A tragedy that implicates us all

http://www.thehindu.com/profile/author/shiv-visvanathan/

If India fails to respond to the suffering in Yemen, and all we do is pat ourselves pompously for a few air evacuations from West Asia, we fail as a moral community and a democratic nation.

Catastrophes are no longer the epic tragedies that they were earlier. There is something stereotyped about the way we look at them. They become an event in somebody else’s backyard and therefore need not disturb us. Our everydayness is not touched by the others’ starvation. As we gorge on pizza and watch BBC reports on starvation, I sometimes wonder what happened to my generation. Years ago when famine struck Biafra, in Africa, there was at least a protest, a concern, a consternation. Biafra became a metaphor and, like Sahel, created some impact. Yet today the death and starvation in Yemen hardly affect people. You watch a child withering, dying a slow death and flip the page. He does not touch us. We are able to move on without batting an eyelid. There is no anger, no pain. It is as if ‘not caring’ is an essential part of surviving the global world.

Failure of our imagination

I realise part of the problem is Yemen does not capture the imagination. Yemen seems an Arab backwater, an agricultural country, not oil rich like Saudi Arabia. The contrast itself captures the realpolitik of the situation. Saudi Arabia is the paradigm of Arab respectability and hypocrisy. It is backed by America and Europe. The West, in fact, helped create the Islamic respectability of Saudi Arabia at a time when Indian and other Islams were far more creative and plural. In this moralistic contrast, Saudi Arabia is as respectable as its banks and its oil wells while Yemen is backward, a failed country in terms of the Arab dream. To an Indian, going Saudi is to search for a fortune. Yemen hardly enters the imagination.

The structure of perception also determines the way we see a country. We look at countries in terms of success and rankings. There is a clinical and technocratic attitude here that is startling. One can see it in the UN reports on starvation. There is almost something botanical about Yemen, as if it is a failed or endangered species. The State of Food Insecurity in the World report of 2014 states: “Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a Human Development Index ranking of 160 out of the 187 countries. Progress in economic and social development over recent years has been slow, mainly as the result of the political crisis of 2011, ongoing instability and weak governance....” The language is antiseptic. It is as if Yemen suffers from an epidemic instead of a man-made catastrophe orchestrated by the Saudis. It is almost as if food security books measure hunger, starvation and record them like temperature, without comment.

Being obsessed with the political economy of the struggle alone will not do. To reduce Yemen to a surrogate war between Iran and the Saudis explains little. There is an ethics here which transcends politics and asks a deeper set of questions. Writers like Vijay Prashad and those of the International Crisis Group have captured it competently. They are able to pin down the responsibility of the West and the Saudi government for starving a nation to death. Yet what one misses is a voice of conscience which asks a deeper set of questions. Years ago a Bertrand Russell could create, with great courage, a tribunal to try the U.S. for war crimes in Vietnam. A Noam Chomsky would follow suit, but today few have the courage to demand and label the U.S. and Saudi Arabia for a crime against humanity. People often blame it on disaster fatigue, observing that the world is tired of reacting to disasters, that mass death and refugee politics haunt every page of international relations. The bold clarity of the Russellian statement is missing. Even Pope Francis, one of the few great voices of our time, had only elliptical comments to make. He expressed shock and sadness at the diabolical attack on one of the Mother Teresa homes in Yemen, where four Missionaries of Charity and 12 others were murdered. Yet Yemen as a whole seems to elude the Pontiff. We are in a strange situation where charity and humanitarianism are equated to conscience, where politics creates the demologies of our time, but ethics and the everydayness of citizenship have nothing to say. The standard narrative is of a civil war between Houthi rebels and the deposed President now backed by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The very logic of the power struggle seems to permit and exonerate a slow genocide.

A narrower citizenship

I was wondering whether India has any stand on it. One senses that the BJP government in its narcissistic pursuit of India as a great nation state has no sense of global issues. One would have thought a nation which sends so many workers to the so-called Gulf would have something to say about Yemen. There is a little apart from a few notes on Aden, a little fragment of nostalgia. For Prime Minister Modi, Aden or Addis Ababa creates no trigger of action. He knows it is not a topic for Davos. But beyond the ethical illiteracy of regimes, one has to think of the India, the middle class, it’s sense of ethics and citizenship. I sometimes wonder whether apart from feeling a paranoid superiority over Pakistan in ethical terms, whether any crisis of conscience haunts India. We want to be global in terms of economic and technological participation; we are not international in our concern. Our media is America-centric or obsessive about India. To transform an old observation, we think a dog fight in Brooklyn is more important than the starvation of half a million children in Yemen.

