|
Recent Resources for Feminists
Tuesday September 2 2008
Top Ten Most Disturbing Facts and Impressions of Sarah PalinBy AlterNet Staff
It's not hard to stir up negative publicity when you advocate gunning down wolves from airplanes and deny the human causes of climate change. Scroll down to also read: Unfit to stand so close to presidency
Sarah Palin was named John McCain's vice presidential nominee just three days ago, yet it seems that weeks have passed in terms of the mountains of controversy it has stirred up. An overwhelming amount of negative publicity and sometimes shocking information has come out about her and her relatively short political career.
Choosing Palin has been called alternately a brilliant stroke that reinforces McCain's maverick image and a desperate, irresponsible "Hail Mary" pass in the face of an almost sure defeat in November. The fundamental question being raised: Why Palin? True, her personal narrative has lots of color: former fisherman, NRA hunter, mother of five, small-town mayor, short-term governor of a state with a small population, etc. But that does not qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Anathema to Moderates, Liberals and Progressives George Lakoff, in an accompanying article, lists some of the issues swirling around Palin: She is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
Part of the shock that many are grappling with: How could a 72-year-old man with bouts of cancer choose someone who appears to be completely unqualified to become president? Thus, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment, although it may be tricky for Democrats to raise these issues without creating some backlash.
As Democratic strategist Paul Begala notes: "It is interesting that McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania; Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts, a big company, Bain Capital, and a big event, the Olympics; and Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman."
Not Good in the Polls Republican pollster Frank Luntz, working with the AARP, did some focus groups of "undecided" voters and found some bad news for John McCain:
They don't like his choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin ... a fact that was reinforced when they were given hand-dials and asked to react to Palin's speech at her first appearance with McCain on Friday -- the dials remained totally neutral as Palin went through her heart-warming(?) biography, and only blipped upward when she said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere -- which wasn't quite the truth, as we now know.
Then there was this, from a woman named Teresa, who went to the Democratic convention as a Hillary delegate and is leaning toward voting for McCain -- obviously the target audience for the Palin pick: "His age didn't really bother me until he picked Palin. What if he dies in office and leaves us with her as president? Also she leans toward the rigid right, and I always thought he was a moderate. ... You know, I change my mind almost every day, but right now I'm wondering where the John McCain I really liked in 2000 went. What happened to the moderate? This John McCain has the look of someone who is being manipulated -- probably by Karl Rove."
A commentator to the article appearing on the Time Magazine blog BlankSlate wrote: Only someone in the throes of a serious mental condition could have make a pick this astonishing. This focus group confirms the Rasmussen Reports polling that, among undecided voters, the Palin pick makes 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain and 31 percent less likely to vote for McCain. About 59 percent of these undecided voters do not think Palin is qualified to be president. It is a stunt gone terribly amiss. And the hilarious thing is that the right wing really believes that this is going to turn everything around. Amazing, amazing, amazing.
Local Media Unhappy with Palin Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, checked out the Alaska newspapers to see how they felt about their governor. He found that they were nervous to say the least:
The pages and Web sites of the two leading papers up there have raised all sorts of issues surrounding Palin, from her ethics problems to general lack of readiness for this big step up. Right now the top story on the Anchorage Daily News Web site looks at new info in what it calls "troopergate" and opens: "Alaska's former commissioner of public safety says Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick to be vice president, personally talked to him on two occasions about a state trooper who was locked in a bitter custody battle with the governor's sister."
A reporter for the Anchorage Daily News, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80 percent, but rather 65 percent and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her, it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president."
His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the state senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
And from the editorial in the Anchorage Daily News: "It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency."
What's Next? With the Republican National Convention delayed by Hurricane Gustav's arrival on U.S. shores, there must be lots of discussion and soul-searching going on in Republican circles as to how the Palin candidacy will hold up over the next two months. The biggest question perhaps is whether the McCain inner circle, perhaps in a major concession to the extreme right wing, which hasn't been friendly to McCain, has made a drastic error to woo its support. Or in fact, as some would suggest, McCain is crazy like a fox. Under that scenario, Palin will weather the initial avalanche of negative publicity that paints her far outside of the political mainstream, and she undermines many of McCain's efforts to appear to be the maverick moderate. Palin becomes a strong campaigner, and her extreme positions get lost in her efforts to support McCain.
AlterNet editors have collected a list some of the major issues that are bubbling up about Palin. Here are our top 10 most disturbing facts, rumors and impressions of Sarah Palin, gathered in the past two days:
1: Palin supports gunning down wolves from planes Sarah Palin is no friend of wildlife. And let's not blame this on her being a hunter. Plenty of subsistence hunters respect animals. But Palin reportedly came out against legislation introduced by Rep. George Miller, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, that would "end Alaska's policy of allowing people to shoot wolves from airplanes."
Miller is among a large number of folks who believe the practice is not only cruel, it's unnecessary (proponents say it is to keep caribou and moose numbers up for other hunters) and a violation of federal law banning airborne hunting.
Palin has also tried to make gunning down wolves (and even bears) from the air easier and financially rewarding.
As the Huffington Post reported: Last year, the state offered a $150 bounty as an incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more wolves. And leading up to this week's statewide vote on Measure 2 to stop the aerial shooting of wolves and bears, Palin's Board of Game spent $400,000 of public money on brochures and radio ads to influence the election. She not only took an inhumane and unsporting position at odds with the principles of wildlife management and fair chase, but did it in an undemocratic and underhanded way.
Palin has been said to have a "failing record" on wildlife -- including being in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and she has opposed efforts to protect beluga whales in the Cook Inlet (whose numbers have dropped to just 375) because it might adversely affect the oil and gas industries.
2: Palin doesn't believe global warming is man-made At every campaign stop, McCain says that human activity is the driving force behind global climate change.
For the first time in its history, the GOP caught up to the rest of the planet by accepting the reality of man-made climate change in its 2008 platform. It reads, "The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere," and "increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth."
But Palin is among the conservative fringe that rejects the scientific consensus. According to the Washington Post, "Sarah Palin told voters there she wasn't sure climate change wasn't simply part of a natural warming cycle." Palin told the conservative Web site NewsMax, "I'm not one ... who would attribute it to being man-made."
This may help explain why Palin announced this year that Alaska would sue the Department of the Interior over its decision to add the polar bear to its list of endangered species. If people are "over-reacting" to global warming, as Palin has said, then the polar bears' rapidly dwindling habitat should be fine and those bears can fend for themselves. As Palin explained in an op-ed in the New York Times, "I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. ... The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears' habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future."
3: Palin is the candidate of powerful far right-wing cabal; her nomination seals their support for the little-wanted McCain As Max Blumenthal reports: Last week ... the country's most influential conservatives met quietly in Minneapolis to get to know Sarah Palin. The assembled were members of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy.
CNP members have included Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Grover Norquist, Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich. At a secret 2000 meeting of the CNP, George W. Bush promised to nominate only pro-life judges. ... This year, thanks to Sarah Palin's selection, the movement may have finally aligned itself behind the campaign of John McCain.
What happened at the secret meeting was the topic of online commentary by one of its attendees, top Dobson/Focus on the Family flack Tom Minnery.
Minnery described the mood as CNP members watched Palin: "And I have to tell you, that speech -- people were on their seats applauding, cheering, yelling ... That room in Minneapolis watching on the television screen was electrified. I have not seen anything like it in a long time."
