Our Announcements

Not Found

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

Archive for September, 2013

Profile in courage: India rape victim faces attackers at trial

Profile in courage: India rape victim faces attackers at trial

  • suzette.JPG

    Suzette Jordan is reliving the details of the brutal gang rape she suffered in 2012 during testimony at her attackers’ trial, as she hopes to change the stigma felt by other victims in her native India. (Photo by SHRIYA MOHAN)

Nearly every day at a court in Kolkata, India, Suzette Jordan must relive the brutal gang rape she suffered at the hands of five men in February, 2012, yet she does so with a sense of hope that she is helping to change perceptions in her home country.

Jordan, an Anglo-Indian from the West Bengal capital, has no difficulty recalling the horrific details of the attack. She left a nightclub with a man who had offered to drive her home, but four more men got in the car and locked the doors. They raped and beat her all night. At 3 a.m., they threw her out of the moving car.

Jordan remembers wildly running by the road, fear coursing through her body. She ran home to her two teenage daughters, who saw her bleeding, her body black and blue, her clothes torn. For three days, she did not get off the bed. Then her family insisted she go to the police.

 

“I hid my face for so long, fearing humiliation. But then I thought, why should I hide? It is not my shame.”

– Suzette Jordan, rape victim from India

 

In a country where about 24 percent of alleged rapists were convicted last year, going to the police may have seemed futile at best. But perceptions of rape are changing in India, in part because of a spate of high-profile gang rapes that disgusted the public and shifted the stigma of shame from the accuser to the accused.

Jordan decided to go one step further and come out publicly, which became a humiliating ordeal, until last December, when a 23-year-old Delhi paramedic was raped by five men on a bus. The case was so brutal that coverage of it prompted mass protests all over the country. Indian law prohibits revealing the identity of a rape victim, so the media began to call the victim “Nirbhaya,” the fearless one. The woman died from her injuries.

The Indian Parliament then created fast-track courts for rape cases and made fatal rapes punishable by death.

After Nirbhaya’s death, her father, from a village in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, said he wanted his daughter’s name revealed.

“She didn’t do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself,” he said. “I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks.”

Nirbhaya is a symbol of resistance today. More survivors are insisting on filing complaints, and taking their story to the press. For a country where rape is often hushed up from fear of humiliation, or lack of support for the victim, this is a watershed moment. For the first time, shame is being shifted away from the woman.

The comments by Nirbhaya’s father resonated with Jordan, who had already felt the urge to go public when she attended a rally in Kolkata.

“I hid my face for so long, fearing humiliation,” Jordan told FoxNews.com. “But then I thought, ‘why should I hide? It is not my shame.’”

It is inside one of the new, fast-track courtrooms where Jordan, 38, relives her terror in the hope that she will win justice, not only for herself, but for other victims. Being Suzette Jordan instead of the ‘Park Street rape victim’ gave her the strength to endure what she calls the horrific journey of justice.

“Taking on indifference and stigma is tough, but when I saw the reactions to Nirbhaya, I felt there is hope for us,” she said.

Jordan remembers being victimized all over again when she went to the police. Officers interrogated her for five hours before they filed her complaint. It took eight days more for a government doctor to do a medical exam, which still haunts Jordan.

“I was stripped naked,” she said. “They probed me, splayed my legs, did that sick two-finger test that all raped women have to endure.”

But a powerful reform movement is under way in India, with the public demanding a new approach to rape cases at all phases. India’s more than 70,000 newspapers have been near universal in condemning systemic inefficiencies in preventing and investigating crimes. On online forums, social media and on the street, people have decried the hesitation of cops to accept complaints, their insensitivity toward rape victims, and the slow grind of a patriarchal bureaucracy that has long let perpetrators go scot free.

In 2012, out of about 100,000 rape cases, only 14 percent saw verdicts. And in only a small number of cases — 3,563 — did defendants get convicted.