There is a deeper problem in terms of civil society and our social movements. Our movements have been theoretically acute and organisationally substantial on issues like the right to information, the question of biotechnology, but they have been parochial, failing to combine the local and the international in creative ways. At a time when civil society should have reinvented the UN and its idea of peacekeeping, it has been retreatist and parochial. India has to step out and take stands on starvation, rights, energy, violence, sustainability without being knee-jerk and imitative. We cannot wait for the power game of the West to code our responses. In terms of responses to Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, India has been complicit with the West or tongue-tied. Its moral imagination in a post-Cold War world lacks the confidence to stand up, to challenge current frameworks. It has little empathy with the downtrodden and in fact tries to distance itself from what the West calls “the failed societies” of Asia and Africa, lest it be tarred with the same brush.

It behaves like a newly upwardly mobile nation, pretending that poverty and violence are things of the past. India’s new obsession is captured in the idea of “governmentality”. The emphasis creates a sanitised, technocratic space which has no sense of empathy or solidarity with other struggling nations. It is captured in the opposition of the idea of the migrant versus the refugee. The Indian elite feels Syria, Somalia, Bosnia are refugee material at the mercy of the West. India feels that along with its non-resident Indians it shares the American dream. Sadly, it also replicates the American need for hegemony and its lack of political ethics. Otherwise one cannot grasp what India has in common with sordid states like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Responding as a community

Years ago, one could attend an art or history of science lecture where a portrait of Vesalius’ anatomy lesson would trigger a lecture on power of the linear perspective, about the need for alienation and objectivity, of the necessary distance between observer and observed. Today, as I see a picture of a mother watching a starved and staring child, standing helpless as it dies without food and medicine, I think of an anatomy class. The face of the child and the distorted body of the child haunt me. I pray and apologise for my previous indifference. I realise that the body, sculpted by pain into a surrealism of suffering, challenges our sense of empathy, haunts the everydayness of our conscience. I have to respond. India has to respond as a community. Caring has to go beyond aid to create a new sense of community. If India fails, and all we do is pat ourselves pompously for a few aerial rescues from the Gulf, we fail as a moral community and a democratic nation. Yemen might survive but India’s moral idiocy may take decades to rehabilitate.

Shiv Visvanathan is Director, Centre for the Study of Knowledge Systems, O.P. Jindal Global University.

TALAQ, DOWRY AND FEAST IN ISLAM

Of all things permitted in Islamic laws, Divorce (Talaq) is the most hateful or dislike in the sight of ALLAH (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Because Divorce is not considered to be Good in Islam and even Talaq shakes the throne of ALLAH as confirm by Hadith. As a result of this, Islam gives utmost importance to marriage and marital relation. Islam is the only religious scripture in the face of the earth that outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom and bride and also saying wife as a life partner as well as long-lasting soulmate of her husband. But it has given nod to divorce only in worst situation that too after a long and lengthy process of reconciliation.
The marriage life of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is indeed a paragon of virtue and the best role model and ideal for the all Muslims in all parts of the world till the day of judgement.
It is high time for us to follow the path of Prophet (PBUH). This is the only path through which we can get rid of sinful things and finally, paving the way for entering of Paradise. We should condemn and abandon the demands for Dowry. Because dowry is a bane for human society. It is HARAM (forbidden act) under Isalmic laws and must be banned for forever, against the spirit of Islamic norms and values. This is an act of Brahmanical order.
Another evils prevailing in Muslim society is in the form of Feast (Wedding feast given by the side of bride after performing Nikah). It is also a Brahmanical practice and has nothing to do with Islam. It is completely an unlawful act, and against the true soul of Islam.
#Think
-Md Irshad Ayub

Oil Politics and Diplomacy : A Brief Study BY: MD IRSHAD AYUB

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”- Henry Kissinger

If there is any price of any commodity in the world that determines the growth or slowdown of our economy, it is the price of crude oil. The term Oil refers to the part of fossil fuel and it is believed, was formed by  animals and plants organism that had died and further decomposed, and converted into solid rock, may be millions of years ago due to the immense level of heating. Moreover, it also ascertains the bullish or bearish nature of money, which is the blood of economic of a country which works as fuel for the development of the state. Therefore, it is considered to be a major propeller of economic growth and progress. Oil is primarily referred to as ‘liquid gold’ and a full valuable resource. It was given a tremendous importance in every country of the world. Besides it serves as a gateway of foreign exchange. As a result of these attributions, oil always has been a source of conflict in international politics. Despite the fact that the oil has increasingly been instrumental in designing, reshaping and redrawing the world map, international politics, and global diplomacy as well.

