DITHERING OVER IMPLEMENTATION OF CHT TREATY REGRETTABLE

IT IS regrettable that the Chittagong Hill Tracts peace treaty has not yet been completely implemented although 12 years have passed since the previous Awami League government signed the agreement with the Parbatya Chhatagram Jana Sanghati Samiti, the political umbrella of the now-defunct Shanti Bahini on December 2, 1997. The treaty not only heralded the end to 22 years of guerrilla warfare but also marked, for the first time, the state’s theoretical recognition of the conflict of interest between the majority Bengalis and the minority ethnic communities and thus gave rise to the possibility of natural peace in the war-ravaged hill tracts. Subsequently, however, a combination of political opportunism of the AL government and political chauvinism of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance government has stalled the process of its implementation. Indeed, the treaty has its own drawback. At least two of its provisions, both related to voter registration, are untenable and run counter to the constitution and the spirit of democracy. While a separate voter roll for the hill tracts is in direct contravention with the constitution, the suggestion that land ownership is a necessary precondition for registration as voters is completely unacceptable in a democratic polity, which does not discriminate between the landed and the landless with regard to their right to exercise their adult franchise. Yet, in spite of such drawbacks, the treaty offers a realistic chance to establish sustainable peace and harmony in the hill tracts. Even the United People’s Democratic Front, which has thus far opposed the treaty and marked December 2 as a ‘black day’, now believes ‘restoration of peace in the hills is possible through full implementation of the hills.’ Overall, these are auspicious times to let the seed of peace, so to speak, bloom in the hill tracts. However, to this end, the ruling class belonging to both sides of the political divide has a crucial decision to make. They have to decide whether they want to see Bangladesh as a nation-state shaped up by Bengali nationalism alone or recognise that the country is home to not only the Bengalis but also people of different ethnicities who have their own aspirations – political, economic, social and cultural. Global experience and our recent history teach us that deprivation and suppression of any ethnic group ultimately results in adverse impact on a state’s territorial integrity. The ruling class need also to realise that the nationalistic chauvinism of the majority Bengalis, may have, in the first place, stirred resentment in the minority ethnic communities and prompted them to resort to violent actions prior to the signing of the peace treaty. If the minority ethnic communities continue to feel deprived of their rights as a citizen of the people’s republic, the simmering discontent in the hills might once again erupt into a sustained conflict with grave ramifications for the territorial integrity of the state. Moreover, if such a conflict were to emerge, foreign powers would be only too happy to fish in the muddy waters, just as a neighbouring country did during the guerrilla wars in the hills for more than two decades. The prime minister’s assertion that her government is determined to implement the CHT treaty is indeed welcome. However, the people in general and the ethnic communities of the hill tracts in particular have had enough of assurances and reassurances; they want action commensurate with such promises. The people also expect the opposition camp led by the BNP to extend the government a helping hand and not become a barrier to implementation of the peace treaty merely for partisan mileage.

Source: New Age, December 3, 2009

EDITORIAL

Wars against ideas always fail

Wars against ideas always fail
By Paul Woodward, War in Context, January 5, 2009

Israel will lose its war against Hamas.
How do I know?
Because Hamas is a movement which even if it has highly destructible physical nodes is nevertheless tied together within a missile-proof conceptual space. The only things that bombs and bullets can destroy are human lives and property. That?s why the Israeli-American claim that this war is being fought against Hamas and not the people of Gaza is a shallow lie ? it is plainly evident that Gaza itself is under attack. The so-called ?terrorist infrastructure? also happens to be a governmental infrastructure. The effort to topple Hamas (an effort that the Israeli government in its duplicity and double-talk continues to deny it is making ? witness Shimon Peres claiming that Israel does not want to crush Hamas, merely teach it a lesson) is in serious jeopardy of making Gaza completely ungovernable. Once this is over, will the residents of Sderot be able to slumber peacefully knowing that they live on the doorstep of anarchy? And when Hamas has finished counting its dead, will those in its ranks who until recently were voices of pragmatism, favoring political engagement, be capable of or even willing to try and make themselves heard? Israel?s drive to annihilate its enemies is borne out of a seemingly irrepressible arrogance. Yet ultimately nothing gets destroyed ? it merely goes through a process of transformation. The question Israelis should now be asking themselves is this: What are we helping Hamas become? Israel demands that Hamas recognize the Jewish state?s right to exist. It is a farcical demand. Someone has you pinned to the ground, is pressing the barrel of a gun against your head and says to you: ?I?ll talk to you, but only if you recognize my right to exist.? At this moment, who is challenging whose right to exist? Israel presents an existential threat to Hamas ? not the other way around. It?s plain for the world to see. However, the difference between Israel and Hamas is that Hamas does not fear its annihilation. That has nothing to do with glorifying ?martyrdom?; it?s because the movement is much more durable than its constituent parts.

Statement by Israeli Women’s Organizations – Yvonne Deutsch and Gila Svirsky

Dear sisters and friends
The women’s peace movement as well as the left in Israel is protesting
the war each and everyday since it began. They do not get enough media
coverage.
At the same time women’s organizations came together to protest war as
a legitimate means of solving conflicts. I am sending you the message
they agreed upon.
On Friday we are going to have a women’s demonstration opposing the war.

Happy new year. May we see the abolishment of wars and destruction.
May we see transformation to human leaderships and societies that
respect human life and seeks to nourish life and prosperity for all.
love and peace
yvonne

From: gila svirsky
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:50 PM

We women’s peace organizations from a broad spectrum of political
views demand an end to the bombing and other tools of death, and call
for the immediate start of deliberations to talk peace and not make
war. The dance of death and destruction must come to an end. We demand
that war no longer be an option, nor violence a strategy, nor killing
an alternative. The society we want is one in which every individual
can lead a life of security – personal, economic, and social.

