HOME | ABOUT US | Speaker | Americans Together | Videos | www.CenterforPluralism.com | Please note that the blog posts include my own articles plus selected articles critical to India's cohesive functioning. My articles are exclusively published at www.TheGhouseDiary.com You can send an email to: MikeGhouseforIndia@gmail.com


Friday, April 6, 2007

9/11 - Rosie O'Donnell

30 Million Viewers is a massive number of people! If that many have watched this talk by Rosie, may be they will want more questions answered. Rosie should get the professors to prove or disprove and be done with it. The terrorists have admitted doing it, but she wants the Harvard Professors to give answers. Let's see what happens.


Watch the Video:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/290307odonnellrant.htm


O'Donnell 9/11 Rant Reaches 30 Million Viewers


Promises to feature physics professor on The View to discuss WTC collapse
Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a 9 minute rant about the many questions surrounding the attack, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.

Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a rant about the many questions surrounding the collapse of Building 7, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.

O'Donnell and her co-panelists debate the situation concerning Iran's seizure of the British marines before O'Donnell states, "Historically, have governments ever faked incidents or incited incidents in order to get them into wars?"

The discussion then moves on to the level of trust one can place in the Bush administration before O'Donnell asks, "What do you have to do to get an impeachment in this country?"
The debate moves on to the "propaganda of the war on terror," with O'Donnell stating, "In America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations, one of them is this one (ABC)."
"Go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening."
"I think Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble," says O'Donnell.
Neo-Con panelist Elizabeth Hasselbeck tries to make an argument that thinking Iraq was involved in 9/11 was justifiable at the time, before asking O'Donnell if she believed the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11.
"No, but I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel - I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved - World Trade Center 7."
"One and two got hit by planes, 7 miraculously the first time in history, steel was melted by fire - it is physically impossible," states O'Donnell.
"I don't know but to say we don't know and it was imploded in a demolition is beyond ignorant, look at the films get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school, it defies reason."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a video blog posted on her website yesterday, O'Donnell promised to feature physics professors on The View to discuss the highly suspicious collapse of the WTC towers.

"The thing about World Trade Center 7 is that it was totally left out of the 9/11 Commission - that's weird," said O'Donnell."It's only the third time in history that fire has brought down a steel building, the other two times it happened was on the same day, World Trade Center One and World Trade Center Two - they both crumbled into dust and it was steel - very odd."

"I wanna have some physics professors on the show to explain if that is actually possible, that World Trade Center 7 could have imploded the way it did without being a controlled demolition - and if it was a controlled demolition why didn't they just tell people that in the 9/11 Commission Report?"
Come back soon to watch the video clip from this morning's The View.

Bush, Blair & Ahmedinejad trial

Bush, Blair & Ahmedinejad trial
Mike Ghouse April 2, 2007

No doubt President Ahmedinejad is a nut and a confrontationalist, however he has succeeded in getting Britain and the US to play his game. Should we play? Not at all. But the B&B team is eager to show off their prowess.

The community of Nations need to bring peace to the world. Neither Bush nor Ahmedinejad represent the people of their respective countries any more. Both are hard headed individuals, who are willing to destroy their nations repute and put American and Iranian lives in harm's way. If they have to prove their manliness, let them get out on a duel rather than put their nations (they do not represent any more), at risk.


"They hate America for our freedom." Wrong Mr. President, they hate your policies, not the American public. Just as much as we do not love their governments.


We may win the war of destruction, but will lose out our ability to influence the World. What was built since WWI, for over 90 years, our president has destroyed in five years. Diplomacy is not in our President's vocabulary, he has got to prove his manliness to his cronies by showing them that we have the power. Probably our VP goads him "show it to them George" and or "give them hell George", "show them who is in charge".


It is time the democrats show that the time for unilateralism is over and America belongs to the People. The least thing our government can do, is represent people's interest, read and understand the surveys. I urge all Americans to speak up and let our country's image be not subjected to the whims of George.

Mike Ghouse

Resist the war drive against Iran By George
Galloway



03/30/07 "ICH" -- -- The capture by Iranian forces of 15 British sailors in the Gulf brought shrill, bellicose headlines last weekend and calls for retribution.The anti-war movement has done a superb job in winning a clear majority against the war and occupation in Iraq.


But no one should believe that because the case against the “war on terror” is so overwhelming then no British government can garner support for another military misadventure.


The capture of the British sailors has all the hallmarks of the kind of incident that has been used in the past as a reason either for war or for escalating confrontation.


In 1949 the British gunboat HMS Amethyst was fired on in the Yangtze river in China. There was much outrage in Britain at Mao’s People’s Liberation Army, which was on the verge of taking power, for shooting at the ship. There was little questioning of what a British ship was doing on a Chinese river.

Whether or not the British sailors were in Iranian waters is disputed. But what is not in dispute is that Britain has joined the US in pouring warships into the Gulf while pressuring and threatening Iran.

Reliable US sources have reported that special forces are already operating in Iran.The Stop the War Coalition has rightly argued that the occupation of Iraq threatens to generate a wider regional war.

The commander of the ship HMS Cornwall unwittingly captured the mentality of imperial occupation when he said the sailors had been captured in “our waters”. He meant the waters belonging under international law and treaty to the Republic of Iraq.
In addition to the immediate argument that this incident is not worth yet more bloodshed and war, it is vital to challenge this imperialist delusion.

Part of that is simply asking the obvious question: imagine if Iran occupied France, had scores of warships in the Channel, was reported to have commandos operating in the home counties, and was pushing for sanctions against Britain – how would public opinion, the media and the British government react?What makes anyone think Iran is any different?


Secondly, as propagandists try to gloss the “war on terror” in fake humanitarianism, more and more people need to shout out the single greatest lesson of the anti-war movement.

It is not the business of Western governments and the corporations that back them, steeped in the blood and sweat of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, to bring “order” to the “savages”.

It is the business of those of us who live in those imperialist states to do all in our power to stop their militarism and to act in solidarity with those around the globe fighting for a better world.