Minnery added that his boss, Dobson, has yearned for a conservative female leader like Margaret Thatcher to emerge on the American scene. And while Palin is no Thatcher, "she has not rejected the feminine side of who she is, so for that reason, she will be attractive to conservative voters." The members of the Council for National Policy are the hidden hand behind McCain's Palin pick. With her selection, the Republican nominee is suddenly -- and unexpectedly -- assured of the support of a movement that once opposed his candidacy with all its might. Case in point: While Dobson once said he could "never" vote for McCain, he issued a statement last week hailing Palin as an "outstanding" choice. If Dobson's enthusiasm for Palin is any indication, he may soon emerge from his bunker in Colorado Springs to endorse McCain, providing the Republican nominee with the support of the Christian right's single most influential figure.
4: Palin staunchly opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest Sarah Palin is strongly anti-choice, but she has taken her views on abortion to an extreme that may prove unpopular even among Republicans. Palin only supports abortion if the mother's health is in danger. Rape and incest don't register with her as legitimate reasons to honor a woman's right to choose -- not even if the women is her own daughter. In 2006, when her daughter Bristol was only 14, Palin said that she would not support choice even if her daughter were raped.
She made that announcement at a time when Alaska was plagued with a rape rate more than twice as high as the national average.
"This is absolutely outside the mainstream. Even in South Dakota they rejected (outlawing abortion in cases of rape) in '06 because it has gone too far and everyone can identify that in a case of rape or incest a woman should have the chance to make the decision with their family or doctor," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told the Huffington Post. "Women voters are going to reject both her and John McCain, and I think we see it specifically because we reach out to Republicans and independent pro-choice women. They live in the suburbs and exurbs. They are very much part of the mainstream America. And woman in general will reject that ticket."
5: Palin takes unnecessary risks with the health of her own child, supports failed abstinence-only programs Amid the now-disproven rumors that the Palins' fifth child, Trig, was the son of her 17-year-old daughter, are reports that Sarah Palin seriously endangered her child during labor. Palin was in Texas delivering a speech when she allegedly began to leak amniotic fluid. Instead of immediately checking into a hospital, Palin finished her speech. She then flew to Anchorage, Alaska, where she drove to a hospital 45 minutes away to give birth.
Palin's apparent need to rush to Alaska for the delivery helped fuel rumors she was faking the pregnancy to cover for her daughter. Now that the story has proven to be false, it nevertheless raises questions about Palin's judgment. In this case, she seems to have taken unnecessary risks in the delivery of her child. As the past eight years have shown us, the last thing we need is a reckless politician in office.
And speaking of unsound judgment, her daughter's pregnancy demonstrates seriously poor decision making -- not on the part of Bristol but by conservative politicians like Palin and McCain, who have decided that the best way to ensure kids learn about sex is by depriving them of information. Palin is a firm supporter of abstinence-until-marriage sex education, despite the fact that numerous studies show that abstinence-only sex education does not delay sexual activity and may in fact lead to unsafe sex practices.
It would be cheap to trade on the irony that a firm backer of abstinence-only sex ed is now the mother of a pregnant teen. But it does need to be noted that many pregnant teens do not have the financial and emotional supports that Bristol appears lucky to have. Palin's abstinence-only stance on sex ed, like McCain's, is wrong because it puts everyone's kids in danger.
6: Palin is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power as governor to help her sister in a messy divorce Politicians are supposed to recuse themselves, or step away from matters, when there is a conflict of interest. Yet according to the Washington Post and other news outlets, Palin "has been embroiled in a bitter family feud that has drawn in the state police, the attorney general, the governor's office and the state legislature." In fact, a "bipartisan state legislative panel has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether Palin improperly brought the family fight into the governor's office," the newspaper reports.
At issue is whether Palin and her staff pressured and then fired the public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, because he did not fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, from the state police after he apparently threatened her sister and other family members, including her father, in 2005. The Post reported that Palin heard Wooten "threatening to kill their father" for helping his daughter obtain a divorce. Palin, who did not call the police that day, later reported the incident.
Upon becoming governor, Palin and her staff asked Monegan to fire Wooten, but the state's top cop replied that the matter had been investigated and had been closed. In July, Palin fired Monegan. The state legislature subsequently launched an investigation into whether she had improperly used her office's power. A report is due in October.
The so-called troopergate incident apparently is not the first time Palin fired police officers for failing to follow her wishes, according to Andrew Sullivan at TheAtlantic.com.
Sullivan cites an Anchorage Daily News report from December 1997 when, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin faced a recall "in response to Palin's controversial firing of Police Chief Irl Stambaugh." Sullivan reports that Stambaugh and another city official, the library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, were fired for "not fully supporting her efforts to govern."
"Both had publicly supported Palin's opponent, longtime mayor John Stein, during the campaign last fall," the Sullivan report said. "When she was elected, Palin questioned their loyalty and even initially asked for their resignations."
7: Palin lied about her plans for the "Bridge to Nowhere" When accepting the GOP's nomination for vice president, Sarah Palin took credit for killing a controversial bridge project in Alaska dubbed the Bridge to Nowhere: "I told Congress, 'Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere,'" she exclaimed to a cheering audience in Ohio. But it turns out that her relationship with the bridge wasn't that cut and dry.
The Gravina Island Bridge would have linked the town of Ketchikan to its international airport, which is extremely difficult to get to by car, as it is on Gravina Island (there is currently a ferry in place to shuttle people to and fro). The bridge was to be federally funded but was quickly labeled a pork barrel project by many conservatives in Washington, including McCain.
So maybe it was an eagerness to please her new boss that caused Palin to lie to the American people right out of the gate. Who can say? But thanks to reports from the Washington Post and the Anchorage Daily News, we are now aware that that is exactly what she has done.
It turns out that initially Palin was a big fan of the bridge -- although it could be that Palin wasn't so much a fan of the bridge as she was a fan of telling Ketchikan's 14,000 residents that she was while on the campaign trail in September 2006. "She was the only candidate who was saying, 'We're going to build that bridge,'" former governor Tony Knowles, a Democrat who lost to Palin in the 2006 general election, told the Washington Post. "She's taking a position now which certainly wasn't what it was when she was campaigning."
After a long fight about how much federal assistance should be granted to Alaska for the bridge, Congress decided to grant Alaska a lump sum of $454 million to spend on general infrastructure projects, instead of specifically earmarking federal money for what had become a very unpopular project.
Even then, though, there where plans for the bridge. It wasn't until September 2007, a year after her promise to the people of Ketchikan, that Palin finally shut down the project, citing overspending. As Keith Ashdown, an investigator with Taxpayers for Common Sense, told the Post: "She made the final decision to kill a very bad project, so she deserves credit for that. But she didn't do it as an ideological opponent of earmarks. She did it as someone who had to balance the books."
Palin lied to her constituents about getting the bridge done, and now she is lying to the American people about what her position was in the first place. It looks like Palin isn't the type of politician who would clean up Washington after all.
8: A so-called political reformer, Palin has big money ties to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for political corruption Former Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil was known for political witticisms, including "Dance with the one that brung ya." That refers to being loyal to your supporters through the thick and thin of political life. According to the Washington Post's The Trail, from 2003 to 2005, Palin was one of three directors of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. A "527" refers to a section of the tax code governing such campaign groups.