It is clear that the highest price is paid by women and others from
the periphery – geographic, economic, ethnic, social, and cultural –
who now, as always, are excluded from the public eye and dominant
discourse.

The time for women is now. We demand that words and actions be
conducted in another language.

Ahoti: For Women in Israel
Anuar: Jewish and Arab Women Leadership
Artemis: Economic Society for Women
Bat Shalom
Coalition of Women for Peace
Economic Empowerment for Women
Feminancy: College for Women’s Empowerment
Feminist Activist Group – Jerusalem
Feminist Activist Group – Tel Aviv
International Women’s Commission: Israeli Branch
Isha L’Isha: Haifa Feminist Center
Itach: Women Lawyers for Social Justice
Kol Ha-Isha: Jerusalem Women’s Center
Mahut Center: Information, Training, and Employment for Women
Shin Movement: Equal Representation for Women
Supportive Community: Women’s Business Development Center
Tmura: The Israeli Antidiscrimination Legal Center
University against Harassment – Tel Aviv
Women and their Bodies
Women’s Parliament
Women’s Spirit: Financial Independence for Women Victims of Violence

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan: Critique of Lashkar’s Radical Islamism

yogi sikand ysikand@yahoo.com
Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:04 am (PST)

Pakistan-based radical Islamist groups such as the Lashkar-e Tayyeba and the Jaish-e Mohammad often refer to a saying (hadith) attributed to the Prophet Muhammad in which, so they claim, the Prophet is said to have prophesied a battle against India (ghazwat ul-hind) fought by a group of Muslims who would be saved from the fires of hell. This alleged hadith is routinely used by these groups
as a major tool for recruitment and to justify war against India, which they describe as a jihad, promising their fighters that this would guarantee them a place in heaven.

In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, the noted Delhi-based Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan critiques what he regards as the gross misinterpretation
of this hadith report, and also reflects on radical Islamism in Pakistan, which he regards as a total deviation from the Islamic tradition.

Q: What do you feel about this so-called hadith report about the ghazwat ul-hind which radical Islamist groups based in Pakistan like the Lashkar routinely use to justify
their terror attacks on India?

A: There are many books of Hadith, and this report is contained in just one of them—in the collection by
Imam al-Nasai. According to this report, the Prophet is claimed to have declared that God has saved two groups from among his followers from the fires of hell. The first group would consist of those who participate in the ghazwat ul-hind and the second would be those who would be with Jesus at the time of his Second Coming.
Groups like the Lashkar deliberately twist the term ghazwat
ul-hind to give it a wrong meaning, claiming that it means a violent war to be waged against India by some Muslims. They translate the word ghazwa to mean a physical war. Actually, the original and literal meaning of the word
simply is ‘to move or to shift from one place to another’. In the later period of Muslim history, however, the term came to be used synonymously with violent war, or what is also known as qital in Arabic. This is how the term ghazwat
ul-hind is misinterpreted by groups such as the Lashkar.
I do not agree with this interpretation at all. The word ghazwa can be interpreted to simply mean a campaign with a mission, without necessarily connoting any form of violence at all. I interpret the term to mean a peaceful missionary campaign or what is called dawah in Arabic. The early books of sirah or biographies of the Prophet describe more than 80 what they call ghazwas, and of these only three involved actual fighting or war—the ghazwas
of Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. The rest were intended to be peaceful missionary tours or campaigns consisting of delegations of Muslims, sometimes led by the Prophet, to various non-Muslim tribes. In some cases, these missionaries were
attacked by their opponents and there were minor skirmishes when Muslims had to
resort to self-defence, but in many cases this did not happen at all. All these
are also termed as ghazwas in the
early biographies of the Prophet.

So, I would interpret the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind to mean that a group of Muslims would engage in
peaceful missionary work in India,
bringing the message of monotheism to this country. In my view, it is certainly
not the violent hate-driven war that groups like the Lashkar say it is.

This hadith has also to be considered along with another hadith ,which, quite predictably, groups
like the Lashkar conveniently never quote, in which the Prophet is said to have
declared that he felt ‘cool breeze of knowledge coming from the land of India’
(ajedo rih al-ilm min bilad al-hind).
This can be interpreted to mean that the Prophet believed that one day India
would become a great source of spiritual knowledge.

If this hadith is seen in conjunction with the hadith about the ghazwat
ul-hind, it can be interpreted to mean that a group of Muslims would engage
in peaceful missionary work in India,
after which spiritual knowledge would spread out from India
to other lands. This would be the absolute opposite of the explanation of the ghazwat ul-hind that radical groups like
the Lashklar proffer.

Q: But is this your own personal interpretation or is this something
that most Islamic scholars also agree with?

A: There is no consensus among
the ulema or Islamic scholars on the
veracity of this hadith. Generally,
those hadith reports that have
multiple chains of narrators (or what are called khabar-e mutawatir) are considered by the ulema to be sound, and those that have just one narrator (khabar-e wahid) are often seen as weak (zaif), suspect or dubious, and sometimes
even completely fabricated (mauzu).
It is crucial to note that this narration about the ghazwat ul-hind has just one narrator. And its veracity or
otherwise must further be sought to be gauged by taking into account the fact
that besides Imam al-Nasai’s collection, no other collection of Hadith reports
contains this narration.

