go to the mom-and-pop kiosk in her village, also tied into the system, and make a withdrawal using her cellphone. The shopkeeper there would give her the 1,000 rupees sent by her husband. Each shopkeeper would earn a small fee from each transaction. Besides money transfers, workers could also use the system to bank their savings.
Since opening 18 months ago, their virtual bank now has 180,000 users doing more than 7,000 transactions a day through 500 “branches” — mom-and-pop kiosks — in Delhi and 200 more in Bihar and Jharkhand, the hometowns of many maids and migrants. EKO gets a tiny commission from the Bank of India for each transaction and two months ago started to turn a small profit.
Abhishek, who was inspired by a similar program in Brazil, said the kiosk owners “are already trusted people in each community” and are already in the habit of extending credit to their poor customers: “So we said, ‘Why not leverage them?’ We are the agents of the bank, and these retailers are our subagents.” The cheapest cellphone today has enough computing power to become a digital “mattress” and digital bank for the poor.
The whole system is being run out of a little house and garage with a dozen employees, a bunch of laptops, servers and the Internet. The core idea, says Abhishek, is “to close the last mile — the gap where government services end and the consumer begins.” There is a huge business in bridging that last mile for millions of poor Indians — who, without it, can’t get proper health care, education or insurance.
What is striking about the small EKO team is that it includes graduates from India’s most prestigious institutes of technology who were working in America but decided to come home for the action, while the chief operating officer — Matteo Chiampo — is an Italian technologist who left a good job in Boston to work here “where the excitement is,” he said.
India today is this unusual combination of a country with millions of people making $2 and $3 a day, but with a growing economy, an increasing amount of cheap connectivity and a rising number of skilled technologists looking to make their fortune by inventing low-cost solutions to every problem you can imagine. In the next decade, I predict, we will see some really disruptive business models coming out of here — to a neighborhood near you. If you thought the rate of change was fast thanks to the garage innovators of Silicon Valley, wait until the garages of Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore get fully up to speed. I sure hope we’re ready.
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
The Hindustan Times carried a small news item the other day that, depending on your perspective, is good news or a sign of the apocalypse. It reported that a Nepali telecommunications firm had just started providing third-generation mobile network service, or 3G, at the summit of Mount Everest, the world’s tallest mountain, to “allow thousands of climbers and trekkers who throng the region every year access to high-speed Internet and video calls using their mobile phones.”
I can hear it already: “Hi, mom! You’ll never guess where I’m calling from ...”
This is just one small node in what is the single most important trend unfolding in the world today: globalization — the distribution of cheap tools of communication and innovation that are wiring together the world’s citizens, governments, businesses, terrorists and now mountaintops — is going to a whole new level. In India alone, some 15 million new cellphone users are being added each month.
Having traveled to both China and India in the last few weeks, here’s a scary thought I have: What if — for all the hype about China, India and globalization — they’re actually underhyped? What if these sleeping giants are just finishing a 20-year process of getting the basic technological and educational infrastructure in place to become innovation hubs and that we haven’t seen anything yet?
Here’s an example of why I ask these questions. It’s a typical Indian start-up I visited in a garage in South Delhi, EKO India Financial Services. Its founders, Abhishek Sinha and his brother Abhinav, began with a small insight — that low-wage Indian migrant workers flocking to Delhi from poorer states like Bihar had no place to put their savings and no secure way to send money home to their families. India has relatively few bank branches for a country its size, so many migrants stuff money in their mattresses or send cash home through traditional “hawala,” or hand-to-hand networks.
The brothers had an idea. In every Indian neighborhood or village there’s usually a mom-and-pop kiosk that sells drinks, cigarettes, candy and a few groceries. Why not turn each one into a virtual bank? So they created a software program whereby a migrant worker in Delhi using his cellphone, and proof of identity, could open a bank account registered on his cellphone text system. Mom-and-pop shopkeepers would act as the friendly neighborhood local banker and do the same.
