What is the best option for Afghanistan?

What is the best option for Afghanistan?

a. More number of USA/NATO forces and a prolonged war to wipe out Taliban

b. Gradual withdrawal of USA/NATO forces and handing over of power to Karzai and 'good' Taliban

c.Immediate withdrawal of USA/NATO forces and leave Afghanistan for its own people

My feeling is the answer is c. Immediate withdrawal of Occupation forces and leaving Afghanistan to its people is the best and most democratic option.

Foreign troops do not grow democracy and peace especially in a complex geo-political situation like that in Afghanistan. If it could have succeeded it should have won the battle for peace and democracy within a short period of time.After 8 years of occupation by USA/NATO forces the chances of the Occupying Army 'teaching' the people democracy is very slim. On the other hand the Occupation and killing of hundreds of civilians is in turn fueling insurgency.

Let us hear what those fighting the war lords and fundamentalists have to say:

Malalai Joya

As a teacher in the secret schools that educated girls – strictly banned by the Taliban – she walked around western Afghanistan at the end of the 1990s with books hidden beneath the enveloping burqa.


Elected the youngest member of the Afghan parliament – and suspended for her outspoken criticism of the country's top officials – Malalai Joya has been labelled the bravest woman in Afghanistan.

Small, soft-spoken and now 31, she has survived at least four assassination attempts and is angry at the oppressive life she is forced to lead, dodging enemies she has denounced as bloody-handed warlords and drug kingpins. She sleeps in safe houses, with a rotating squad of bodyguards securing the doors. She goes out only in a billowing burqa. Even her wedding was held in secret.

Malalai Joya says;
"Liberation was just a big lie.The United States/NATO should go. As long as foreign troops are in the country we will be fighting two enemies instead of one."

Yes, she says, there is a risk of civil war, as happened when the Soviet Union gave up the fight against U.S.-backed Afghan Islamists 20 years ago. But it would still be better than "night raids, torture and aerial bombardment" that killed hundreds of Afghan civilians while the Taliban made steady gains.

Joya believes Afghans are now better prepared to battle the Taliban alone – if the warlords are disarmed, and the international community helps build a society that can push back against extremism.

It is a tall order, she admits. But "resistance has increased, and people are becoming more aware of democracy and human rights. They need humanitarian and educational support."

But not, she adds, at the point of a gun.

The Afghan public, she adds, are on her side, pointing to a recent opinion poll showing 60 per cent of Afghans want an immediate NATO withdrawal. Many people in Afghanistan were hopeful, she says, about Barack Obama – "but he is actually intensifying the policy of George Bush... I know his election has great symbolic value in terms of the struggle of African-Americans for equal rights, and this struggle is one I admire and respect. But what is important for the world is not whether the President is black or white, but his actions. You can't eat symbolism."

US policy is driven by geopolitics, she says, not personalities. "Afghanistan is in the heart of Asia, so it's a very important place to have military bases – so they can control trade very easily with other Asian powers such as China, Russia, Iran and so on.

"But it can be changed by Americans," she adds. She is passionate now, her voice rising. "I say to Obama – in my area, 150 people were blown up by US troops in one incident this year. If your family had been there, would you send even more troops and even more bombs? Your government is spending $18m (£11m) to make another Guantanamo jail in Bagram. If your daughter might be detained there, would you be building it? I say to Obama – change course, or otherwise tomorrow people will call you another Bush."

RAWA

Founded in 1977,Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan [RAWA] is the oldest political and social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy, and women’s rights in an Afghanistan blighted by fundamentalism. Their members risk personal safety and dedicate their lives to improving conditions for all Afghan women; many have been assassinated, included RAWA’s founder, Meena.
The organization calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops.
During October 2009, RAWA sponsored a speaking tour of the U.S. Representing RAWA’s Foreign Committee, Zoya spoke in a meeting in a University in Iowa,USA:

“I want to focus on the eight years of occupation by the United States and NATO countries, “Unfortunately, the West’s impression that Afghanistan has been liberated by the United States, that Afghanistan is a free country, that we are enjoying freedom and democracy to our country is untrue,” said Zoya.

“Yes, Afghanistan is free for the warlords. Afghanistan is free for drug lords. Afghanistan is free for rapists to rape children and women. Afghanistan is free for United States troops to kill our civilians, our children, our women, day by day in so-called mistakes,” said Zoya.
Zoya is a RAWA member whose parents were killed by extremists in Afghanistan when she was in her teens. She honors her mother’s work for women’s rights by continuing in her footsteps. Education of women, often in refugee camps and orphanages, has produced a generation of women like Zoya who are able in turn to educate us about conditions in their country.A refugee currently living in Pakistan, Zoya uses a pseudonym when traveling and speaking because her life has been threatened by fundamentalists. She also asked photographers not to photograph her face.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of its geo-political, economic, and regional strategic goals and to build military bases there, said Zoya, “not to liberate women.”