"Palin, an anti-corruption crusader in Alaska, had called on Stevens to be open about the issues behind the investigation," the Post reported. "But she also held a joint news conference with him in July, before he was indicted, to make clear she had not abandoned him politically."
Stevens, who is running for re-election this year, was inducted by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., this summer for failing to disclose sizeable gifts from a now-defunct Alaskan oil company, including assistance with renovating a vacation home.
The Post report said that Stevens agreed to lend his name to the campaign committee, but it did not say how much was raised or how the funds were distributed. A report on the group at the CampaignMoney.com Web site also does not list funds raised or spent.
It is not inconsistent that Palin would have been able to muscle major oil companies into making financial concessions for the benefit of Alaskans as governor -- and would have raised funds from those same corporations, the largest doing business in the state, as a director of a 527 group. Such clout is part and parcel of modern campaigns and governing. While much remains unknown about Palin's role as a fundraiser for Steven's 527, her role as a white knight reformer of Alaskan politics has some shades of gray -- as anyone who follows money in politics in small states will affirm.
9: Palin exploits her son's Iraq service for political gain Taking the stage alongside John McCain last Friday, it took no time for Palin to play the 9/11 card. "On September 11th of last year," she announced, "our son enlisted in the United States Army. … And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq. ... And Todd and I are so proud of him and of all the fine men and women serving this country."
Palin's public pride in her son served a purpose, one the media dutifully picked up. As campaign operatives rebuffed charges that Palin is unprepared, they reached for her son's military service. Confronted with her admission that she has "not paid much attention" to the war in Iraq, one guest told Hardball's Chris Matthews that, as a military mother, "she pays attention to it with her heart."
Maybe so, but Palin is hardly alone. The 2008 presidential race is remarkable in that three of the candidates have sons in the active duty military. But standard practice seems to be not to discuss it publicly.
Take John McCain. His son Jimmy returned from Iraq in February. "We have two sons in the military," he told Sean Hannity, "but we never talk about it, if that's all right." Similarly, Joe Biden, whose son Beau will deploy to Iraq in October, has kept uncharacteristically quiet about it.
So what gives Palin license to wear her son's military service on her sleeve?
Simple: She's a mom.
Palin's uber-motherhood is already the stuff of legend and controversy. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome, now she's dealing with her teenage daughter's pregnancy. In a game that has traditionally shredded male candidates on the slightest hint that they are not tough enough for the job, Palin is the Right's version of what a strong woman should look like. That she'd be given a pass for exploiting her son's military service on emotional grounds is one thing. For her campaign to construe it as somehow making her more qualified to be commander-in-chief is absurd.
10: During her time as mayor, Palin drove a town deep into debt According to Politico, "Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla. That amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 11, 2008
Unfit to stand so close to presidency By Dan Payne
TODAY, on the anniversary of the horror of Sept. 11, 2001, we should recall what happens when an unqualified candidate captures the presidency. An incurious western governor, George W. Bush, arrived in Washington unprepared for the job. And it showed every day of his presidency.
John McCain's health could kill us. It's conceivable that a 72-year-old hot head who has had four bouts of cancer might not make it through his first term as president, leaving the country in the hands of a person whom McCain (a former POW) met one time. One time! I've spent more time shopping for a car than he spent choosing a potential president. Yet Sarah Palin could be one heart attack, one stroke, one metastasized melanoma away from becoming president of the United States.
Sarah Palin is Clarence Thomas, completely unqualified but cynically chosen for being a member of a demographic group that usually votes Democratic. No wonder so many women are insulted by the choice.
Will Hillary voters buy Palin's extreme antiabortion stance that allows no exceptions, not even for incest or rape; her belief in "market- and business-driven healthcare"; her support for teaching creationism in public schools; her rejection of global warming as man-made?
Stopping the Russians. In a goofy attempt to give Palin foreign policy credentials, McCain (an ex-POW) said Alaska is near Russia. Come to think of it, there haven't been any Russian invasions since she's been governor.
The day she was picked, she called herself "commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard." This is so preposterous even Mitt Romney didn't try it. The head of the Alaska Guard told the Associated Press that he and Palin play no role in national defense.
God is in the pipeline! Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States invaded Iraq as a "task that is from God." While she was there, she urged them to pray for a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."
Palin's pipeline to pork. McCain (an ex-POW) has for years attacked the practice of earmarking, where powerful members of Congress deliver federal funds for pet projects back home. McCain even published "pork lists." The Los Angeles Times found that three times in recent years McCain's pork lists contained earmarks for Wasilla, Alaska. Its mayor, Palin, had hired the town's first lobbyist, who steered almost $27 million in federal earmarks to a place with 6,700 residents. This year, as governor, her pork list fattened up to $197.8 million.
Abramoff connection. The lobbyist our "reform" mayor hired was tied to disgraced lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff. The Washington Post reports that Steven Silver - a former chief of staff to now-indicted Alaska GOP Senator Ted Stevens - was hand-picked by Palin at a time when Silver included as a client the Abramoff lobbying firm.
Troopergate, the iceberg cometh. Dead ahead, Palin is facing a report from a special prosecutor chosen unanimously by the Alaska Legislature. The prosecutor is looking into charges that she fired the State Police chief in July because he failed to remove a trooper who had been married to Palin's sister. The brother-in-law went through a messy divorce with child-custody issues.
A month after she took office, Palin's husband met with the chief to complain about the trooper. The chief has saved e-mails from Palin where she demanded the dismissal. In one angry e-mail that's surfaced, she actually curses (!) over the lack of action.
The prosecutor's report is due out in October. McCain (an ex-POW) has his cronies in Alaska working feverishly to stall its release.
The weekend anchor. David Letterman said she looks like the weekend anchor on Channel 9. In fact, she's a hard-right, small-town operator who tapped into the corrupt Ted Stevens money pipeline in Washington. She knows how to use Alaska's gun-toting cowboy image to her advantage. She's got a Taliban-like tolerance for beliefs unlike her own.
To the extent he thought about it at all, McCain (an ex-POW) picked her to fix his problems with GOP evangelicals and juice the ticket. That's a lousy reason to let someone so completely unfit stand so close to the presidency.
Dan Payne is a Boston-area media consultant who has worked for Democratic candidates around the country. He does political analysis for WBUR radio.
|
|
|

Briefings SERIES By Kathleen Maltzahn 9780868409139, UNSW Press, July 2008, 128pp, PB , 234x153mm Availability: Plenty Price: AUD$19.95 (AUD$18.13 ex-tax) Booksellers Discount Code: General
Trafficked tells the story of a rare human rights campaign that succeeded in changing government policy to protect women smuggled into Australia each year to work in the sex trade. In 2003, the Coronial Inquiry into Puongtong Simaplee’s 2001 death at the Villawood Detention Centre put the issue of trafficking for prostitution in Australia on the national agenda for the first time. Trafficked contains first-person accounts of women like Puongtang, stories that inspired women’s groups to make sure trafficked women could no longer be ignored.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Edited Extract of “Trafficked”
August 4 2008
sex industry Against Their Will
By Kathleen Maltzahn
Current laws that focus on punishing sexual traffickers misunderstand the industry and fail to protect women, writes Kathleen Maltzahn
In a society that is still struggling to understand the mechanics of psychological and other violence against women, many people find it hard to match their idea of what sex trafficking looks like with the experiences of women actually living in such situations. Very few victims of trafficking are forcibly restrained by their traffickers.
