A CounterPuncher Forever...

 
“Alexander Cockburn no more” would sound like a terrible headline. The reality of it is as biting as his prose. To think that I just got to know about his death early today shook me up a little more. I crumble easily and almost did. The ‘almost’ worked because every word of his obit on Christopher Hitchens still haunts. To many it was either blasphemous or an excoriating take on a man on a self-indulgent pulpit. I saw it as Alex’s honesty towards his ideas. The subject’s demise would not alter that.

I have gone through a few memorial pieces in respected mainstream publications. "Radical", "iconoclast" are the running themes. It is true he took no prisoners. It is true, and I say this from my experience, that he welcomed whatever skirted the beaten path. One day, about five years ago, when I came in from miles away and got accepted, he and Jeffrey St. Clair made me realise that CounterPunchers was a community.

There are several reasons to respect him for his hard-hitting work, but he was also aware of limits in certain areas. He did not carry one article I sent. He owed me no explanation, but he did. It was about sensitivities. I was surprised, even shocked. The good thing is it was not to coddle up to some commercial enterprise.

There was another piece he carried – an account by his nephew about his battle with schizophrenia. It appeared in the weekend edition and in his diary Alex introduced it. This, to me, is as honest as taking on the system and speaking of truths that are sought to be hidden away.

While he was open to different thoughts, he was human enough to have his own biases. How could we not expect it of one with such strong opinions?

He called his readers a “communicative lot”, forwarded emails that complained to him about publishing me, but expressed genuine happiness when some pieces “got around”. The people who have corresponded with me have been from varied fields based on the different subjects I wrote on – from scientists to academics, from fanatics to the faithful to atheists, from purists to adventurers, from the prurient to sexual libertarians (and, yes, some who wooed). They do not need an open forum.

That is the reason CP is not a journal. It is a movement. I differ with those who talk about it being non-mainstream. This is what the mainstream should be like. I’ve written for a whole range of publications and websites, and know the difference.

“Please ask your web team to fix it,” I had said in one of my emails about a broken link.

“Le ‘Web Team’, c'est Jeffrey. There's just the two of us. Best A,” was the reply.

So shall it always be…the two of them. And a bunch of writers and readers bound by questioning minds.

- - -

I do not know what world I occupy to be so unaware. Here is Jeffrey's piece:  Farewell, Alex, my friend

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! Kashmir’s American Counsel?

At the Kashmir border

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! 
Kashmir’s American Counsel? 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, July 22-24

The fact that there is an element of surprise over Ghulam Nabi Fai’s arrest after the FBI exposed his connections to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) reveals that this was probably a sudden brainwave.

The allegation is that Mr. Fai’s Kashmir American Council (KAC) was illegally funded by the ISI to exert influence on the US Congress to swing the Kashmir debate in Pakistan’s favour.

Did the ISI do it? Possible. Did Mr. Fai use this money? Possible. Was the FBI unaware about it all these years? Not possible.

There are a few important aspects to this development:

1.       The FBI keeps track of all funds, so why was it quiet all along? KAC is not an underground movement. It puts up petitions; it has a Google groups forum; there is a Facebook page of its affiliates; its conferences are held in university halls and invitation is free. Often dinner is served.

The huge amount of money discovered should prompt the FBI to question the recipients and investigate as to how it has impacted on US policy. Instead, the focus is almost entirely on the Fai-ISI link. Is it possible to forget that the ISI virtually runs Pakistan and that Pakistan is also the beneficiary of American funds? Ergo, the ISI is by default propped up by the US financially and, given the strategic political dynamics, on the ground too. The ISI is nobody’s fool to depend on a Kashmiri organisation in the US to lobby for Pakistan’s interests in the Valley when it already has its people in the region with help from the Lashkar-e-Taiyba and other forces, including a faction of the local Hurriyat Conference.

This is not a simple case of getting the bad guy. It is about creating one more bad guy, and this is notwithstanding Fai’s role in the larger Kashmir issue and sponsorship.

2.       Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just visited India and set the tone for Indo-US relations. However, the dog-and-bone attitude continues with an emphasis on American interest and interests in Pakistan. There is most definitely an attempt to influence the talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan scheduled for July 27.

3.       The proposed US move out of Afghanistan would necessitate having some presence in the region. In fact, after the Clinton meeting, India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna said, “We have impressed on the United States and other countries who have a major presence in Afghanistan that it is necessary for them to continue in Afghanistan.”

Pakistan is handy for some sado-masochism. Recently, there were video clips in the media of the Taliban killing Pakistani soldiers, in a reversed version of Gitmo.

4.        Osama Bin Laden’s killing is being regurgitated on a tangential topic by implying yet again that Pakistani intelligence agencies knew about his abode. There have been arrests that seem suspiciously like red herrings.

5.       David Headley is deposing before the courts in the US and providing details of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley’s departure from the US to India is a major goof-up by security forces in that country as well as the Indian embassy. His implicating the ISI would surprise no one except the US in its studied ‘naïve’ state. It is pertinent that Ms. Clinton mentioned these attacks (with only a cursory sympathetic reference to the recent Mumbai attacks only days before she arrived). This is much like Headley who wanted to fight for Kashmir, but ended up taking pictures of Mumbai’s landmarks to help his ‘handlers’.

6.       One is aware of the ISI’s crucial strategic role in Pakistan. But, how does the FBI function in the US? Does it push the agenda of the party in power? If so, then its bolt from the blue could be another means to assist the current government in the coming elections.

The major beneficiary of Mr. Fai’s political contributions seems to be Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. This has been going on for 15 years. For 15 years the FBI has managed to trace the $23,500 contribution to US lawmakers that is legally available with the Federal Election Commission. What made the FBI now want to dig into the over $ 4 million that was illegally brought in?

If indeed it is true, then the onus ought to be on the security agencies and those who were expected to lobby for the Kashmir cause.  There are murmurs that Fai is only a front. This is a convenient ruse. You have some evidence, claim other evidence, arrest the man based on these and then leave a small opening for the bigger fish, well aware that the bigger fish are not born that way but plumped up artificially in diplomatic laboratories.