Everywhere you go this week, make sure people are asking: what on earth are British gunboats doing in Iraqi or Iranian waters in a place called the Arabian or Persian Gulf thousands of miles from home?

It is up to all of us to oppose the war drive against Iran. Can you start a discussion at work or college, arrange a Stop the War meeting, get a letter into your local paper, petition on the streets?

And as the People’s Assembly in London agreed last week, if there is an attack on Iran, we will need civil disobedience in every community, walkouts in every school, protests and strikes in every workplace.

If George Bush bombs Iran, we should bring this country to a standstill.

Radical thinking and India.

The following column on Radical thinking is circulating, please read it with calmness, we are in it together. We need to speak out against any one who goes against discriminating any INDIAN. We need to drop all finger pointing... if we don't end it today and now, it will never end.

If we care about India, it's growth that benefits every one, then our attitudes should be - As an individual how can I make the society better? If I am incapable of adding goodness, I shouldn't add ill-will either.

The words of curmudgeonly Paisley who settled the Irish and English conflict that went on for decades: "We must not allow our justified loathing of the horrors and tragedies of the past become a barrier to create a better and more stable future for our children."**

The good news is that the radicals are less than 1/10ths of 1% in both Hindu and Muslim Communities. Figure it out.

1. Radical Thinking
2. Solutions - India is a Bus
3. A pledge of Allegiance.


Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Radical thinking in India.

By Jo Johnson
Financial Times
(c) Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/24b366ca-dcc9-11db-a21d-000b5df10621.html

Shortly before 8am on February 27 2002, a fire broke out on the SabarmatiExpress as it pulled out of Godhra, a town prone to religious violence in the Indian state of Gujarat. Many of the passengers were Hindu pilgrimsreturning from a ceremony called Chetavani Yatra. Rescuers pulled 58 bodiesout of carriage S-6, all of them charred beyond recognition. An official report, published four years later, in 2006, concluded that the blaze hadbeen an accident, but at the time it was blamed on Muslim youths, who wereaccused of throwing petrol-bombs at the saffron-clad pilgrims.

The blood-letting started the next morning and continued until early May,leaving about 2,500 Muslims murdered. Armed with knives, firebombs andsharpened ceremonial tridents, and guided by electoral rolls that revealed the location of Muslim homes, mobs began to move across the state. "Whatensued was a ghastly sight the like of which, since bleeding partition days,no Indian eye had seen," wrote Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in a report by the Tribunal of Concerned Citizens, an independent body composed mostly ofretired judges.

"Hindutva barbarians came out on the streets ... and, in all flaming fury,targeted innocent and helpless Muslims. They were brutalised by miscreants uninhibited by the police; their women were unblushingly molested; andMuslim men, women and children, in a travesty of justice, were burnt alive.The chief minister, oath-bound to defend law and order, vicariously connived at the inhuman violence and some of his ministers even commanded the macabreacts of horror."

The first to suffer were the largely middle-class inhabitants of a housingcomplex called the Gulberg Society in the Chamanpura district of central Ahmedabad, the largest city in Gujarat. The centre of an Indian commercialcity saw a medieval and macabre dance of death, humiliation and revenge,reported the Tribunal in its account of the pogrom, Crime Against Humanity, which was based on 2,094 statements taken from survivors.

By 10am, a mob of between 20,000 and 25,000 people had surrounded theGulberg Society, where many had fled to shelter in the home of Ahsan Jafri,an influential trade unionist and former MP from the Congress party. In hisdesperation, Jafri made over 200 calls for help that day. During earlierbouts of violence in Ahmedabad, he had been able to protect his community, but not this time. At 2.30pm, the politician was dragged out of his house,slashed with swords until his limbs were severed, and then set alight.Around 70 others from the Gulberg Society died with him that day.

A series of investigations by the Tribunal of Concerned Citizens, by India'sNational Human Rights Commission and by Human Rights Watch in New York lateraccused two Hindu extremist groups, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its youth wing, the Bajrang Dal, of masterminding the massacres. Numerous human rightsgroups, including HRW, argued that the state government, led by NarendraModi, a senior figure in the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had been wilfully deficient in its response.

For the millions of Muslims whose families opted to stay behind in India atthe time of partition, preferring life within the secular federal republicpromised by Jawaharlal Nehru to the safety of the newly created Muslim homeland in Pakistan, it was a betrayal of trust. "It was the firstfull-blooded pogrom in India's independent history," says Ashutosh Varshney,a professor of political science at the University of Michigan. "It was driven by hatred and ideologically charged."

Modi's approach to the riots may have helped him solidify his electoral baseahead of that year's state elections. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," he said. The machinery of justice, to the extent itwas used at all, was stacked against Muslims, who accounted, perversely, forthe vast majority of those arrested. Human Rights Watch alleged that the government of Gujarat had systematically obstructed efforts to bring theperpetrators to justice.

Police refused to file reports for the missing, let alone arrest suspects.Witnesses who came forward to identify attackers were harassed, threatened or bribed into turning hostile on the witness stand, or simply into notshowing up when the case went to trial. Only Muslims who withdrew theirtestimony were allowed to return to their neighbourhoods. For four years, impunity prevailed. Only in early 2006, following the exasperatedintervention of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, was there some tokenprogress, with the conviction, by a Mumbai court, of nine people for themurder of 14 Muslims who had taken refuge in a bakery.

"Gujarat was a turning point," says Sayeed Khan, a social worker withpolitical ambitions who runs Muslim Youth of India, a Mumbai-based groupthat is battling against the radicalisation of the country's young Muslims."After Gujarat, young Muslims started asking themselves: 'Why are theykilling us just for being Muslims?'... All over India , there are youths who think there should be revenge. And they're ready to do whatever it takes.

"In the past 18 months, India has been lashed by a wave of terror attacksoutside the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, the main battleground for Islamic militants waging a jihad against Indian "occupation". Some see apattern emerging. It started in October 2005, on the eve of the Hinduholiday of Diwali and the Muslim festival of Eid, when bombs exploded in markets across Delhi, killing 62 and injuring 210. It continued in March2006, when blasts in Varanasi, a city holy to Hindus, killed 15 and injured60.