Q: Perhaps that might mean that this narration is fabricated, as is the
case with literally hundreds of other so-called hadith reports. Might it not
have been concocted and falsely attributed to the Prophet after his demise? I
mean, if the Prophet really said all this about the ghazwat ul-hind, how is it
that it is narrated only by a single reporter, and that too it is mentioned in
just one collection of Hadith? Surely such a crucial thing, if it were genuine,
should have had more narrators and should also have been mentioned in the other
Hadith collections? What, then, do you have to say about the status of this
alleged hadith? Do you think it is genuine? Or is it fabricated?

A: There are varying opinions
among Muslim scholars about the reliability or otherwise of various hadith reports, and even about the very corpus
of Hadith. Some scholars reject the entire corpus of Hadith as unreliable and
insist that the only source of guidance should be the Quran. The majority of
the ulema, however, consider the
corpus of Hadith to also be a source of guidance, but at the same time many of
them point out that several hadith
reports, including some that are found in what the Sunnis regard as
authoritative collections (sihah sitta),
such as that by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim, are weak, unreliable or
fabricated.

I don’t want to get into the
question of whether or not this saying about ghazwat ul-hind is true or fabricated, because obviously different
Muslim ideologues have different opinions. My point is that this hadith must be interpreted in the manner
that I have done above, because that is precisely what I believe is in
accordance with the teachings of the Quran. A generally accepted principle
among the ulema is that if a hadith report or its interpretation goes
against the Quran it must be rejected. And since the Lashkar’s interpretation
of the hadith about the ghawzat ul-hind is a complete violation
of the Quran and what it teaches about how people of other faiths should be
related to, this interpretation must be rejected outright.

Q: What does the Quran say about this issue?

A: The Quran specifically
mentions that there is to be no compulsion in religious matters. It says that
Muslims must seek to convey God’s message to others through love and in a
peaceful manner, not through force. And even if others choose not to accept
this message they should be left in peace. Unfortunately, some radical,
misguided so-called Islamic groups wrongly claim that Muslims must offer non-Muslims
either Islam or death. This is completely absurd.

Unlike what groups like the
Lashkar wrongly argue, there is no room for offensive war in Islam. It allows only
for war in self-defence, and that too only in cases of clear aggression and after
all methods of peaceful negotiation have been tried and have failed. This is
yet another reason why I firmly believe that the Lashkar’s interpretation of
the narration about the ghazwat ul-hind
is absolutely wrong.

Another fact that must be noted
in this regard is that there is a consensus among the ulema that declaring war is the prerogative of only an established
state, or, as it is expressed in Arabic, ar-rahil
li al-imam. This means that in Islam all other forms of war are
illegitimate or haram, including
terrorism and proxy war such as that which groups like the Lashkar are engaged
in.

Q: What do you feel about the so-called Islamic credentials of groups
such as the Lashkar?

A: They are just a bunch of
rabble-rousers. There are no reliable ulema
among them. Their claims to speak on behalf of Islam are absolutely untenable.

Q: How, then, do you think groups like the Lashkar can be countered?

A: Self-styled Islamist groups
represent a certain ideology and so obviously to counter them we need a
counter-ideology. We have to present and propagate the true Islamic ideology to
defeat these groups who are misinterpreting Islam for their own nefarious
purposes. A simple military solution cannot suffice. In places like Assam
or Sri Lanka,
ongoing violent movements are mainly about politics, power or land, and hence
can be solved by addressing these issues. But radical Islamist movements are,
to a great extent, motivated by purely ideological, as opposed to simply
material, concerns. This means that a powerful counter-ideology has to be
devised to defeat them. They cannot be defeated simply by bombing their
training camps.

Q: You regard groups like the Lashkar as sharply deviating from what
you see as true Islam. How is it that such groups have such a prominent
presence in Pakistan?

A: I have written extensively on
this issue, most particularly in my recent book that deals with India-Pakistan
relations. I would say that hatred and militancy lay at the very basis of the
Pakistan demand, and so, in a sense, what is being witnessed in that country
today is a logical culmination of the hate-driven and utterly baseless ‘two
nation’ theory of the pre-Partition Muslim League.

You also have to understand that
the political interpretation of Islam that groups like the Lashkar propagate is
an illegitimate innovation, or what is called biddah in Arabic, a relatively recent invention, dating back to the
early twentieth century. The two principle inventors of this ideology were the
Egyptian Syed Qutb and the Pakistani ideologue Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of
the Jamaat-e Islami. They were the ones to concoct the theory that Muslims are
like a political party that must constantly struggle, using violence if need
be, to rise up against existing systems and to establish what they called an
Islamic state. They were the ones who first conceived the term and concept of
Islam as a ‘complete ideology’ or ‘complete system’, or nizam-e shamil as it is called in Arabic or nizam-e kamil in Urdu. Before this, these terms were never used by
Islamic scholars. These two ideologues claimed that those Muslims who did not
agree with this theory were not true Muslims at all. That effectively meant
that they considered that the many Muslim scholars and Sufis before them,
starting from the Abbasid period onwards, who did not advocate this sort of
radicalism, had departed from what they imagined was the true Islam. From this
you can see what a major deviation in Islamic thought Islamist ideologues like
Maududi and Qutb, and present-day groups like the Lashkar, actually represent.

Cyclone Nisha’s Tsunami or Kosi Like Destruction in Chennai,

“Ravinder Singh” progressindia008@yahoo.com progressindia008
Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:05 am (PST)

When press in India was holed up around Taj, Oberoi & Trient hotels cyclone Nisha was demolishing homes and flooding farms and streets, destroying bridges and roads but there was no press coverage except in south India.

“6,700 km of road had been damaged, 328 lakes breached, 687 bridges collapsed and 402 government buildings damaged in the rains.”