Then the worker in New Delhi could give a kiosk owner in his slum 1,000 rupees (about $20), the shopkeeper would record it on his phone and text receipt of the deposit to the system’s mother bank, the State Bank of India. Then the worker’s wife back in Bihar could just go to the mom-and-pop kiosk in her village, also tied into the system, and make a withdrawal using her cellphone. The shopkeeper there would give her the 1,000 rupees sent by her husband. Each shopkeeper would earn a small fee from each transaction. Besides money transfers, workers could also use the system to bank their savings.
Since opening 18 months ago, their virtual bank now has 180,000 users doing more than 7,000 transactions a day through 500 “branches” — mom-and-pop kiosks — in Delhi and 200 more in Bihar and Jharkhand, the hometowns of many maids and migrants. EKO gets a tiny commission from the Bank of India for each transaction and two months ago started to turn a small profit.
Abhishek, who was inspired by a similar program in Brazil, said the kiosk owners “are already trusted people in each community” and are already in the habit of extending credit to their poor customers: “So we said, ‘Why not leverage them?’ We are the agents of the bank, and these retailers are our subagents.” The cheapest cellphone today has enough computing power to become a digital “mattress” and digital bank for the poor.
The whole system is being run out of a little house and garage with a dozen employees, a bunch of laptops, servers and the Internet. The core idea, says Abhishek, is “to close the last mile — the gap where government services end and the consumer begins.” There is a huge business in bridging that last mile for millions of poor Indians — who, without it, can’t get proper health care, education or insurance.
What is striking about the small EKO team is that it includes graduates from India’s most prestigious institutes of technology who were working in America but decided to come home for the action, while the chief operating officer — Matteo Chiampo — is an Italian technologist who left a good job in Boston to work here “where the excitement is,” he said.
India today is this unusual combination of a country with millions of people making $2 and $3 a day, but with a growing economy, an increasing amount of cheap connectivity and a rising number of skilled technologists looking to make their fortune by inventing low-cost solutions to every problem you can imagine. In the next decade, I predict, we will see some really disruptive business models coming out of here — to a neighborhood near you. If you thought the rate of change was fast thanks to the garage innovators of Silicon Valley, wait until the garages of Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore get fully up to speed. I sure hope we’re ready.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Nationalism and Militarism is our worst Enemy
Their was a fantastic Indian band called "Rock Machine" ("Indus Creed (?)", later on). If it was a Western (American) band they would've been as popular as U2......they were that good!
In one of their songs, the lyrics go:
".....And the politicians played their game.
How come they never die for their country?......."
Pankaj
Dear Brian,
This nationalistic mumbo-jumbo is nothing but paranoid narcissism of the neurotic. It's a very clever ploy by the ruling elites(all over the world) who comprise not more than 1% of the world's population to enlist the have nots in their personal battle to kill their own brethren.
We need to beware of this nationalistic jingoism of the elites. The poor have no nationality or religion. They just want a dignified life which has been denied so far to them.I love the defence forces, all over the world, even the Chinese and the Pakistanis. They are certainly sacrificing a lot. But it's high time one realizes that they are just a tool in the hands of the status quo.
The world is one large family, as beautifully expressed in the concept of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam. And all of us need to LIVE to make this a reality.The martyr suffers from a huge victim complex, which is a complete delusion.Our only mandate is to leave the world a better place than we found it.And killing each other is certainly the last thing to achieve this objective,no matter how lofty? the ideal.
I'm sorry, my friend, to be spoiling the party. But how long can we go on fighting, rather than LOVING, each other.
________________________________
Spare a thought for Indian soldier
By Vir Sanghvi .... 10 Oct 2010
I was watching British television news last week. A big story
concerned the death of a Lieutenant Colonel in Afghanistan.
Apparently, some British soldiers carry video cameras strapped to
their headgear and so the shooting of the officer was recorded on
videotape. It made for gruesome viewing.