The following month, explosions at Delhi's main mosque, the Jama Masjid, injured 13. Thirty-five Kashmiri Hindu villagers were shot dead in May.Then, on July 11, a date that has become known as India's 9/11, terrorstruck Mumbai, with seven bombs hitting the commuter train network, the backbone of the city's transport system, killing 209 and injuring more than700. In September, blasts in Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra prone tocommunal violence, killed 37 Muslims as they left a mosque after Friday prayers.

And then on February 18 this year, as the five-year anniversary of theGodhra train attack approached, terrorists placed kerosene bombs linked tosophisticated timers on an overnight train from Delhi to the Pakistani city of Lahore. Six minutes before midnight, as the Samjhauta Express travelledthrough late-winter wheat fields north-west of Delhi, two firebombs explodedinside denim-clad briefcases, causing an inferno in carriages packed with slumbering passengers that left 69 dead.

The catalogue of atrocities demands explanation. Why is India, a countrythat prides itself on its democratic safety valves and vibrant politicalsystem, proving so vulnerable to terrorism? Indian authorities have in almost every instance laid the blame on Pakistan-based militant groups,citing their opposition to a peace process that would end the jihad. AjaiShukla, a leading security affairs analyst in New Delhi, says India is looking for scapegoats beyond its borders.

"While external support certainly fans the flames of disaffection, terrorismincreasingly springs from radicalised elements within India that have notbeen able to address issues by other means," says Shukla. "Besides the disaffection in India's north-eastern states and in Kashmir, Gujarat is nowbecoming a fertile recruiting ground for terrorist cells. Setting upterrorist cells has been made wonderfully simple by poor law-and-order enforcement and lax financial regulation that allows criminal groups toflourish and terrorist groups to ride piggyback on them."

This tendency to blame the "foreign hand" also ignores the assessment that even sophisticated Pakistan-based militant groups are likely to be dependenton local terror cells to carry out their attacks. "After the Mumbai blasts,there is now no doubt that there are terror cells in India," says Varshney. "That kind of attack cannot be undertaken without a deep local knowledge ofMumbai and without serious local co-operation, whether paid for orideologically motivated.

"Academics believe the roots of India's worsening terrorism problem can be found in a complex fusion of greed and grievance. While an unscrupulouscriminal underworld plays an important part in facilitating and carrying out terror attacks, that is just part of the story. Despite three years of turbo-charged growth, there are still hundreds of millions living in abjectpoverty, with next to no stake in this newly wealthy and self-confident society. Some, inevitably, succumb to the blandishments of recruiters from the country's myriad insurgencies and extremist movements.

Unless these underlying causes of India's susceptibility to terrorism are addressed, India's path to superpowerdom will be bumpier than almost everyone now predicts. In that context, the successful integration ofIndia's Muslim population has strategic significance for the subcontinent and for the political west. The Muslim community, although far from monolithic, forms the second largest religious group in the country andrepresents just under 14 per cent of the 1.1 billion population.

In global terms, India has the largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan. By the time its population stabilises, sometime in the middle ofthis century, demographers expect it to number between 320 and 340 million, and its share of the total population, by then 1.7 billion, to be almost 19 per cent. India's success as a society will, to a considerable extent,depend on it reversing a worrying trend towards radicalisation in certain sections of that population.

Many take this for granted. Announcing a strategic partnership between the US and India last year, George W. Bush, for example, repeatedly hailed Indiaas a model for the successful integration of a large Muslim population in a secular political framework. In recent weeks, however, such complacency should have been punctured following the government's release of a shockingstudy of how the country's Muslims as a whole have fared since independence.

Commissioned by the prime minister and produced by a committee chaired by Rajinder Sachar, a former justice of the Delhi High Court, the reportpresents a sharp counterpoint to perceptions of India as a stable, inclusive and multicultural society. Of all the groups yet to benefit from India's spectacular recent growth - set to hit 9.2 per cent this year - none, apartfrom so-called dalits (once known as "untouchables") and tribals, have fared as poorly as Muslims.

"Muslims in India have this sense of being degraded," says Sarfaraz Arzu, editor and publisher of The Hindustan Daily, Mumbai's oldest Urdu-languagenewspaper during an interview in his office on the first floor of a crumbling building near Mohammed Ali Road. "They're not getting their share of the national pie. They see things whizzing past them at high speed. Theysee growth in all sectors, but are untouched by this growth. They are not the only section of society untouched by this growth, but they are excluded because of their identification as a distinct religious group, which means,in simple terms, that they're targeted for what they are."

Moreover, in a world ever more connected by cable television and internet chatrooms, the community's feeling of vicarious victimhood is also growing.Arzu has devoted the day's front page to violent protests around the world against Israeli excavations near the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest site. Later that day, there will be anti-Israelidemonstrations in the Azad maidan, a triangular field in south Mumbai used for cricket matches and political rallies.

India's 140 million Muslims are divided along class, caste and sectarian lines, with sociologists describing their relationship to the rest of Indiansociety as one of "upper class inclusion and mass exclusion". A small elite - typified by the Khans that rule Bollywood, the aristocratic Nawabs and businessmen such as Azim Premji, chairman of Wipro, a leading software group- thrives in the new India, while the masses, mostly low-caste converts from Hinduism, face marginalisation.

The Sachar committee found that India's Muslims, constantly battling perceptions that they are "anti-national", "unpatriotic" and "belong inPakistan ", are reluctantly withdrawing or being pushed into ghettos. Markersof their identity, such as the burkah, the purdah, the beard and the topi, a Muslim cap, invite ridicule and harassment. Bearded men find that they are routinely picked up for interrogation, hijab-wearing women that theystruggle to find jobs.

Sachar notes that many Muslims are unable to buy or rent property in the area of their choice and find their children rejected from good schools. This has contributed to the sharp growth in the number of madrassas. Thephenomenon should not be exaggerated: just 4 per cent of Muslim school-age children now attend full-time madrassas, according to Sachar. But in some states, including the populous northern state of UP, where more than 7 percent of Muslim schoolchildren are being educated in religious seminaries, madrassas are spreading rapidly.