Most importantly, it determines the hegemony and supremacy of any country over the world. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state of the US, said, “Control oil and you control nation; control food and you control the people”. The emergence of the concept of Pax Britannica (hegemon or preponderance or political ascendancy or partial international order of Britain over the world) was the necessary outcome of the discovery of oil in the mid-19th century. It continued till 1956 (the Suez war), when the British invaded Egypt in October 1956 for controlling the Suez Canal. At once, on 5 November 1956, the Soviet Union came in support of Egypt and threatened to use missiles to defend Egypt. After that, the British surrendered and withdrew its troops from Egypt and on 7 November 1956, the British-led operation came to an end. As a result, Britain lost her dominant power or hegemon strength over the world. The Suez Canal crisis resulted in the termination of Pax Britannica in the world. But at the same time, it must be emphasised that it paved the way for the emergence of Pax Americana. Ipso facto, it was said that “the war to end all wars, instead of bringing peace, resulted in many more wars in future.” Pax Americana began around the middle of the 20th century and continues unabated till date. Now, oil has emerged as the most potent weapon within the global economy and one of the strong determinants of the ‘value of Dollar’ in the international market, alongside the arms and narcotics trade.

The 2nd industrial revolution which commenced around 1870s, witnessed a new phase of industrialisation. This phase differed from the 1stindustrial revolution (1760s), because the 1st was powered by steam engine whereas the 2nd was powered by internal combustion engine (using petrol as a fuel). Oil was first discovered in the U.S. in 1850s. By closing period of 1st IR, crude oil had been successfully extracted near Pennsylvania, America in 1859. And the first U.S. oil refinery came to light in 1861 when the U.S. exported its first shipment of refined oil to London. When the massive amount of oil was used in the production process, the 2nd IR commenced. After that, the importance of oil received a boost body and soul in Europe and America in the immediate sense and in the entire world in the long run. In Middle East region, oil was first discovered at Masjid-e-Suleiman in Iran in 1908 followed by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran’s oil field was discovered by the British whereas Kuwait and Saudi Arabia’s oil fields were discovered by America.

In 1870, John D Rockefeller founded an oil refining company, name, Standard Oil Company, Cleveland, in the state of Ohio (America). This was the first oil company in the petroleum industry in America. And by the 1880s, John D Rockefeller’s standard oil owned 90% of the U.S. oil refineries and pipelines and the world’s largest oil tanker fleet.

Henry Ford set up his Motor Car Company in 1886.  Ford’s invention of the Model T type car came to light in 1908. This type of car was powered by IC engine, which used petrol for running it. This was the world’s first inexpensive and mass produced car. This helped to foster America’s economy and paved the way for a great increase in US’s automobile industry. Mass scale production of oil as well as car, affected the socio-cultural life of Americans and it resulted in the emergence of new social classes in the form of capitalist class and working class. By 1927, the United States became the most motorised country in the world, with one motor vehicle for roughly every five people whereas other major industrial countries like Britain, France, and Germany had about one motor vehicle for every forty-four people. The United States still continues to lead the auto industry supremacy in terms of auto ownership per capita for the next century as well. Refined motor fuel has become America’s indispensable necessity. The US could not have been met both domestic and war demand. The emergence of the concept of Petrodollar is a reflection of same, to maintain hegemony over the world.

Oil became the dominant fuel of the 20th century and part and parcel of the American economy.  Oil also played an important role in the ww1 and because the demand for oil had been increased immensely during ww1. With the onset/emergence of ww1, oil became vital for modern welfare, fuelling ships, land vehicles, and military aircraft. It proved that future of oil became obvious, that oil was going to be a crucial resource in warfare for the foreseeable future. The German faced rout was credited to oil. When Germany was marching triumphantly forward against its rivals, the USA entered the war on the side of the Allied powers, which resulted in the defeat of Germany. The USA played a decisive role in the war, because of the fact that the USA was a dominant power in the petroleum industry as well as responsible for more than 65 percent of the world’s crude oil production and refining. During the US war effort, the US herself produced oil about 30 million barrels a month. Moreover, it was five times more than Mexican oil imports. That is why it is commented that entering of the US in the First World War resulted in the commencement of the process of American ascendancy. This process continued for more than 70 years and culminated in the emergence of the USA as the supreme monolithic power in the world on 25, December 1991, after the disintegration and collapse of the USSR and can now dominate the international scene almost without any challenge. This doomed the fate of bipolar order and strengthened the unipolar order in the world.