Despite parliament’s reforms, which also criminalized acid attacks, stalking and voyeurism and removed the legal protections for accused public servants, many regressive clauses remain. The law remains silent on marital rape. It still gives legal immunity to security forces accused of rape, and does not recognize sexual assault of men and transgendered persons.

Moreover, the main challenge remains: How can sexual violence be prevented? The reasons underlying rape — patriarchy, chronic violence, inequality — seem exhausting and insurmountable.

In July in Bangalore, when a 9-year-old was raped by a neighbor, her mother’s first thought was to think that it must happen to girls everywhere. The mother, who wished to withhold her name, is also abused on a regular basis by her husband. “I get beaten at least once in two days,” she said. “If I go to the police, they’ll say it’s a personal problem.”

None of it, however, is personal. Indian women have always known that the threat of sexual violence exists in every sphere — at work, on the streets, even at home. Child abuse, acid attacks, dowry-related deaths, and caste-violence are chronic. The police reaction is often bizarre.

A family in rural Jindh in the northern state of Haryana recently sought to report the rape and murder of their 20-year-old daughter. On Aug. 24, the parents found her body in a field, tied to fence wire. There were witnesses to the rape, yet the police say it was a suicide, and the local hospital bizarrely says she died of mosquito bites.

The father, Surat Singh, alleges that the police, who belong to the Jat upper caste, are shielding the accused, who are from the same community.

“It is because we are Dalit,” said Singh. Residents from his village are now staging a demonstration near the police station, demanding justice. “I have hope that someone will pay attention,” says Singh. “I shudder to think of the day when even this support will be gone.”

As more sexual assaults are reported, it is clear that none can be seen in isolation. When arrested, the four boys accused of raping a photojournalist in Mumbai admitted to having raped three women from their slum before. They had not expected to get caught this time either.

As prominent columnist Jay Mazoomdar wrote in Firstpost, “Every assault that goes unpunished anywhere is an encouragement to rapists everywhere. It is really all or nothing — no woman will ever really feel safe if another does not.”

As for Jordan, who sits in court, stunned at the irrelevant details she is asked for, only one thought strengthens her.

“I think of the other women my rapists will surely rape if I don’t put them in jail now,” she said. “My fight is their fight, too. Your own experience makes you want to watch out for other women.”

Published September 10, 2013
FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/10/india-perceptions-rape-shift-after-high-profile-cases/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2eXzeL6L8

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

OBAMA’S FOLLY: Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria

 

Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/files/97201766powellcropped.jpg

Remember the Powell doctrine? Elaborated by Colin Powell back in 1990, during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it consisted of a series of questions identifying the conditions that should be met before committing U.S. military forces to battle.

The questions were:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

For Powell, each question had to be answered in the affirmative before a decision to use military force was made. If these conditions were met, however, Powell (and other military officers of his generation) believed that the United States should then use sufficient force to achieve decisive victory.

Like the closely related “Weinberger doctrine” (named for Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger), these guidelines were designed to ensure that the United States did not stumble into pointless wars whose costs far outweighed the benefits. Powell understood that civilians often had idealistic or quixotic ideas about improving the world with U.S. military power and that they were often too quick to employ it without thinking through the broader strategic implications. One might think of the Powell doctrine as a checklist designed to curb the well-intentioned but naive desire for global do-gooding that has inspired American liberal interventionists for decades.

The Powell doctrine also rests on a decidedly realist vision of U.S. security and grand strategy. Powell’s eight questions implicitly recognize that the United States is an extraordinarily secure country and one that rarely needs to rush into war to keep itself safe.

 It is a vision of U.S. strategy that does not shrink from using force, but only if vital national security interests are at stake. If they are, then the United States should defend those interests by taking the gloves off and doing whatever it takes. But most of the time vital interests are not at stake, and the United States can and should rely on “other nonviolent policy means.” 

It is a doctrine designed to husband U.S. power and keep the country’s powder dry, so that when America does have to go to war, it can do so with ample domestic and international support and with military forces that have not been ground down and degraded by endless interventions in arenas of little strategic importance.