* * *

It is time to ask how exactly lobbying works and whether the United States can take an ethical stand when it is open to such influencing.

The political action committee (PAC) is a blatant forum to ensure that groups can help political candidates and parties, which in turn promise to assist them. Contributors range from real estate agencies, insurance companies, defense contractors and oil companies. There are also special interest groups based on race, gender, nationality, and religion too. In less developed societies this might be deemed as bribery. Legalising it makes the process transparent only to a small extent. If KAC has really managed to get in the millions of dollars illegally, then it suggests that there are loopholes in the system.

Fai in a soup

However, does this ensure that the lobbying group will truly benefit? Mr. Fai was a US citizen; he organised conferences as many do. There was one held on February 2011 and the list of speakers included Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Norwegian Member of Parliament Peter S. Gitmark, author and South Asia Analyst Victoria Schofield, Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani. The others listed as “invited” were the Indian ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, Chinese ambassador Zhang Yesui and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake, Jr.

Rather curiously, reports have made it sound ominous by stating, “Another group which has come under the lens is Indian liberals and so-called bleeding hearts who accepted Fai’s and KAC’s hospitality to attend conferences in US on the Kashmir issue…” The liberals go on junkets for several causes, including plane rides with ministers of the ruling party or the opposition depending on their agenda or that of the organisation they represent. This includes the media. Does their presence help the cause? What is their contribution in real terms?

A peripheral but telling aspect is how some Indians view the unfolding of this episode. A Hindutva group functionary sent an email with an article from the Times of India appended with his comments. He writes, “First, the author calls those who have exposed the Indians (either citizens or those who are of Indian origin) as 'Indian hypernationalists and right-wingers' and 'hardline nationalist'.  However, those Indians who attended the seminars organized by the Pakistan's ISI sponsored front as 'liberals', instead of traitors.  Clearly he wants to prejudice the minds of the readers.  But, you cannot hide the truth. The Indians who were invited to the various programmes were obviously those who would be taking an anti-India position, and not ones who would project a holistic picture.  It is absolutely necessary to expose those Indians who attended these programmes.  Actually, they themselves should come forward and identify themselves.”

There is nothing secret about this. As mentioned earlier, the KAC’s activities were open. While the person is quick to label those attending such conferences as traitors based on the implication of the ISI role in the council, he assumes they would take an anti-India stand. One must remember that there are several influential Hindutva groups too in the US. There are Jewish lobbies.

Since I was never invited, let me add that it is more important to first find out whether anyone has managed to score points for Pakistan on the Kashmir debate and how much it can change the ground realities. The US is interested in counter-terrorism that affects it directly. Has it ever spoken about lives lost in the state – civilian and military?

On what grounds can the US plan to question Kashmiri separatists when they were given visas to travel for seminars that were in the public domain? Should it not look into its own backyard and see how and why anyone can lobby for positions that it claims to be chary of?

Pakistan has, naturally, denied any role. What is the Indian position? If it cannot take a stand regarding a person of Indian origin only because he is Kashmiri, then it only reiterates the attitude of disenchantment that people in the Valley suffer from.

In November last year Ghulam Nabi Fai had written:

“Once again, Kashmir is giving proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process. That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back – yes, going back – to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

“That point of agreement is the one India as well as Pakistan, each independently, brought to the United Nations Security Council when the Kashmir dispute was first internationalized. In fact, the Council itself took that point as the basis of the resolutions it later formulated.

“The point was one of inescapable principle- -- that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

“With propositions of such clarity and character accepted, what room was left for the dispute to arise?”

Is this not the position taken by many political groups within Kashmir, by separatists, by the people?

It would be a pity if due to the ISI angle, the real issues will be pushed aside. America has the arsenal to deal with the ISI, but does it have the will? If Mr. Fai is a front, then why only name the ISI people and not the Congressmen who knew what they were expected to lobby for? Culpability in this case lies across the board. It is utterly ridiculous to make this sound like a terrorist plot when the monies have been traced and people of some stature have been consistently raising the Kashmir issue, not just abroad but at home.

And Kashmiris are not pawns of the United States of America that some official can pocket the money and decide its fate. 

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents , July 24

Bihar's Mythic Development: No Looking "Backwards"

Bihar's Mythic Development

No Looking "Backwards"
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, December 1, 2010

India, once considered a natural democracy, now needs shaky excuses to be so sanctified. Bihar, one of the most backward states in the country, has elected Nitish Kumar’s party, the Janata Dal (United), to power in a ‘stunning victory’. The bellicosity of commentators to be flagholders for such a myth has to be read to be believed.

It is amazing that this glorification is for his second term. Everyone knows that ruling parties have an edge to bulldoze their agendas. Such agendas may include pushing all the real issues under the carpet.

Bihar’s backwardness had little to do with the existence of scheduled castes and more to do with the manner in which they were treated. In Nitish Kumar’s utopian state, caste has got sidelined. This is not cause for celebration but concern. We are talking about a large segment of society being covertly discriminated against by two deceptive options – co-opting and debarring. The larger political spectrum that is being hailed has, in fact, narrowed it to the pyramidal apogee by selective probity.

One report came up with a rather dodgy analysis: “The Bihar results will have rippling effects in other areas where negative agendas of caste and communal forces do not allow people-driven agenda of development.”

Caste and communal forces are about people and do not spring from the bottom but the top; they have been traditional vote-banks thus far. They remain so, but in a non-conservative fashion by being covered beneath the veil of poverty. It is a real issue. However, the trick here is not to deal with poverty but make it a palpable saleable idea. Water, food, education, healthcare, electricity, roads are necessities that are sold as comforts. There is a reason for it; it is to set the ground for the development agencies to send in their quotations. The people of Bihar are not going to say “let there be light” and have shining bulbs nor will dry taps start running by the mere expedient of thirst; roads won’t be tarred for bare feet. All these require raw material, infrastructure and money. The poor obviously do not have money. Therefore, the rich come into the picture.