In 1919, the U.S. Geological survey estimated that the oil supply of the U.S. could run out in 10 years. This survey first time triggered oil security fear in American’s eyes on the one hand and on the other hand changes witnessed in the policy of Britain and France regarding oil. This pressing need of oil has been compelling America to adopt carrot and stick policy as well as unnatural, unethical, immoral, discriminatory and alien policy to get oil to the hilt. Hence, the United States always is hell bent on framing its policy to put itself into an egregious colonialism outlook which will be detrimental to world peace and security and humanity as well. As and when the United States does something inhuman, obnoxious and wretched activity to pursue her Pax Americana policy, she has to chase away the consequent reactions by projecting herself as a victim of global terrorism in the aftermath of any event, whether the event could be war or regime change or hideous clandestine activity and so on. In fact, this type of policy becomes adverse bolt from the blue for world peace. One of my American friends told me a very surprising fact that we have been a country for 239 years and we have been at war for 213 years. And further, he said that the United States has been responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people in 37 nations since the end of world war two. The need to enhance national prestige in all over the world also inspire, America to wage war and impose the process of the self-own brand of western democracy and neo-colonialism in victim countries. Today the prestige of a nation is measured in terms of power, war warrior, and money and so on. The Iraq war, the war on terror and on-going war in the Middle East are the reflections of the same. Therefore, it is said that oil and politics are interconnected and entwined with each other which was responsible for changes in the political equations in many countries. And from the very beginning of oil, it has brought tribulations in the world as well as invited superpower armed and military interventions, shifting of geopolitics realignments, militarization, foreign debt, power confrontations, policies of state and demands of non-state actors, exploiting strategic confusions, geoeconomics and geopolitics confrontations, clandestine warfare, complex and multifarious interventions and power struggle within the respective countries, which has in turn created local, regional and global power game. Ipso facto, the World has been witnessing and seeing a number of conflicts in the Middle East because of the fact that the Middle East is the geographic “center of gravity” of the world oil industry. Which is why, the doctrine of the war on terror is primarily focused in west Asia due to the abundance of oil in this region.

Oil is a critical ingredient of energy:

Energy is sine qua non for progress and development of a country; therefore, it is placed in the larger milieu of development. It will continue to play a decisive role in international politics, diplomacy and international relation. Moreover, it has been designed and redesigned to pave the way for ushering in a new world oil order. So, it became a prominent feature of global economy and diplomacy. Energy is the essential ingredient of the socio-economic and technological development of the nation-state. Because of the fact that it affects virtually all aspects of huma life and tremendously contribute to economic, social as well as political development and the well-being of people as well. Most crucially, it is at the nexus of national security and economic prosperity which plays a pivotal role in expounding international relations, petro-diplomacy and geoeconomics in unequivocal terms globally. It is one of the substantial inputs for the industrial growth and sustenance of human lives. Energy diplomacy and economic diplomacy are also essential features of energy which have become the centre of gravity in the geo-economics theatre, and a state deploys it at the cost of fragile national security threat. And additionally, energy diplomacy and economic diplomacy are amalgamated with oil politics.

Oil is considered to be a boon, a gift of nature which has capable of transforming the shape of the entire region, but at the same time, it must be emphasised that it does not guarantee the prosperity, peace and stability of the region. Oil has been very instrumental in shaping the internal power struggle in the world especially the Arab world. It has created political instability and chaos and brought about a regime change situations as well as a chaotic ideologically oriented non-state violent actors who push entire region into the Stone Age. This has been only creating havoc and ethnic exterminating in the Arab world. That is why, it is commented that oil was considered to be a boon turned into a bane in the entire Arab world that only brought tribulations not effluences in the region , in fact it has been onerous and catastrophic for the region.

By : MD IRSHAD AYUB

 https://www.facebook.com/mdirshad.ayub

Syria’s Sad Predicament | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Syria’s Sad Predicament | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

As one contemplates the ever worsening state of Syria, a few thoughts dominate. One, though Russia, the former superpower and the United States, the superpower in decline, appear to be at loggerheads, there seems to be a sinister but unacknowledged unity of purpose that brings them together; the net result of their policies has been the destruction of Syria where the death toll has reached 500,000 over five years, working out to more than 11 an hour.

Second, the quarrel over Basher al Assad’s continuing in power reminds one of Pierre Goubert’s seminal book Louis XIV and 20 million Frenchmen published in 1992. In contrast to conventional accounts, Goubert tells us a lot about the 20 million French rather than concentrate exclusively on their king. The question as applied to Syria is this: Is it a matter of such transcendental importance to keep Assad in power or remove him even at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Syrians and the displacement of half of the country’s total population of 22 million?

The third thought is the culpable inability of Russia and the United States to come to a common understanding to put an end to the carnage and move Syria towards peace and normality so that Syrians can choose a government in a democratic fashion. Russia and the United States have so much mutual distrust that they are unable to sit down and discuss differences in a rational and civil manner.