Freedom, democracy, and justice cannot be exported and forced on other countries at gunpoint, but instead are achieved over time through a long and arduous process, said Zoya.

“Those who claim to donate these values to the Afghan people through force will only push our country into slavery. It is our responsibility to stand up to fundamentalists and occupations,” said Zoya.


The women of Afghanistan, after eight years of occupation, offer conflicting advice, depending on their position in society. If the women are in Kabul, are educated and affluent, and have family members in office or are part of the government, they sometimes say, “our safety is in danger if U.S. troops leave." If the women are in the countryside (and 90% are) they say, “get the troops out now. Our rights, our freedoms, our safety have not improved in eight years of occupation — and the occupation fuels the insurgency.” In this complex war-torn nation, both opinions are valid.



Both Zoya and Malalai must live in safe houses and move frequently, as their truth-telling has resulted in death threats against them. Yet asked what she fears, Malalai said: “I don’t fear death. I fear political silence against injustice.” And from her website Malaijoya.com this statement, echoes fears raised during the rise of fascism in 20th century Europe: “The silence of good people is worse than the actions of bad people.”
Although the  robotic killer drones strike wedding parties and funerals, crossing into Pakistan freely, the insurgency grows. Terrorists are created faster than they are being killed. But maybe that’s the real goal?

Speak up and expose the so-called war on terror for what it really is: a marketing strategy for corporate profits, Zoya adds..



Although the group initially welcomed the U.S. presence, RAWA changed its stance after learning that the United States is  helping fundamentalist groups.

“I think it’s the Afghan people’s responsibility to fight [against fundamentalist groups],” she said.



Yes Afghanistan should fight its own battle against fundamentalism.The rest of the World should  support the democratic forces from outside..

Let me end this post with a quote of Malalai Joya.

"They will kill me but they will not kill my voice, because it will be the voice of all Afghan women. You can cut the flower, but you cannot stop the coming of spring".



links and acknowledgments
RAWA, 
the star
the independent  malalaijoya.com

Reservation for women. What can we expect from bahus and betis?

The issue of Reservation for women in Indian Parliament and State legislatures is heating up the already hot summer in this country. Opinions are divided and keenly debated. Let us examine the issue from all viewpoints and try to come to a conclusion on the merits and de-merits of the bill.

What the Women's reservation bill envisages?

 The bill proposes to reserve for women 33% of seats in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for next 15 years from the day it becomes the law. The constituencies are to be decided by lot and will change in each elections there by ensuring that by end of 15 years all constituencies in India will have had a women member representing it.

For the Bill
Those who support the bill says that while the Indian constitution, one of the most progressive in the world guarantees equal rights for men and women, in reality the gender based discrimination is still a major issue. Bias against women and girls is reflected in the demographic ratio of 933 females for every 1,000 males. 1 in 5 of Indian women die during childbirth, and that account for more than 20 percent of the global maternal deaths. As far as political participation of women is concerned, the Lok Sabha elections in 2009 was the only time when women candidates witnessed a 10 percent participation in Parliament
. Women. need reservation in Parliament and state legislatures because society is “paternalistic” and it is difficult for them to contest and win elections against the “established and entrenched male chauvinistic order in the society”. Participation of more number of women in active politics will help break the gender stereotype and help in enactment of more gender sensitive legislations. They claim that legislatures will become less corrupt and less number of criminals will be elected.

Against the Bill [from Manushi online petition]
The Bill provides for reservation on rotation basis through a lottery system, which means that two-thirds of the incumbent members will be forcibly unseated in every general election and the remaining will remain in a limbo till the last moment. Such compulsory unseating violates the basic principal of democratic representation and jeopardises the possibility of effective planning to contest by nurturing a political constituency for both male and female candidates. As legislators will be denied the possibility of seeking re election from the same constituency, politics will become even less accountable than at present. Since a seat will be reserved once in 15 years, males who will be pushed out of their constituency are likely to field their own female relatives as proxy candidates as a stopgap arrangement and women will not get the chance to cultivate deep roots in their constituency. Women will be ghettoised and forced to fight elections only against other women. They will lack the legitimacy of being mainstream politicians.

 Alternative Proposal [Manushi, CSDS, Loksatta]
  A law should be enacted amending The Representation of the People Act, 1951, to make it mandatory for every recognized political party to nominate women candidates for election in at least one-third of the constituencies. In the event of any recognized party failing to nominate one-third women candidates, 2 male candidates will lose the Party symbol. This Bill has the following advantages: Firstly, parties will be free to field women candidates where they can offer a good fight rather than in pre-fixed lottery based constituencies, where they may or may not have viable women candidates. Thus there is flexibility and promotion of natural leadership. A woman candidate will be contesting both against female and/or male candidates of rival parties. The democratic choice of voters is not restricted to compulsorily electing only women candidates.