The story was about the lack of facilities that led to his death. The
Colonel commanded a small detachment of men who came under fire from
the Taliban. When the attack began, they tried to radio for help but
found that they could not get a signal in the covered space they were
taking refuge in. So, the Colonel went out to try and get a signal.
This made him an easy target for the Taliban who shot him. The bullet
entered his shoulder and severed an artery.
His horrified troops then radioed the base and asked for a helicopter
to pick up the Colonel and to take him to hospital. According to the
TV channel, it took 40 minutes for the despatch of the helicopter to
be approved once the message had reached. The helicopter took some
time to reach the Colonel and overall, it was over an hour before he
was placed in the helicopter to be taken to hospital. Though doctors
did their best, he died three hours later.
It was a horrific story made more poignant by the demands for an
enquiry from the Colonel’s mother. Why hadn’t the radios worked
properly? Why had it taken so long to approve a helicopter?
The defence ministry was asked to respond by the TV channel. That
response made the point that a) the radios were working fine, which
cannot be right because no soldier would risk his life and expose
himself to hostile fire trying to get a signal out in the open if he
could simply use the radio from his secure, sheltered spot and b) even
if the helicopter had reached earlier, the Colonel would still have
died. The Taliban bullet had severed a key artery and death was
inevitable.
That response was clearly unsatisfactory. At the time that the base
delayed sending the helicopter nobody knew how serious the Colonel’s
injuries were or whether his life could have been saved by rushing him
to hospital. It was not as though some officer said, “Oh, he is going
to die anyway,” and therefore decided to dilly-dally over sending a
chopper.
That same day, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked to comment on
the incident. Cameron made all the right noises, but essentially his
response was that British forces in Afghanistan did not have enough
helicopters or helicopter pilots. However, the Colonel had died when
Labour was in power. Now that the Conservatives had taken office, the
British army had been given the choppers and pilots it needed.
It would seem to me that the army behaved scandalously. But that is
not my concern this Sunday. What struck me while watching that report
was how seriously the British took the death of a single officer in
war time. Months after the event, it was the lead story on
the news and the Prime Minister was being asked to explain the
circumstances of the tragic death.
Contrast the British example with the way in which we respond to the
deaths of our soldiers — both army and para-military — even though we
know that they have given their lives so that we can be safe and
secure.
First of all, we would have no video-recording because nobody bothers
to give our soldiers cameras.
Secondly, no soldier would believe that he was entitled to get a
chopper to come and pick him up from the battlefield once he had been
shot. We simply don’t extend that sort of facility to our troops.
Thirdly, the circumstances of the death would never be made public.
The video-footage would never get out. We would never hear about how
long it took for a rescue to be organised.
Fourthly, we in the media would never dare question the Prime Minister
about the death of an individual soldier. We would act as though the
PM was too important a man to bother with the death of a single
officer. And finally, the reason why none of this would happen is
because at some basic level, we simply do not care enough for the
lives of our fighting men.
Consider the news items we come across every day. Soldiers are killed
trying to do a job they have no business to attempt, imposing the law
of the state in some insurgency-ridden
part of India. Soldiers die in pointless clashes — during peace time!
— on the border with Pakistan. Soldiers are ambushed by Naxalites and
killed by the dozen.
Go through the newspapers for the last year and try and add up how
many lives have been lost. Now, we are so brutalised by the constant
litany of deaths that they no longer necessarily make page one. The
killings are buried in some small item on some inside page. And yet,
much of what we are as a nation is due to the sacrifices of our
troops. It is easy for you and me to sit at home and criticise the way
in which the CRPF is battling the Naxalites. But it is not so easy for
the sons, daughters and widows of the hundreds of men who have died in
this battle to bother with armchair criticism. Poorly-led,
inadequately armed, insufficiently trained and bereft of accurate
intelligence, our soldiers are sent off to their deaths. And when they
fail to come back, only their families weep. The rest of us do not
even notice.
The difference between India and a Western country is that we still
have people willing to die for us. In the West, citizens are no longer
willing to risk their lives in warfare. As long as battles are
conducted with missiles and drones, the population is
content to watch the spectacle on television. But once lives begin to
be lost, the public turns against the war and demands an immediate
pull-out.