Instead of resorting to the diplomatic practice of private talks, the United States, frustrated over what it sees as Russia’s unreliability as a partner, has started the dangerous practice of publicly attacking Russia. On 3 October, Washington announced the suspension of talks with Russia over Syria. Anticipating the announcement from Washington, Moscow announced that it was ending the agreement entered into in 2000 that required each side to dispose off 34 tons of plutonium originally meant for making weapons. While the agreement on plutonium is not the core of the post-Cold War strategic understanding between Moscow and Washington, even their disagreements over Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in March 2014 did not affect it. Here is a troubling instance of a clash over Syria affecting other matters.

On 7 October, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Russian and Syrian military strikes against civilians and medical facilities in Aleppo should be investigated as war crimes. Kerry is right, as attacks against hospitals and other civilian facilities are forbidden under international law. It is known that Russia has been using bunker-busting, cluster, and thermobaric bombs in Syria. It has repeatedly used bunker-busting bombs on hospitals. Thermobaric bombs, according to US experts, can send a devastating blast of pressure and extreme heat that incinerates those caught in the blast and sucks oxygen from the lungs of human beings in the vicinity.

Paris and London echoed Kerry’s call for a probe. Germany has not until now. However, there is hardly any chance of the matter being taken up at the International Criminal Court as Russia and possibly China too might use their veto powers in the UN Security Council. For, it is only the Security Council that can ask the Court to start an investigation. Obviously, the real intention is to sully Russia’s image and make it look a pariah. Already, after President Hollande expressed reservations about meeting President Putin during a scheduled visit to Paris, the latter has called off his visit. U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has warned Russia that, if it continues with bombing Aleppo, it risks becoming a pariah state. He even called for public demonstrations in front of the Russian Embassy, a call that has been dismissed by many. They have pointed out that by making such a call he is endangering the safety of the UK embassy in Moscow.

The West made an unsuccessful attempt at the Security Council to halt the bombing in Aleppo. France and Spain moved a resolution calling for such a halt when the Council met on 9 October, with Russia in the chair. The draft asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to propose options for a UN-supervised monitoring of a truce and refers to “further measures” in the event of non-compliance by “any party to the Syrian domestic conflict.” Russia used its veto and the resolution was rejected. To complicate matters, Russia moved a resolution that called for a cease-fire and the implementation of the failed cease-fire agreement. The resolution called on the rebels in Syria to separate themselves from UN-designated terrorists, a prime objective of Russia when it agreed to the cease-fire.

Egypt voted for both the resolutions despite their differing import. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have expressed their displeasure. The latest is that Saudi Arabia’s Aramco did not send the monthly shipment of 700,000 tonnes of crude at the agreed concessional rate and Egypt had to float tenders for crude worth USD 500 million. This is an example how Syria-related issues affect bilateral relations. Of course, the vote was only the last straw as the two countries have had differences over other matters as well.

Putin was in Istanbul on 10 October and Turkey-Russia relations are warming up at a time when the West wants to treat Putin as a pariah. What is intriguing is that Turkey has recently occupied 900 sq.km. of Syrian territory as part of its Operation Euphrates Shield and intends to occupy as much as 5,000 sq.km in due course. It is not known whether Putin took up this matter with Erdogan. Is this a clear indication that Moscow does not share Assad’s plan to recover ‘every inch of territory’?

That Kerry was too much in a hurry to suspend talks with Russia became clear with the latest announcement of talks in Lausanne (Switzerland) on 15 October. Fortunately, apart from the US and Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will also be there. This is a better format as Kerry was in a disadvantageous position in his talks with Lavrov when he represented a deeply divided Administration and did not enjoy full backing from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Iran’s presence at the same table with Saudi Arabia too is a change for the better.

While dealing with the broken cease-fire agreement, it is important to bear in mind that it is a partial cease-fire as it did not apply to the UN-designated ‘terrorists’ who (Islamic State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, a variation of Al Qaeda) control vast territory and population. In other words, even if the Lausanne meeting revives the cease-fire the carnage will continue.

There is need for fresh thinking to put an end to the senseless carnage in Syria. Will Obama’s successor in the White House provide it? Until then, how many more human lives will be lost? By the time the new US President enters office, would eastern Aleppo have fallen, creating an atrocious humanitarian tragedy?