Unlike with the lottery system of reserved constituencies, in which women's presence is likely to get ossified at 33 percent since there would be resistance to letting women contest from non-reserved constituencies, this model allows for far greater flexibility in the number and proportion of women being elected to legislatures. If women are candidates for one-third of all seats contested by each party, theoretically they could even win the vast majority of seats - all on merit.

My Take. 
I support the Women's reservation Bill, as I believe it is a measure in right direction that can reduce the gender disparity in India especially in the political arena.
Let me examine the points made out against the Bill.
 It is undemocratic because a person cannot contest a particular seat because of his gender.
In 90% of seats women were kept out because of traditional/cultural reservation for men. Was that democratic? Here this reservation is an affirmative action, forcing political parties to be more gender sensitive and there by reducing the disparity. In legislatures. If this measure is not implemented now, it may take at least another 50 to 100 years for us to see 33% seats filled by women.

 Effective nurturing of constituencies by MPs will not take place, as they will not be sure of re-contesting.
Here it is implied that women who get elected in reserved constituency will not be fielded again as the constituency become un-reserved.
Let us see if there is any data to prove or disprove this point from the experience from Local Body elections.
 In a paper published in American Political Science Review [Feb 2009] analysing Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections of 1997 and 2002, Rikhil Bhavnani says that    
"the probability of a woman winning office conditional on the constituency being reserved for women in the previous election is approximately five times the probability of a woman winning office if the constituency had not been reserved for women The data suggest that reservations work in part by introducing into politics women who are able to win elections after reservations are withdrawn and by allowing parties to learn that women can win elections." 
In other words chance of women getting her seat even in unreserved quota is high and also her chance of winning again is also much better..  In 1997 in open constituencies only 3.4% women won while in 2002 it more than doubled to 8.6%.
This proves that many women will be given tickets again and many will win in open constituencies.
There will some dislocations but that is worthwhile if we can get a pool of women active in politics.

Women elected will be proxies[bahu-beti] useful only for keeping the seats warm for male members of the family.
I feel there is an implied sexism in this viewpoint. Unfortunately powerful families controlling politics of an area is very common in India. Members of such powerful families, both males and females are active in politics. Some are efficient while others are not so good regardless of the gender. How can one conclude that women members of such families will be useless and inefficient  proxies while males will have an effective voice of their own?
Let us take the so-called 'first' family of India. Jawaharlal Nehru's daughter was in all counts much more efficient and powerful than his grand sons. Even the 'foreign' granddaughter in law seems to be much better than the 'Indian' grand sons.

Radu ban and Vijayendra Rao in a study of 523 village Panchayaths say that
We show that women elected in reserved constituencies are not tokens. They are as likely to be persuaded to contest by political elites as unreserved presidents. They are from the upper end of the distribution of women and tend to be more knowledgeable about political activities, more politically experienced, and wealthier than the average woman.

So such an argument has no basis.

Alternative proposal to make it compulsory for political parties to  reserve  for women 33% in their  list of candidates.....

This makes it easy for political parties to allocate seats to women  where there is only a remote possibility of winning. Thus the BJP can allocate women seats in Kerala and Tamilnadu  while the CPM can give women seats in states other than Kerala and West Bengal. Thus the total number of women winning elections may not go up from current 10%.

What can we expect when more and more bahus and betis are elected?  

 A study of 523 villages in 4 southern states of India by Radu ban and Vijayendra Rao had the following findings.
  "Women leaders tend to be picked from among more politically knowledgeable and wealthier women. Panchayats led by women are no worse or better in their performance than those with male leaders, and women politicians may  not make decisions in line with the needs of women. Importantly, however,political experience enhances the performance of women leaders more than it does for men, women in villages which are less dominated by upper castes, and in states that have relatively mature panchayat systems, perform better than men.

Chattopadhyay and Duflo (2004) in a study in West Bengal and Rajasthan found that women tend to give more importance to water and sanitation than roads.

Lori Beaman, Raghebendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo et al find evidence from West Bengal that 

"Villagers who have never been required to have a female leader prefer male leaders and perceive hypothetical female leaders as less effective than their male counterparts, when stated performance is identical. Exposure to a female leader does not alter villagers' taste preference for male leaders. However, it weakens stereotypes about gender roles in the public and domestic spheres and eliminates the negative bias in how female leaders' effectiveness is perceived among male villagers.  Consistent with our experimental findings, villagers rate their women leaders as less effective when exposed to them for the first, but not second, time. These changes in attitude are electorally meaningful: after 10 years of the quota policy, women are more likely to stand for and win free seats in villages that have been continuously required to have a female chief councillor".

How an all women panchayath in Haryana is breaking several steroetypes is illustrated in this report.