“Over 39.4 lakh people were affected and 26.45 lakh people had to be evacuated. The government has put the death toll at 186. A total of 3,942 heads of cattle perished in the floods and crops raised over 6.2 lakh hectares went under water. More than 5.7 lakh huts were destroyed and 4.88 lakh partially damaged.”

What is the credibility of Indian Press?

Ravinder Singh
Devember26, 2008

http://www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyid=392315

Cyclone Nisha toll 120 in Tamil Nadu
Press Trust of India Posted online:
Nov 30, 2008 at 0155 hrs

Chennai: The toll in the heavy rains caused by cyclone Nisha over the last four days in Tamil Nadu rose to 120 even as the state experienced some respite from the downpour on Saturday, official sources said.

The excessive rainfall had also claimed the lives of 450 cattle besides damaging 50,890 houses, CM M Karunanidhi said in a statement. He said those whose houses were partly or fully damaged would be paid Rs 2000 each and given 10 kg of rice. Karunanidhi said approximately 6,700 km of road had been damaged, 328 lakes breached, 687 bridges collapsed and 402 government buildings damaged in the rains.

Standing crops in 5,52,290 hectares were submerged affecting over seven lakh farmers in the state, he said. “Efforts were on to drain rain water, which had submerged standing crops, but it would take some time as lakes and tanks, which had to take in the water, were already full,” official sources said.

As many as 2099 relief centres had been opened, sheltering 10,19,400 persons. As part of immediate relief, the Government had disbursed Rs 2000 each to affected families, the CM said, adding on Friday alone, Rs 75 lakh was given.
The official machinery stepped up relief measures as the rains receded.

However, there was no respite for Chennaites as most parts of the city are still under knee-deep water. In some areas, water had entered houses. Police used rubber boats to evacuate marooned people. The city corporation distributed over one lakh food packets for the people housed in corporation schools and community centres. Elsewhere in the state, state ministers co-ordinated relief work. Public transport is being restored step by step in the city. Suburban train services, which were affected due to rains, have been restored, the sources added.

25th September 2008

Date: 25th September 2008

Location: Jadavpur University Campus, Kolkata

Participants:

Sayak
Sayantani
Pallabi
Amrita
Nirmalyo
Debjani

Passive Observer: Ashani

General Minutes:

1st issue – coordination problem related to press must be addressed. The issue is probably due on Saturday.

2nd issue to be considered only after the distribution of 1st issue.

1st issue

Circulation – One of the main barrier is the resistance from bigger organizations. JU, Xaviers, Presidency, Hindu(?, Hare(?), Medical, Ashutosh — 6 colleges

Number of copies – 500
Cost – Rs. 2

Possible meeting after we get printed copies.

Tuesday Presidency, Shyambazar
Wednesday JU circulation

Sayak Mongol, Brihaspati bunk korbe

Contacts in Xaviers – Nirmalyo and Soumojit – but some more will give back up.

Content – Poetry in newspaper? Other literature?, review?

1. cultural
2. newspaper – sayantani
3. online community – amrita’s responsibility
4. organization based news – sayak sayantani retrieves the news
5. book review

15 news per week from community

(ashutoshe lorte hobe – dujone noi)

baarite tupi poranor training – sayak debe

meyeder fule fule ghurebarabar jonno sayak training debe.

Fleecing What’s Left of the Treasury, by Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/

20080922_fleecing_whats_left_of_america/
Posted on Sep 21, 2008

By Chris Hedges

The lobbyists and corporate lawyers, the heads of financial firms and
the crooks who control Wall Street, all those who spent the last
three decades assuring us that government was part of the problem and
should get out of the way, are now busy looting the U.S. treasury.
They are also working feverishly inside the Democratic and Republican
parties to blunt any effective regulatory reform as they pass on
their distressed assets to us. The process is stunning in its hubris
and mendacity, and two of the most potent enablers of this
unprecedented act of corporate welfare are John McCain and Barack Obama.

The federal government, reeling backward from the meltdown of
financial markets, is now considering taking responsibility for the
bad assets of numerous financial companies. But if that intervention
does not include robust new mechanisms of regulation, accountability
and control we will see nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded
bailout of stockholders and the financial industry.

The rhetoric of the two presidential candidates about the crisis has
been filled with pious outrage about the abuses of Wall Street and
short on actual solutions. John McCain and Barack Obama know, after
all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given
$22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6
million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the
biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services
Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding
meetings with McCain and Obama?s economic advisers. They are working
with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial
industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers. The
Wall Street Journal reported that the Financial Services Roundtable,
made up of the very banks and firms that got us into this mess, has
developed draft legislation. The Roundtable has called a meeting this
week with the chief executives of more than 50 banks, brokerages and
insurers. The three-day meeting includes private, closed-door
sessions on Thursday with Obama economic adviser Ian Soloman and
McCain adviser Ike Brannon. Those hovering around Obama?economists
like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Laura Tyson?
bear as much responsibility for the dismantling of government
regulation as those advising McCain.

If the financial-services industry is able to suck us dry, our
assets, from our homes to our retirement investments, will continue
to tumble. Taxes will go up. Jobs will be lost. The grim economic
indicators will get worse. The dollar, which has already lost about a
third of its value against the euro, will continue to plummet. The
rate of foreclosures, one in every 416 U.S. households in August,
will skyrocket. Consumer spending, the engine of the U.S. economy,
will continue to decline. Industrial production, which has fallen for
three consecutive quarters, will fall further. Unemployment, which
shot up to 6.1 percent in August from 5.7 percent in July, will get
worse. These tremors presage an earthquake.