PERSONAL MATTERS VIS-A-VIS FEMINISM

                          PERSONAL MATTERS VIS-A-VIS FEMINISM 
By : Md Irshad Ayub

It is a fact that no argument is strong enough to separate the issue of marriage from religion. And when marriage and divorce are matters of religion, according to Article 25 of the Constitution, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate their religion. Neither Parliament nor any other institution enjoys the right to snatch or abolish this established right from any group against its will. According to this clause, the enactment of such a law (i.e,Uniform civil code) would be akin to interference in religious matters.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, of which India too is a member. Article 18 of this declaration guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,worship and observance. It enunciates that the interference in religious matters against their will could jeopardize fundamental rights of people.
Religious liberty, therefore, becomes the right of every Indian citizen, a right which in no circumstances can be abrogated or taken away. Marriage and Divorce are obviously and definitely an ethical subject which is concerning with personal matters of religion. which is why, these matters are necessarily an integral part of religion. It is correct to say that the logical arguments and coherent narratives are being made and propagated by All India Muslim Personal Law Board is out and out genuine which is also moral, human and ethics in nature and character.
The people like Sadia Dehlvi, Zakia soman and so on , actually on the one hand, they are belonged to Western, Secular, Liberal, Feminist Brigade, but on the other, disguise their close connection with extremist and right wing group like RSS. They are, in fact, inhuman, anti-woman, bigot, man-hater, immoral, unethical, stubborn as well as anti-religious tolerance in their character, nature and outlook as well. They are deliberately trying to destroy family system and Religion-based practices to establish secret agenda of the greatest deception which is expansionist, unfeeling, insensible, exploitative, discriminatory, alien, anti-people, anti-liberal and progressive, anti- democracy, anti-freedom in nature and outlook. They never talk about a large number of brothels spreading the length and breadth of India. As a result of these, thousands number of women have been suffering immensely by physically, sexually, and assaulting in private part of her body. They have been depriving in matters of human rights, family and children.
#Think
-Md Irshad Ayub

It Is Time for the United Nations to Act on Kashmir

                                  It Is Time for the United Nations to Act on Kashmir

By: BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

In the territory of Kashmir, disputed between India and Pakistan, members of a militant organisation called Hizb-ul Mujahideen wage a campaign of violence against what they regard as Indian occupation of their region which is known by India as the State of Jammu and Kashmir and internationally as Indian-administered Kashmir. In early July a popular 22-year old member of the organisation, Burhan Muzaffar Wani, was killed by Indian security forces. A highly intelligent young man, he joined the HuM at the age of 15 after his younger brother was beaten up by para-military soldiers, and became well known for his use of social media to encourage other young people to join the fight against India.

The Indian Express newspaper reported that the authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir trace the growth of such as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen back to 2010 when after «young boys in Kashmir pelted stones at the Army, expressing rage over an alleged fake encounter that had killed three young men, the Army responded with bullets, killing over 110 youths. Since then, says a Senior Superintendent of Police, ‘the first signs of local boys joining the militant ranks began showing up’».

There were massive protests about the killing of Burhan Wani, and the BBC reported that in the three days following his death, «Police in Indian-administered Kashmir say at least 30 people have been killed in clashes between protesters and security forces». The situation went from bad to terrible, and the civilian death toll is now over 80. Crowd control measures by the army and other security forces included the firing of pellets which blinded scores of people. As the New York Times reported of one such incident, «The patient’s eyelids have been stretched back with a metal clamp, so his eyeball bulges out of glistening pink tissue. The surgeon sits with his back very straight, cutting with tiny movements of his fingers. Every now and then, a thread of blood appears in the patient’s eye socket. The patient is 8 years old».

There is little wonder that the insurgency in Kashmir has intensified.

In June I attended a reunion of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in which I served as deputy head in 1980-82. It was a well-attended gathering in Sweden of the Blue Berets of Kashmir, and of course we talked of the violence in the disputed territory which we had grown to like so much. In our days of service on both sides of the Line of Control between the two regions of Kashmir the people were welcoming and hospitable and we could travel without fear of harm — but on the Indian side we were forbidden to visit the areas in which we were supposed to conduct ‘field tasks’ in order to help in maintenance of peace. As the UN states «The military authorities of Pakistan have continued to lodge complaints with UNMOGIP about ceasefire violations. The military authorities of India have lodged no complaints since January 1972 and have restricted the activities of the UN observers on the Indian side of the Line of Control».

If the UN mission was permitted to operate properly, it would be able to «observe and report» — as laid down by its terms of reference — on exactly what is happening. It would be able to report, independently and objectively, to UN HQ on who began cross-Line firing, for example. But the Indian government does not want the United Nations to be involved in Kashmir, in spite of the fact that there was — and remains — a Security Council resolution mandating that the «the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State». India has never asked the UN Security Council to cancel that resolution.