In conclusion let me warn you that women's reservation in legislatures is not a panacea for all evils in the society. The wealthy and powerful families will still rule the country unless a level playing field is created in regard to election expenditures. Females will be still discriminated and stereotyped.  The women members may not be much different in regard to corruption and in efficiency. 
But what ever be its limitations women's reservation in Indian legislatures will be a big step forward in the struggle for abolishing gender discrimination.



acknowledgement
urbanomics
 IHM's post for Tehelka link

100th International Women's day

This year on March 8th 2010 we are observing the 100th International Women's day. India will celebrate it with the tabling of a bill in Rajya Sabha providing Women's reservation in National and State legislatures.

It will be apt now to look back at the history of  International Women's day.[IWD].

History of International Women's day

International Women's day was born at a time of great social turbulence and crisis. . In the years before 1910, from the turn of the 20th century, women in industrially developing countries were entering paid work in some numbers. Their jobs were sex segregated, mainly in textiles, manufacturing and domestic services where conditions were wretched and wages were low.. Trade unions were developing and industrial disputes broke out, including among sections of non-unionised women workers. In Europe, the flames of revolution were being kindled.

Major demands of early Women's movement were increase in wages,better working conditions and the right to vote in National and provincial elections.

 1908, on the last Sunday in February, socialist women in the United States initiated the first Women's Day when large demonstrations took place calling for the vote and the political and economic rights of women. The following year, 2,000 people attended a Women's Day rally in Manhattan.

In  1909 women garment workersin USA  staged a general strike. 30,000 workers struck for 13 cold, winter weeks for better pay and working conditions. The Women's Trade Union League provided bail money for arrested strikers and large sums for strike funds.


1910: In the Socialist International, meeting in Copenhagen, Clara Zetkin a leading German socialist proposed  a Women's Day, international in character, to honour the movement for women's rights and to build support for achieving universal suffrage for women. The proposal was greeted with unanimous approval by the conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, which included the first three women elected to the Finnish Parliament. No fixed date was selected for the observance.That conference also reasserted the importance of women's right to vote, dissociated itself from voting systems based on property rights and called for universal suffrage - the right to vote for all adult women and men Conference also called for maternity benefits which, despite an intervention by Alexandra Kollontai on behalf of unmarried mothers, were to be for married women only. It also decided to oppose night work as being detrimental to the health of most working women.


1911: As a result of the Copenhagen initiative, International Women's Day was marked for the first time (19 March) in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, where more than one million women and men attended rallies. In addition to the right to vote and to hold public office, they demanded women’s rights to work, to vocational training and to an end to discrimination on the job.
Russian revolutionary and feminist, Alexandra Kollontai, in Germany at the time, helped to organise the day, and wrote that it:


exceeded all expectations. Germany and Austria .... was one seething trembling sea of women. Meetings were organised everywhere…..in the small towns and even in the villages, halls were packed so full that they had to ask (male) workers to give up their places for the women.


Men stayed home with their children for a change and their wives, the captive housewives, went to meetings.




1913-1914: International Women's Day also became a mechanism for protesting World War I. As part of the peace movement, Russian women observed their first International Women’s Day on the last Sunday in February. Elsewhere in Europe, on or around 8 March of the following year, women held rallies either to protest the war or to express solidarity with other activists.


1917: Against the backdrop of the war, women in Russia again chose to protest and strike for ‘Bread and Peace’ on the last Sunday in February (which fell on 8 March on the Gregorian calendar). Four days later, the Czar abdicated and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote.



The Charter of the United Nations, signed in 1945, was the first international agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men. Since then, the UN has helped create a historic legacy of internationally-agreed strategies, standards, programmes and goals to advance the status of women worldwide.
 
On the 50th anniversary of IWD in 1960, 729 delegates from 73 countries met in a conference in Copenhagen. It adopted a general declaration of support for the political, economic and social rights of women.
During International Women's Year in 1975, IWD was given official recognition by the United Nations and was taken up by many governments.. Two years later, in December 1977, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day for Women's Rights and International Peace to be observed on any day of the year by Member States, in accordance with their historical and national traditions. For the United Nations, International Women's Day has been observed on 8 March since 1975.
 
The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day – which is observed worldwide on 8 March – is "Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Progress for All".
 
The  challenges to gender equality and women’s empowerment that require urgent attention as per the U.N. include:

• Little progress has been made on reducing maternal mortality rates. Every year, 536,000 women
and girls die as a result of complications during pregnancy, childbirth or following delivery,
the overwhelming majority in developing countries. Most of these complications are largely
preventable and treatable.

• Violence against women and girls is a global pandemic, with up to 70 per cent of women
experiencing violence in their lifetime. The problem remains universal, with women and girls
affected by violence in every region and every country.

• Access to labour markets and to decent work remains limited for women. In 2008, an estimated
52.6 per cent of women were in the labour force, compared with 77.5 per cent of men. Women
are more likely than men to have low-paid, low-status and vulnerable jobs, with limited or no
social protection or basic rights. A very high proportion of women in the labour force continues
to work in the informal economy.