Behind the green gates of 41 Mohammed Ali Road is the Minara Masjid complex,where 450 young Muslim men aged between 12 and 25 live and study at themadrassa attached to the mosque. "There has been a 100 per cent increase in the number of madrassas in India over the last five years," says Syed AtherAli, principal of the madrassa, which provides students with lodging, board,books and medical care. Students pass their days translating and memorising the Koran and their nights sleeping on mats in a number of concrete-floored dormitories.
The educational system is failing India's Muslims, whose average literacylevel was 59.1 per cent in the 2001 census, compared with a national average of 65 per cent. While the average child in India goes to school for fouryears, Muslim boys will spend around 36 months and Muslim girls just overtwo and a half years. Just 4 per cent of Muslims above the age of 20 are graduates or diploma holders, compared to 7.4 per cent for the country as awhole. Muslims, tellingly, account for 1.3 per cent of students at the eliteIndian Institutes of Management.

Poorly educated Muslims generally end up working as self-employed, economically vulnerable casual labourers. Relatively few pick up covetedsalaried jobs, which tend to be monopolised by high-caste Hindus. And thoseMuslims who do receive regular salaries tend to occupy the lowest rungs within organisations, with more than 70 per cent having no written contractor social security benefits. Poor work conditions are also reflected inlower earnings. The proportion of Muslims living below the poverty line, at 31 per cent, is higher than the 22.7 per cent for the country as a whole.

Sachar found that Muslims had an "abysmally low" share of prized governmentjobs, accounting for just 3 per cent of posts in the Indian Administrative Service, the elite corps of the civil bureaucracy, 1.8 per cent of theIndian Foreign Service and 4 per cent of the police. They had such a lowprofile in the military that the Ministry of Defence denied Sachar the data. The community is only consistently over-represented in the prisonpopulation. In Maharashtra, for example, Muslims account for more than 40per cent of those jailed for less than a year.

"This government was brought into power by two forces: the anger of the poor and the anger of the Muslims," says Mobashar Javed Akbar in an interview inthe New Delhi offices of The Asian Age, a newspaper he edits. And althoughprime minister Manmohan Singh provoked an outcry among Hindu nationalists when he promised in December to make sure that Muslims and other minoritieshad "first claim on resources", analysts say the government's lack offollow-through may cost the Congress party dearly in the imminent elections in the state of Uttar Pradesh, home to 31 million Muslims.

"The root problem is economic," says M.J. Akbar. "If you look at IndianMuslims, their traditional businesses, such as crafts and weaving, have been wiped off the economic map, and there has been no effort to create jobs inthe space stolen from them. And now the malls that are coming up across thecountry are about to eliminate their traditional role as suppliers of meat, wiping out another large source of employment. The impact of all of thiswill be 10 years of serious violence.

"Of the 700,000 towns and villages in India, the vast majority are free fromcommunal conflict from one year to the next. But the potential for such violence is a terrifying underlying reality. Communal violence left 40,000dead and injured between 1950 and 1995, according to research by academicsSteven Wilkinson and Ashutosh Varshney. The costs of riots have been overwhelmingly borne by Muslims, forced to leave their homes, businesses andland for sanctuary in safe Muslim areas.

"Fearing for their security, Muslims are increasingly resorting to living inghettos," the Sachar report notes. But access to water, toilets, electricity, schools, clinics, banks and ration shops is often limited ornon-existent in Muslim areas. The absence of these services affects women inparticular because they are reluctant to venture beyond the confines of "safe" neighbourhoods to access these facilities from elsewhere, withknock-on effects on literacy and child health.

Sofia Khan, a 42-year-old human rights activist, moved to Juhapura, a Muslimghetto in Ahmedabad, in the aftermath of the July 2006 Mumbai commuter trainattacks. She says she was hounded out of her home after local televisionstations advised viewers to check out their neighbours. "If you talk to the minority community today, they're just pushed into a corner. For us, there'sno 'Vibrant Gujarat' [Modi's slogan for the state], it's just violentGujarat."

"It's five years now and there's no sense of remorse in society at large, no sense of justice. Overwhelming feelings of insecurity and fear, these areour biggest problems. Fear that you will be targeted, fear that you will bevictimised, fear that there will be another backlash. You cannot open your mouth. You cannot engage in human rights activities. Many people who wereengaged in relief work are now in prison."

Juhapura is the biggest ghetto in Gujarat, with a population at 400,000,that increases with every communal riot in the state. Disparagingly nicknamed "Little Pakistan" by some Hindus, it is on all sides carefullyseparated from adjacent neighbourhoods by empty wastelands that serve asno-man's-lands separating the two largest religious communities. "It's just as if it was a border between India and Pakistan," Khan says.

From her fourth-floor office, the trained lawyer overlooks a relief camp forvictims of the 2002 riots. NGOs say as many as 35,000 remain camped in 81 semi-permanent colonies set up by Islamic relief organisations. Access topublic services is poor. India is in the throes of a telecoms revolution,but Khan's building in Juhapura cannot get the state-controlled service provider to install a landline: "There is not a single bank or broadbandinternet connection in the area and you can forget about having a publicpark or a library, those are luxuries.

"When religious organisations such as the Islamic Relief Committee, Jamaat Ulema-e-Hind and Imarat-e-Shariya opened madrassas, they filled a vacuumleft by the state. One conservative religious organisation, GujaratSarvajanik Welfare Trust, has set up a relief camp at Siddikabad, which has become a semi-permanent home for about 130 families displaced by the carnageof 2002, some of whom came from the Gulberg Society.

"The government has not done anything for us," says Mukti P., a middle-aged woman carrying water pots, who is so frightened of retribution that sherequests I do not use her full name. "Whatever has been done for us has beendone by our own people." Abeda P., 36, who says her husband and daughter died as they hid in Jafri's house, says: "When Narendra Modi dies, thenthere will be communal harmony in Gujarat because [alive] he will not allowit in the state.