An equally undeniable UN resolution of 1948 states that «The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan». And the world is still waiting.

The feeling at annual gatherings of the Blue Berets of Kashmir is of deep regret that the disagreement between the countries, lasting from 1947 and caused largely by the maladroit intrigues of the British Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, has not been solved. We consider that both countries have cases to put, and that there couldn’t be a better body to whom to present their arguments than the United Nations. And our opinion has been given substance by, for example, the most welcome international arbitration decision over a dispute between India and Bangladesh concerning their maritime boundary.

The UN’s Court of Arbitration in The Hague stated that «On 7 July 2014, the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea rendered its Award [which] establishes the course of the maritime boundary line between Bangladesh and India in the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles». As recorded by the Wall Street Journal, «A United Nations court drew a new maritime border in the Bay of Bengal, awarding more than three-quarters of a disputed area to Bangladesh and opening the way for more energy exploration in the sea. The ruling... settled a long-running territorial dispute between Bangladesh and neighbouring India. Both countries said they would abide by the decision». End of message. There was a dispute between two countries who put their cases to the UN and accepted the mediation decision. Arbitration won. But the biggest winner was the cause of peace.

Although India welcomed the UN judgement about its maritime dispute with Bangladesh it refuses to acknowledge that a UN decision about its territorial dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir could be equally acceptable. Why?

After all, India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sent a telegram to his counterpart in Pakistan on 4 November 1947 declaring that «I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to the people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like the United Nations supervising any referendum».

But India has for many years rejected impartiality concerning Kashmir. And the present government of the Bharatiya Janata Party continues the policies of its predecessors as regards the territory.

On September 30, as reported by Radio Free Europe, «UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offered to act as a mediator between India and Pakistan to defuse escalating tensions over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir», following a terrorist attack on an Indian camp in the territory that killed 19 soldiers and resulted in massive artillery shelling and small arms firing across the Line of Control by Indian forces. (Contrary to Indian statements on subsequent developments, there were no «surgical strikes» conducted by Indian forces across the Line of Control.)

But India rejects proposals for talks of any sort. As the New Indian Express stated on September 14, «Despite India’s diplomatic counter-manoeuvring, Pakistan is succeeding in «internationalising» the Kashmir conflict as the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday sought access to the Valley — a demand that was turned down by New Delhi. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said he was awaiting from India a reply to his request seeking access to both sides of the Line of Control. Rejecting the demand, the Ministry of External Affairs said the question of an external mission was considered by the all-party conference on August 12. «It was unanimously felt that the Indian democracy has all that is required to address legitimate grievances,» the ministry said».

India’s last external affairs minister, Salman Khurshid, was adamant about rejecting mediation over Kashmir and stated that «We did hear some statements about giving access to third parties in this affair. I think we have moved away from that... we reiterate our position that these are bilateral issues and they should be settled bilaterally».

No matter what may be claimed, Kashmir is not a bilateral issue, because the dispute remains on the books of the United Nations. India has tried for many years to convince the world that the 1972 India-Pakistan Simla Accord following the Bangladesh war of 1971 in some way invalidates UN Security Council resolutions regarding Kashmir. But the first paragraph of the Simla agreement is «that the Principles and Purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries».

Then it states that «the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them» [emphasis added]. It is obvious that, contrary to Indian claims, there is no legal exclusion of the UN or any third party from mediation over Kashmir, given the agreement to include «any other means» towards settlement — such as that employed to settle the India-Bangladesh dispute.

It is time for maturity about the future of Kashmir. Far too much blood has been shed and far too much bitterness created. The solution is for the UN Security Council to appoint a mediation commission to analyse the problem and decide upon a binding solution. In the meantime the UN Mission in India and Pakistan, UNMOGIP, should be empowered by the Security Council to carry out its duties, which would result in cessation of cross-Line firing, thereby reducing tension — and saving lives.

Then there would be peace. How annoying that would be for the extremists on both sides.

Uniform Civil Code unacceptable to the Muslim community

Muslims are bound to follow Sharia in their religious matters

Joint Press Conference By Aimplb and Muslim Organisations

Press Note

The All India Muslim Personal Law board along with all prominent Muslim organizations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Jamaat e Islami Hind, Muslim Majlis e Mushawarat, Milli Council, Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees plus the schools of thought like Deobnad, Barelvi, Ahle Hadith, Shia etc reject the questionnaire prepared by the Law commission. It is also explicitly expressed that this is unacceptable to the Muslim community and make honest appeal to the community to boycott and not to respond to the questionnaire of the Law Commission.

