Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for May, 2013

India Is Burning – Akash Kapur

 

ak feb16 p.jpg

A woman picks through garbage next to a graveyard in Hyperabad / AP

When I first moved back to India, in the winter of 2003, after more than a decade in America, I never thought I would live in the countryside. My wife and I had been living in New York; we liked the energy, the nightlife and variety, of a big city.

We quickly discovered, though, that Indian cities were unlivable–crowded and noisy and polluted, they were no place to raise a family. So we decided to stay, with our two boys, in the countryside outside the South Indian town of Pondicherry, the area where I had grown up.

 

Summers were dry and quiet, with a hot wind that emptied roads and public spaces. Winters were wet and then cool, monsoon downpours followed by a clear, clean light.

The familiarity, the predictability, were comforting. Everything else in India was moving so fast; in the countryside, seasons at least stayed constant.

Then one April the summer wind brought with it an unfamiliar guest: the smell of burning plastic. It started on a Sunday afternoon, a hint of bitterness, like something rotten in the air. I barely noticed. A couple days later my wife woke me in the middle of the night and said something was burning. This time the bitterness was unmistakable, a chemical taste in my mouth, a trail of roughness along my constricted throat.

My older son woke up, vomiting. We nursed him through the night. We told ourselves it was a stomach bug, something he’d eaten. But he’d eaten what we had all eaten, and as we stayed up with him, wiped his vomit and rubbed his stomach, comforted him, promised him it was nothing, it would pass, we couldn’t shake the terrible feeling that it was in fact something very real–that he’d been poisoned by the air.

•       •       •       •       •

The smell invaded our house throughout the following weeks and months. It came from a landfill south of my home, Pondicherry’s main garbage dump. Every day, almost 400 tons of garbage–plastic bags and shoes and rubber tires and batteries mixed with rotting fruit and meat–were carried there by tractors, and thrown in putrefying piles that emanated combustible methane gas.

The landfill was far from my house. It was almost two miles away. It had been there for over a decade, but I had never noticed it. Now, with Pondicherry growing, its residents getting richer, buying more, discarding more, the dump had swollen.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of tons of garbage had built up. The dump was running out of space. The fires, some man-made, some the result of spontaneous combustion, were getting bigger. The smoke was getting thicker, and traveling farther.

To me and my wife, the situation was bewildering. For so long, we had told ourselves that we were happy with the bargain we had made by choosing to live in rural India. We had decided to raise our children in a place where the water was drinkable, and the skies clear at night. Now the world was crowding in. I was told that the dump was emitting furans and dioxins and other toxic chemicals. I was told that these poisons could lead to cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory disease. And I was told, too, that children, with their undeveloped immune systems, were most susceptible.

What were responsible parents to do? We talked a lot about moving. “But to where?” my wife would ask. The landfills were everywhere, smoking heaps outside (and sometimes inside) cities, along highways, in fields and forests.

India produced some 100 million tons of municipal waste every year. According to the OECD, only 60% of this waste was even collected. A far smaller (almost nonexistent) amount was recycled. The garbage just piled up–and rotted, and smoldered, and polluted the air and water.

Sometimes, when I drove along highways lined with blazing garbage, when I passed through remote villages shrouded in smoke, it seemed like there wasn’t a safe corner in the country. India, I began to feel, was burning.

•       •       •       •       •

Cover Image - Akash Kapur INDIA BECOMING.JPGIndia was burning–and, in a similar way, it was eroding, melting, drying, silting up, suffocating. Across the country, rivers and lakes and glaciers were disappearing, underground aquifers being depleted, air quality declining, beaches being swept away.

The numbers were astounding. According to a government report I read, almost half of India’s land suffered from some kind of erosion. Seventy percent of its surface water was polluted. Earlier this year, a study conducted by Yale and Columbia universities concluded that India had the worst air quality in the world.

In the weeks and months after the garbage first started blowing into my living room, I came to see this terrible environmental toll as a form of collateral damage: it was the price the country was paying for its rapid growth, for a model of development that elevated prosperity above all else.