The rich in Bihar belong to the feudal class or criminal gangs. Both have tremendous political clout if they are not already in politics. It is pertinent to point out that both these categories are extremely caste conscious. The landlords use labour belonging to the lower castes and consolidate their position based on such bondage. Crime, too, relies on caste equations to settle scores. Therefore, the current development will need to not only factor in such disparities but also rely on them. Since over 80 per cent of the population is Hindu, communal politics can be reined in by sheer force. It ought to surprise no one that Nitish Kumar has been an ally of the right-wing parties.

During this election, he skirted Gujarat’s Narendra Modi’s involvement in electoral matters. This was seen as keeping away from a controversial figure. On the contrary, Bihar has cunningly emulated the Modi formula; the snub to Modi could have been a tactic or an ego trip. Either way, he is the role model here. The difference being that Bihar has been considered a backward region, Gujarat is not. But the economic saviours have worked along similar lines by co-opting those they have scant regard for. In Modi’s Gujarat the Muslims have stood by him despite the horrific establishment-engineered riots and killings of 2002; Nitish’s Bihar has used the abused members of society to the same effect by showing them glittering streets and whitewashed ideas.

The female voter turnout has been much-lauded without seeing the larger picture. This is not about empowerment or a woman’s natural understanding of development. Bihar, for all its progress, still has a large number of migrants to other cities. The question to ask is this: if the growth rate is 2.5 per cent more than the national rate of growth, then why have these sons of the soil not returned?

Iconoclasm has the ability to camouflage all con jobs. It is a rather sad statement that the original patented hero of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, is seen as a beleaguered has-been today. Despite his not-so-clean record and his scams that were out in the open for all to see, he had made Bihar into a brand of sorts. It was not mere rural hubris. If his was a one-man show, then no one really knows of any prominent people in Nitish Kumar’s cabinet. Lalu made no attempt to hide the caste of his candidates; at the national level this is an important element if the reservations policy is to be made use of by adhering to authenticity rather than fakery.

It is also an irony that while Bihar under Lalu Prasad was the only state to prevent the rath yatra of L. K. Advani from passing through in what was to turn out to be the worst communal divide after Partition is now dependent on the BJP. Long before talk about development, Lalu had the courage to appoint backward caste priests and shankaracharyas. These were quite possibly gimmicks, but for a country that still has such an aversion towards Dalits this was a strong statement.

Development must include political vigilance and progressive inclusive thinking. The end of the road is not roads.

The White House Whitewash Job

Mind your language
The White House Whitewash Job
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, April 9-11, 2010

Forked tongues are part of the political arsenal, therefore what the White House says and what the White House does rarely meet even the facile “Read my lips” dictum.

Hamid Karzai was the fattened cat of American foreign policy that intervened to transform their version of a tribal society into their feudal Afghan version of a democracy. As strategies go, it worked as well as LSD.

Cut to the new airbrushed initiative. While the Bush Doctrine underlined National Security Strategy in the document that stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century,” it was upfront about its limited idea of ideology. It meant ‘Attack’ and it did. George W. Bush had no clue about history and no vision for the future. He was not even attempting ‘change’ and was rather complacent about the status quo as much as Bill Clinton was with the blue dress.

All was not well and the world knew it. They had put Islamic nations, which included those who were beleaguered, being forced out of their own land or battling internal strife, into a shoebox to consecrate their febrile memory.

The shoebox was a metaphor for beneath the boots, unshod, in short of as much value as skeletons in the cupboard.

Tagged along with it was Islamophobia. We fell for it, at least the term. No one seemed to realise that phobias are about fears. If you are phobic, then you hide away. You do not taunt, tease or challenge unless you want to exorcise that fear.

Now Barack Obama is attempting the first two. He, like the aggressors, knows that there never was any fear. The Islamophobia construct was not the doing of Islamists but their opponents. It was to create the fear of fear.

Obama's band of boys has decided that phrases such as “Islamic radicalism” should be deleted from the shoebox. A report states that there will be a "new version to emphasize that the US does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say...The revisions are part of a larger effort to change how the US talks to Muslim nations."

Notice how counterterrorism officials are issuing such statements and how it is about the US talking to Muslim nations. One wonders whether there will be any real attempt at altered perspective. If the idea is not to get trapped in linguistics, then it does not qualify as a diplomatic manoeuvre and need not be emphasised. However, it is being dangled as a huge carrot not only of political correctness but empathy, and therefore is too cunning a ploy for Obama to be anointed as statesman. For, had there been any genuine intent, then there would be no need for the use of the words ‘Muslim nations’.

This is mere playing with terminology. What the United States and a large section of the western world wishes to engage with is not Muslim nations, but to create a fear so that the demons can be exorcised, and exorcised only partially. If you do so completely then there will be no shoebox.

They wanted to bring peace and democracy to Iraq? Rubbish. Besides the hallucinations and the ground level war, they managed to get local insurgents to fight the Al Qaida in Iraq. Was there any Al Qaida in Iraq, to begin with? A group of Sunnis, members of Sahwa, Awakening Councils, thought they were on to become big-time US allies. It did not work that way. Last week, gunmen dressed as Iraqi officers killed 25 people in a Sunni village; the victims were handcuffed and shot dead.

The forked tongues work wonderfully to prop up this idea of internal turmoil as a ruse for ‘preventive war’. Hamid Karzai announces that he might join the Taliban, as though it is like signing up at the local gym, and there is concern. This is fake. Quoting a minister, Farooq Marenai, who mentioned that the President said “rebelling would change to resistance”, the report helpfully added that he was “apparently suggesting the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign powers rather than a rebellion against an elected government”.

Karzai works best under pressure; in fact, that is the only way he works. The Taliban has always been a resistance to foreign powers or puppets of foreign powers. Their method of resistance may be questioned but Karzai’s grouse is personal, that Parliament reduced his powers over the electoral process. Since he cannot hold the Taliban responsible, he accused foreign powers. The simple fact is that it is true. He is making noises with the purpose of gaining extra rights for himself within the US-controlled system he heads.