The fact is that the questionnaire points to the ulterior intentions of the commission and is an attempt to nullify the Muslims personal Law. The question is framed so as to confuse the respondents. By referring to article 44 of the constitution, an attempt is made to give a constitutional position to Uniform Civil code. This is false and deceit as the clause is Directive Principle which is not bound to be implemented.

So far as the constitution is concerned basic importance is for the fundamental rights. As per article 25 of the fundamental rights, each and every individual has the right to follow, practice and propagate the religion of his/her choice.

Revered courts have time and again upheld this fact that fundamental rights are supreme. If the central government is serious in implementing the directive principles, then it should implement such articles of the Directive Principles that are directly connected with the well being and welfare of the people like total prohibition, universal education for all children, provision of health facilities to all, toilets in all households etc.

Nobody disputes with this provisions which are essential for the nation for progress and development. It is a false illusion that uniform civil code will bring national integration. Many wars have taken place between two sections which followed same religion and same personal laws. Imposing uniform civil code will invite disunity and disintegration instead of integration.

It will create a sense of deprivation in the minds of minorities which will be detrimental to the nation. People of the country following diverse faiths – Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Dalits, Adivasis etc jointly fought the freedom and liberated the nation from the clutches of the British. In spite of variations in personal laws all these group fought with signal mind and shoulder to shoulder.

In demographic point of view, the United States is a small country compared to India, but there, the personal law of each State is different. Giving consideration to the aspirations and satisfactions of the people give unity and strength to that nation. The Indian constitution is also framed on the foundation of unity in diversity. People following different faiths and beliefs take part in the social life following their religious beliefs independently and keeping this diversity and differences they work together for the progress and security of the country as a joint nation and society. India is a nation of different religions, cultures and dialects. We have many tribal groups who are brought to the mainstream with whom agreements and assurances were made that no interference will be made in their cultural identity and it

will be safe. So such steps for forcible uniform civil practice will be a threat to the security of the nation itself.

 India is nation of diverse cultures and different religions. Personal laws of all these groups are derived from their religious texts or scriptures and it has unique relevance in their cultural identity. Therefore any kind of interference in this is not only a violation of religious freedom enshrined in the constitution but will put an end to their unique cultural identity. The questionnaire of the Law Commission is vague and confusing. It gives an impression that the Personal laws are responsible for social inequalities and gender disparities and have nullified the rights of women. 

The questionnaire reveals in Toto the intension of the commission. Some of the questions point to the fact that it has been framed to target a particular religious group and their personal law. Intention of the affidavit by the central government relating to the issues of triple talaq, polygamy, maintenance of divorcees etc or the questionnaire of the Law Commission, both are aimed at clearing the way for Uniform Civil Code. This is nothing but a calculated effort to disrupt the communal harmony and social fabric by raising controversial issue when the country as a whole is facing so many serious and important problems. We appeal to all peace and justice loving people of the country to oppose this move. It seems that the government wants to divert the attention of the people from the serious issues which it failed to contain and control miserably. We also appeal to all secular parties of the country to oppose the move of the central government so that it will be forced to withdraw from this endeavour. The Personal Law Board wants to make it clear to the central government as well the Law Commission that the personal law is the voice of the entire Muslim community and that they will not bear any kind of interference in the personal law and that all the Muslim organizations and schools of thought are strongly behind the Personal Law Board. The decision to boycott the Law Commission has taken jointly, unitedly and after due deliberations and discussions. The Board wants to convince the community that it is following the cases filed against the Muslim personal law with full preparations and have made a panel of legal experts and are utilizing senior legal luminaries and have filed sound submission from both Sharia and legal perspectives. The Board strongly sticks to its position that a change of even an alphabet in the Sharia is not admissible and acceptable. These are derived from the Quran and Hadith and are in unison with the needs and aspirations of human beings. We are of the strong conviction that if the court goes through the submissions filed by the Personal Law Board, then the decision will be in its favour. The Board also appeals to the community to make its voice louder and stronger with their full support and respond positively to the calls that will be made by the Board. Maulana Mohammad Wali Rahmani General Secretary, All India Personal Law Board, Maulana Syed Arshad Madani, President, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Mohammad Jafar, Ex Vice President, Jamaat e Islami Hind Maulana Asghar imam Mehdi Salafi, Generla Secretary, Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees Maulana Mahmood Madani, General Secretary Jamiat Ulema Hind Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, President, Ettehad - e – Millat Council Dr. M. Manzoor Alam, General Secreyary, All India Milli Council, Naved Hamid, President, All India Muslim Majlis e Mushawarat Abul Qasim Nomani , Rector, Darul Uloom Deoband, Maulana Muhsin Taqvi, Imam , Shia Jama Masjid Kashmeeri Gate