Ralph Nader, who has spent his adult life battling corporations,
understands more about the rise of the corporate state and the steady
fleecing of American citizens by corporations than anyone else in the
country. The core of his message is that Republicans and Democrats
are hostage to corporate power.

Nader warned in a letter to Congress on July 23 that the federal
government?s bank insurance fund may be insufficient to handle the
developing crisis in the banking industry. The letter was, at the
time, greeted with indifference and ridicule. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-
Ala., at a congressional hearing, mentioned the letter and assured
those present that ?Our banks are well capitalized, our deposit
insurance fund is sound. There?s absolutely no factual basis for
saying that there?s not money there to pay.?

Two months later our federal bank insurance fund, which insures our
bank deposits, is being swiftly emptied. The collapse of a huge
commercial bank, such as Bank of America, which has assumed control
of Merrill Lynch?s losses with no real idea of how extensive these
losses are, could see ordinary depositors wiped out.

Nader warned eight years ago that the Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac) were about to tank like the savings and
loan industry of the 1980s and ?90s. Because his warnings were
ignored, taxpayers today face losing billions of dollars to cover
these bad debts.

Nader, in a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
Christopher Cox in 2006, criticized the exorbitant salaries of
government-sponsored enterprise executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel
Mudd, Robert J. Levin and Timothy Howard. He noted in his letter that
their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer
financial security. A grave moral hazard was created by the
accounting manipulations they sanctioned, Nader said. These
manipulations benefited their personal wealth, yet there was no
penalty for being caught.

Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the
national debt. He demands an end to corporate subsidies and
unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations. And he has called
for aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.

?Given the contrast between the ?free market? ideology of the
Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their
increasing practice, the time is ripe for full congressional hearings
next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that
is shaking the foundations of Wall Street,? Nader said in prepared
remarks delivered to editors at The New York Times? Washington bureau.

Nader has come up with 10 market reforms that he says need to be
implemented immediately along with any bailout. These reforms are:

1. No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of
stock warrants.
2. No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
3. No golden parachutes or get-out-of-jail-free cards for guilty
executives.
4. No bailouts without public hearings.
5. Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by
introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products, as
is done in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance
mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload
them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on
the hook if the homeowner defaults.
6. Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by
passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below-median-value
homeowners facing foreclosure the right to ?rent to own? their homes
at fair market value rates.
7. Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government
guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than
15 to 20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
8. Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position, so it is
accountable to Congress, as well as make sure all Federal Reserve
Bank presidents are appointed by the president and answerable to
Congress.
9. Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor
and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the
hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
10. Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with
derivatives, to deter casino-style capitalism.

You can vote for Obama or, if you are really into self-delusion, you
can support McCain. But you owe it to yourself, even if you
erroneously blame Nader for the election of George W. Bush, to
remember these Nader reforms. Hold them up against the proposed
reforms that will soon be issued by the McCain and Obama camps. If
the Nader reforms are not adopted, if we bail out our corporate
masters with hundreds of billions of tax dollars without instituting
draconian market reform and launching criminal prosecution, we will
be left to bear the cross of corporate malfeasance. We will pay for
corporate crime. We will leave those who robbed us free to plunder.

Chris Hedges is a leading writer on the subjects of religion, war and
empire. His critically acclaimed books, such as ?American Fascists,?
can be found here. Hedges? Truthdig column appears every Monday.

Colombia: Open letter by Liliana Obando/Carta publica de Liliana Obando

September 20, 2008 — At the end of the background information below (and HERE) is a link to an open letter to the national and international community sent by imprisoned Colombian trade union and Human Rights campaigner Liliana Obando.

Background

Colombian trade union and human rights activist Liliana Obando was arrested and detained in a maximum security prison on August 8 by the anti-terrorism unit of the Colombian National Police.

She was charged with “rebellion” against the state, a catch-all charge that is regularly used to imprison those who speak out against the government of President Alvaro Uribe Velez, the largest recipient of US military aid in the region.

At the time of her arrest, Obando, the sole breadwinner in her family of two young sons and her mother, was carrying out a study on assassinations of Agricultural Workers Union Federation (Fensuagro) members by paramilitary death squads and government security forces.

Colombia’s state security forces, in conjunction with paramilitary groups, are notorious for their human rights abuses and murder of social movement activists. To date, more than 2500 trade unionists have been killed, with 40 assassinated this year alone. Meanwhile, more than 70 pro-Uribe legislators are under investigation for having direct links to paramilitary death squads.

Obando toured Australia twice in recent years while working for Fensuagro’s international relations commission, and spoke with many organisations about the Uribe government’s abuses of human rights, and the Colombian people’s struggles for peace and justice.

The international campaign to free Obando and have all charges against her immediately dropped has won wide support in many countries. In Australia, many organisations and individuals — including solidarity groups, academics, religious organisations, NGOs, progressive political parties, and Unions NSW, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and National Tertiary Education Union branches — have passed motions and sent letters of protest to the Colombian and Australian governments in recent weeks.

Unions WA voted on September 16 to also organise a delegation of union leaders to meet with Colombia’s ambassador in Australia and to approach all WA members of parliament, at every level of government, to lobby the federal government for Obando’s release.

However, much more pressure must urgently be put on the Colombian government if Obando is to be freed and her safety guaranteed.

All human rights supporters are urged to:

•put motions condemning Obando’s arrest to your union or other community organisations;

•send letters calling for her release to the Colombian president at auribe@presidencia.gov.co, with copies to Colombia’s Australian embassy at embassyofcolombia@bigpond.com, and to your local MP (please send a copy to Peace and Justice For Colombia at pjfcolombia@gmail.com);

•write to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at oacnudh@hchr.org.co;

•help organise public protest actions; and

•help raise funds for Obando’s legal defence and to assist her children.