His comments should not have alarmed anyone. They have. Peter Galbraith, a former UN envoy to Afghanistan, appeared on television and said, “He’s prone to tirades. He can be very emotional, act impulsively. In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan’s most profitable exports.”

Since President Obama is on language, he ought to make note of this. Forget what alterations are made on paper, this buffers the image of backward societies. If Karzai accused the US of fraud in the Afghan elections, then why is Mr. Galbraith out to limit his powers to appoint officials until he proves himself to be a reliable partner to the US? It just does not make sense. Wanting to reduce his clout is in effect an admission that it is possible to do so and might have been done since Galbraith himself states that the US had got him a second term!

One wonders who is tripping on what.

And while talking about reliable partnerships, is America going to decide the nature of it alone? Is a partnership not about two sides?

The Halal Question

Culinary Communalism
The Halal Question
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, February 19, 2010

Let us not confuse matters. France’s problem with the veil is different from its problems with restaurants serving only halal meat. The veil is being banned on grounds of not being part of the mainstream and carving a separate niche. The argument against the restaurants is discrimination against the majority.

Quick, a Belgium-based chain, has gained popularity in France. Burgers are stuffed with smoked beef instead of pork. The mayor of Roubaix, a small town, said, “It’s very good that a restaurant like Quick offers halal (meat), but why get rid of what there is everywhere else? The fact that they do not offer other choices to non-Muslim clients is not acceptable.”

Has the mayor not heard about speciality restaurants? Would he have the same problem with sushi bars, vegetarian eateries, stores that sell organic foods, bakeries with only brown bread and sweets that are sugarless or eggless? Has it not become the norm to find new ways to market cuisine by emphasising that the place has only a certain kind of menu or even ambience? What about the Heart Attack Grill in Arizona built like a hospital that has cardiac arrest inducing burgers and provides wheelchairs to its clients as an after-meal incentive? Or the one in Japan that has toilet seats? What about picking a fresh piscine from a tank and open kitchens where you can watch the fish breathing its last just before it is brought to the table? We can take the argument even further – about places that offer only one kind of music, a limited wine list or are alcohol free.

Societies develop their own culinary culture that may be frowned upon by others, whether it is certain insects in the Far East or restaurants in Africa that serve game in what might be termed hunter style. How about a table with a hole where a monkey’s head has been cut off and the diners pick on bits of brain as it is cooked slowly? How about several parts of animals that are marketed as aphrodisiacs?

All these will be explained in terms that are politically correct or wonderfully chic. The problem with halal meat is that it is lawful according to the Quran only if the animal is bled to death and slaughtered in the name of Allah. No one protests as they have their probiotic meals in the name of bacteria or bothers to understand that several Indian restaurants that serve strictly vegetarian food first offer a bit to the gods.

These are cultural nuances and as long as you do not have to watch the process, and are assured of its goodness for your palate, there ought not to be any problem. Halal meat is not restricting others and it is not as if the French were waiting for this chain to open and are now disappointed. The motives are clear; no one is being cheated. You enter with the knowledge of what you will get.

Therefore, it is a bit surprising that the agriculture minister, Bruno Le Maire, is making it into an issue: “When they remove all the pork from a restaurant open to the public, I think they fall into communalism, which is against the principles and the spirit of the French republic.”

Communalism is when you force your thoughts on others. In my travels I have noticed that many countries in Europe do not understand the concept of vegetarianism. The troubles begin in the aircraft when “no meat” is understood to include fish. Should one accuse them of communalism?

The new French renaissance has a lot to do with the monetary aspect, too. It is a € 5.5 billion halal market catering to five million people, which is the largest Muslim population in all of Europe. A few years ago there was a halal version of Burger King, Beurger King Muslim (BKM) in France. It did not even attempt to look like an Arabic place. It serves an imitation of bacon made from halal turkey meat. This is rather surprising. Why would anyone who does not want anything to do with pig products wish to experiment with something like it? The only explanation is curiosity.

It is unlike some vegetarian restaurants that use soya to mimic meat and one restaurant in Hong Kong has specially created vegetables to look like chicken wings and lamb chops. Is this the grand idea of secularism?

Reports mention about how people drive from long distances just to get a taste of the sort of food they like but with the sanction that their faith permits. Besides the food, BKM also allows its female staff to wear the headscarf. What, then, would be the stance of France’s need to reclaim a national identity when it objects to the veil and yet wants its citizens to have access to a ‘restricted space’? Isn’t it a contradiction?

There are places where you go to experience exotica or the local flavour; it might include putting up with topless waitresses, having tea with yak milk or sitting on the floor. There are the subtle differences in the way cutlery is used or not used at all. I had once visited an institution in Mumbai and lunch was served as per old British traditions, but the meal was Indian. It was a sight to see my host roll his chapatti and use a knife and fork as he dipped it into the gravy as though it were sauce. We were alone in that dining hall, so even if he used his fingers to take bits of the chapatti and spooned the curry it would not have seemed odd. He would have felt perfectly in sync had he chosen to break bread with his hands, though, in a fancy restaurant.

However, amused as I was, I would not consider this as a loss of identity. He was just aping what he thought was modernity, while it was merely a western paradigm. Just as one would not see the West as one whole – the American hanging on to a Mac Whammy might seem a bit gauche to the Frenchman gently prodding quivering crab flesh with a fillet knife.

There are no standardised ways to eat and what to eat. It can be conditioning.

I do not eat pork. There are several other meats I do not eat. But, although I am not a practising Muslim, the reason I do not eat pork is considered a conservative option. The fact that I do not go looking for halal meat places should then make me a liberal. Combined, this may well damn me as a fence-sitter when all I am doing is exercising my choice to eat what I want without offending anyone.

Identity is larger than what you relish on your tongue or let slip off it.

Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?