What do we learn if we apply Powell’s principles to the current debate on Syria? Just ask and answer the questions, giving the administration the benefit of the doubt. The results are not pretty.

1. Vital national interests at stake? Hardly. The United States hasn’t cared who governed Syria since 1970, and it did business with Bashar al-Assad’s regime whenever doing so suited it. If it didn’t matter who ran Syria for the past 40-plus years, why does it suddenly matter so much now? Nor is defending the norm against chemical weapons a “vital” interest, given that other states have used them in the past and they are not true weapons of mass destruction anyway.

2. Clear obtainable objective? Nope. If you can figure out what the Obama administration’s actual objective is — defend the chemical weapons norm? reinforce U.S. credibility? weaken the regime a little but not a lot? send a warning to Iran?, etc. — you have a better microscope than I do.

3. Costs and risks analyzed fully and frankly? Well, maybe. I’m sure people in the administration have talked about them, though it is hard to know how “fully” the risks and costs have been weighed. But let’s be generous and give the administration this one.

4. Other nonviolent policy options exhausted? Hardly. As I’ve noted before, there has been a dearth of imaginative diplomacy surrounding the Syrian conflict ever since it began. Oddly, the administration seems to have thought this whole issue wasn’t important enough to warrant energetic diplomacy, but it is important enough to go to war. And there in a nutshell is a lot of what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy these days.

5. Plausible exit strategy to avoid entanglement? Not that I can see. Barack Obama, John Kerry, et al. seem to recognize the danger of a quagmire here, so their “exit strategy” consists of limiting the U.S. attack to airstrikes and cruise missiles and maybe some increased aid to the rebels. In other words, they are preemptively “exiting” by not getting very far in. But that also means that intervention won’t accomplish much, and it still creates the danger of a slippery slope. If the action they are now contemplating doesn’t do the job, what then? If credibility is your concern, won’t those fears increase if the United States takes action and Assad remains defiant?

6. Have the consequences been fully considered? It’s hard to believe they have. Whacking Assad’s forces won’t do that much to restate any “red lines” against chemical weapons use, and as noted above, that’s a pretty modest objective in any case. But military action might also help bring down the regime, thereby turning Syria into a failed state, fueling a bitter struggle among competing ethnic, sectarian, and extremist groups, and creating an ideal breeding and training ground for jihadists. It may also undercut the moderate forces who are currently ascendant in Iran, derail any chance of a diplomatic deal with them (which is a far more important goal), and even reinforce Iran’s desire for a deterrent of its own. Is there any evidence that Obama, Kerry, Rice & Co. have thought all these things through?

7. Support from the American people? No, no, and no. Surveys show overwhelming public opposition to military action in Syria. Obama can boost those numbers with some saber-rattling and threat-inflation (now under way), but the American people are going to remain skeptical. I suspect Congress will eventually go along — for a variety of reasons — but right now the idea of going to war in Syria is even less popular than Congress itself (which is saying something). Bottom line: This criterion is nowhere near being met.

8. Genuine and broad international support? Not really. The British Parliament has already voted against military action, and Germany has made it clear that it’s not playing either. Russia and China are of course dead set against. America’s got the French (oh boy!), the Saudis, and (quietly) the Israelis, along with the usual coalition of the cowed, coerced, or co-opted. But it’s a far cry from the support the United States had in the first Gulf War or when it initially entered Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. This is not the sort of “genuine and broad” support that General Powell had in mind.

I draw two conclusions from this exercise. First, the case for military action in Syria remains weak, and the fact that the United States is barreling headlong toward that outcome anyway is a powerful indictment of its foreign policy and national security establishment. Second, Colin Powell was really onto something when he laid out this framework, and the United States would be in much better shape today had that framework guided U.S. military responses for the past 20 years.