Consider the US and Vietnam. Until the body count became high, Lyndon
Johnson was a popular President. But as more and more soldiers began
to die, he was vilified, the war lost public support and the US’s
priority became to look for a way to get out. So it was with Tony
Blair. History will remember him as one of Britain’s more successful
prime ministers. But within his own country, he is treated as a
villain or a ‘war criminal’ even, because he risked British lives in
Iraq. And now, Barack Obama’s principal priority is to pull troops out
of Afghanistan even though the consequence of a US withdrawal would be
a certain return to the pre-2001 situation.
No Western nation could live with the casualties we suffer each week
in the battle against the Maoists. By now, public resolve would have
crumbled and there would be calls for some kind of deal to avoid
further bloodshed. And no Western nation would have had the stomach
for something like Kargil, where each hill was recaptured after
close-proximity combat and many officers lost their lives.
The reason we know that we can fight challenges to our sovereignty and
to the rule of law is because we are sure that we can count on our
armed forces. Time after time we ask them to risk their lives for us.
And they never ever let India down.
So, spare a thought, this Sunday, for the Indian soldier. We never
give him the facilities that are his due. And we never greet his death
with the respect or concern it deserves.
But all of us recognise that one reason why we are still a free and
sovereign nation is because he is willing to die so that we can live.
__._,_.___
R
In one of their songs, the lyrics go:
".....And the politicians played their game.
How come they never die for their country?......."
Pankaj
Dear Brian,
This nationalistic mumbo-jumbo is nothing but paranoid narcissism of the neurotic. It's a very clever ploy by the ruling elites(all over the world) who comprise not more than 1% of the world's population to enlist the have nots in their personal battle to kill their own brethren.
We need to beware of this nationalistic jingoism of the elites. The poor have no nationality or religion. They just want a dignified life which has been denied so far to them.I love the defence forces, all over the world, even the Chinese and the Pakistanis. They are certainly sacrificing a lot. But it's high time one realizes that they are just a tool in the hands of the status quo.
The world is one large family, as beautifully expressed in the concept of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam. And all of us need to LIVE to make this a reality.The martyr suffers from a huge victim complex, which is a complete delusion.Our only mandate is to leave the world a better place than we found it.And killing each other is certainly the last thing to achieve this objective,no matter how lofty? the ideal.
I'm sorry, my friend, to be spoiling the party. But how long can we go on fighting, rather than LOVING, each other.
________________________________
Spare a thought for Indian soldier
By Vir Sanghvi .... 10 Oct 2010
I was watching British television news last week. A big story
concerned the death of a Lieutenant Colonel in Afghanistan.
Apparently, some British soldiers carry video cameras strapped to
their headgear and so the shooting of the officer was recorded on
videotape. It made for gruesome viewing.
The story was about the lack of facilities that led to his death. The
Colonel commanded a small detachment of men who came under fire from
the Taliban. When the attack began, they tried to radio for help but
found that they could not get a signal in the covered space they were
taking refuge in. So, the Colonel went out to try and get a signal.
This made him an easy target for the Taliban who shot him. The bullet
entered his shoulder and severed an artery.
His horrified troops then radioed the base and asked for a helicopter
to pick up the Colonel and to take him to hospital. According to the
TV channel, it took 40 minutes for the despatch of the helicopter to
be approved once the message had reached. The helicopter took some
time to reach the Colonel and overall, it was over an hour before he
was placed in the helicopter to be taken to hospital. Though doctors
did their best, he died three hours later.
It was a horrific story made more poignant by the demands for an
enquiry from the Colonel’s mother. Why hadn’t the radios worked
properly? Why had it taken so long to approve a helicopter?
The defence ministry was asked to respond by the TV channel. That
response made the point that a) the radios were working fine, which
cannot be right because no soldier would risk his life and expose
himself to hostile fire trying to get a signal out in the open if he
could simply use the radio from his secure, sheltered spot and b) even
if the helicopter had reached earlier, the Colonel would still have
died. The Taliban bullet had severed a key artery and death was
inevitable.