"Ravi Nair, a human rights activist who runs the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, says these relief camps provide "cannon fodder forIslamic fundamentalist groups". His assessment finds an echo with FatherCedric Prakash, a Jesuit priest, who was recently honoured by the French government for his work promoting religious harmony in Ahmedabad. "The wholeghetto is on the boil," he warns.

"Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are living in Juhapura without access topublic banking services, schools, or drinking water. We're pushing an entire community to the brink. One doesn't need a lot of common sense to realisethere's going to be a reaction. Forgiveness and reconciliation can onlyhappen in the context of justice. Suppose my daughter's been raped, my only son's been killed, and I can see the person responsible behaving withimpunity. How then do I bring myself to forgive?"

That day, Modi and I sit down together. The apostle of Hindutva("Hinduness") has just addressed investors at the "Vibrant Gujarat" conference in Gandhinagar. He is an electrifying orator, and the globalbusiness community cannot get enough of a man in charge of a state thatexpanded by more than 11 per cent last year, making it the fastest growing investment hotspot in India.

The idea of "Hinduness" emerged between the two world wars as an alternativeto the Gandhian nationalist rhetoric of inclusiveness. While Hindunationalist parties have had to tone down sectarian rhetoric to win power by building broad coalitions at national level, strident and threateningreligious politics are frequently found at local level. Since the BJP'sdefeat in the 2004 national elections, Modi has sought to cultivate a less ideological image.

For the moment, though, he remains something of a pariah within the Indianpolitical system, a status that has been reinforced by the fact that he hasbeen banned from travelling to the US. In March 2005, the US State Department publicly denied him a visa, pointing in a statement to a sectionof the Immigration and Nationality Act barring entry to any foreigngovernment official who "was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom".

In his meeting with the FT, Modi wants to talk business, not religiouspolitics. Amid increasingly fierce competition between Indian states for investment, he has adopted the most can-do attitude of all chief ministers.Across the country, the government's policy of promoting Special EconomicZones, Chinese-style capitalist enclaves, has run into fierce opposition and many chief ministers have gone off the idea. But not Modi: "The whole ofGujarat is a SEZ," he says. "S stands for spirituality, E forentrepreneurialism, and Z for zeal.

"Would he like the US to lift the travel ban? "It is up to them," he says without hint of rancour. Asked why Gujarati Muslims feel marginalised andexcluded from this growth, he shakes his head as if to imply a logicalimpossibility. "This state has constant double-digit growth. Would that be possible if 10 per cent of the population were excluded? That's my questionto the questioners.

"The glib response saddens Rahul Dholakia, the director of Parzania, a newfilm about the Gujarat pogrom that is essential viewing for anyone wanting to understand why the events of 2002 continue to have such a far-reachingimpact on the politics of religious identity in India. Based on the truestory of a father and mother's tragic hunt for their cricket-loving son, Azhar Mody, who was swept up by the sword-wielding mob that ransacked theGulberg Society, it is, at times, just too painful to watch.

The film ends with an appeal: "His parents are still waiting for him" - and offers an e-mail address and mobile telephone numbers to which informationon his whereabouts can be sent. Parzania, which has received criticalacclaim and met with commercial success, is showing in nine Indian cities. But the people who would be best placed to help the family are unlikely everto see it: the Bajrang Dal, the Hindu extremist youth group, has seen to itthat no cinema in Ahmedabad, Gandhi's adoptive town, has yet dared show it.

Manubhai Patel, the head of Gujarat's multiplex operators' association, toldDholakia to seek the permission of a notorious and self-professedly violentBajrang Dal leader by the name of Babu "Bajrangi" Patel. Arrested in 2002 following the pogrom, but released shortly afterwards, Babu Bajrangi nowruns an NGO, Navchetan (New Awakening), which forcibly "rescues" Hindu womenwho have been "lured" into relationships with non-Hindu men, and is widely loathed in the Muslim community.

The idea of recognising Bajrangi as a legitimate authority was repulsive toDholakia, a friend of the missing boy's parents, whose names were changedfor the film. When he refused, the theatre owners said they could not show his film. "I can see the anger in the Muslim community," Dholakia says."They will retaliate unless they're given a non-violent platform to expresstheir anger at being denied justice. They will react in the way they find easiest, which is through violence.

"Sixty years ago, on the eve of independence, Nehru, called on his countrymento help him "build the noble mansion of free India where all her childrenmay dwell". He declared: "We are citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that high standard. All of us, towhatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India withequal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow inthought or in action."

His words are as true today as they were then.

Jo Johnson is the FT's bureau chief in Delhi.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

India is a Bus


Each community, each nation and each faith is like a beautiful bus; when you plan to go somewhere, you make sure all its tires have the same amount of air pressure for it to run effectively, to give better mileage, lasting tire wear..... all the mechanical parts must be greased, all the parts must be checked for a safe, stable and sure journey .

We need to work together to ensure that every one is on par to ride the road of progress, we need to fill the tire if the pressure is inadequate, instead of asking the tire to fill itself. Whose loss is it if the tire does not fill itself? We have to help the communities that are at a disadvantage. We need to bring them to a well balanced, smoothly functioning society. Ignoring one tire or a community is an irresponsible thing for the bus journey.

It is the responsibility of each person in the world to make a better world. Each day we need to ask ourselves, what have we done today to make the world a better place?

Peace and prosperity of our World hinges on justice and plurality, absence or deficiency of it will cause the BUS to slow down. It is in the interests of Community of the Nations to bring up the people in ditches on to a level playing field , and let them compete from that point forward. Imagine each community to be a tire of the bus, if all the tires have adequate air pressure, the smoothness of the journey is certain, assured and safe.

Each one of us needs to be the 'source' of goodwill to bring that equilibrium. You and I are not safe if the world around us isn't. All change begins with you and me. And I pledge that whatever I do, I will do it to bind people together, and will be a source of goodwill.