 

, ,

No Comments

Fake debates, rhetorical flourishes

Abbajee & Ammajee Sharif
 
Fake debates, rhetorical flourishes
 
 

 

A doughty, decent , hardworking lady and full of common sense, Pervez Musharraf’s mother told a group of journalists more than a decade ago that the family did not have very high expectations of their second son Pervez as he was growing up and, therefore, considered him prime army material. And that it was the elder son, Javed, a ‘book worm’, and subsequently a Rhodes scholar, who seemed more likely to shine.

Legend has it that the elder Sharif – the late ‘Abbaji’ – when asked to spare a son for politics by Ziaul Haq, offered Nawaz and not Shahbaz because the family business could not spare the latter (or words to that effect).

Although neither parent had a high opinion of the talents of their respective progeny, both sons went on to become the country’s rulers. If, therefore, even parents get it wrong, why blame supporters for cussedly believing their heroes would get it right if given another chance? “What makes you think either will succeed today when the problems are infinitely greater and more complex than when they failed?”, I asked a Sharif jiyala and a Musharraf fan before the elections. I did not get a convincing response from either.

Of course, in the case of Pervez Musharraf that question is now superfluous. We need not speculate what his end will be. It can only be further imprisonment, the rope, the victim of a Taliban break-in – which poses a greater danger for inmates in our prisons than attempting to break out of jail – or a short hop to Dubai to resume his exile.

But about Nawaz Sharif we can speculate. Indeed, we should because our lives may depend on it. So, will Nawaz succeed where he failed twice before?

 

Courtesy: The News Pakistan

, , ,

No Comments

International Tender for running Pakistan

International Tender for running Pakistan

Vaqar Ahmed

Tender No. GOP 2013/193CTR/PTL/TEN/420
 
 
 
 
4322_lmmain

Tender Notice for Running the Country

The Government of Pakistan requires the service of an International Organisation to run the country for a period of twenty-five years.

Country Background:
 
It is generally believed that Pakistan was created for the Muslims of India. However, there is still debate in the country after 65 years of its creation regarding the ideology of Pakistan. Some say that Pakistan came into being so unexpectedly that no one had the time to define its ideology. 
 
The state of Pakistan can be categorised as one of the following (or any combination thereof):
 
Islamic
Secular
Democratic
Autocratic
Militaristic
Autistic

Since the creation of Pakistan, following governments have been in place:
 
1947 – 1948 Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan was the first head of the state. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1948.
 
1948 – 1958 During this period 10 governments came and went. During this time a prime minister was assassinated and another exiled.
 
1958 – 1968 First Military coup and Martial law. The new Chief Martial Law Administrator and later President and Field Marshal, Mohammed Ayub Khan, ruled for ten years. People got sick and tired of dictatorship and went out in the streets calling the gentleman-soldier a dog. This broke his heart and he resigned. He was a decent sort of a chap who enriched only his own family and in return built many dams and a new city. He also authored a book titled “Friends Not Masters”. Following the poor performance of the subsequent governments, he is today remembered as a Saint.
 
1971 The job of running the country became easier as the enslaved half of the country was freed through the goodwill and humanitarianism of the Pakistan military. The freed slaves made their own country called Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh proved to be very ungrateful and now refuse to play cricket with Pakistan.
 
1972 – 1977 A young Oxford educated feudal Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became the Chief Martial Law Administrator and then the Prime Minister. His main strength was his fiery speeches in good English and bad Urdu. He was such a good Muslim that he accepted all the key demands of the clerics like declaring the Ahmedis non-Muslims and banning alcohol. Being a man of conscience he started drinking heavily to lessen the pain of taking such horrid decisions. He also wisely purged all the left wing troublemakers in his party and replaced them with solid, reliable and wise men from the feudal class.
 
1977 – 1987 Mr. Bhutto’s top general Zia-ul-Haq did not see eye to eye with Mr. Bhutto. One part of the reason was that he was squint eyed and the second that he did not think that Mr. Bhutto was Islamic enough. So he did “Istikhara”

 

(requesting guidance from God) and after receiving permission deposed the Prime Minister in a coup.