For more information, visit http://www.colombiasolidarity.net.

Bolivian leader slams U.S. at UN

Patrick Markey
Reuters

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Bolivian President Evo Morales: ‘We don’t want relations of intervention and
conspiracy.’

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=f73f9a69-8139-43ea-a5d4-3b57edacdbbd

UNITED NATIONS – Bolivian President Evo Morales, confronting a political crisis
at home, criticized the United States on Tuesday for backing opponents he
charges are trying to organize a coup against his leftist government.

Morales, a close ally of Venezuela’s anti-U.S. leader, Hugo Chavez, expelled the
U.S. ambassador earlier this month after accusing Washington of fomenting
violence against him in Bolivia, one of South America’s poorest nations.

“I would like to hear representatives of the U.S. government rejecting these
acts of terrorism,” Morales told the UN General Assembly in a speech laced with
anti-imperialist rhetoric. “But you know, they are allies, of course they will
never condemn this.”

South American leaders plan to meet Wednesday at the United Nations for talks on
easing the crisis between the Morales government and opposition governors who
have balked at signing a preliminary agreement aimed at ending violence.

Tensions erupted into clashes earlier this month when anti-Morales protesters
took to the streets, occupied government buildings and sabotaged gas pipelines.
At least 18 people were killed in fighting.

Washington called the expulsion of its ambassador a grave error and expelled the
Bolivian ambassador. Morales told reporters later he was open to dialogue on
U.S. ties, but would wait for Washington to “correct” the behavior of past
envoys.

“We don’t want relations of intervention and conspiracy,” he said.

The country’s first indigenous president, Morales promises sweeping reforms in a
new constitution in Bolivia, where an Indian majority says its rights have been
neglected for decades by European-descended ruling elites.

But critics in the opposition heartland – in eastern provinces – say Morales
wants to install Cuban-style communism in Bolivia.

Morales urged his opponents to accept the new constitution or oppose it at the
ballot box in a referendum.

Bolivia has long been divided between Andean mountains in the west where many
people still speak Quechua and Aymara as their first language, and more affluent
eastern plains where governors want more autonomy and control over gas wealth.

Morales won regional backing at a recent summit in Chile when South American
presidents condemned violence. Tensions have simmered since August when a
referendum confirmed his presidency but also the posts of opposition governors.
? Reuters

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan: The Concept of Jihad in Islam

The Concept of Jihad in Islam
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)*
The word ‘jihad’ is derived from the root juhd, which means ‘to strive’ or ‘to struggle’. It denotes the exertion of oneself to the utmost, to the limits of one’s capacity, in some activity or for some purpose. This is how the word is understood in Arabic grammar.
Because fighting against one’s enemies is also one form of this exertion or striving, it is also sometimes referred as jihad. However, the actual Arabic word for this is qital, not jihad. Fighting with one’s enemies is something that might happen only occasionally or exceptionally. However, jihad, properly understood, is a continuous action or process that animates every day and night of the life of the true believer. Such a person does not let any hurdle affect his life, including desire for gain, the pressure of customs, the demands of pragmatism, lust for wealth, etc.. All these things serve as hurdles in the path of doing good deeds. Overcoming these hurdles and yet abiding by the commandments of God is the true jihad, and this is the essential meaning of the concept of jihad. There are many references to jihad, as understood in this way, in the collections of sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.
The present world is a testing ground, and its environment has been fashioned in such a way that human beings are constantly put to the test. In the course of this test, human beings are faced with numerous hurdles, to face which one must repeatedly suppress or sacrifice one’s own desires or, in some cases, even one’s own self. Overcoming these odds and facing all sorts of difficulties and losses but still remaining firm on the path of truth is the real and fundamental jihad. Those who remain steadfast in the path of this jihad will be blessed with entrance to paradise.
Jihad, in essence, is a form of peaceful action or activism. This peaceful activism can take the form of inviting others to the path of truth. The Quran advises us not to obey those who champion falsehood, and tells us to engage in jihad with them through the Quran. This means that one should respond to them by inviting them to the path of the truth, striving till one’s utmost in this regard. The jihad that this Quranic verse refers to is not physical warfare. Rather, reference here is to intellectual and ideological activism. In short, it means refuting falsehood and advancing the cause of the truth [using peaceful means].
Qital, which is one form of jihad, involves physical warfare, but this also cannot be divorced from the issue of essentially peaceful jihad. If an enemy challenges one militarily or through physical force, one should still strive to the utmost possible to respond through peaceful means. Such means can be abandoned only when it is no longer possible to use them or when warfare becomes the only way to respond to the violence being unleashed.
In this regard, a statement attributed to Hazrat Ayesha [one of the wives of the Prophet] serves as a guiding principle. This statement is contained in the Sahih Bukhari, a book of traditions attributed to the Prophet. She said that whenever the Prophet was faced with two choices, he would always opt for the easier one. This means that he would prefer the easier option and would ignore the harder option. This principle of the Prophet applied not only to routine affairs of life but also to serious matters such as war, which is itself a difficult option. A reading of the life of the Prophet reveals that he never initiated fighting on his own. Whenever his foes sought to force him into battle, he would always try to seek some means to avoid physical fighting. He engaged in fighting only when all other options were closed. Thus, as the Prophet’s practice reveals, offensive war is forbidden in Islam. Islam allows only for defensive war, and that too only
when this becomes absolutely unavoidable.
In reality, in life one is always faced with the dilemma of making choices between different options. Some options are based on peace, others on violence. The accounts of the Prophet’s life indicate that in every matter he preferred the former. A few instances from his life are in order to illustrate this fact:
1. Soon after being appointed as a prophet, he was faced with a choice between the two sorts of options. His mission was to end polytheism and to establish pure monotheism, belief in and surrender to the one God. The Kaaba in Mecca had originally been made as a centre for the worship of the one God, but by the time of the advent of the Prophet some 360 idols had been installed therein. Hence, one might think that in the Quran the Prophet should have first been instructed to purify the Kaaba of the idols and to remake it as a centre for monotheism. But had this been the case , this would have been tantamount to warring with the Qureish of Mecca, who enjoyed leadership among the Arabs precisely because they were custodians of the Kaaba. History tells us that [at this stage] the Prophet restricted himself simply to the spreading the message of monotheism instead of removing the idols from the Kaaba. This, in a sense, is a major instance of the
Prophet choosing a peaceful, as opposed to violent, option.
2. Choosing and abiding by the peaceful option, the Prophet carried on his preaching work for thirteen years in Mecca. Despite this, the Qureish fiercely opposed him, so much so that the Qureish elders plotted to kill him. Accordingly, they armed themselves with swords and surrounded his house. This was nothing sort of a declaration of war against the Prophet and his companions. However, guided by God, the Prophet decided not to retaliate militarily, and in the darkness of night he left Mecca and travelled to Medina. This journey is known in Islam as the Hijrah. The hijrah exemplifies the choice of the use of the peaceful option, instead of a violent option.
3. The ‘Battle of the Trench’ is another example of the choice of the peaceful option by the Prophet. On this occasion, an army of the Prophet’s opponents marched on Medina to attack the Prophet. This was an open declaration of war on their part. However, in order to avoid fighting, the Prophet arranged for a trench to be dug around the town. This served as a buffer against the attackers. Consequently, the Qureish army spent just a few days camped beyond the trench and then went back. Constructing the trench to keep off the invading Qureish was another example from the Prophet’s life of choosing a peaceful, instead of violent, option.
4. Likewise, in the case of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. The Prophet and his companions wanted to worship at Mecca, but they were stopped by the Qureish chiefs at a place called Hudaibiyah and were asked to go back to Medina. The Qureish said that they would not allow them to enter Mecca at any cost. This was, in a sense, a declaration of war on their part. If the Prophet had proceeded with his plans of proceeding to Mecca to worship, it would have meant armed conflict with the Qureish. However, the Prophet chose not to go ahead. Instead, he peacefully accepted a one-sided treaty with the Qureish and returned to Medina. This is yet another example of the Prophet choosing the peaceful, instead of violent, option.
5. This practice and preference was also evident when the Prophet finally took over Mecca. On this occasion, he was accompanied by ten thousand devoted companions, who could easily have militarily defeated the Qureish of Mecca. However, here, too, the Prophet did not use physical force to capture the town. Instead, he quietly travelled, along with his companions, to Mecca and entered it. This happened so suddenly that the Qureish were unable to make any preparations against them. Consequently, Mecca was won without any bloodshed. This, too, is an example of the choice of peaceful, instead of violent, means.