• Serious challenges persist to women’s full and equal participation in senior decision-making
positions. These include negative stereotypes about women’s leadership roles and potential,
a lack of commitment by political parties and men leaders, inadequate funding and training
for women candidates and government officials, and discriminatory selection processes in all
sectors and at all levels.

• Women continue to be excluded from or seriously under-represented in peace negotiations,
peacebuilding and disarmament processes. Since 1992, women represented, on average, just
7.1 per cent of official delegation members, and only 2.1 per cent of signatories to peace
agreements. To date, very few women have been formal mediators.

 Since those early years, International Women's Day has assumed a new global dimension for women in developed and developing countries alike. The growing international women's movement has helped make the commemoration a rallying point for coordinated efforts to demand women's rights and participation in the political and economic process. Increasingly, International Women's Day is a time to reflect on progress made, and a call for change and to remember acts of courage and determination by ordinary women who have played an extraordinary role in the history of women's rights.Women's advancement not only brings integrity and happiness to women but also better life and joy to all and the International Women's Day not only belongs to women but also to all people of the world.


Let me end this post with a quote from Lena Lewis, U S. socialist, who declared 100 years ago

 that it was not a time for celebrating anything, but rather a day for anticipating all the struggles to come when" we may eventually and forever stamp out the last vestige of male egotism and his desire to dominate over women".

Links
pic from pakteahouse.wordpress.com
Joyce Stevens article

Should India talk with Pakistan?

The decision by the Indian Government to proceed with the Foreign Secretary level talk with Pakistan has not been widely welcomed in India. Many in India believe that such 'talks' are useless exercise as the terror attacks on India directed by Pak based terror networks are continuing, with the Pune blast as the most recent example. So let me try to answer in the Indian point of view the question 'Should India talk with Pakistan?

In recent years the number of terror attacks that take place in Pakistan far out number that which take place in India. The men behind these attacks are the same, representing the fundamentalist Islamist ideology. The Pakistan army is trying hard to recapture the territory lost to the Taliban. An ideological war is going on between the moderates and the extremists. Under International and Indian pressure Pakistan is prosecuting some of the accused in the 26/11 terror attack.

The terrorists in Pakistan are trying their level best to ignite hate against India, because then only they will receive good support from Pakistani public. So for the Islamist terrorist an India which will not talk with Pakistan, which will not allow Pak players to participate in IPL, which will humiliate Pakistani Government and people again and again is the India they want to see. Only if India behaves like that they will get more money and support from both the public and the Government of Pakistan. Only then they can defy ban orders and organise more and more big anti-India public meetings. Only then they can propagate their anti-women, anti-modern Islamist fundamentalism among Pak public.

An India which will talk with Pakistan, which will deal with it as a an errand younger brother, which will increase the cultural and person to person contact with Pakistan, which will assure the Pakistani public that it do not have any intention to destroy Pakistan is an India which is a nightmare for the terrorists.

Does India gain anything by not talking to Pakistan? Nothing I can think off. Will India suffer more by talking to Pakistan? Will there be more terror attacks? No is my answer.

So in my view we should talk with Pakistan at all levels.


This does not mean we should surrender our principled positions. This does not mean we should give lot of concessions to Pakistan. This does not mean we should give away Kashmir to Pakistan. This does not mean we should withdraw Armed forces from the border. This does not mean we should lower our vigil against terrorist attacks.

The non-Islamised civil society of Pakistan is India’s first line of defense against terror attacks. . We should support and strengthen it.

People's historian of United States passes away

 Howard Zinn, 87 died of a heart attack last Wednesday in Santa Monica, California. He was an extra ordinary personality. He was a Historian, author, teacher and  an activist in civil rights,civil liberties and anti-war movements of USA. He was the author of more than 20 books, including  the very popular 'A People's History of the United States'.
Born in New York in 1922, Mr. Zinn was the son of Jewish immigrants who as a child lived in a rundown area in Brooklyn.
Zinn  joined the  Air Force during World War II to fight fascism, and he bombed targets in Germany, France,Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Zinn's later anti-war stance was, in part, formed by his own experiences in the military.

After the war, Zinn attended University  graduating with a B.A. in 1951 and  an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history.

Zinn worked as Professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia and Boston University. He was also Visiting Professor at both the University of Paris and University of Bologna.

A People's history of the United States

He wrote his most famous book ' A People's history of United States' in 1980. Zinn  believed that the point of view expressed in traditional history books was often limited to that of conquerors and victors. The 'other' view point is always absent. This book was his attempt to shine light into hidden truths.

Published  with little promotion “A People’s History” slowly became a people’s best-seller, attracting a wide audience through word of mouth and reaching 1 million sales in 2003.  His book was even taught in some high schools and colleges  as an alternative to standard textbooks , and numerous companion editions were published, including “Voices of a People’s History,” a volume for young people and a graphic novel. It has been frequently revised, with the most recent edition covering events through 2003.

Here are some excerpts from the 'People's History'.

About the wiping out of original inhabitans of Americas by Europeans...

Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts..........

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the American mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.......

Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world.



They were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe's, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature.

Was all this bloodshed and deceit-from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?
how certain are we that what was destroyed was inferior?

About the 'noble' intentions of 'founding fathers' of USA he writes,

Were the Founding Fathers wise and just men trying to achieve a good balance? In fact, they did not want a balance, except one which kept things as they were, a balance among the dominant forces at that time. They certainly did not want an equal balance between slaves and masters, propertyless and property holders, Indians and white.



As many as half the people were not even considered by the Founding Fathers .... They were not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, they were absent in the Constitution, they were invisible in the new political democracy. They were the women of early America.

About Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation against slavery:

When in September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, it was a military move, giving the South four months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate their slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North:

Thus, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863, it declared slaves free in those areas still fighting against the Union (which it listed very carefully), and said nothing about slaves behind Union lines...


About US as a 'defender of helpless countries':

For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs. It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the nineteenth century. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had "opened" Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years. .......


Zinn's book was critisized by many Historians as subjective, incomplete,too radical etc.
In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Mr. Zinn acknowledged he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter — not the last — of a new kind of history.
“There’s no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete,” Mr. Zinn said. “My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times.”

A life of activism

During the civil rights movement, Zinn served as an adviser to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and in 1964, he wrote the book SNCC: The New Abolitionists. Mr. Zinn encouraged his students to request books from the segregated public libraries and helped coordinate sit-ins at downtown cafeterias. Mr. Zinn also published several articles, including a then-rare attack on the Kennedy administration for being too slow to protect blacks.


He was loved by students, but not by administrators. In 1963, Spelman fired him for “insubordination.” (meaning activism) .
His years at Boston University were marked by opposition to the Vietnam war. Zinn wrote one of the earliest books calling for the U.S. withdrawal from its war in VietNam. (VietNam: The Logic of Withdrawal 1967) A year later, he and Father Daniel Berrigan traveled to North Vietnam to receive the first three American prisoners of wars released by the North Vietnamese.


.

Along with Noam Chomsky, Zinn edited and annotated the copy of 'The Pentagon Papers' which described the internal planning and policy decisions of the United States government during the Vietnam War.
Later in a criminal trial for theft, conspiracy, and espionage in connection with the publication of the Pentagon Papers Zinn was a witness for the Defense.
He said
"...there was nothing in the papers of military significance that could be used to harm the defense of the United States, ....the information in them was simply embarrassing to our government because what was revealed, in the government's own interoffice memos, was how it had lied to the American public. The secrets disclosed in the Pentagon Papers might embarrass politicians, might hurt the profits of corporations wanting tin, rubber, oil, in far-off places. But this was not the same as hurting the nation, the people,"

Mr. Zinn retired from the University in 1988, spending his last day of class on the picket line with students in support of a strike. Over the years, he continued to lecture at schools and to appear at rallies and on picket lines.

Besides “A People’s History,” Mr. Zinn wrote several books, including “The Southern Mystique,” “LaGuardia in Congress” and the memoir, “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train,”  He also wrote three plays.

Some of ZInn's famous quotes include:

"Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide, and slavery - have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience."


"“We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children”"



"How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?"
 
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
 
Noam Chomsky, USA's best known dissident intellectual and also Zinn's close friend and associate paid tribute:
 
'He was just—he was fearless. He was simple. He was straightforward. He said the right things, said them eloquently, and inspired others to move forward in ways they wouldn’t have done, and changed their minds. They changed their minds by their actions and by hearing him. He was a really—both in his life and in his work, he was a remarkable person, just irreplaceable.



Links and references
A People's history of United States
Howard Zinn
Howard Zinn.org

Haiti - Natural disaster on man-made tragedy

The massive earthquake that devastated Haiti on January 12,2010 is estimated to have killed around 200000 people. The World's attention is on Haiti now.
Where is this Haiti?What kind of people live there? What is their history? Let us try to find out some answers.

The country of Haiti makes up the western one-third of the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean. Hispanola is between Cuba and Puerto Rico, and the eastern two-thirds of the island is the Dominican Republic.The capital of Haiti is Port-au-Prince.

Haiti is one of poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Eighty percent of residents live in poverty,Haiti is one of the most densely populated country in Western Hemisphere with a population of about 10 million. 95% of the people are Blacks and are mostly Roman Catholics. French is the official language.

A history of man-made tragedy

The island of Hispaniola, of which Haiti occupies the western third, was  inhabited by the Taíno Indians, speakers of an Arawakan language.
Christopher Columbus landed on the island on 5 December 1492, and claimed the island for Spain.
Columbus described the people he found as "lovable, tractable, peaceable, gentle, decorous," and their land as rich and bountiful. Hispaniola was "perhaps the most densely populated place in the world,"
But the arrival and conquest by the Euopeans changed all that in a few decades.
 