 

He announced that elections would take place in 90 days. However, the people were so pleased with the General that they beseeched him to stay. Being a true democrat the General could not turn down the request of the masses and decided to stay on to serve them. Just to make sure that he could serve the people with his full attention he declared that the pesky Mr. Bhutto had hanged himself in a fierce police encounter. Being a very hospitable man, he invited all the Muslim Afghan brethren to live in Pakistan. He also helped them fight the infidels from Russia. He had a rich uncle named Sam who provided the required finances.

  

This pious man would be still in power if it were not for his love of mangoes. He filled up his plane with so many crates of mangoes that it crashed due to the excessive weight. Many in Pakistan were deeply saddened by the loss of such good mangoes.

 
1988 – 2013 The period from 1947 to 1988 was a game of musical chairs and no one remembers who came and who went and where and why. It is not clear who is running the affairs of Pakistan; in an opinion poll majority felt that it was God.

Scope of Work of the Bidder: 

The bidder will be solely responsible for running the Govt of Pakistan. This will include (but not limited to):
 
1. Disbanding the band of thieves that has been running the country for the past 65 years and deporting them to their home countries like the USA, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Great Britain, and Canada.
 
2. Ensuring that containers are used for the sole purpose of transporting goods.
 
3. Banning spitting of phlegm, tobacco, niswar, and paan peek in public places and particularly on stairwells.
 
4. Removing all garbage strewn around the country and dumping it outside.
 
5. Arresting all the religious extremists and putting them in a rehabilitation centre run by Doctor Maulana Taqreerul Qadri.
 
6. Removing all the political talk show anchors and using them as anchors for the boats in the oily waters of Kaemari.
 
7. Changing the foreign policy from misaligned to non-aligned.
 
8. Eliminating the police force by making it mandatory for them to have a 32 inch waist.
 
9. Making Hijab mandatory for men and optional for women.

Bidder Qualification:
 
• Bidders from countries deemed to be more corrupt than Pakistan in the Transparency International Rankings will be subject to immediate disqualification.
 
• Bidders from previous colonising countries like Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and France will be given preference.
 
• Bidders from the USA are not eligible to bid as they are already running the Government of Pakistan.
 
• Bidders from Nigeria need not apply.
 
• The language of the bids can be any as long as it is English.
 
• Influencing the bid evaluation process by means of bribery is strictly prohibited unless it is at least $50 million and made through proper channels.

Submission of Tender:
 
• Tenders will be submitted in quadruplicate in hard copy by courier.
 
• As per normal procurement rules 10 per cent of the bid price will be deposited as “goodwill”
 
• Tenders will be submitted to the following address:
 
The Section Officer
Services and General Administration Division
Pakistan Secretariat
Islamabad

Closing date for the Tenders is 14 August 2013.

Important: If the country disintegrates before the bid closing date, this tender will be considered null and void.

The author is an engineer turned part-time journalist who likes to hang out at unfashionable places like shrines, railway stations and bus stops.

 
 

, , , , , ,

No Comments

To Ease Pakistan Violence, Turn on the Lights

 

 

Inline image 4

To Ease Pakistan Violence, Turn on the Lights

By Michael Kugelman, Sep 9, 2013 

Inline image 3

It has been a bloody few weeks in Pakistan, even by the country’s violent standards. Sectarian extremists assaulted an open-air market. Separatist militants executed bus passengers. Terrorists bombed a children’s soccer game and a policeman’s funeral. A deadly jailbreak freed more than 200 jihadis. And the nation’s capital went on lockdown after rumors of impending high-profile attacks.

 

This unrelenting terror makes all the more striking a recent statement by Khawaja Asif, Pakistan’s water and power minister. Energy, he declared in an interview, is a greater challenge than terrorism. Asif’s statement is striking — and spot-on. Militancy grabs headlines internationally, and it’s undoubtedly of grave concern. But Pakistan’s energy crisis directly affects many more people than the Taliban. More than anything else — corruption, sectarianism, inadequate public services– a lack of power is destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 193 million people.