That response was clearly unsatisfactory. At the time that the base
delayed sending the helicopter nobody knew how serious the Colonel’s
injuries were or whether his life could have been saved by rushing him
to hospital. It was not as though some officer said, “Oh, he is going
to die anyway,” and therefore decided to dilly-dally over sending a
chopper.
That same day, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked to comment on
the incident. Cameron made all the right noises, but essentially his
response was that British forces in Afghanistan did not have enough
helicopters or helicopter pilots. However, the Colonel had died when
Labour was in power. Now that the Conservatives had taken office, the
British army had been given the choppers and pilots it needed.
It would seem to me that the army behaved scandalously. But that is
not my concern this Sunday. What struck me while watching that report
was how seriously the British took the death of a single officer in
war time. Months after the event, it was the lead story on
the news and the Prime Minister was being asked to explain the
circumstances of the tragic death.
Contrast the British example with the way in which we respond to the
deaths of our soldiers — both army and para-military — even though we
know that they have given their lives so that we can be safe and
secure.
First of all, we would have no video-recording because nobody bothers
to give our soldiers cameras.
Secondly, no soldier would believe that he was entitled to get a
chopper to come and pick him up from the battlefield once he had been
shot. We simply don’t extend that sort of facility to our troops.
Thirdly, the circumstances of the death would never be made public.
The video-footage would never get out. We would never hear about how
long it took for a rescue to be organised.
Fourthly, we in the media would never dare question the Prime Minister
about the death of an individual soldier. We would act as though the
PM was too important a man to bother with the death of a single
officer. And finally, the reason why none of this would happen is
because at some basic level, we simply do not care enough for the
lives of our fighting men.
Consider the news items we come across every day. Soldiers are killed
trying to do a job they have no business to attempt, imposing the law
of the state in some insurgency-ridden
part of India. Soldiers die in pointless clashes — during peace time!
— on the border with Pakistan. Soldiers are ambushed by Naxalites and
killed by the dozen.
Go through the newspapers for the last year and try and add up how
many lives have been lost. Now, we are so brutalised by the constant
litany of deaths that they no longer necessarily make page one. The
killings are buried in some small item on some inside page. And yet,
much of what we are as a nation is due to the sacrifices of our
troops. It is easy for you and me to sit at home and criticise the way
in which the CRPF is battling the Naxalites. But it is not so easy for
the sons, daughters and widows of the hundreds of men who have died in
this battle to bother with armchair criticism. Poorly-led,
inadequately armed, insufficiently trained and bereft of accurate
intelligence, our soldiers are sent off to their deaths. And when they
fail to come back, only their families weep. The rest of us do not
even notice.
The difference between India and a Western country is that we still
have people willing to die for us. In the West, citizens are no longer
willing to risk their lives in warfare. As long as battles are
conducted with missiles and drones, the population is
content to watch the spectacle on television. But once lives begin to
be lost, the public turns against the war and demands an immediate
pull-out.
Consider the US and Vietnam. Until the body count became high, Lyndon
Johnson was a popular President. But as more and more soldiers began
to die, he was vilified, the war lost public support and the US’s
priority became to look for a way to get out. So it was with Tony
Blair. History will remember him as one of Britain’s more successful
prime ministers. But within his own country, he is treated as a
villain or a ‘war criminal’ even, because he risked British lives in
Iraq. And now, Barack Obama’s principal priority is to pull troops out
of Afghanistan even though the consequence of a US withdrawal would be
a certain return to the pre-2001 situation.
No Western nation could live with the casualties we suffer each week
in the battle against the Maoists. By now, public resolve would have
crumbled and there would be calls for some kind of deal to avoid
further bloodshed. And no Western nation would have had the stomach
for something like Kargil, where each hill was recaptured after
close-proximity combat and many officers lost their lives.