Similarly, Australia's current anti-trafficking laws fail to recognise that women may be subject to forms of coercion subtler - but no less powerful - than being chained to a bed.
The UN Protocol definition of trafficking includes the "threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person" (my italics).
In Australia, before the introduction of the Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005, trafficking of women was tried under the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999.
The 1999 legislation included three broad crimes - slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting. It was a clunky piece of legislation which fell short of responding to the situations women actually found themselves in. Its usefulness could be measured in part by how often it had been used. Between 1999 when it was introduced, and 2003 when trafficking hit national newspapers, there was not one prosecution under the Act.
The extent to which misunderstandings of trafficked women's experiences of sexual slavery were impeding successful prosecutions was made clear to me at an event which took place before the introduction of the 2005 legislation.
I had been invited by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to present at a one-day conference for Commonwealth investigators, covering a number of departments, including the AFP, the Australian Taxation Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). I did my usual presentation on trafficking, pointing out the ways in which threats and violence were used to shackle women, and saying I had never, in all my time working on trafficking, heard of women being, say, chained to the bed.
After my talk, a lawyer with the DPP came up to me. She was interested in my presentation, she said, because the DPP had just been given a sexual slavery case and none of them could see how it could be a crime, because the women hadn't been physically restrained. It was a dismaying discovery, but one that explained the initial weakness of the DPP's approach to the case.
Unfortunately, unlike the AFP, the DPP at that point had done little to learn about trafficking, and their understanding of slavery meant that they couldn't recognise the women's experiences within that paradigm. Given this ignorance on the part of the people prosecuting the cases, combined with the community's lack of exposure to trafficking in Australia, it wasn't surprising how few slavery offences were prosecuted.
In contrast to the slavery offence, with its high level of proof, the 1999 legislation included a theoretically more useable offence of deceptive recruiting. But this offence had a different but equally frustrating limitation. Deceptive recruiting covered only the type of work that women were being recruited for, not its nature. It captured the minority of women who were duped about the fact they were entering prostitution, but not the majority who consented to enter the sex industry but were deceived about the conditions they would work under.
Prostitutes who were told they would be free to do as they wanted, would be working legally and would earn decent money were not seen to have been deceptively recruited. It fell, again, into the old model of "good" victims and "bad" victims, virtuous women forced into prostitution and so worthy of state protection, and gullible prostitutes who should have known what they had coming.
In September 2004, honouring its 2003 promise to "comprehensively criminalise trafficking activity" and in recognition of the unworkable nature of the existing legislation, the Government released an exposure draft of its proposed new trafficking legislation which, after significant reworking in the committee process, was finally passed in June 2005. The Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005 was an important improvement on the 1999 legislation. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation that has been used effectively to prosecute traffickers and, one hopes, get some justice for trafficked women.
The AFP says that since January 2004 its Transnational Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking teams have undertaken more than 150 investigations and assessments of trafficking allegations, leading to charges being laid against 34 people. By May 2008 there had been seven convictions, five for slavery matters and two for sexual servitude. Seven trafficking-related matters, involving 18 defendants, were before the courts, and three of the seven matters were at the appeal phase.
Now the problem has become not so much the content of the legislation as its context.
The government continued to see prosecutions as the main way to stop trafficking. To that end it allocated a huge chunk of its $20 million counter-trafficking budget to court cases, and it also geared its support processes for women towards the prosecution of offenders. While, technically, trafficked women would still be helped if they did not want to be involved in an investigation or court case, this support could not be in Australia; any woman who, for whatever reason, did not want to disclose her experience to the police was repatriated.
This is an odd peculiarity of trafficking. Few people would countenance linking immediate help for rape victims, or women with abusive husbands, to court processes. We have long recognised that support for women victims of violence is a stand-alone first requirement. It's not that criminal proceedings against perpetrators are not important - feminists have been fighting for better laws and better legal processes for sexual assault and domestic violence for years now - but getting help shouldn't be conditional on women agreeing immediately to lay charges against the perpetrators. The government approach put prosecution before recovery for women.
Immigration issues must also be factored into any counter-trafficking processes. In theory, the Bridging F visa, introduced in 2003, was going to give women time to think about what they wanted to do, continuing an international trend to introduce "reflection periods" for trafficked women, during which they could have some time out after escaping traffickers to think through their options.
When the government announced, as part of the 2003 trafficking package, that it was introducing the new bridging visa to allow women to stay in the country for up to a month, we assumed it was a variation on the reflection period - although shorter than the three month period recommended by the Council of Europe - which would give women the space to think through what they wanted to do before they had to face either going home or helping police.
In fact, the regulations that governed the visa were drafted so that many women would not be able to take the full month and police would not have the discretion to allow a woman to stay unless they had some evidence that she could help them. Much to our surprise, women were going to the police and were then being told two or three days later that they had to leave the country.
The limitations of the Bridging F visa and the former government's prosecution fixation continue to affect a whole range of trafficked women. Some simply don't want to help the police - they fear for themselves or their families, or they simply want to put the past behind them and get on with their lives, away from the thuggery of the traffickers. I remember one woman who came to our office telling me through an interpreter that it would be all very well for her, from the safety of Australia, to go to the police and ask for help, but what about her family? Could the police protect them? What right did she have, she asked, to sacrifice them for her own safety? I watched her walk out the door knowing she was returning to a clandestine life as an "unlawful non-citizen," unable to access the support that the government had put in place because she was not willing to risk her family's safety.
Other women want to help the police but don't know enough to be useful. Many have little information about the detailed workings of the trafficking operation beyond their own day-to-day existence. They might not know the traffickers' real names, or what suburb they were held in, or whether the people they dealt with were the runners or the rulers of trafficking chains. Their memory can be affected by trauma, their recollections partial or confused. The traffickers may have left the country, or closed shop, and be impossible to track. With the best will in the world to have the traffickers charged, the information provided by these women will never lead to a prosecution.
Women who came to Australia before the 1999 legislation are not covered by the package. They are still victims of serious crimes under Australian law - rape, battery, false imprisonment, the list goes on - but they are not eligible for government help under the trafficking package.
With such exemptions and exceptions, the limitations of the legislative provisions remain considerable. For some trafficked women the claim on our country is especially compelling. Women I know have lost years of their life, first under contract, and then living in fear, underground, hiding first from the trafficker and then from Immigration, vulnerable to further exploitation and unable to build any sort of secure future.
Our failure to protect them has left them stranded for years. Often they genuinely believe that the traffickers will come looking for them whether they are in Australia or at home. These women have lost so much, lived in limbo for so many years, often having made new friends or formed new relationships in the face of this adversity.
Why do we then insist on telling them that they have to move countries again, start from scratch again, give up all they have managed to pull together from nothing, and leave Australia because we fear that by letting them stay we'll be "opening the floodgates" and encouraging fake trafficking victims to come forward with a claim on Australia's largesse? Are they to be sacrificed, once again, because of other people's actions or potential actions?
We're not talking millions of women, or even tens of thousands. Given how many trafficked women simply never find their way to help, and that many of the women do want to go home, we're probably talking, at the very, very most, a few hundred women a year, and possibly only a handful.