For years, India had been skeptical of environmentalists and their concerns. In 1972, Indira Gandhi, then the country’s  prime minister, attended the first United Nations Conference on the environment, in Stockholm, and announced that poverty was the worst form of pollution.

It was a formulation that stuck. People I know who were involved in India’s latent environmental movement during the 70s and 80s remember an uphill struggle. They were accused of elitism, and of being insensitive to the plight of the poor.

Environmentalists like to say that their cause needn’t have a developmental cost, that environmentalism is a win-win proposition. That’s not always true: sometimes, tough choices are required. Tradeoffs have to be made. This is true everywhere in the world (think of the United States’ reluctance to impose a carbon tax for fear that it will stifle jobs), but perhaps especially in a poor country like India.

Increasingly, though, I’ve found myself thinking that after two decades of economic reforms, after a boom that has lifted millions from poverty, India has reached a stage in its growth where Indira Gandhi’s old formulation is breaking down.

Today, economic development and environmentalism are no longer mutually exclusive. Experts estimate that, if it were quantified, the cost of environmental damage in India would shave anywhere from 2.5 to 4 percent off GDP. The nation’s emerging environmental calamity threatens to overshadow–and undermine–its phenomenal growth.

•       •       •       •       •

On a cloudy day in November, I took a trip to the beach. It was a twenty-minute drive from my home, a sandy stretch of coconut trees and fishing villages that lined the South Indian coast. I had been going to that beach since I was a boy. I had gone swimming there with my friends, and I had gone fishing in catamarans with local fishermen.

Now, I wasn’t going for a swim, or to fish. I was going because I had heard that large stretches of the beach were being swept away, disappearing into the ocean. Some years ago, the town of Pondicherry, farther down the coast, had built a new harbor. This harbor was supposed to spur development in the area. There was some debate about whether it had done that, but the harbor had indisputably blocked replenishing sand flows carried by currents from the south. Now the beach was starved of nourishment–another victim of the nation’s single-minded quest for development.

I went to the fishing village of Chinnamudaliarchavadi. It was a village I knew well, but I was shocked by what I saw.  A stretch of sand that had once extended for at least a hundred meters was now reduced to a strip of no more than ten or fifteen meters. Trees were uprooted, and fences and compound walls were breached. At least one electricity pole had come down. Houses sat precariously above the waters; some, I was told, had already been swallowed.

Many villagers had moved away, left behind their thatch huts and gone inland, in search of higher ground. They weren’t only leaving their homes behind; they were abandoning their livelihoods (and the livelihoods, too, of their parents and grandparents).

In a hut at the edge of the village, perched above the ocean, I met a widowed mother of two boys. Her name was M. Valli. She told me that every night, at high tide, the waters seeped into the single room of her hut where she tried to sleep with her children. The sound of the waves, she said, was “like an earthquake.”

She showed me her hut. It was tiny, cramped, with only a bare minimum of possessions: a kerosene stove, a cardboard calendar on the wall, a couple pillows on the floor. She said the erosion was destroying her livelihood. She used to buy fish from fishermen and sell them in the local market; now, with the waters advancing, growing increasingly rougher and changing course every day, the catch was down, almost non-existent.

As I was leaving Valli’s hut, one of her friends beseeched me to write about their plight. “If this continues,” she said, “we’re all going to die.”

I walked farther up the coast. I sat on the sand, what was left of it, and I thought of just how little remained of the beach I had known as a boy.

So much was being swept away. So much was being destroyed. I knew it was part of the compact of modern India: In with the new, out with the old, all in the name of progress.

I welcomed the progress. But all the destruction seemed a heavy price to pay.

This post is adapted from Akash Kapur’s India Becoming: A Portrait of Life in Modern India (Riverhead Books).

AKASH KAPUR

Akash Kapur, the former Letter From India columnist for the International Herald Tribune, is the author of India Becoming: A Portrait of Life in Modern India. He has also written for The New Yorker, The Economist, The New York Times, and others.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Pakistan-US alliance takes hits on campaign trail

(AP Photo/B.K. Bangash). In this Tuesday, April 9, 2013 photo, Pakistan's former cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan gestures as he speaks about his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in Islamabad, Pakistan.