The reason we know that we can fight challenges to our sovereignty and
to the rule of law is because we are sure that we can count on our
armed forces. Time after time we ask them to risk their lives for us.
And they never ever let India down.
So, spare a thought, this Sunday, for the Indian soldier. We never
give him the facilities that are his due. And we never greet his death
with the respect or concern it deserves.
But all of us recognise that one reason why we are still a free and
sovereign nation is because he is willing to die so that we can live.
__._,_.___
R
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Culture or Criminality
To the women of Afghanistan
October 29th, 2010
Sally Armstrong , NYT
Share
Buzz up!
Women of Afghanistan, it is time to go to the barricades. Now is the hour to claim your rights. Negotiations are under way in earnest; the Taliban are at the table, so are the warlords and bandits, tribal elders and the President. There’s not a woman in sight. Yet everyone knows you are the ones who can yank Afghanistan into the 21st century.
Even über-economists like Jeffrey Sachs of millennium-goals fame are saying there is a direct correlation between the status of women and the economy — where one is flourishing, so is the other, where one is in the ditch so is the other. Every indicator says it’s the women who can lead Afghanistan away from the abyss. So go ahead and claim your space.
Send in the women members of Parliament, the leaders of non-governmental organisations like the Afghan Women’s Network. Call on the commissioners at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Round up the rural women and the women journalists and the students to stand with you and alter the status of women. Together you can throw off the shackles that have bound you to second-class citizenship.
The men got away with hijacking religion for political gain. You are the ones who alerted the world to the facts: There’s scarcely a word in the Quran to support the violent and oppressive views of the Taliban or even the slightly less misogynist demands of the men seeking power at your expense today.
What’s more, it is the women of Afghanistan who have examined the past to create a better future. The Women and Children Legal Research Foundation surveyed 5,000 Afghans and found that 86 per cent are against polygamy. Of the 12 reasons given for practicing polygamy; eight are illegal according to the Quran. They also did studies to show that tribal law is illegal. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government didn’t know that.
And despite the fact that the United Nations doesn’t follow its own Resolution 1325, which says women must be at the negotiating table, it’s women who know how to cobble together a peace plan. They don’t have blood on their hands. They are more interested in policy than power; they want peace rather than a piece of the turf. And women have long known that a sense of community is far more valuable than a sense of control.
You’ve been denied everything from human rights and jobs to healthcare and education. You refer to your illiteracy as being blind because as one woman said, “I couldn’t read so I couldn’t see what was going on”.
To be a woman in Afghanistan (and much of the world for that matter) is to be a target for religious extremists, an object of so-called cultural practices. It’s to be the child who is fed last and least; the one who is denied education. It’s to be sold as chattel, given away in a forced marriage as a child bride, and used in any manner that benefits a father and brother.
During a game of buzkashi — the traditional polo-like sport in Afghanistan that uses a dead goat as the ball — one player’s horse was injured. Rather than miss the rest of the game, the player traded his daughter for a new horse so he could finish the match.
For a very long time people from the outside world chose silence lest they be accused of interfering in someone else’s culture. Now we know that what continues to happen to the women and girls of Afghanistan — even while these peace talks take place — isn’t cultural, it’s criminal.
To murder your own daughter and call it honour; to give your blameless child to a man knowing she will be sexually assaulted; to send your girl back to her husband when she comes pleading to you with her broken arms and blackened eyes; to shroud her in garments so she will avert the eyes of men who strut about with impunity; to ask her how she was dressed (Was it modest enough?) when the rapist defiled her; to suggest that her loss of chastity is her own fault, that a man can’t help himself: These are the norms in the lives of women who are controlled by so-called religious men. It’s time to change those malignant presumptions.
Afghanistan has signed the same United Nations covenants and conventions that most of the rest of the world has signed. Although there’s no iron fist of accountability in those documents, they are by and large the politics of embarrassment. Use them to demand the rights your Constitution gives you. Tell the negotiators you won’t back down. Remind them that you’re 50 per cent of the population. Be prepared to march; to go to the barricades. The women in the rest of the world are with you.