 

Pakistanis — including those in the militant-choked northwest — suffer as much as 20 hours of daily power outages. Energy shortfalls have exceeded 40 percent of national demand and cost the country 4 percent of gross domestic product. Hundreds of factories, including those in the dominant textile industry, have shut down, leaving scores unemployed. Hospitals have had to curtail services, putting patients’ lives at risk. Doctors report the crisis is increasing stress and depression.

 

Energy Insecurity

 

Militants have naturally exploited Pakistan’s energy insecurity. In April, the Pakistani Taliban destroyed the largest power station in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, the restive province bordering Pakistan’s tribal belt. Half of Peshawar, the provincial capital, lost power. Power shortages have also sparked violent protest among ordinary citizens. Rioters have attacked utility offices,law enforcement, banks, shops, and the homes and offices of ruling and opposition party politicians.

 

The root cause of Pakistan’s power crisis is a dysfunctional energy sector that even Asif, the power minister, admits is a “nightmare.” With multiple ministries and agencies responsible for energy matters and no clear lines of authority, the policy-making process is wholly uncoordinated. Inefficiency is rife; transmission and distribution losses have approached 30 percent. Finally, the sector is burdened by so much debt that Pakistan literally can’t afford to provide energy.

 

These are big problems, and solving them will require big, politically risky moves: expanding Pakistan’s tax base, cracking down on theft and restructuring the power sector. Encouragingly, Pakistan’s new government has made energy its top priority, and proposed a new national policy.

 

Unfortunately, some of its correctives could be as destabilizing as the crisis itself. The new energy policy calls for emphasizing cheaper, unexploited indigenous reserves. These include coal in Thar, an impoverished desert region in Sindh province. For decades, Pakistan has extracted natural gas from another arid, poor, resource-rich region: Baluchistan. Over time, the fruits of this extraction have largely eluded locals, fueling an anti-government insurgency that blows up gas lines and severs electricity wires.

 

If Pakistan targets Thar’s coal fields, the consequences could be similarly explosive. Sindh is already embroiled in natural resource disputes, as locals blame their province’s water shortages on dams in upstream Punjab province. Islamabad’s plans to expand generation capacity by building more dams could drive up tensions between Pakistan’s fractious provinces. This all has troubling implications for the U.S., which has a strategic interest in a stable Pakistan. More unrest heightens the operational challenges of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which requires the use of Pakistani supply routes.

 

Mere Sliver

 

During his recent trip to Pakistan, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that U.S.-funded projects have added more than 1,200 megawatts of power to the national grid. This is a mere sliver of Pakistan’s daily demandwhich averages 15,000 MW. It hardly makes up for the estimated 4,000 MW that would be generated by a proposed gas pipeline with Iran, which Washington staunchly opposes. There’s only so much $1.5 billion in annual economic assistance for Pakistan — authorized by Congress through next year — can do.

 

Still, modest efforts are better than none at all — and now is the right time to pursue them. Relations with Islamabad have softened, and a broad-based strategic dialogue, suspended for several years, is expected to resume. Washington should use this opportunity to supplement its financing of high-cost generation projects (such as dams) with cheaper, smaller projects that subsidize electricity costs for the urban poor.

 

President Barack Obama’s administration should also work with Pakistan to establish a more welcoming environment for American energy investors and entrepreneurs. A bilateral investment treaty, now under negotiation, would be an excellent start. This wouldn’t improve Pakistan’s security situation or tax-to-GDP ratio, but it could strengthen intellectual property rights. That would facilitate the entry of U.S. technology, including solar-powered lanterns and electricity-independent sterilization technology for medical equipment.

 

We have too often ignored the roots of instability in Pakistan. Any efforts to address its power crisis can only benefit us all.

 

(Michael Kugelman is the senior program associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.)

To contact the writer of this article: Michael Kugelman at Michael.Kugelman@wilsoncenter.org.

 

Reference

, , ,

No Comments