AP Photo/B.K. Bangash). Imran Khan gestures as he speaks about his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in Islamabad, Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD (AP) – On the campaign trail in Pakistan, candidates boast about their readiness to stand up to Washington and often tout their anti-American credentials. One party leader even claims he would shoot down U.S. drones if he comes to power.

So it’s perhaps no surprise that the government that emerges from next month’s parliamentary election is likely to be more nationalistic and protective of Pakistani sovereignty than its predecessor.

As a result, the U.S. may need to work harder to enlist Islamabad’s cooperation, and the new Pakistani government might push for greater limits on unpopular American drone strikes targeting Taliban and al-Qaida militants in the country.

But ultimately, the final say on Pakistan’s stance toward drones and many aspects of the relationship with Washington is in the hands of the country’s powerful army. And even nationalist politicians like former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the leading contender in the election, recognize the need for a U.S. alliance and are unlikely to go too far in disturbing it.

“I think the tagline here is different posturing, same substance” when it comes to the next government’s relationship with the U.S, said Moeed Yusuf, an expert on South Asia at the United States Institute of Peace.

Nevertheless, it’s unclear how long Pakistan’s alliance with the U.S. can remain relatively insulated from anti-American sentiment. The May 11 vote is historic because it will mark the first transfer of power between democratically elected governments in a country that has experienced three military coups.

U.S. officials have remained fairly quiet about the election because they don’t want to be seen as influencing who wins. But Secretary of State John Kerry has met Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani twice in the last month, underlining the importance of the relationship to Washington.

The U.S. needs Pakistan’s help in battling Islamic militants and negotiating an end to the war in neighboring Afghanistan.The relationship has been severely strained in recent years, especially following the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden near Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point. But it has never broken down completely and has settled into a wary calm over the last year or so. Trust is still in short supply, but both sides recognize they can’t do without each other.

“We have moved into a phase of reduced expectations of each other, which is good,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. “It’s what they call the new normal.”

Imran Khan, who many analysts believe will end up playing a key role in the opposition after the election, has been even more critical of Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S., saying he would “end the system of American slavery.”

But the manifesto of Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, is more tempered, saying “Pakistan will endeavor to have a constructive relationship with the U.S. based on Pakistan’s sovereign national interests and international law, not on aid dependency.”

Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. – and foreign policy in general – has been less of a focus in the election than domestic issues, such as corruption, pervasive energy shortages and stuttering economic growth.

Lodhi believes this is because the U.S. has said it is largely pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and is seeking a peace settlement with the Taliban – a move long advocated by the Pakistani government and supported by the main contenders in the election.

“That has helped to take the edge off negative sentiment in Pakistan which we saw in the last couple of years against the United States,” Lodhi said.

One issue that continues to create tension between the two countries is the U.S. drone program targeting Islamic militants in Pakistan’s rugged tribal region near the Afghan border.

The attacks are extremely unpopular in Pakistan. They are seen as violating the country’s sovereignty, and many people believe they kill mostly civilians – an allegation denied by the U.S.

Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders have contributed to these perceptions by criticizing the strikes in public in the past, while supporting them in secret. This support has declined over time as the relationship between the two countries has worsened.

The number of strikes has dropped from a peak of more than 120 in 2010 to close to a dozen so far this year, but it’s unclear how much this trend has been driven by U.S. decisions about targeting versus the political sensitivity of carrying out strikes.

Khan, the former cricketer, has sharply criticized U.S. drone attacks and has even pledged to shoot down the unmanned aircraft if he came to power.

Sharif has also been a vocal opponent of the strikes in the past, although he hasn’t made them as much of a focal point of his campaign as Khan has.

Nevertheless, Daniel Markey, a South Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes Sharif would work with the army to renegotiate the use of drones in Pakistan if he took power.

“In the end, I think probably some accord will be reached in which the use of drones will probably be curtailed from where they have been over the past couple of years,” Markey said during a recent call with media. “But they will continue, particularly against high-value targets when they are found.”

However, Lodhi, the former ambassador, has doubts Sharif would pick a high-profile fight with the U.S. over drones since the number of strikes has decreased so much.