* Sally Armstrong, a Canadian journalist, is the author of Bitter Roots, Tender Shoots: The Uncertain Fate of Afghanistan’s Women.
October 29th, 2010
Sally Armstrong , NYT
Share
Buzz up!
Women of Afghanistan, it is time to go to the barricades. Now is the hour to claim your rights. Negotiations are under way in earnest; the Taliban are at the table, so are the warlords and bandits, tribal elders and the President. There’s not a woman in sight. Yet everyone knows you are the ones who can yank Afghanistan into the 21st century.
Even über-economists like Jeffrey Sachs of millennium-goals fame are saying there is a direct correlation between the status of women and the economy — where one is flourishing, so is the other, where one is in the ditch so is the other. Every indicator says it’s the women who can lead Afghanistan away from the abyss. So go ahead and claim your space.
Send in the women members of Parliament, the leaders of non-governmental organisations like the Afghan Women’s Network. Call on the commissioners at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Round up the rural women and the women journalists and the students to stand with you and alter the status of women. Together you can throw off the shackles that have bound you to second-class citizenship.
The men got away with hijacking religion for political gain. You are the ones who alerted the world to the facts: There’s scarcely a word in the Quran to support the violent and oppressive views of the Taliban or even the slightly less misogynist demands of the men seeking power at your expense today.
What’s more, it is the women of Afghanistan who have examined the past to create a better future. The Women and Children Legal Research Foundation surveyed 5,000 Afghans and found that 86 per cent are against polygamy. Of the 12 reasons given for practicing polygamy; eight are illegal according to the Quran. They also did studies to show that tribal law is illegal. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government didn’t know that.
And despite the fact that the United Nations doesn’t follow its own Resolution 1325, which says women must be at the negotiating table, it’s women who know how to cobble together a peace plan. They don’t have blood on their hands. They are more interested in policy than power; they want peace rather than a piece of the turf. And women have long known that a sense of community is far more valuable than a sense of control.
You’ve been denied everything from human rights and jobs to healthcare and education. You refer to your illiteracy as being blind because as one woman said, “I couldn’t read so I couldn’t see what was going on”.
To be a woman in Afghanistan (and much of the world for that matter) is to be a target for religious extremists, an object of so-called cultural practices. It’s to be the child who is fed last and least; the one who is denied education. It’s to be sold as chattel, given away in a forced marriage as a child bride, and used in any manner that benefits a father and brother.
During a game of buzkashi — the traditional polo-like sport in Afghanistan that uses a dead goat as the ball — one player’s horse was injured. Rather than miss the rest of the game, the player traded his daughter for a new horse so he could finish the match.
For a very long time people from the outside world chose silence lest they be accused of interfering in someone else’s culture. Now we know that what continues to happen to the women and girls of Afghanistan — even while these peace talks take place — isn’t cultural, it’s criminal.
To murder your own daughter and call it honour; to give your blameless child to a man knowing she will be sexually assaulted; to send your girl back to her husband when she comes pleading to you with her broken arms and blackened eyes; to shroud her in garments so she will avert the eyes of men who strut about with impunity; to ask her how she was dressed (Was it modest enough?) when the rapist defiled her; to suggest that her loss of chastity is her own fault, that a man can’t help himself: These are the norms in the lives of women who are controlled by so-called religious men. It’s time to change those malignant presumptions.
Afghanistan has signed the same United Nations covenants and conventions that most of the rest of the world has signed. Although there’s no iron fist of accountability in those documents, they are by and large the politics of embarrassment. Use them to demand the rights your Constitution gives you. Tell the negotiators you won’t back down. Remind them that you’re 50 per cent of the population. Be prepared to march; to go to the barricades. The women in the rest of the world are with you.
* Sally Armstrong, a Canadian journalist, is the author of Bitter Roots, Tender Shoots: The Uncertain Fate of Afghanistan’s Women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)