It doesn't seem a lot to ask.
|
|
|
Sunday Magazine ~~ August 24 2008
MOVING IMAGES Love in the time of foeticide K.S. DAKSHINA MURTHY
Nupur Basu on her latest documentary that exposes the conspiracy of silence and consensus around female foeticide. “I thought of attacking the very symbol of love and show how loveless India has become.” NUPUR BASU
 Protesting injustice: Nupur Basu with her protagonist Vaijanti (Reena Mohan)The Taj Mahal, the symbol of eternal love. And Agra, the most sought after tourist spot in the country. Flip them around and the assiduously built myths crack. “Love” culminates within the boundaries of the Taj, while another reality, stark and sombre, takes over outside. Capturing this reality is filmmaker-journalist Nupur Basu in her latest documentary “No Country for Young Girls?”
The film is part of the “Life On the Edge” series, the third produced by Television Trust for Environment (TVE) for BBC World. The news channel premiered it on August 19. This is Nupur’s fifth documentary. Former Senior Editor with New Delhi Television (NDTV) for over a decade, Nupur Basu brought stories of the marginalised onto mainstream television with her reportage on farmers’ suicides from Anantapur to Wyanad, caste conflicts from Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu to Mysore in Karnataka, the plight of children working in surface mines in Bellary and AIDS orphans in Rakai in Uganda, the aftermath of natural disasters in Gujarat, and from Geneva on why the target of “Health for All by 2000” failed to materialise.
“I chose the theme of foeticide because I found that a huge silence around it. The next census is going to reveal some shocking statistics on this, about how distorted the sex ratio has become. Yet we are living in denial,” said Nupur.
Behind the facade Behind the façade of elitist liberalism and middle-class respectability is the conspiratorial silence and societal consensus that enable female foetuses to be aborted and mothers of girls to be relegated to a second class status beaten, shunned and isolated. “Talk to anyone from the woman who is working in your house to anyone outside. Sex selection is so rampant. Women, from the upper to the poorest classes feel pressure to bear sons. It has nothing to do with any one socio-economic group,” said Nupur.
To project this injustice, Nupur took the route less trodden. “I wanted to do it in a different way. So we decided to journey with a woman who was a victim of this social crime. I cast my net across India, across cities to find a character who would suit the film’s requirements.”
The film-maker zeroed in on 27 year-old Vaijanti, a quintessential Indian woman forced to leave her husband’s home as punishment for giving birth to three daughters. “Vaijanti lives just one km from the Taj Mahal. The film begins with what Vaijanti thought love was during the time of marriage and what love became eventually,” said Nupur.
Why Agra? “To millions, the Taj is a symbol of love. It has become a meaningless word. See what is happening to women today: killed for dowry, going through abortion after abortion or being abused for bearing girls. Where is love in all this? I thought of attacking the very symbol of love and show how loveless India has become. Vaijanti, sitting alone on the lovers’ bench in front of the Taj, reminded me of the powerful image of Princess Diana.”
“In documentaries we can examine issues more intuitively. When you see such films, you wonder why people clamour for fictional films when reality is more compelling. Vaijanti is real, her emotions are real. We are not giving her a script, she is writing the script as she goes along.”
In the film, Nupur journeys with Vaijanti across India, exposing her to other women and their circumstances. “From the poorest of poor women working in the streets of Delhi to the richest CEOs in India, she met them all. She wanted to see what the future held for her daughters. She wanted to know what her choices were,” pointed out Nupur.
“No Country for Young Girls?” is also about despair and hope. “There is this amazing woman in Rajasthan, Jasbir Kaur, who defied her in-laws and husband and gave birth to her triplets, all girls! Vaijanti was most inspired by her,” said Nupur.
Dilemma So what is Vaijanti’s dilemma? “Her dilemma is: should she compromise and go back to her husband (she still has some love left for him) or fight for her divorce and bring up the girls on her own. She has passed her seventh standard and is from a poor family. The odds are stacked against her,” said Nupur.
Vaijanti travels from Agra to Delhi, to Ganganagar in Rajasthan, to the country’s IT capital Bangalore and then finally to Mahatma Gandhi’s Sabarmati ashram in Gujarat. How did the journey impact Vaijanti? “She had hardly ever stepped out of Agra. The only other place she had been was to her grandmother’s place in Kota, Rajasthan. From upper class women in bars and discotheques to the women on the streets, everyone was so empathetic. There was tremendous solidarity shown by other women , it was so beautiful. We have to see how it is going to affect her, influence her,” Nupur said. The filmmaker intends keeping track of Vaijanti’s life. “We want to revisit her. We have plans…” she said.
Having cut a 21-minute film out of 28-hour footage, Nupur is now earmarking a longer version. “I want to release that on Violence Against Women Day in November,” she said. |
|
Magazine| September 01, 2008 Kashmir

Azadi It's the only thing the Kashmiri wants. Denial is delusion. By ARUNDHATI ROY
F or the past sixty days or so, since about the end of June, the people of Kashmir have been free. Free in the most profound sense. They have shrugged off the terror of living their lives in the gun-sights of half-a-million heavily-armed soldiers in the most densely militarised zone in the world.
After 18 years of administering a military occupation, the Indian government's worst nightmare has come true. Having declared that the militant movement has been crushed, it is now faced with a non-violent mass protest, but not the kind it knows how to manage. This one is nourished by people's memory of years of repression in which tens of thousands have been killed, thousands have been 'disappeared', hundreds of thousands tortured, injured, raped and humiliated. That kind of rage, once it finds utterance, cannot easily be tamed, re-bottled and sent back to where it came from.
For all these years, the Indian State, known amongst the knowing as the Deep State, has done everything it can to subvert, suppress, represent, misrepresent, discredit, interpret, intimidate, purchaseand simply snuff out the voice of the Kashmiri people. It has used money (lots of it), violence (lots of it), disinformation, propaganda, torture, elaborate networks of collaborators and informers, terror, imprisonment, blackmail and rigged elections to subdue what democrats would call "the will of the people". But now the Deep State, as Deep States eventually tend to, has tripped on its own hubris and bought into its own publicity. It made the mistake of believing that domination was victory, that the 'normalcy' it had enforced through the barrel of a gun was indeed normal, and that the people's sullen silence was acquiescence.
 People's movement: Protesters march towards the UN office in Srinagar
The well-endowed peace industry, speaking on people's behalf, informed us that "Kashmiris are tired of violence and want peace". What kind of peace they were willing to settle for was never clarified. Bollywood's cache of Kashmir/Muslim-terrorist films has brainwashed most Indians into believing that all of Kashmir's sorrows could be laid at the door of evil, people-hating terrorists.
To anybody who cared to ask, or, more importantly, to listen, it was always clear that even in their darkest moments, people in Kashmir had kept the fires burning and that it was not peace they yearned for, but freedom too. Over the last two months, the carefully confected picture of an innocent people trapped between 'two guns', both equally hated, has, pardon the pun, been shot to hell.