“The centrality of drones may not be what it was in the past,” Lodhi said. “Why would you want to whip up something that is going down anyway?”

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT
Associated Press

Posted: May 01, 2013 4:17 AM MSTUpdated: May 01, 2013 4:17 AM MST

 
 

, , ,

No Comments

From Connecticut to Pakistan

 

The horrible massacre in Newtown, Connecticut of 20 first-grade children and six teachers and other staff– and a mother and her son—has deeply moved the hearts of people across America.  Many have come together, especially in interfaith services, to express their sorrow for and empathy with the victims, and to seek closeness with each other and comfort and answers.  With an outpouring of compassionate statements by religious and political leaders nationwide and worldwide.  One, Pope Benedict XVI, expressing “his heartfelt grief and the assurance of his closeness in prayer to the victims and their families, and to all those affected by the shocking event.” (“World leaders express sadness, pain,” By Cassandra Vinograd, Associated PressBoston Sunday Globe, Dec. 16, 2012)  Another, United Methodist Bishop Sudarshana Devadhar, writing, “May the God of love and truth images-46surround this community of Newtown, and help us all find our way to making the world a place of peace and safety for all of God’s children.” (New England Conference, The United Methodist Church, Dec. 14, 2012)

And in a prayer vigil in Newtown, President Obama saying that “this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together.”  That “we bear responsibility for every child.”  That “there’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace, that is true.”  That “’let the little children come to me,’ Jesus said, ‘and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” (“President Obama’s speech at prayer vigil for Newtown shooting victims (Full transcript),” By Washington Post staff,The Washington Post, Dec. 16, 2012)

But, In the face of global reality, whose children actually do “we bear responsibility for?”  Whose “God of love and truth” is really being called on to “make the world a place of peace and safety?”  Where do “our children” end and the children of the other begin?  Where does compassion run out and indifference set in?

The uncontrollable sobbing and shaking of mourning Newtown mothers and fathers thrusts open the door of our common humanity.  Such traumatic humanizing can radicalize the human heart, and even lead one’s god to become loving of the other and more truth-filled.  The horror and humanness of Newtown can transform and empower the human heart not to care just for “our children and our families,” but forall children and their families.  Newtown unleashes the power of the human heart to care and act– if it is informed of, or otherwise dares to understand and visualize for itself, the terrible suffering and shared humanness of other people.

Like the estimated 500,000 Iraqi children, most under age 5, who died between 1990 and 1996 as a result of US-controlled UN sanctions.  So many Iraqi mothers and fathers wept at their dying children’s bedsides because the sanctions prevented them from obtaining adequate medicine and food and sanitation.   And later, the UN-condemned, unnecessary US pre-emptive war against Iraq, resulting in the deaths of possibly over one million Iraqi civilians.  A war creating over 700,000 Iraqi widows and orphans begging on the streets. (“Iraq’s War Widows Face Dire Need With Little Aid,” By Timothy Williams, The New York Times, Feb. 22, 2009)  And severe sectarian violence continuing to this day, in the wake of Iraq’s “liberation” by the military of “the greatest nation on the face of the earth.”  With no alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction found, which was the pretense for the criminal war.  And, now, a repeat performance against Iran, with its alleged secret creation of a nuclear weapon, and  sanctions that create shortages of medicine and other necessary items and the strangulation of the health of Iranian children.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a war crime against humanity, launched just two weeks after a United Methodist-professing president said, “I pray daily.  I pray for wisdom and guidance and strength.  . . .  I pray for peace.  I pray for peace.” (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003)  Which “God of love and truth” was former president George W. Bush praying to?  Evidently to an American and United Methodist god.  Instead of being put on trial, along with his god, for international war crimes, The United Methodist Church has erected a monument to him at Southern Methodist University:  ‘HOME OF THE GEORGE W, BUSH PRESIDENTIAL CENTER.’