Try filling your heart with goodwill and fight with yourselves to remove any prejudice you may have..... some day, you would have changed the lives of at least a few people around you, but more than any one else, it will be you who will find boundless joy in yourselves. Be contagious with your freedom.
--- ----- ----
INDIAN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mike Ghouse

With the belief that every Indian wants justice to every human being; rich or poor, connected or not, and demands fair treatment of every one of the 1.1 Billion Indians, we must come to grips with the social and community life to create an exemplary India, that will become a model nation in the world.

We have to give room to the extremists in every section of our communities be it Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian or other, hoping they would recognize the God given space to each one of us and eventually see the benefits of co-existence.

I propose that the parliament of India introduce a bill for every political, cultural and religious organization in India to register with the Home Ministry, state their purpose, list their assets for public scrutiny, list the membership roster to be updated annually. Include a modified version of the 7 items into Indian Penal Code, and make it in to the law to punish the violators of the law.

Patriotism should be defined in terms of what you do to uplift the hopes of people, in terms of education to all, jobs to as many as we can in each successive year, home for every human, and a better life style to every Indian.

Every public office holder from the Peon to the President of India, and every one in between must take this pledge and live by it. Violation should disqualify him or her from holding the public office. Let it be monitored publicly.

1. I pledge allegiance to India, the nation that stands for liberty and justice for all.

2. I pledge that I honor and treat every Indian with "full" dignity.

3. I pledge that all individuals would be treated on par.

4. I pledge that I will treat all religions with equal respect, equal access and equal treatment.

5. I pledge that I will oppose any act that treats any Indian less than myself.

6. I Pledge that I will work for a India, where every individual can live with security and aspire for prosperity.

7. I pledge that I will protect, preserve and value every inch of India and every human soul in India

This would be the first step towards ensuring a Just, peaceful and prosperous India, that can sustain its progress and peace.

Jai Hind


Mike M Ghouse
SPEAKER THINKER WRITER
http://www.mikeghouse.net/
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/
http://www.mikeghouse.sulekha.com/

Impressive Stats about India

Impressive Stats about India

Very valuable indeed.
I will save this in the Blog section of the website http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Mike Ghouse

Figures about India


It's often hard to pin down statistics about India and other South Asian countries. Contradictory, inaccurate numbers abound and regularly make their way into the press. I thought I'd post some stats sources I use for India and ask you all for your suggestions for India and the rest of the subcontinent.

NationMaster.com India section (2,000+ stats)
CIA World Factbook India section
Government of India Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
Official census site
UNICEF: At a Glance: India
InternetWorldStats: India

[There's also IndiaHealthStat.com, which seems to have a lot of useful information, but charges almost $300 and doesn't seem to have a free trial.]

Please add your suggestions to the comments section below.
Meanwhile, on the back cover of Mira Kamdar's new book, "Planet India: How the Fastest Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World," is a set of dramatic stats about India. See the full list below. What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments below.

From the back cover of "Planet India: How the Fastest Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World"

Did You Know?

India is the world's fourth-largest economy.
  • By 2034, India will be the most populous country on Earth, with 1.6 billion people.
  • India's middle class is already larger than the entire population of the United States.
  • One out of three of the world's malnourished children live in India.
  • India is home to the biggest youth population on earth: 600 million people are under the age of 25.
  • 72,000,000 cell phones will be sold in India in 2007.
  • India just edged past the United States to become the second-most-preferred destination for foreign direct investment after China.
  • In 1991, Indians purchased 150,000 automobiles; in 2007, they are expected to purchase 10 million.
  • By 2008, India's total pool of qualified graduates will be more than twice as large as China's.
  • By 2015, an estimated 3.5 million white-collar U.S. jobs will be offshored.
    India is the largest arms importer in the developing world.
  • American corporations expect to earn $20 to $40 billion from the civilian nuclear agreement with India.
  • In 2007, there are 2.2 million Indian Americans, a number expected to double every decade.
  • Twenty-nine percent of India's population speaks English - that's 350 million people.
  • Did you know the first census of india was conducted in 1871?
  • Cell Phone and Emergencies

    THINGS YOU NEVER KNEW YOUR CELL PHONE COULD DO.

    There are a few things that can be done in times of grave emergencies. Your mobile phone can actually be a life saver or an emergency tool for survival. Check out the things that you can do with it:

    FIRST
    Subject: Emergency
    The Emergency Number worldwide for Mobile is 112. If you find yourself out of the coverage area of your mobile; network and there is an emergency, dial 112 and the mobile will search any existing network to establish the emergency number for you, and interestingly this number 112 can be dialed even if the keypad is locked. Try it out.

    SECOND
    Subject: Have you locked your keys in the car?
    Does your car have remote keyless entry? This may come in handy someday. Good reason to own a cell phone: If you lock your keys in the car and the spare keys are at home, call someone at home on their cell phone from your cell phone. Hold your cell phone about a foot from your car door and have the person at your home press the unlock button, holding it near the mobile phone on their end. Your car will unlock. Saves someone from having to drive your keys to you. Distance is no object. You could be hundreds of miles away, and if you can reach someone who has the other "remote" for your car, you can unlock the doors (or the trunk).

    Editor's Note: It works fine! We tried it out and it unlocked our car over a cell phone!"

    THIRD
    Subject: Hidden Battery PowerImagine your cell battery is very low.
    To activate, press the keys *3370# Your cell will restart with this reserve and the instrument will show a 50% increase in battery. This reserve will get charged when you charge your cell next time.

    FOURTH
    Subject: How to disable a STOLEN mobile phone?
    To check your Mobile phone's serial number, key in the following digits on your phone: * # 0 6 # A 15 digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it somewhere safe. When your phone get stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won't get your phone back, but at least you know that whoever stole it can't use/sell it either. If everybody does this, there would be no point in people stealing mobile phones.

    FIFTH
    Cell phone companies are charging us $1.00 to $1.75 or more for 411 information calls when they don't have to. Most of us do not carry a telephone directory in our vehicle, which makes this situation even more of a problem. When you need to use the 411 information option, simply dial: (800) FREE 411, or (800) 373-3411 without incurring any charge at all. Program this into your cell phone now.