A sudden twist of fate, an ill-conceived move over the transfer of 100 acres of state forest land to the Amarnath Shrine Board (which manages the annual Hindu pilgrimage to a cave deep in the Kashmir Himalayas) suddenly became the equivalent of tossing a lit match into a barrel of petrol. Until 1989, the Amarnath pilgrimage used to attract about 20,000 people who travelled to the Amarnath cave over a period of about two weeks. In 1990, when the overtly Islamic militant uprising in the Valley coincided with the spread of virulent Hindutva in the Indian plains, the number of pilgrims began to increase exponentially. By 2008, more than 5,00,000 pilgrims visited the Amarnath cave in large groups, their passage often sponsored by Indian business houses. To many people in the Valley, this dramatic increase in numbers was seen as an aggressive political statement by an increasingly Hindu-fundamentalist Indian State. Rightly or wrongly, the land transfer was viewed as the thin edge of the wedge. It triggered an apprehension that it was the beginning of an elaborate plan to build Israeli-style settlements, and change the demography of the Valley.Days of massive protest forced the Valley to shut down completely. Within hours, the protests spread from the cities to villages. Young stone-pelters took to the streets and faced armed police who fired straight at them, killing several. For people as well as the government, it resurrected memories of the uprising in the early '90s. Throughout the weeks of protest, hartal and police firing, while the Hindutva publicity machine charged Kashmiris with committing every kind of communal excess, the 5,00,000 Amarnath pilgrims completed their pilgrimage, not just unhurt, but touched by the hospitality they had been shown by local people.
Eventually, taken completely by surprise at the ferocity of the response, the government revoked the land transfer. But by then the land transfer had become what senior separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani called a "non-issue".
Massive protests against the revocation erupted in Jammu. There, too, the issue snowballed into something much bigger. Hindus began to raise issues of neglect and discrimination by the Indian State. (For some odd reason they blamed Kashmiris for that neglect.) The protests led to the blockading of the Jammu-Srinagar highway, the only functional road link between Kashmir and India. The army was called out to clear the highway and allow safe passage of trucks between Jammu and Srinagar. But incidents of violence against Kashmiri truckers were being reported from as far away as Punjab where there was no protection at all. As a result, Kashmiri truckers, fearing for their lives, refused to drive on the highway. Truckloads of perishable fresh fruit and Valley produce began to rot. It became very obvious that the blockade had caused the situation to spin out of control. The government announced that the blockade had been cleared and that trucks were going through. Embedded sections of the Indian media, quoting the inevitable 'Intelligence' sources, began to refer to it as a 'perceived' blockade, and even to suggest that there had never been one.
 Flaming chinars: People climb atop trees to hear Hurriyat leaders
But it was too late for those games, the damage had been done. It had been demonstrated in no uncertain terms to people in Kashmir that they lived on sufferance, and that if they didn't behave themselves they could be put under siege, starved, deprived of essential commodities and medical supplies. The real blockade became a psychological one. The last fragile link between India and Kashmir was all but snapped.
To expect matters to end there was of course absurd. Hadn't anybody noticed that in Kashmir even minor protests about civic issues like water and electricity inevitably turned into demands for azadi? To threaten them with mass starvation amounted to committing political suicide.
Not surprisingly, the voice that the Government of India has tried so hard to silence in Kashmir has massed into a deafening roar. Hundreds of thousands of unarmed people have come out to reclaim their cities, their streets and mohallas. They have simply overwhelmed the heavily armed security forces by their sheer numbers, and with a remarkable display of raw courage.
Raised in a playground of army camps, checkposts and bunkers, with screams from torture chambers for a soundtrack, the young generation has suddenly discovered the power of mass protest, and above all, the dignity of being able to straighten their shoulders and speak for themselves, represent themselves. For them it is nothing short of an epiphany. They're in full flow, not even the fear of death seems to hold them back.And once that fear has gone, of what use is the largest or second-largest army in the world? What threat does it hold? Who should know that better than the people of India who won their independence in the way that they did?
The circumstances in Kashmir being what they are, it is hard for the spin doctors to fall back on the same old same old; to claim that it's all the doing of Pakistan's ISI, or that people are being coerced by militants. Since the '30s onwards, the question of who can claim the right to represent that elusive thing known as "Kashmiri sentiment" has been bitterly contested. Was it Sheikh Abdullah? The Muslim Conference? Who is it today? The mainstream political parties? The Hurriyat? The militants? This time around, the people are in charge. There have been mass rallies in the past, but none in recent memory that have been so sustained and widespread. The mainstream political parties of Kashmirthe National Conference, the People's Democratic Partyfeted by the Deep State and the Indian media despite the pathetic voter turnout in election after election appear dutifully for debates in New Delhi's TV studios, but can't muster the courage to appear on the streets of Kashmir. The armed militants who, through the worst years of repression, were seen as the only ones carrying the torch of azadi forward, if they are around at all, seem to be content to take a backseat and let people do the fighting for a change.
  Everywhere in chains: But it's no barricade to freedom
The separatist leaders who do appear and speak at the rallies are not leaders so much as followers, being guided by the phenomenal spontaneous energy of a caged, enraged people that has exploded on Kashmir's streets. The leaders, such as they are, have been presented with a full-blown revolution. The only condition seems to be that they have to do as the people say. If they say things that people do not wish to hear, they are gently persuaded to come out, publicly apologise and correct their course. This applies to all of them, including Syed Ali Shah Geelani who at a public rally recently proclaimed himself the movement's only leader. It was a monumental political blunder that very nearly shattered the fragile new alliance between the various factions of the struggle. Within hours he retracted his statement. Like it or not, this is democracy. No democrat can pretend otherwise.
Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people swarm around places that hold terrible memories for them. They demolish bunkers, break through cordons of concertina wire and stare straight down the barrels of soldiers' machine-guns, saying what very few in India want to hear. Hum kya chahte? Azadi! We Want Freedom. And, it has to be said, in equal numbers and with equal intensity: Jeevey Jeevey Pakistan. Long live Pakistan.
That sound reverberates through the Valley like the drumbeat of steady rain on a tin roof, like the roll of thunder before an electric storm. It's the plebiscite that was never held, the referendum that has been indefinitely postponed.
On August 15, India's Independence Day, the city of Srinagar shut down completely. The Bakshi stadium where Governor N.N. Vohra hoisted the flag was empty except for a few officials. Hours later, Lal Chowk, the nerve centre of the city (where in 1992, Murli Manohar Joshi, BJP leader and mentor of the controversial "Hinduisation" of children's history textbooks, started a tradition of flag-hoisting by the Border Security Force), was taken over by thousands of people who hoisted the Pakistani flag and wished each other "Happy belated Independence Day" (Pakistan celebrates Independence on August 14) and "Happy Slavery Day".Humour, obviously, has survived India's many torture centres and Abu Ghraibs in Kashmir.
On August 16, more than 3,00,000 people marched to Pampore, to the village of Hurriyat leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz, who was shot down in cold blood five days earlier. He was part of a massive march to the Line of Control demanding that since the Jammu road had been blocked, it was only logical that the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad highway be opened for goods and people, the way it used to be before Kashmir was partitioned.
 Goodbye, fear: A police post being dismantled in Srinagar
On August 18, an equal number gathered in Srinagar in the huge TRC grounds (Tourist Reception Centre, not the Truth and Reconciliation Committee) close to the United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to submit a memorandum asking for three thingsthe end to Indian rule, the deployment of a UN Peacekeeping Force and an investigation into two decades of war crimes committed with almost complete impunity by the Indian army and police.