It is not just about many United Methodists.  A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People found that “80% of evangelical white Protestants support” going to war against Iraq, “the highest tally of any group measured.”  (“Pope’s Emissary Meets with Bush, Calls war ‘Unjust,’” by Johanna Neuman,  Los Angeles Times,  Mar. 6, 2003)  (For an analysis of the positions of religious groups on the war against Iraq, see Alberts, “Mainstream Religious Leaders in Bushtime: Guardians of the Status Quo,” Counterpunch, Sept. 19, 2005.

To hear each other’s laughter and see each other‘s tears, allows the heart to experience each other’s humanness.  Awareness of our shared humanness can “make the world a place of peace and safety for all of God’s children.”    Like the children of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Gaza and the West Bank.

US drones alone, controlled by CIA operatives, have indiscriminately killed more than 200 children in these countries—children of the other, whose deaths are covered up by secrecy and silence.  As reported, In Afghanistan, “President Hamid Kaizai . . . criticized NATO for not being able to provide an explanation for the vans piled with bodies of women and children that villagers displayed to reporters.” (“Commander Apologizes for Afghan Airstrike,” By Alicia J. Rubin,The New York Times, June 9, 2012)  No names of the women and children were given.  No photographs of their mangled bodies.  No devastated and outraged loved ones were pictured or heard.  Why not?  To actually see “vans piled with the bodies of women and children,” would sicken and wrench and, perhaps, enlarge the heart.  In an instant, we would be struck by the murder and grief of people who look and think and feel like us—human beings murdered in our name.

Politicians, corporate profiteers, their guardian media and chaplains of the status quo keep war at a distance, far from the human heart.  Political explanations about US exceptionalism, “terrorists who hate our freedom” and keeping America safe box in the mind so that it does not go to the imperialistic heart of the matter.  Political leaders and their corporate masters and media watchdogs are about hardening the heart, not enlightening its mind’s eye.  The sacrificing of young American lives in imperialistic wars depends on the use of patriotism and sectarian Christianity to make other human beings out to be heartless– the other, when, in fact, he and she and their children are just like us.

Journalist George Monbiot puts his finger on the human heart in a piece called, “In the US, mass child killings are tragedies.  In Pakistan, mere bug splats.”  The subtitle makes the point: “Barack Obama’s tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones.”  Monbiot cites a report that indicates 64 children were among the 297 to 569 civilians killed in north-west Pakistan during President Obama’s first three years in office.  He writes, “Most of the world’s media, which has rightly commemorated the children of Newtown, either ignores Obama’s murders or accepts the official version that all those killed are ‘militants.’  The children of north-west Pakistan, it seems,” he continues, are not like our children.”  He concludes, “The have no names, no pictures, no  memorials of candles and flowers and teddy bears . . . no grieving relatives, no minute analysis of what happened and why.  . . . They belong to the other: to the non-human world of bugs and grass and tissue.” (the Guardian, Dec. 17, 2012)

When Rap Brown said that “violence is as American as cherry pie,” he was referring to the pervasive hardening of the human heart.  The use of “American exceptionalism” and Christocentric exclusiveness to wage wars against the mothers and fathers and children of the other.  Maintaining over 700 military bases throughout the world, and being the biggest exporter of weapons to other countries.  The continuing wealth-controlled hierarchy of access to economic and political and legal and religious power in America, still oppressing people of color, and now more and more white persons.  The 1% and their pocket-lined political servants now manufacturing a “fiscal cliff” to steal earned entitlements and needed services from America’s older and younger citizens alike.  The daily diet of violence provided by television shows, movies and video games.  The senseless Newtown killings that occur daily on the streets of America: young people especially, with no concrete educational and career hopes, killing each other, with guns as easy to obtain as “cherry pie.”

The human heart holds the key to how big our world is and can become.  It is about allowing ourselves to see the whole human picture.  Like the birth of Jesus.