Dead Right

Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, December 21 2009

She held my hand in a firm grip the night before she died. The room where she lay in coma was airy and it was home. The doctors had given up on my maternal grandmother, but we had not. I would sit by her bedside and talk to her or just read; I was told that voices registered. She probably knew when her time was up when she gripped my arm. Early next morning I started my monologue again, touching her wrinkled skin and looking into her beautiful grey uncomprehending eyes. In the need to convey my warmth I did not realise that her body was cold. She was dead. Was it selfish love that would not let her go? She went anyway.

The reason for this personal anecdote is the Indian Supreme Court admitting an appeal to end the life of a woman lying in a lobotomised state for 36 years. There are medical, emotional and ethical issues here.

Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at the KEM Hospital in Mumbai. On November 27, 1973, when she went to the basement after her shift, she was sexually assaulted by the sweeper Sohanlal Bartha Walmiki. He used a dog chain to strangle her, leading to loss of blood supply and oxygen to the brain. It debilitated her in so horrific a manner that she was rendered paralysed, blind and has been comatose for over three decades.

The plea to the court has asked it to direct the hospital to stop force-feeding her. A question arises out of this simple demand: Is she eating enough at all that the forced feeding would put an end to her life? She is subsisting on mashed food and chokes on liquids. Her body is skeletal, but she breathes. Perhaps it isn’t food alone that is keeping her alive. Why is there no clarity about how she should be relieved of her painful existence?

The lawyer asks, “Is not keeping the woman in this persistent vegetative state by force feeding violative of her right to live with dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution? She is beyond cure. Let the court inquire about what medical science has in store for her. It appears that there has been utter indifference of medical world towards her.”

* * *
The right to live with dignity is not merely a medical subject. The courts would have to look into other aspects of the idea of dignity. Since Aruna is not in a position to know whether her state lacks dignity, it would therefore follow that those responsible for her care ought to be granting her that dignity.

Years ago a doctor had spoken up for death by choice and said, “How many of us realise the meaning of euthanasia? It means a good death. We talk of ethics when we prolong a useless life, so where do ethics go when we carry out abortions? Even the foetus have life and we kill them happily just because it suits our convenience. Do we then pause to think that the foetus may have had a mind to live on, may have had a brain which was that of a genius? There may be thousands of Arunas in India and we keep them alive no matter what and incur massive expenses to keep a useless life ticking.”

After the reappearance of the case, there have been other points of view. Dr. Ravi Bapat, who was supposedly among the first of the team that responded to Aruna on the morning she was discovered lying under the stairway, is against the SC petition. “It is idiosyncrasy, no living cell ever wants to die…Aruna is like a mentally challenged person now. Would any parent of a mentally ill child move the court in a similar manner? It is sickening how every five years someone raises Aruna’s case just for publicity.”

Ironically, the only two parties who have not gained mileage out of this are her callous family, that did not have the means or the patience to see her alive as the symbol she was to become, and her doctor fiancé who after three years of caring for her realised that her case was closed and went on with his life.

That is what life is about – to make choices. There is no love that keeps her alive. Her family gave up on her; the rapist is free, and the hospital has kept her room locked for fear he may return. Is she in a position to give evidence?
It is crucial to point out that there is virtually no comment about the rapist. Reports mention that after his seven-year jail term he is working as a ward boy in a Delhi hospital. How do they know? Is someone in touch with him and for what reason? If he is using his real name, then were his new employers aware of his crime? He was sentenced for attempted murder and robbery – he made away with Aruna’s earrings. Why was no rape case pursued? Because he had sodomised her. It is rather strange that in a country where the law against homosexuality is only now being given a fresh look, this was not deemed as rape. Besides, sodomy is illegal in India. How did he get away with it?

* * *

In all these years whenever the ‘story’ was covered in the media, the emphasis was on Aruna and for the most part her fight in a locked hospital room, hunger, pain, soiled clothes, stiff immobile hands and legs, the voice beastly, the brain half dead. Today at 61, the routine continues. She whines, is still afraid of male voices; we get these same dispatches in graphic detail. Aruna’s helplessness is made to appear heroic.

This is not about a lone woman’s fight nor a miracle, for it neither uplifts the spirit nor her body. She does not even recognise that she has survived.

This is not the tale of a support system. The crime was committed by a hospital staffer in the hospital premises and the authorities have a reputation to uphold. There should instead be an urgent need to look into the conditions of public hospitals and also the general wards of some private hospitals. They are in a pathetic condition. With Aruna’s case, there ought to have been a greater need to examine the level of security. By cocooning her in a room, the authorities have got away without being answerable for such a lapse. They could have fought the case against the rapist who was their employee; they could have issued notices against him being employed anywhere else.

What use is a lifeless person when the perpetrator of the offence is free? Does it drive home a point at all, least of all about the goriness of such a gruesome act? Aruna is not seen as a rape victim but a caged human kept alive.

This is not a tale of sisterhood. The nurses have rallied around for professional reasons – it could have happened to any of them. Their compassion is based on a ‘special bond’, we are told. How is it possible? Most would be a new batch, younger women for whom she is merely a publicised character.

This is not at all a story about a spectacular beginning, a meaningful middle and a fitting denouement with a moral thrown in somewhere.

And that is alarming. No ethical questions about the crime and the system are asked. Once the courts grant her the right to die there will be demands to legalise suicide by those who feel their life is not dignified enough. There will be related issues where you may not ban books that tell you the easy ways in which to meet your end. You may not prevent a discussion by the Hemlock Society. And you may not raise eyebrows over the concept of assisted death.

In societies where penury itself is a sin and avarice a virtue, the prospect of such methods being legally manipulated by poverty-stricken families and greedy relatives is frightening.

Aruna Shanbaug needs a peaceful departure and it should have been done long ago, quietly and with dignity, and not until the story was sapped off its juice. She has suffered enough – first in the basement, then in bed and then relentlessly under the media glare. She may not be aware of the latter two, which makes it worse.

What right are we then talking about when she does not even have the consciousness to know how her life is being used?

Moderns, Models and Martyrs

The Indian Media Discovers a New Pakistan
Moderns, Models and Martyrs
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 13-15, 2009

(A slightly abridged version has appeared in The News International, November 14)

If you believed the Indian media, then not only do Pakistani women possess cleavages and midriffs but their displaying these body parts is considered a fight against militancy.