The day before the rally the Deep State was hard at work. A senior journalist friend called to say that late in the afternoon the home secretary called a high-level meeting in New Delhi. Also present were the defence secretary and the intelligence chiefs. The purpose of the meeting, he said, was to brief the editors of TV news channels that the government had reason to believe that the insurrection was being managed by a small splinter cell of the ISI and to request the channels to keep this piece of exclusive, highly secret intelligence in mind while covering (or preferably not covering?) the news from Kashmir. Unfortunately for the Deep State, things have gone so far that TV channels, were they to obey those instructions, would run the risk of looking ridiculous. Thankfully, it looks as though this revolution will, after all, be televised.
On the night of August 17, the police sealed the city. Streets were barricaded, thousands of armed police manned the barriers. The roads leading into Srinagar were blocked. For the first time in eighteen years, the police had to plead with Hurriyat leaders to address the rally at the TRC grounds instead of marching right up to the UNMOGIP office which is on Gupkar Road, Srinagar's Green Zone where, for years, the Indian Establishment has barricaded itself in style and splendour.
On the morning of the 18th, people began pouring into Srinagar from villages and towns across the Valley. In trucks, tempos, jeeps, buses and on foot. Once again, barriers were broken and people reclaimed their city. The police were faced with a choice of either stepping aside or executing a massacre. They stepped aside. Not a single bullet was fired.
The city floated on a sea of smiles. There was ecstasy in the air. Everyone had a banner; houseboat owners, traders, students, lawyers, doctors. One said, "We are all prisoners, set us free." Another said, "Democracy without freedom is Demon-crazy". Demon Crazy. That was a good one. Perhaps he was referring to the twisted logic of a country that needed to commit communal carnage in order to bolster its secular credentials. Or the insanity that permits the world's largest democracy to administer the world's largest military occupation and continue to call itself a democracy.
There was a green flag on every lamp post, every roof, every bus stop and on the top of chinar trees. A big one fluttered outside the All India Radio building. Road signs to Hazratbal, Batmaloo, Sopore were painted over. Rawalpindi they said. Or simply Pakistan. It would be a mistake to assume that the public expression of affection for Pakistan automatically translates into a desire to accede to Pakistan.Some of it has to do with gratitude for the supportcynical or otherwisefor what Kashmiris see as a freedom struggle and the Indian State sees as a terrorist campaign. It also has to do with mischief. With saying and doing what galls India, the enemy, most of all. (It's easy to scoff at the idea of a 'freedom struggle' that wishes to distance itself from a country that is supposed to be a democracy and align itself with another that has, for the most part, been ruled by military dictators. A country whose army has committed genocide in what is now Bangladesh. A country that is even now being torn apart by its own ethnic war. These are important questions, but right now perhaps it's more useful to wonder what this so-called democracy did in Kashmir to make people hate it so.)
Everywhere there were Pakistani flags, everywhere the cry, Pakistan se rishta kya? La ilaha illa llah. What is our bond with Pakistan? There is no god but Allah. Azadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha illallah. What does Freedom mean? There is no god but Allah.
For somebody like myself, who is not Muslim, that interpretation of freedom is hardif not impossibleto understand. I asked a young woman whether freedom for Kashmir would not mean less freedom for her, as a woman. She shrugged and said, "What kind of freedom do we have now? The freedom to be raped by Indian soldiers?" Her reply silenced me.
 She's no terrorist: A woman pelts stones at policemen
Standing in the grounds of the TRC, surrounded by a sea of green flags, it was impossible to doubt or ignore the deeply Islamic nature of the uprising taking place around me. It was equally impossible to label it a vicious, terrorist jehad. For Kashmiris, it was a catharsis. A historical moment in a long and complicated struggle for freedom with all the imperfections, cruelties and confusions that freedom struggles have. This one cannot by any means call itself pristine, and will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account foramong other thingsthe brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley.
As the crowd continued to swell, I listened carefully to the slogans, because rhetoric often clarifies things and holds the key to all kinds of understanding. I'd heard many of them before, a few years ago, at a militant's funeral. A new one, obviously coined after the blockade, was Kashmir ki mandi! Rawalpindi! (It doesn't lend itself to translation, but it meansKashmir's marketplace? Rawalpindi!) Another was Khooni lakir tod do, aar paar jod do (Break down the blood-soaked Line of Control, let Kashmir be united again). There were plenty of insults and humiliation for India: Ay jabiron ay zalimon, Kashmir hamara chhod do (Oh oppressors, Oh wicked ones, Get out of our Kashmir). Jis Kashmir ko khoon se seencha, woh Kashmir hamara hai (The Kashmir we have irrigated with our blood, that Kashmir is ours!).
The slogan that cut through me like a knife and clean broke my heart was this one: Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itselfPakistan). Why was it so galling, so painful to listen to this? I tried to work it out and settled on three reasons. First, because we all know that the first part of the slogan is the embarrassing and unadorned truth about India, the emerging superpower. Second, because all Indians who are not nanga or bhookha areand have beencomplicit in complex and historical ways with the cruel cultural and economic systems that make Indian society so cruel, so vulgarly unequal.And third, because it was painful to listen to people who have suffered so much themselves mock others who suffer in different ways, but no less intensely, under the same oppressor. In that slogan I saw the seeds of how easily victims can become perpetrators.
It took hours for Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Geelani to wade through the thronging crowds and make it onto the podium. When they arrived, they were born aloft on the shoulders of young men, over the surging crowd to the podium. The roar of greeting was deafening. Mirwaiz Umer spoke first. He repeated the demand that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Disturbed Areas Act and Public Safety Actunder which thousands have been killed, jailed and torturedbe withdrawn. He called for the release of political prisoners, for the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road to be opened for the free movement of goods and people, and for the demilitarisation of the Kashmir Valley.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani began his address with a recitation from the Quran. He then said what he has said before, on hundreds of occasions. The only way for the struggle to succeed, he said, was to turn to the Quran for guidance. He said Islam would guide the struggle and that it was a complete social and moral code that would govern the people of a free Kashmir. He said Pakistan had been created as the home of Islam, and that that goal should never be subverted. He said just as Pakistan belonged to Kashmir, Kashmir belonged to Pakistan. He said minority communities would have full rights and their places of worship would be safe. Each point he made was applauded.
 Window of opportunity: Spectators for the march to Srinagar
Oddly enough, the apparent doctrinal clarity of what he said made everything a little unclear. I wondered how the somewhat disparate views of the various factions in the freedom struggle would resolve themselvesthe Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front's vision of an independent state, Geelani's desire to merge with Pakistan and Mirwaiz Umer Farooq balanced precariously between them.
An old man with a red eye standing next to me said, "Kashmir was one country. Half was taken by India, the other half by Pakistan. Both by force. We want freedom." I wondered if, in the new dispensation, the old man would get a hearing. I wondered what he would think of the trucks that roared down the highways in the plains of India, owned and driven by men who knew nothing of history, or of Kashmir, but still had slogans on their tailgates that said, "Doodh maango to kheer denge, Kashmir maango to cheer denge (Ask for milk, you'll get cream; Ask for Kashmir, we'll tear you open)."
Briefly, I had another thought. I imagined myself standing in the heart of an RSS or VHP rally being addressed by L.K. Advani. Replace the word Islam with the word Hindutva, replace the word Pakistan with Hindustan, replace the sea of green flags with saffron ones, and we would have the BJP's nightmare vision of an ideal India.
Is that what we should accept as our future? Monolithic religious states handing down a complete social and moral code, "a complete way of life"? Millions of us in India reject the Hindutva project. Our rejection springs from love, from passion, from a kind of idealism, from having enormous emotional stakes in the society in which we live. What our neighbours do, how they choose to handle their affairs does not affect our argument, it only strengthens it.