It is not just the story about the prophesized birth of a baby in a manger, who would become a messiah and set his Jewish people free from Roman domination and bring “Peace on Earth.”  It was about a “troubled” King Herod ordering the massacre of all the Jewish children “two years old and under” in the region of Bethlehem to do away with any threat to his power.  It was especially about “Rachel weeping for her children; she could not be consoled because they are no more.” (Matthew 2: 1-18)  Christmas is about the human heart responding to Rachel and her children.  It is about “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Vincent Harding spoke to all of us about the technology of the heart in writing, “What we want is a new transformed society, not equal opportunity in a dehumanized one.” (There is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in AmericaVintage Books, 1983)  The technology of the earth is used to fashion weapons of destruction.  Christmas reveals the transforming technology of the heart to “beat swords into plowshares . . . and study war no more . . . and no one shall make them afraid.” (Micah 4: 3-4)

The humanizing power of a child.  From Bethlehem to Connecticut to Pakistan.   It’s a small world for big hearts.

Mel King is a long-time Boston community activist, organizer, educator, author and political leader, who, in 1983, was the first Black candidate to make it to the finals in Boston’s mayoral campaign.  He is author of Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development, South End Press, 1981, co-author with James Jennings of From Access to Power: Black Politics in Boston, Schenkman Books, 1986, and author of Streets, a Poem Book published by Hugs Press, Boston, 2006.  His e-mail address is [email protected].

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D., a former hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center, is a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy.  Both a Unitarian Universalist and United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics, religion and pastoral care.  His recently published book, A Hospital Chaplain at the Crossroads of Humanity, is available on Amazon.com   His e-mail address is [email protected].  

 

References

 

No Comments

Truck drivers from India to take U.S. jobs?

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

TRUCK DRIVERS FROM INDIA TO TAKE U.S. JOBS?

Union protests plan as attempt to undercut ‘hard-working Americans’

 

border=0>

An American company is recruiting long-haul truck drivers from India with the goal of placing them with U.S. trucking firms.

The Teamsters Union strongly opposes the plan by Gagan Global LLC of Garnerville, N.Y.

Teamsters Union spokesman Galen Munroe told WND the plan “is yet another example of corporations exploiting a visa program to replace highly trained, hard-working Americans with cheap labor from overseas.”

Gagan Global has contracted with the Indian state government of Andra Pradesh and its Overseas Manpower Consultancy to run a training school in the Asian country.

Gagan Global CEO Philip Gagan told WND a first batch of 200 Indian truck drivers has been recruited to attend the school in preparation for work in the U.S.

“We are recruiting Indian truck drivers,” Gagan confirmed to WND. “We are very demanding on our requirements to get into the school. The requirements are that you have to have five years of heavy driving experience on tractor-trailer trucks, you have to be HIV-negative, have a clean police record, verifiable references that the government in India can verify.”

What about the ability to speak English?

“The Indian truck drivers have to be able to read and understand English,” Gagan explained. “We like them to speak English. They all speak pigeon-English, mostly what they learned in schools.”

How does Gagan Global know that the Indian drivers will be able to read road signs or communicate with other drivers on the road?

“We know that if they can read English and understand what they are reading,” Gagan told WND, “then we think they can learn enough English in the four-months training program to be able to be productive in the U.S.”

Gagan argued that the reason he created the company was to address the growing shortage in the U.S. for long-haul drivers.

“There’s a massive shortage of long-haul truck drivers in the U.S.,” Gagan said. “Long-haul truck drivers get home four days a month. There just aren’t enough Americans who want to do that kind of work.”

May 2005 study conducted for the American Trucking Association argues that there is “already a shortage of long-haul heavy-duty truck drivers equal to about 1.5 percent of the over-the-road workforce, or about 20,000 drivers.”

The driver shortfall is projected to reach 114,000 by 2014. Another 219,000 new truck drivers “must be found to replace drivers currently of ages 55 and older who will retire over the next 10 years and to replace those in younger groups who will leave the occupation.”

Teamster Union spokesman Munroe strongly objected. In an e-mail to WND, he wrote:

 

While there is currently a shortage of long-haul drivers, the problem lies with corporations like Gagan Global that are championing the race to the bottom for American workers. If corporations would treat their employees fairly and offer competitive wages with decent benefit packages, this shortage would disappear.

 

Gagan Global is in the process of applying to the Department of Labor to get H-2B visas for the Indian drivers. H-2B visas are designed to be issued only when there are no qualified and willing U.S. workers available for the job. Gagan acknowledges that no H-2B visas have yet been issued to Indian truck drivers training in India with his company.