These examples suggest that not just in ordinary situations, but also in situations of emergency, the Prophet resorted to peaceful, as opposed to violent, means. As indicated above, in Islam peace is the rule and war is the exception, and that too only when it becomes unavoidable. Keep this principle in mind and survey the world today. Today’s world is very different from the world of ancient times, when war was the rule and was commonly resorted to. Choosing peaceful means was very difficult. However, today the situation has completely changed. In today’s world, resort to violence has become completely useless and undesirable, while the use of peaceful means alone is generally accepted. So acceptable has the peaceful option become that it has emerged as a powerful force in its own right. Today, one can press one’s views peacefully, through use of the right to free expression, using modern communications and the media. These developments have made
the peaceful option even more efficacious.

As mentioned earlier, the Prophet’s practice indicates that when peaceful options are available, they should be used and violent means should be abstained from. In today’s context not only are peaceful methods and options available in plenty, but also, owing to various supporting factors, they are much more effective. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that in today’s world violent methods have not only become more difficult, but also, in practical terms, completely useless. In contrast, peaceful methods are easier and also much more effective. Peaceful methods have now become the only possible and efficacious option. In this context one can claim that violent methods have to be abandoned, or what in the language of the shariah is called ‘mansukh’ or abrogated. Now the followers of Islam have only one option to choose, and that, without any doubt, is the peaceful option, unless, of course conditions change so much that the directive needs
to be changed.

It is true that in the past violent means were occasionally used but these were only under compulsion due to temporal factors. Now, because conditions have so changed that the compulsion no longer remains, the use of violent means is no longer necessary and is undesirable. Under the new conditions, only peaceful methods should be used. As far as the issue of jihad is concerned, peace is the rule and war has the status of only an unavoidable exception….

….According to a well-known principle of Islamic jurisprudence, rules change in the wake of change of time and place. This means that when the context changes one must seek to re-apply the juridical rule in accordance with and to suit the new context. This principle applies as much to issues of war as it does to other matters. This principle thus demands that violent methods be declared as abandoned and only peaceful methods should be given the status of being sanctioned by the shariah.

Contemporary ‘Jihadi’ Movements

Today, in various countries Muslims are involved in armed movements in the name of ‘Islamic jihad’. However, simply by being called as a ‘jihadi’ movement by its leaders no such movement can be actually considered thus. No action can be considered as a legitimate jihad unless it fully meets the conditions as laid down in Islam. Those battles that are being fought in the name of jihad without meeting the conditions of jihad cannot be termed as jihad. Rather, they are fasad or strife [the opposite of jihad]. And those who are engaged in such activities will not get the reward [from God] of jihad. Instead, they will be considered worthy of punishment in God’s eyes.