    This is the kind of information people don't mind receiving, so pass it on to your family and friends

    Regime Change : USA

    Regime Change: USA
    Mike Ghouse April 6, 2007


    We are Americans, and we stand for the human rights and we stand for freedom of people around the world.

    We are the oldest democracy and we are the vanguard of democracy. Democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people.

    We have liberated nations and people around the world to live a life of freedom, liberty and justice.

    Saddam Hussein did not represent the people of Iraq, we called for a regime change and thanks God, and we changed it.

    Talibans did not represent the people of Afghanistan, we called for a regime change, we bombed them to annihilation, and the regime is changed.

    The list is quite long, we want to change the regimes, because they are not represented by the people.

    Wait a minute!

    What about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and several others? They are our allies and it is okay if they are not elected by the people. Are those our standards?

    The Palestinians chose their own representative; we don’t want to accept them, as they are not our puppets.

    The Iranian Chiefs are elected by the people, but their acts perhaps may not be approved by the people, we do need a regime change.

    What about our own US of A?
    Is our chief representing the will of people?

    Didn't our Chief say, "They hate America for our freedom." Sir, respectfully, they do not hate us the Americans, they hate you and call for a regime change as you do not represent the will of people.

    Mike Ghouse
    Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer, speaker and a pluralist with the aptitude to find solutions. He believes that if we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us, conflicts fade and solutions emerge. Mike can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com and at the websites www.MikeGhouse.net and www.FoundationforPluralism.com and www.WorldMuslimCongress.com


    Chomsky: Preventing War with Iran

    By Noam Chomsky,

    Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble.
    What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.
    This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.
    The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.
    In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.
    "The Iran effect"
    The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."
    What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.
    Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.
    The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.
    Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?
    It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."
    Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.
    As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.
    Promoting democracy -- at home
    These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.
    We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).
    Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.
    The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.
    If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.
    Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.
    Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.
    Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

    Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works.
    © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
    View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50197/

    Monday, April 2, 2007

    Building institutions in Pakistan

    Stable institutions build stable Nations
    What about Pakistan?


    Mike Ghouse
    Commentator
    I happen to read a column called Building Institutions by Abdul Kundi,it is quite intriguing and is one of the most powerful pieces written about Civic societies in general, and Pakistan in particular. The article follows my commentary.

    The central theme of the topic is "Institution building as a basis for stable governments" That is the critical need of the day. There are great people out here who can write precisely how and what needs to be done.

    Building democratic institutions in Pakistan.

    The People of Pakistan are inherently democratic and secular by nature and have proved that time and again. Every time a choice was presented they have elected the non-religious, non-regional political parties and have always dumped the religious right. Every time a leader appeals for help, they have responded generously, I recall one such program " Muluk Bachao, Qaraz Nikalo". There was no follow up on that.

    What can bring stability to Pakistan? What does it take to get people's own government? What is feeding the hunger in the Army Generals to rule? What makes them believe that they are immortal? Power is corrupting. What makes one immortal and indispensable?

    Her non-awwami government pay gumaan huwa aakhri government ka,
    Pakistan ki history may aisay kayee government aaye.
    Based on a sher (poet unknown):
    Her ek nishaan pay gumaan aakhri nishaan ka huwa
    Rahay hayat may aisay kai nishaan aaye


    I happen to read a column called Building Institutions by Abdul Kundi,it is quite intriguing and is one of the most powerful pieces written about Civic societies in general, and Pakistan in particular.

    Mr. Kundi has nailed the issue of Pakistan very well; indeed it is the lack of established institutions.The fact that some of the laws were passed on the whims of the rulers rather than consensus of the public through their representatives, does not give any grounding to such laws. The Hudood Laws, the apostasy laws and changing holiday from Sunday to Friday and back to Sunday speaks the vulnerability of such passages.

    When you play the musical chairs, the chair is constant, the sitter changes, in case of Pakistan, the chair gets modified to suit the sitter, thus generating a non-consistent factor in governance.

    Mr. Kundi writes, "In Islam it is considered a highest honor to serve in the army to protect the ideals of the faith. For a professional soldier charged with zeal of faith it is disgraceful to be inspired by material possessions" and "Today our armed forces have to keep one eye on the borders while the other on the seat of power." This seems to be where the break down starts. Why should the army have the temptations to watch the seat of power? Wasn't the vacuum created by the army to begin with? A solid institution would have prevented all this eyeing business.

    Institutions bring stability and consistency in governance. Who is going to do it?

    President Musharraf gave a lot of hope to the people of Pakistan when he took over, but that hope is getting decimated every day. He is not setting up institutions, let alone a contingency plan. A nation cannot be run with secretive succession plans, public owns the nation and they need to be partners in the decision making process. No doubt he is doing the right things and is a savior of Pakistan, however, he is acting like our President Bush, doing thing on his own unilaterally, he has become the sole decider. He should think of the long term, when he is not around. He owes it to the people of Pakistan a smooth and a stable government

    A democracy and democratic system won't happen overnight at the command "Open sesame". They are developed with Ijtihad and consensus, neither of the ideas have seen any foundational work yet.

    President Musharraf can leave a great legacy for Pakistan, if he sets out now. Like all rulers in history, he is beginning to believe that he is immortal, and that is a betrayal to the future of Pakistan. All the things he has done are great and must be appreciated, but to complete the full circle of goodness, he needs to let the democratic institutions flourish, to his credit he had let the freedom of press survive, but what happened with Dawn was not good, neither the cracking down on the Internet. The most important of pillars of Awwami Hukoomat (public governance aka democracy) are; press, judiciary and the Internet. President Musharraf has influenced each one, no matter how good his secret intentions are, it is not healthy for a open society where people are partners in governance.

    Musharraf may have the plans, but he has not put the manual to the public for review. He has got to trust the inherent goodness of the People of Pakistan. Pakistan needs a strong leader, an unselfish one who is not hungering for power, someone to set up a system and establish institutions. There are many, it is time for them to step up.