“Bare shoulders, backless gowns and pouting models are wowing Pakistan’s glitterati as Karachi Fashion Week shows the world a different side of the Taliban-troubled nation,” said one report. Are there no other paradigms for us to understand modern Pakistan? Do we even want to?

There is talk about Islamic clothes as opposed to what was witnessed on the catwalk. This is an artificial comparison. Social dress codes vary for regular wear even in the couture capitals of the world like Paris, Milan and New York.

However, the Indian media saturated with tribal chiefs found an opportunity to perform a virtual bereavement ritual as fashionistas supposedly braved gunfire to strut on the ramp.

It is a patronising attitude quite forgetting that we have to deal with not only the rightwing moral police but also educational institutions that lay down rules. In Kolkata, for example, a college wanted its students to only wear sarees and not salwaar-kameezes; the elite St. Xavier’s College in Mumbai issued a diktat against short dresses.

We want to look at modern Pakistan as the West does – a materialistic opposition to fanaticism. None of these people are modern in the sense of being ideologically driven. We give prime time and front page space to wardrobe malfunction and there are psychological discussions on stress levels. It perhaps adds a similar dimension when we see our neighbour defying external stress.

A modern Pakistan is both a relief and a threat to India. It is a relief because there are mutual opportunities and mutual backscratching possibilities for fake blonde bluster to cover up real blonde moments. It is a threat because we need those bearded guys and burqa-clad women to make us feel good about our democracy. For those who constitute the upper layer of any society, democracy is the ability to walk the ramp – for charity, for theatrics, for flaunting money, for flaunting regenerated bodies, for flaunting redeemed self-esteem, for flaunting trophy hubbies. To belong to the jet set you need to walk the ramp.

Can such cocoons rebel against society? Take this headline: “Fashion takes a bow near Taliban hub in Pakistan”. Do we know what a hub is? And how close is Karachi to the hub? The show taking place under heavy security does not as a matter of course catapult it to the level of a valid protest. “And this is a way to tell the people who want our lives to stop that 'No, we won't let you.'” was one such voice that immediately echoed what the Indian media is happy about portraying.

A “mix of eastern and western inspirations” immediately makes us think of a little bit of Chanel infused with a touch of Sindh and the Louis Vuitton with Lahore. This is the muaah-muaah comfort level of the wannabes whose empathies come purely from performing a striptease. It is a battle of and for the botox and its accruing financial benefits. India has a huge market, but Pakistan’s elite can flash their Calvin Kleins just as well.

I can imagine our media chortling at the words of one expat Pakistani designer who said, “My muse is that quintessential modern woman who’s self-aware and knows what she wants. She’s ambitious and driven but isn’t afraid to flaunt her softer side in fear of contradicting that image. In fact, she embraces it.” Oh no, the power woman has those threads sewn into her mannequin frame and control over body means just not being able to exhale.

Why do these people assume that a woman in the tribal areas, if heard, might be unaware about what she wants? Is it not possible that her ambition is to not flaunt certain assets? The neo ‘cons’ transpose the victim of fanaticism against a peek preview of the houri from heaven and end up portraying extremism in two limited shades.

The positions are in place. Men have to take on the war against terror and women must do the phoney mommy of moderation act. Liberalism is the new poster girl and caters to market demands. No wonder it has degenerated to the level of the trivial.

Look beyond this current event and you will find that according to the Indian media the great Pakistani moderns are not the true dissenting voices, but the flavours of the season. Modern is Imran Khan coming out of a socialite’s pool in Mumbai like Ursula Andress, actress Meera covering half her face with shades and the other half with braggadocio, politicians and diplomats wearing suits, commentators talking in clipped accents punctuated with home-grown patois, activist cats crying over the spilt milk of peaceful resolutions to the conflict. And if someone can say “those Talibs” followed by a few choice cuss words, then they begin to epitomise nothing less than a quick-fix renaissance.

This is a composite list. If you notice, the arrivistes overtake the artistes. People who do street theatre, use art and dance as statement, who question the status quo are simply bypassed or seen as ranting mavens unless they are threatened. Then, they can take that great leap towards modernism. Intellectual shahadat – martyrdom – has good currency.

Interestingly, television and newspapers in India have buttressed the feudal class as spokespersons of such modernism. The idea is that a haveli may well be a hotbed of intrigue against the system when more often it is only a haven for hors d’oeuvres. On the rare occasion when a person of clear merit is propped up, then it is as per Western parameters. Abdul Sattar Edhi is not a mere do-gooder anymore but the ‘Mother Teresa of Pakistan’, and Mother T was a celebrity with an imported stamp.

It is this construct that makes us narrow-mindedly listen to our neighbour talk the robot walk. No wonder that we count among the great moderns former President Pervez Musharraf. The reason is simple: he has a dog.

The Myth of Manmohan Singh

The Myth of Manmohan Singh

The Follower as Leader
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, May 22-24, 2009

History is often about a play of words. The man of the moment who has taken the oath of office for the second term is an actor in search of ‘no character’. It is the invisibility of the persona that is his trump card.

It works in a situation where we are robotising the human. Indian democracy has promoted a standard iconisation of the middle-class. This is not the middle-class of dissent but of consumerism. Our Prime Minister is not the brand; he is the franchisee. Dr. Manmohan Singh, the genial, the educated, the decent man, has power without responsibility.

He will probably go down in history as a bureaucrat being promoted as a great politician. Dr. Singh does not deserve many of the accolades he has got. So, where's the catch?

The catch is to have canny people to back you. No one realises that the real force behind the liberalisation policies was former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. As finance minister, Singh became the hero of the industrialists. They did not mind some wealth percolating down to the middle-class as long as it was called the middle-class. Therefore, India’s power is still in the hands of the business tycoons. The swelling belly has not given birth to any major financial power centre; it could well have been a mere bubble.

Manmohan Singh’s role is to showcase a country that exists in the imagination of a few.