Arguments that spring from love are also fraught with danger. It is for the people of Kashmir to agree or disagree with the Islamic project (which is as contested, in equally complex ways, all over the world by Muslims as Hindutva is contested by Hindus).Perhaps now that the threat of violence has receded and there is some space in which to debate views and air ideas, it is time for those who are part of the struggle to outline a vision for what kind of society they are fighting for. Perhaps it is time to offer people something more than martyrs, slogans and vague generalisations. Those who wish to turn to the Quran for guidance will no doubt find guidance there. But what of those who do not wish to do that, or for whom the Quran does not make place? Do the Hindus of Jammu and other minorities also have the right to self-determination? Will the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits living in exile, many of them in terrible poverty, have the right to return? Will they be paid reparations for the terrible losses they have suffered? Or will a free Kashmir do to its minorities what India has done to Kashmiris for 61 years? What will happen to homosexuals and adulterers and blasphemers? What of thieves and lafangas and writers who do not agree with the "complete social and moral code"? Will we be put to death as we are in Saudi Arabia? Will the cycle of death, repression and bloodshed continue? History offers many models for Kashmir's thinkers and intellectuals and politicians to study. What will the Kashmir of their dreams look like? Algeria? Iran? South Africa? Switzerland? Pakistan?
At a crucial time like this, few things are more important than dreams. A lazy utopia and a flawed sense of justice will have consequences that do not bear thinking about. This is not the time for intellectual sloth or a reluctance to assess a situation clearly and honestly. It could be argued that the prevarication of Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947 has been Kashmir's great modern tragedy, one that eventually led to unthinkable bloodshed and the prolonged bondage of people who were very nearly free.
Already the spectre of partition has reared its head. Hindutva networks are alive with rumours about Hindus in the Valley being attacked and forced to flee. In response, phone calls from Jammu reported that an armed Hindu militia was threatening a massacre and that Muslims from the two Hindu majority districts were preparing to flee. (Memories of the bloodbath that ensued and claimed the lives of more than a million people when India and Pakistan were partitioned have come flooding back. That nightmare will haunt all of us forever.)
There is absolutely no reason to believe that history will repeat itself. Not unless it is made to. Not unless people actively work to create such a cataclysm.
However, none of these fears of what the future holds can justify the continued military occupation of a nation and a people. No more than the old colonial argument about how the natives were not ready for freedom justified the colonial project.
Of course there are many ways for the Indian State to continue to hold on to Kashmir. It could do what it does best. Wait. And hope the people's energy will dissipate in the absence of a concrete plan. It could try and fracture the fragile coalition that is emerging. It could extinguish this non-violent uprising and reinvite armed militancy. It could increase the number of troops from half-a-million to a whole million. A few strategic massacres, a couple of targeted assassinations, some disappearances and a massive round of arrests should do the trick for a few more years.
The unimaginable sums of public money that are needed to keep the military occupation of Kashmir going is money that ought by right to be spent on schools and hospitals and food for an impoverished, malnourished population in India. What kind of government can possibly believe that it has the right to spend it on more weapons, more concertina wire and more prisons in Kashmir?
The Indian military occupation of Kashmir makes monsters of us all.It allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimise Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged by Muslims in Kashmir. It's all being stirred into a poisonous brew and administered intravenously, straight into our bloodstream.
At the heart of it all is a moral question. Does any government have the right to take away people's liberty with military force?
India needs azadi from Kashmir just as muchif not morethan Kashmir needs azadi from India.
|
|
|
Daily Highlights Briefing ~~ Wednesday August 20 2008
Monsanto's Super-Stalkborer: The greatest environmental disaster of all time!
The maize farmers have now been robbed of the choice of using natural commercial Bt sprays and the African stalkborer is now resistant to naturally occurring Bt. by Trevor Wells Farmers Legal Action Group - South Africa
The Rise and Fall Insect Resistant GM Crops The naturally occurring bacillus thuriengus (Bt) is one of the most useful living organisms known to mankind. First discovered in 1901 by the Japanese scientist Ishiwata its economic importance in the ecological cycle became apparent in 1911 when the German scientist discovered the disease Schlaffsucht in flour moth caterpillars. It was then found that this bacteria produces a crystal insecticide (Cry toxins) which kills the worms (larvae) of insects which change (metamorphoses) from egg, to worm, to insect. Scientists have succeeded in producing commercial formulations, both granular and liquid, of Cry toxins which are extremely effective when applied at the hatching, crawling and early eating stages when the larvae are exposed and most vulnerable. It is strategically applied by conventional means or pivot irrigation by farmers. The importance of this insecticide it biodegrades on the plant and is therefore non-toxic to humans and beneficial insects when used correctly. It has become increasingly important in the control of mosquitoes. Naturally occurring Bt is therefore an important reservoir of Cry toxins for producing these commercial insecticides. In 1993, prior to the introduction of GM maize in South Africa, Dr Rami Kfir of the South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC) reported in the Journal of African Zoology 107:543-553 that these useful insecticidal bacteria play an important role in the ecological cycle of all indigenous grasses, sorghum and maize which hosts the African Stalkborer (Busseola fusca). He reported a high winter mortality rate of larvae of the stalkborer which he attributed partially to Bt which he had significantly isolated, among other pathogens, on the cadavers of the hibernating stalkborer. As early as 1985 scientists in Belgium isolated the Bt gene which exudes the Cry toxin and inserted it artificially in a tobacco plant. In 1998 the first genetically modified Bt maize was planted in South Africa. In 2005 Senwes observed that during the tasseling period large numbers of stalkborer were surviving after the third hatching of the season. These larvae feed on the beard and the inserted GM Bt toxin is too weak. They warned that these Bt resistant larvae are the predecessors for the first moth flight of the following season. Each moth then lays 1500 eggs, 150 at a time on different host plants. They hibernate in the stalk of the plant over winter and pupate in the following season. The cycle is then repeated twice more during the growing season giving a total of three flights per season. With wind assistance these super moths will cross the African continent within a very short time. Senwes recommended chemical spraying during the tasseling period. However as there was very little damage to the maize grain farmers were loath to spend more money on chemical spraying when they had paid a premium price for GM maize seeds which they had been led to believe would eradicate the stalkborer. In March 2008 the Farmers Weekly published an article "Stalkborer Breaks Through Bt Armour" which confirmed that scientists from the ARC had proved conclusively that the African Stalkborer was now resistant to GM Bt maize. The areas in which the Bt resistant super stalkborers were found should have been quarantined, all stalks cut and removed and the roots deep ploughed to prevent further spread of these moths. This would have been a great expense for these farmers. Monsanto did nothing but blame the farmers for not following their instructions and planting a 5% refuge. Monsanto announced that were in the process of developing a new GM technology "which would starve the stalkborer"!!! Is it any wonder that Prince Charles recently said ; (View video HERE) "And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time." Given that maize farmers have now been robbed of the choice of using natural commercial Bt sprays and that the stalkborer is now resistant to naturally occurring Bt and the important role played in the life cycle of all indigenous grasses and indigenous sorghum has been totally neutralised, Prince Charles is correct. The ARC has now advised farmers to choose varieties which could be chemically sprayed. Read more HERE
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 37 - 45 of 275 | |