Bartolomé de Las Casas a 16th-century Spanish Dominican priest and writer wrote,
 
"a beehive of people," who "of all the infinite universe of humanity, ...are the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity." Driven by "insatiable greed and ambition," the Spanish fell upon them "like ravening wild beasts, ... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying the native peoples" with "the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty, never seen or heard of before.
 
 "from my own knowledge of the acts I witnessed." "It was a general rule among Spaniards to be cruel," he wrote: "not just cruel, but extraordinarily cruel so that harsh and bitter treatment would prevent Indians from daring to think of themselves as human beings." "As they saw themselves each day perishing by the cruel and inhuman treatment of the Spaniards, crushed to the earth by the horses, cut in pieces by swords, eaten and torn by dogs, many buried alive and suffering all kinds of exquisite tortures, ...[they] decided to abandon themselves to their unhappy fate with no further struggles, placing themselves in the hands of their enemies that they might do with them as they liked."

Europeans also brought new diseases unknown to the Western hemisphere and by 1522 the native population was reduced to around 200.The Taínos became virtually, but not completely, extinct on the island of Hispaniola. Some who evaded capture fled to the mountains and established independent settlements.
Devoid of work force the Spanish governors began importing enslaved Africans for labor.
Spanish interest in Hispaniola began to wane in the 1520s, as more lucrative gold and silver deposits were found in Mexico and South America. Thereafter, the population of Spanish Hispaniola grew slowly. Fearful of pirate attacks, the king of Spain in 1606 ordered all colonists on Hispaniola to move closer to the capital city, Santo Domingo. The decision backfired, as British, Dutch, and French pirates then established bases on the island's abandoned northern and western coasts.
 
French buccaneers established a settlement on the island of Tortuga in 1625. They survived by pirating Spanish ships and hunting wild cattle. Although the Spanish destroyed the buccaneers' settlements several times, on each occasion they returned. The first official settlement on Tortuga was established in 1659 under the commission of King Louis XIV.
 
In 1664, the newly established French West India Company took control over the colony, which it named Saint-Domingue, and France formally claimed control of the western portion of the island of Hispaniola. Under the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain officially ceded the western third of Hispaniola to France. By that time, planters outnumbered buccaneers and, with the encouragement of Louis XIV, they had begun to grow tobacco, indigo, cotton, and cacao on the fertile northern plain, thus prompting the importation of a large number of African slaves.

"Saint Domingue was the wealthiest European colonial possession in the Americas," Hans Schmidt writes, producing three-quarters of the world's sugar by 1789, also leading the world in production of coffee, cotton, indigo, and rum. The slave masters provided France with enormous wealth from the labor of their 450,000 slaves.The white population, including poor overseers and artisans, numbered 40,000. Some 30,000 mulattoes and free Negroes enjoyed economic privileges but not social and political equality.
The brutal methods employed by French masters are described like this:

"Have they not hung up men with heads downward, drowned them in sacks, crucified them on planks, buried them alive, crushed them in mortars? Have they not forced them to eat excretement? And, having flayed them with the lash, have they not cast them alive to be devoured by worms, or onto anthills, or lashed them to stakes in the swamp to be devoured by mosquitoes? Have they not thrown them into boiling cauldrons of cane syrup? Have they not put men and women inside barrels studded with spikes and rolled them down mountainsides into the abyss? Have they not consigned these miserable blacks to man-eating dogs until the latter, sated by human flesh, left the mangled victims to be finished off with bayonet and poniard?"

Haitian Revolution

The slave revolt which started in 1791 ended on January 1 1804, with the elimination of slavery and establishment of an Independent  Republic of Haiti.
"Haiti was more than the New World's second oldest republic[after USA]," anthropologist Ira Lowenthal observed, "more than even the first black republic of the modern world. Haiti was the first free nation of free men to arise within, and in resistance to, the emerging constellation of Western European empire."
The indigenous Taíno name of Haiti ("Land of Mountains") was given for the new nation.

Revolution aftermath

The rebel victory came at tremendous cost. Much of the agricultural wealth of the country was destroyed, along with perhaps a third of the population. The victory horrified Haiti's slave-holding neighbors, who backed France's claims for huge reparations, finally accepted in 1825 by Haiti's ruling elite, who recognized them to be a precondition for entry into the global market. The result was "decades of French domination of Haitian finance" with "a catastrophic effect on the new nation's delicate economy,"

Haiti was ruled by many leaders from the elite class who fought with each other and the colonial powers used these fights to control Haiti for their vested interests.

US invasions

The US was the last major power to recognize Haiti and that came only in 1862.   Haiti's strategic role in control of the Caribbean became increasingly important in US planning in later years, as Haiti became a plaything among the competing imperial powers. Meanwhile its ruling elite monopolized trade, while the peasant producers in the interior remained isolated from the outside world.


US Navy ships entered Haitian waters several times to "protect American lives and property." Haiti's independence was scarcely given even "token recognition," Schmidt observes in his standard history, and there was little consideration for the rights of its people.