    There ought to be leadership training across the nation, where the concerned citizens put 10 candidates in each city, let the debates begin in public sphere, and let each candidate be groomed and allowed to compete in open forums, a few best will emerge from them and if they do it for one full year, it will produce at least 10 competing individuals, and let there be seeds for two party system. That would be the first institution to begin with, then there ought to be a referendum that requires constitutional changes by the elected representatives.

    There is hope, if each Pakistani determines that he or she will cause changes and place a self imposed moratorium on herself or himself not to pull other Pakistanis down, and encourage every one to compete with a belief that good ideas will chase bad ideas out.

    Please feel free to share your ideas and thoughts on the idea of creating institutions to build a stable Pakistan. I would hope that the news papers, television and cable would expound on this idea. Once you have a good foundation, the nation can feel safe and at peace, then prosperity is the outcome.

    Write your ideas in at least 200 words, let the focus be on "Building institutions for a stable Pakistan". I urge the writers to hold the temptations to go off tangent.



    Building Institutions
    Abdul Kundi April 1, 2007

    For any nation to progress it has to build institutions representing the ideals of the community. A nation that fails in building these institutions is faced with chaos, confusion and ultimately breakdown of the society. Pakistan is one of the two nations in the world that were founded on ideological grounds. The founding fathers of the nation Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam envisioned a society where high morals preached by the religion of Islam are exercised in all spheres of life; where appointments to government posts were based on merit; where free market economy allowed talented people to exercise their talents; where no discrimination was allowed based on religion, caste, color or sex. Allama Iqbal saw the dream while Quaid-e-Azam led a constitutional struggle to make it a reality. This was also the difference between Mahatma Gandhi and Quaid-e-Azam. Gandhi believed in resorting to peaceful unconstitutional means like refusing to pay taxes or non-cooperation movement to gain independence from British while Quaid-e-Azam believed that independence could be achieved through democratic and constitutional struggle. Gandhi’s approach produced riots and violence while Quaid-e-Azam won the debates in the constituent assembly for formation of India and Pakistan as two independent sovereign nations. Ironically the dream turned sour as soon as the independence was achieved when the nation lost its visionary leader soon and opportunists gained control of the nation.

    In a sovereign state armed forces, specially a voluntary force, plays an important role of shielding the nation from external aggression. Nation provides their hard earned income to finance such a force while mothers allow their sons/daughters to join the armed forces taking an oath to shed their life to protect the nation. In Islam it is considered a highest honor to serve in the army to protect the ideals of the faith. For a professional soldier charged with zeal of faith it is disgraceful to be inspired by material possessions, position and social status. In Pakistan first institution that was destroyed by politically ambitious generals was the army itself. Today our armed forces have to keep one eye on the borders while the other on the seat of power. This lack of focus is not only destroying the morale of a large number of professional soldiers but also creating a gulf between the nation and the army. Army has become an elite class of ambitious generals who have no regard for constitution or the masses. For the first time in the history of Pakistan militant groups have taken up weapons against their own soldiers. This is evident from the heavy loss of soldiers in Balochistan and NWFP. In both these provinces the situation is more political than militant. Poverty stricken people in both these provinces are tired of empty promises made by the successive military government. Tribal leaders that were strong allies of one military general are now considered traitors by another general. If we do not radically change this situation so that professional soldiers are not used for political purposes we will further undermine this institution.

    Police is an institution that imposes the writ of law according to the constitution as well as implements the decisions carried out by the judiciary. Without a highly trained and resourceful police force it is a fantasy to believe that law order can be maintained in mega cities like Karachi and Lahore. Military government, considering police as a threat to their dominance, has ensured that police as an institution is deprived of merit, resources and pride. A police officer does not have the courage and moral authority to question an army officer or arrest them for breach of law. During the British rule police was used as an official channel for extortion and keeping the populations in control through extra judicial means. The same practice has carried on as government officials use police to punish political opponents. We have seen this element come into play when police was ordered to attack a TV channel office and later when the situation got out of hand those same low level policemen were blamed and punished while the politicians who were behind all this remained unaffected. If we want to strengthen our society we have to reform the police on modern lines and give them resources to implement law without prejudice or pressure.

    Judiciary does not have the right to write laws but once a law is passed by the constituent assembly it is the right of the judiciary to interpret that law fairly for all citizens of the state. A free and independent judiciary is one of the basic requirements to create a civic society. Throughout our history all governments have tried to subjugate this august institution for their own political advantage. Appointments of judges were inspired by political affiliations to ensure they will interpret the law in government favor. Recent reference against the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan by a military government is widely believed to be politically motivated. But the government has blamed the opposition for politicizing that event when they know that their own actions are politically motivated. It is the democratic right of the opposition to agitate against too much executive influence. Government ministers on live TV have blamed the opposition for same actions during their rule. But they forgot that two wrongs don’t make one right. If we want to maintain the social fabric of the society we have to ensure our judiciary is free and independent by appointment of judges on merit to the benches.

    Government is tricky business where many competing ideas struggle for dominance. It is citizen’s right to choose which ideas gets implemented when they freely vote for candidates of their choice. Existence of political parties is an efficient way for like minded people to come together to form a government by securing votes from people. The key ingredient of any political party should be democracy so that qualified and deserving people can come through the lower ranks of the party to claim nomination for representation in assemblies. That ingredient is missing in almost all political parties in Pakistan. All parties are dominated by personalities who are not willing to relinquish power at any cost. This not only result in cronyism in the parties but also result in weak assemblies dominated by greedy and ambitious people. If we want to build strong democratic institutions we have to first build democratic political parties that have grass root support from the people only then it will be difficult for army generals to stage a coup.

    Pakistan is struggling for its survival. It is pressured from both inside and outside to maintain unity which is getting weaker by the day. The reason for this weakness is directly related to our inability to build strong institutions. We still have time to get hold of our affairs and embark on a journey of creating a civil society governed by institutions created on solid foundations. If we fail we can not blame it on any external force but our own selves. When all else seems impossible we can pray “May God bless Pakistan”.

    Posted by Abdul Q. K. Kundi Pakistan Politics Pakistan Politics Links to

    http://www.democracyinpakistan.com