I have written extensively elsewhere about the various conditions necessary for qital or physical war to be truly considered as jihad. Here I wish to clarify just one point, and that is that jihad in the sense of qital is not a private act in the same manner as prayers and fasting. Rather, it is an act that is entirely associated with a state or government. This is clearly indicated in the Quran and the Hadith [reports attributed to or about the Prophet Muhammad]. For instance, the Quran says that in the face of intimidation by the enemy, individuals should not take any action on their own, but, instead, should turn to those in charge of their affairs so that the latter can understand the matter in a proper perspective and take appropriate and necessary steps. This means that individual members of the public cannot decide issues of war on their own. This is something left to the government to handle.

Likewise, a Hadith report states that the Imam or leader is like a shield, war is conducted under his control and through him safety is ensured. This means that war and defence must always be left to the rulers to manage….

…There is an almost unanimous opinion on this issue in the Islamic juridical tradition and almost no noted Islamic scholar has dissented from this. Hence, the [almost] unanimous opinion of the Islamic jurisprudents is that war can be declared only by an established government. Subjects or citizens of a state do not have the right to do so [...]Today, in various places Muslims are engaged in fighting with governments in the name of jihad. However, almost without exception, these are not really Islamic jihads, but, rather, are fasad or condemnable strife. None of these so-called jihads has been declared by any government. All of these self-styled jihads have been declared and are conducted by non-state forces and actors. If some of these violent movements have the backing of any Muslim government, this is being done secretly, while according to the shariah jihad on the part of a government must entail an open declaration. Without this, qital on the part
of a Muslim government is illegal.

Today, the various violent movements in the name of jihad being engaged in by some Muslims are of two types: they are either guerrilla wars or proxy wars. Both sorts of war are completely illegal according to Islam. Guerrilla wars are unacceptable in Islam because they are led and conducted by non-state actors, not by any established government. Likewise, proxy wars are unacceptable in Islam because the governments behind them do not issue a formal and open declaration of war. This is not allowed in Islam.

Summary
Islamic jihad, properly understood, is a constructive and continuous process. It remains active throughout the life of a true believer. It has three aspects:
a. Jihad-e nafs or the struggle against the baser self or the ego, against one’s passions and wrong desires and to remain steadfast in one’s commitment to lead the life that God wants for human beings.
b. Jihad in the sense of striving, using peaceful means, to communicate God’s word to all of His slaves, inspired by a compassion and concern for others, even if this is not reciprocated. This is the great jihad according to the Quran.

c. The third form of jihad relates to confronting one’s foes and to remain firmly committed to the faith under all conditions. In the past, this form of jihad in the past was basically a peaceful action, and so remains even today. In this sense, jihad, properly understood, is a peaceful struggle, not military or physical confrontation.

· This is a translation of a chapter of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s acclaimed Urdu book Aman-e Alam (‘Global Peace’) [Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2005, pp.27-37]. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan can be contacted on info@goodwordbooks.com.

Sukhia Sab Sansar Khaye Aur Soye
Dukhia Das Kabir Jagey Aur Roye

The world is ‘happy’, eating and sleeping
The forlorn Kabir Das is awake and weeping

Something really interesting in this article:
> The Kaaba in Mecca had originally been made as a centre for the
> worship of the one God, but by the time of the advent of the Prophet
> some 360 idols had been installed therein.

Of course the “had originally been made” part is apologetic nonsense.
What is really interesting is the tradition of “360 idols.”

The Kaaba is a square structure erected around a big sacred
meteorite.  But why should such a meteorite be regarded as sacred?
The simplest explanation would be that its fall was part of a really
impressive  celestial event, naturally attributed by those who
experienced it to a god (like the meteorite shower that was recorded
in the Book of Joshua).  But why the number 360?  Again the simplest
explanation is that it had to do with the number of days in the year
at the time of that event, whatever it was.  This will come as a shock
to many, but there is a long tradition in many parts of the world,
reflected in calendars (like that of the Maya), that at one time the
year consisted of 12 30-day months and that its length had at some
point been increased by the 5.24 days we now have.  Closer to Mecca we
have the Egyptian calendar, of twelve 30-day months plus the five
“epagomenal” days and without leap years.  In the early 3rd century bce
Pharaoh Ptolemy II Euergetes tried to reform the calendar with the
“Canopus Decree” (the earliest extant Egyptian trilingual inscription)
to add one day every four years.  The Egyptians resisted this reform
which seems to have gone unenforced until the time of Julius Caesar,
who adopted it for the whole Graeco-Roman world (which attached his
name to it, hence “Julian” calendar). The reason for their resistance
(according to the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy) seems to be that the
365-day year fixed the calendar to the synodic period of the planet
Venus (eight revolutions of the planet Venus being nearly equal to
five “Egyptian” 365 day years while Venus would quickly lose
synchronization with a 365 1/4 day year). Orthodox Egyptologists
resist the notion that there was ever a 360-day year and ascribe the
calendars showing it to priestly conventions without astronomical
reference.  What is decisive about the Canopus Decree is that it
describes the Egyptian year as “the 360 days plus the five days that
were added later.”  Exactly when such an event (something spectacular
indeed to have modified the Earth’s orbit and orbital period, and as
inadmissible for orthodox astronomy as the “standstill” event attested
in the Book of Joshua) took place is uncertain indeed, but the Kaaba
is likely to be a memorial of and testimony to exactly that event!

Shane Mage

“Thunderbolt steers all things…it consents and does not consent to
be called Zeus.”

Herakleitos of Ephesos