Current situation

Seumas Milne  wrote in 'The Guardian' January 20,2010:

Punished for the success of its uprising against slavery and self-proclaimed first black republic of 1804 with invasion, blockade and a crushing burden of debt reparations only finally paid off in 1947, Haiti was occupied by the US between the wars and squeezed mercilessly by multiple creditors. More than a century of deliberate colonial impoverishment was followed by decades of the US-backed dictatorship of the Duvaliers, who indebted the country still further.



When the liberation theologist Aristide was elected on a platform of development and social justice, his challenge to Haiti's oligarchy and its international sponsors led to two foreign-backed coups and US invasions, a suspension of aid and loans, and eventual exile in 2004. Since then, thousands of UN troops have provided security for a discredited political system, while ­global financial institutions have imposed a relentlessly neoliberal diet, pauperising Haitians still further.

After the Earthquake


It seems the US is more interested in 'securing' Haiti than in providing essential supplies.

Mark Weisbrot again in Guardian writes:
If people do not get clean water, there could be epidemics of water-borne diseases that could greatly increase the death toll. But the US is now sending 10,000 troops and seems to be prioritising "security" over much more urgent, life-and-death needs. This in addition to the increase of 3,500 UN troops scheduled to arrive........Washington's fear of democracy in Haiti may explain why the US is now sending 10,000 troops and prioritising "security" over other needs.

The US, together with Canada and France, conspired openly for four years to topple Haiti's elected government in 2002, cutting off almost all international aid in order to destroy the economy and make the country ungovernable. They succeeded. For those who wonder why there are no Haitian government institutions to help with the earthquake relief efforts, this is a big reason. Or why there are 3 million people crowded into the area where the earthquake hit. US policy over the years also helped destroy Haitian agriculture, for example, by forcing the import of subsidised US rice and wiping out thousands of Haitian rice farmers.



The world-renowned humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders complained that a plane carrying its portable hospital unit with 12 tons of equipment including Dialysis machines was re-routed by the US military through the Dominican Republic. This meant a loss of more than 48 hours and a large number of lives.

Jarry Emmanuel, air logistics officer for the UN's World Food Programme, said: "There are 200 flights going in and out every day, which is an incredible amount for a country like Haiti ... But most flights are for the US military."

Future of Haiti

International Financial Organisations should write off all Haiti's debt. Haiti needs grants and not more loans. USA should encourage a functioning democratic Government of people's choice and reconstruction work should not be used to increase the US Corporations hold in Haiti. Haiti can be saved if the International community comes together in unity, not to control and loot, but to help the people of Haiti.





Haiti is suffering from a natural disaster of gigantic proportion. But looking at its history it becomes clear that the magnitude of suffering is so much because of the enormous man-made tragedies of yesteryears fuelled by human greed and cruelty.

Links and references
Year 501; Noam Chomsky
History of Haiti
Guardian articles 1 and 2
Map from CNN.com

Akshardham Temple visit

The Swami Narayan Akshardham temple at Delhi is a magnificent structure. It is not only a temple. As the promoters of the temple proudly claims it 'epitomises 10,000 years of Indian culture in all its breathtaking grandeur, beauty, wisdom and bliss'.

But the visit to Akhshardham temple in Delhi to learn more about the rich history of India was a great disappointment.

The temple is one of the most security conscious structures in India. To enter the temple you need to surrender most of your belongings including your cell phone and camera and go through a time consuming security check stricter than US Airport. There is also a strict dress code for Women, which loudly proclaims shorts; short skirts and burqas are not allowed.

Short skirts and burqas both banned ?????? Why????? Women revealing too much of flesh may be offensive to some people but why dresses that do not reveal anything is banned?

The temple complex contains a large number of statues and sculptures of great beauty.



Bhagwan Swami Narayan's life story is the basis of most of the exhibitions including the Giant screen film and if you are not a Bhakth of the Bhagwan you may not be much impressed.

Soon I was undergoing the much awaited 12 minute boat ride termed Sanskruti Vihar 'to experience the 10000 years of India's glorious heritage'.

I thought the ride will start with the Indus Valley civilization as it the oldest known civilization of India. But I was surprised to realize that no mention was made of Harappa and Mohanjedaro in the show, which was supposed to be about India's history. Why?

The show starts with the Vedic period of Indian history and it tries to make people believe that it is 10000 years old. Most of the Historians are of the opinion that the Vedic period must have started from around 1500BC, i.e. only about 3500 years ago. Then how they got this measure of 10000 years?

I saw a large number of school students in uniform among the visitors to this Boat ride. Will they be mislead by this distorted history?

The show also claims many 'firsts' to the Indian Vedic civilization, including the birthplace of democracy, aircrafts, and Sea Trade.

Though the temple is a grand and beautiful structure, the visit for me at least was a big disappointment.