That is his version of India. He has never contested an election; he has no grassroots experience. It shows up glaringly when he decides to go rural in his talks. When the Left Parties were opposing the nuclear deal, he tried explaining his stand to the then President George Bush by stressing that it was important to take care of the vulnerability of two-thirds of the population, namely 650 million people, dependent on agriculture for sustenance. "That meant that India needed some degree of protection through special products and safeguards, on which we need greater clarity."

In his enthusiasm to play Santa Claus he did not notice all those farmers committing suicide or that India was importing wheat. What happened to the great Green Revolution?

The caucus of industrialists supported the deal, not the ordinary citizen or the villager who is supposed to benefit. It was also a major diplomatic sell-out. India already generates hundred thousand mega watts of energy; with this deal we would get 20,000 MW more by the year 2020.

This is what showcasing the prioritised India means. He is no strategist, but he walked away with all the credit for something that amounts to nothing.

In the crass world of politics where wily forces rule, Singh’s asset is that he is a vacillator. His being a phenomenon has more to do with serendipity than statesmanship. The Congress has wisely used his name as their calling card. But it is not true that every wrong move by the party and the onus of it would be on him. Quite the contrary. He is in the enviable position to get away with anything and attribute it to helplessness, because he is not considered rabid, rigid, or regressive. And he is answerable to the dynasty.

It would be no revelation to state that Sonia Gandhi is propping up Dr. Manmohan Singh; the more pertinent point is that he chooses to be propped up.

In the epic Mahabharata, the low-caste archer Eklavya is asked to offer his right thumb as guru dakshina as he could prove to be a threat to the royal Pandava Arjuna. Although he has not been tutored by the guru Dronacharya, he has been inspired enough to practise before his clay idol. The disciple readily offers him his thumb.

In the contemporary context, would it be considered a sacrifice or a measure to please? In the epic, the reason the guru is completely awestruck by the humble archer's skills is that on being disturbed by a barking stray he aims an arrow and seals the mouth of the dog without apparent injury or loss of blood.

Dr. Singh’s has been a bloodless coup. He has added that dreaded word dignity to the lexicon of Machiavellian manoeuvres. What we see of him today is an elderly patriarch trying to appear upright while promoting a liberal market lifestyle. It must be noted that the liberalism is confined to the market.

He is protecting the brand. The brand comes with the baggage of Bofors. Of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. He looks the other way and pushes forward the Rahul Doctrine. No one quite knows what it is. Dr. Singh is probably unaware about it too. Rahul Gandhi has been called the political scion, and there is no need for us to be chary about it, for we have watched this and encouraged it for six decades. Today’s pretence and talk against monarchy are essentially hollow dictums to appear as dissenters.

Rahul Gandhi famously said that his party is proud of the poor in India. The romanticisation of poverty is primarily non-rational. So when we talk about equality it is a legal expression. All legal systems have been brought by force. This suits democracies rather well; you do not have to ensure uniformity because it goes against the egalitarian principle of fairplay.

The Doctrine may have gained some ground in Uttar Pradesh, but that state is not in the big stakes financially. It is good to let the political iron remain hot there while the big businesses thrive elsewhere and keep their saviours in power happy.

One might be prompted to make the rather wicked comment that this is a caretaker government. As Pythagoras said, with the advent of the intelligent man, there is no honest man.

Manmohan Singh has been given a pedestal; the pillar is the Family. Today’s cult figure is ensured tomorrow’s cartoon strip.

Charge of the blinkered brigade

December 5. My article 1992 vs. 2008: Mumbai's charge of the lightweight brigade appears in Counterpunch, a US-based publication/portal. I am inundated with emails - reasoned responses.

December 12. The same article is reproduced in The News (Jang group) Pakistan. How do I get to know? When I open my mail and see a burst of abuses. "You have written for a Pakistani newspaper! Go there, live there!!" Nothing new. When words fail you, use exclamation marks...the more the merrier. And hello? What are they doing reading Pakistani newspapers at all hours of the day and night?

People who wear blinkers are not expected to read; they scroll; they see a byline. A name they think is suitable for target practice. They miss it by miles. If I had patience, I'd weep for them. They don't have eyes to scroll to the bottom where it clearly mentions the source where it was originally published.

I was not asked. But then this article would have been picked up by anyone, anywhere. And I stand by every word I have written and will write. Anywhere I want.

- - -

This brings me to the naive belief some people have that these attacks have united India. Which India? A bunch of politicians who got together and declaimed in parliament that they will fight terror? What were they doing all these years?

Groups formulating petitions? Who are they and where will they be a few weeks down the line?

The Mumbai of Malabar Hill or Mankhurd? When did you see them together?

I am not wearing blinkers simply because I am not a horse running somebody else's race.

Nice try, folks, but you will have to work harder to still my voice. I am sure in the din you create you cannot even hear it, to begin with.

Thanks for promoting this blog and getting a peek into my multi-talented personality. Yes, I can write poetry and paint as well...no enough is enough for me.

Have a good weekend. The weather in my city is getting better...wish you were here...and hope it was good for you...

I got mail

When I wrote about Gorkhaland, I was aware that I did not belong and my views would be different. Therefore, to get immediate reactions is important. Here are two ways of seeing:

Dear Farzana.... I read your article in counterpunch.com..... "Will Gorkhaland Be A Reality?"... being a Gorkhali myself and coming from Darjeeling, I cannot express how much your article means to all of us. Thank you so much for writing unbiased and objectively....

Especially your last paragraph was so fitting that it brought tears to my eyes... "However, for a mountain people they ought to know that echoes resound only in your own valley."...... Our troubles and frustrations... only we can see and feel... for others... we don't even exist....

My reply:

It is letters such as these that make writing about issues such as these seem worth the space we deign to occupy. When an insider can relate to how an outsider has 'sensed' her/his anguish it makes one's life, even if momentarily and captured in stark print, seem not quite so useless.

The criticism that comes with the territory seems like so much noise then.

Thank you and hope the voices do carry where it matters.