Regarding the issuance of H-2B visas, Munroe wrote WND:

 

Gagan Global has twisted the intent of the H-2B visa program to fit their desire for a fatter bottom line. The assertion that there are no American workers who are willing to take long-haul truck driving jobs is absurd. It would be more accurate to say they do not want to be exploited by taking poor-paying, long-haul jobs at nonunion companies.

 

On the company website, Gagan Global explains why Indian drivers are suitable to help address the shortage in long-haul drivers:

 

We also found that while the average long-haul truck driver makes between $50,000 and $90,000 a year, these truck drivers make far less, and work a whole lot more. So what we have here are people who are never shy of work, extremely friendly and cooperative, and most of all, tough guys who are more than up to handling the American trucks.

 

Why is Gagan Global so sure the Indian drivers will be able to be successful on U.S. highways? The company website explains the Indian drivers “on an average, have anywhere between 10 and 25 years of experience driving trucks for a living. These drivers have driven long-haul trucks in extreme conditions and terrain and on roads that are anything but like the freeways in the U.S.”

The economic incentive for the Indian truck drivers is obvious. Gagan explains:

 

These [Indian truck drivers] want to work. They want to get into their trucks and work every hour that they are legally allowed to work. They only have a one-year period, plus a one-year extension under their visa to work here. Then they have to go home for six months and apply for a new visa. The Indian truck driver can earn in a day in the U.S. what it may take two months to earn in India. They don’t have families here and they don’t care about time-off. If the Indian drivers come here work hard, they can go home with maybe $100,000, which is five lifetimes of money back home in India.

 

Gagan explained to WND that his company’s goal was not to undercut U.S. truck drivers:

 

We’re not here to take jobs away from Americans. If they drive for a Teamster organization, they will join the Teamsters. Our Indian drivers have to come into a company and be paid exactly what the American drivers are being paid in that company. They have to receive every benefit and they have to be treated exactly the same. We want them to get the highest paid jobs they can get. We have rejected as clients a couple of companies that have approached us because they want to hire them as trainees and pay them about half as much per mile as they pay U.S. drivers.

 

The Teamsters’ Munroe objected to Gagan Global’s program, concluding, “It is time for American companies to invest in the American workforce. Outsourcing will only quicken the demise of the middle class.”

 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37119/#OMWzRLuCv6p1jFgA.99 

Published: 07/21/2006 

No Comments

PTT Archive: Imran Khan Condemns Drone Attacks

imran-khan-r670

Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan. – File Photo by Reuters

LAHORE: Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan, strongly condemning United States drone strike in North Waziristan which killed 24 people, said on Saturday latest drone attack speaks volumes about so-called close working partnership between Pakistan and the US in ongoing war.

The PTI chief said rulers reopened Nato supply routes against strong sentiments of people and bypassed parliamentary resolutions to appease the US which reciprocated by continuous drone strikes, last of which killed 24 people on Friday.

hose killed in these strikes.

Khan demanded that government should disclose identification details of causalities so that “we know how many women children and ordinary civilians have been killed.”

He asked will any other nation allow indiscriminate killing of its citizens? The fact that their identities are not disclosed casts serious doubts on claims that those killed in strikes were militants, he added.

Khan said the government is equally responsible in indiscriminate elimination of its citizens as it has consciously avoided disclosing identification details of those killed in American drone strikes.

“Our rulers are blindly supporting US claims of high precision drone strikes and minimum collateral damage when they are actually aware of details of civilian casualties in tribal areas,” he He said continuing drone assaults were in clear violation of international humanitarian laws. There is complete media censorship in tribal areas and resultantly no way to ascertain identities of tadded.

Rejecting the claims that these strikes are primarily carried out against foreign militants, he said statistics from independent organisations suggest that both US and Pakistan government are grossly under reporting civilian casualties. Accounts of local, western journalists suggest large number of civilians killed in these strikes.

The PTI chief said the government avoided commenting on stopping unilateral drone strikes that was one of most critical parliamentary preconditions before reopening Nato supply routes.

, , ,

No Comments