Another perspective:

Now I understand why you are NOT AN iNDIAN IN PAKISTAN RAHTER YOU REALLY ARE A PAKISTANI IN iNDIA.
YOUW WISHFUL THINKING OF WEAKENEING iNDIA THROUGH SEPERATISM WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
DREAM ON YOU TRAITOR .(NO NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TRAITOR -BUT YOU ARE AS ARE MANY HINDUS AND SiKHS INCLUDING THE PRESENT PRIME MINSTER manmohan singh THE MOST TREAHCEROUS OF ALL)>

My reply:

You got to be kidding if I’d reply to this.

Will Gorkhaland Become a Reality?

The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Fury

Will Gorkhaland Become a Reality?
By Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, June 19, 2008

"Indefinite shutdown" said the latest headlines and the hill region of Darjeeling becomes another political pawn.

Ten years ago when I had last visited, stepping out of the cocoon of the teakwood panelled clubby interiors of the hotel meant long walks along curvaceous streets, milky coffee from aluminium buckets on early morning visits to the snowy hills and returning to dinner that was announced with a gong and served by white-gloved bearers who whispered gentility as lace curtains reflected the candlelight.

The insulation was complete.

Little did one realise that another kind of insulation was gnawing at the entrails of the whole region. Peace is a mask Darjeeling has always worn for tourist consumption. Yak safaris provide an interesting diversion – a tourist is said to have described the animal as a buffalo wearing a petticoat. At a trade fair they had to recreate traditional houses because no one lived in those anymore. Except for their taste for meat, butter tea and home-brewed alcohol made with millet and sipped through a bamboo straw, many of the simple activities are often exaggerated exotically for vacationers. The pre-dawn sight of Mount Khang Chendongza – Kanchenjunga – the third highest peak in the world is like the tip of an iceberg touching heaven.

As the sun rises you notice the walls. Red-splattered paint that talks of a separate Gorkhaland. You sit in one of the roadside tea-stalls. Young eyes look suspiciously. Whispers are exchanged.

The blood-soaked cry has not gone away. Today it is reasserting itself with even greater vehemence. The Gorkha Janamukti Morcha president Bimal Gurung is speaking a new voice, a voice that refuses to play footsie or be content with sops. In the 1980s the government had managed to muffle opposition by co-opting the Subhas Ghising-led Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF) by forming the Gorkha Darjeeling Hill Council and appointing him the titular head. It was a thorny crown, but the wearer was too enamoured of its purported glitter to care. He took the scraps as long as he could rule. He let down the movement. Self-governance and limited autonomy don't work, in any case.

It is difficult to believe that Darjeeling was gifted by the Raja of Sikkim to the East India Company for "enabling servants of the government suffering from sickness to avail of its advantage". That the king could be so generous is a bit of a surprise considering that parts of Sikkim were at various times conquered by Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet. Sikkim became a part of India only in 1975.

Yet the Centre grants the state Rs 5,400 billion in aid; Darjeeling with five times the number of voters gets only Rs 100 billion.

The establishment has been playing games. The demand for a separate state was initiated during the early part of the century when the British ruled the country.

Indian democracy has often been a compromise formula; elections work as soft options. Almost every part of the country has separatist aspirations. It isn't about terrorism. This is a crisis of identity that has been building up. The neo-fascists in power refuse to understand that we have always had principalities. Independent states were ruled by independent kings and princes. The privy purses have gone but the basic seed of regionalism remains. Is that not the reason why even metropolitan cities like Mumbai have an anti-immigrant stance?

Why does Darjeeling, which is a part of West Bengal, not feel Bengali?

It is a question of selfhood. There may be cultural incest with the border areas of Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet but Darjeeling has been looking for a distinct political identity. Here a war memorial is considered a sacred place and politicians are heroes. Subhash Ghising was deified because "he made these roads". The Hill Cart Road connecting the plains to the hills was in fact built by the British in 1839.

Looking at the awesome ruggedness of the mountains one cannot help but think of Tensing Norgay, the Sherpa who conquered Everest along with Sir Edmund Hillary. A forest official had been dismissive: "The Indian government has given him too much importance. He is a Nepali."

Bhushan, our guide at the Mountaineering Institute in Darjeeling, had a different story to tell. "Once at an institute Norgay was asked his nationality. After achieving so much he felt hurt by the question. So, in anger, he replied that he was a Nepali. Why was it so difficult to accept him as an Indian? He has been one of a kind, known as a snow leopard. And his house still stands here."

The Nepalis and those from the North East were seen as outsiders though there is considerable admiration for the Pashupati border area which is packed with foreign goods.

If the Nepali initiative for smuggling is appreciated, then the Tibetans, who started making inroads in the 17th century, are not. Their refugee camp perched atop a hillock in Darjeeling is a complete village boasting of a school, college, housing and myriad self-supporting activities. It is sponsored by the Americans.

Darjeeling has been a migrant haven. While the Biharis came as sweepers, barbers, grocers and later teachers, the Marwaris came to trade from 1888 under the Raj, only too ready to express its fondness for any shopkeeper class. But due to their considerable contribution to the economy, resentment against them grew.

As one politician had told me then, "Maintaining the social balance is important. We therefore need to monitor our economic growth in a manner that guards us from a sudden impact of any kind."

The locals had found their own way towards creating harmony within. They stopped wearing traditional attire so that you could not differentiate amongst one other. Intermarriages became commonplace so even if there was simmering resentment, they kept quiet.

The Communist government of West Bengal does not take cognisance of social mores and needs. Its workers recently ransacked the homes of the dissenters and beat them up. Indian democracy will have to learn to accept that we are not a cohesive whole and unless the government provides the people with basic facilities and respects their identity, it will have to put up with such separatist aspirations.

The Leftists are happily supping with industrialists and creating havoc in villages to accommodate 'progress'. What have they done for their own people? Nothing. Except send honeymooners to chuck snowballs at each other and legally seal their fate.

The call for a Gorkhaland wakes us up to these hidden realities. However, for a mountain people they ought to know that echoes resound only in your own valley.