Sunday, June 13, 2010

Behind the Veil - Lorraine Ali - The New York Times ( 8 Photos and 71 comments)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13veil.html?pagewanted=all


New York Times


Behind the Veil

Katherine Clark-Fritz for The New York Times
Sarah Ahmed prays at the Islamic Center of New Mexico as her niece, Khadijah Leseman, 6, stays close. Ms. Ahmed, an American Muslim, began wearing the veil after 9/11. More Photos »
By LORRAINE ALI
Published: June 11, 2010
ALBUQUERQUE

Readers' Comments

HEBAH AHMED assessed the weather before she stepped out of her minivan. “It’s windy,” she said with a sigh, tucking a loose bit of hair into her scarf. Her younger sister, Sarah, watched out the window as dust devils danced across the parking lot. “Oh, great,” she said, “I’m going to look like the flying nun.”
Hebah, who is 32, and Sarah, 28, do wear religious attire, but of the Islamic sort: a loose outer garment called a jilbab; a khimar, a head covering that drapes to the fingertips; and a niqab, a scarf that covers most of the face. Before the shopping trip, they consulted by phone to make sure they didn’t wear the same color. “Otherwise, we start to look like a cult,” Sarah explained.
When Hebah yanked open the van’s door, the wind filled her loose-fitting garments like a sail. Her 6-year-old daughter, Khadijah Leseman, laughed. Hebah unloaded Khadijah and her 2-year-old son, Saulih, while struggling to hold her khimar and niqab in place.
The wind whipped Sarah’s navy-blue jilbab like a sheet on a clothesline as she wrangled a shopping cart. Her 3-year-old son, Eesa Soliman, stayed close at her side, lost in the billowing fabric.
Most people in the parking lot stopped to stare.
If the sisters were aware that all eyes were on them, they gave no signs. In the supermarket, they ignored the curious glances in the produce section, the startled double takes by the baked goods and the scowls near the cereal. They glided along the aisles, stopping to compare prices on spaghetti sauce.
Two Hispanic children gasped and ran behind their mother. “Why are they dressed that way?” the girl asked her mother in Spanish. “Islam,” the woman said, also telling the child that the women were from Saudi Arabia.
Hebah, who is from Tennessee, smiled at the girl, but all that could be seen of her face were the lines around the eyes that signaled a grin. After nearly a decade under the veil, she and her sister know full well that they are a source of fascination — and many other reactions — to those around them.
Hebah said she has been kicked off planes by nervous flight attendants and shouted down in a Wal-Mart by angry shoppers who called her a terrorist. Her sister was threatened by a stranger in a picnic area who claimed he had killed a woman in Afghanistan “who looked just like” her. When she joined the Curves gym near her home in Edgewood, N.M., some members threatened to quit. “They said Islamists were taking over,” Ms. Ahmed said.
Her choice to become so identifiably Muslim even rattled her parents, immigrants from Egypt.
“I was more surprised than anything,” said her father, Mohamed Ahmed, who lives in Houston with her mother, Mervat Ahmed. He said he raised his daughters with a deep sense of pride about their Muslim background, but nevertheless did not expect them to wear a hijab, a head scarf, let alone a niqab.
Raised in what she described as a “minimally religious” household by parents who wore typical American clothes, Hebah used to think that women who wore a niqab were crazy, she said.
“It looked like they were suffocating,” she said. “I thought, ‘There’s no way God meant for us to walk around the earth that way, so why would anyone do that to themselves?’ ” Now many people ask that same question of her.
HEBAH AHMED (her first name is pronounced HIB-ah) was born in Chattanooga, raised in Nashville and Houston, and speaks with a slight drawl. She played basketball for her Catholic high school, earned a master’s in mechanical engineering and once worked in the Gulf of Mexico oilfields.
She is not a Muslim Everywoman; it is not a role she would ever claim for herself. Her story is hers alone. But she was willing to spend several days with a reporter to give an idea of what American life looks like from behind the veil, a garment that has become a powerful symbol of culture clash.
All that’s visible of Ms. Ahmed when she ventures into mixed company are her deep brown eyes, some faint freckles where the sun hits the top of her nose, and her hands. She used to leave the house in jeans and T-shirt (she still can, under her jilbab), but that all changed after the 9/11 attacks. It shook her deeply that the people who had committed the horrifying acts had identified themselves as Muslims.
“I just kept thinking ‘Why would they do this in the name of Islam?’ ” she said. “Does my religion really say to do those horrible things?”
So she read the Koran and other Islamic texts and began attending Friday prayers at her local Islamic Center. While she found nothing that justified the attacks, she did find meaning in prayers about strength, piety and resolve. She saw them as guideposts for navigating the world.
“I was really questioning my life’s purpose,” Ms. Ahmed said. “And everything about the bigger picture. I just wasn’t about me and my career anymore.”
She also reacted to a backlash against Islam and the news that many American Muslim women were not covering for fear of being targeted. “It was all so wrong,” she said. She took it upon herself to provide a positive example of her embattled faith, in a way that was hard to ignore.
So on Sept. 17, 2001, she wore a hijab into the laboratory where she worked, along with her business attire.
“A co-worker said, ‘You need to wrap a big ol’ American flag around your head so people know what side you’re on,’ ” Ms. Ahmed said. “From then on, they never let up.”
Three months later, she quit her job and started wearing a niqab, covering her face from view when in the presence of men other than her husband.
“I do this because I want to be closer to God, I want to please him and I want to live a modest lifestyle,” said Ms. Ahmed, who asked that her appearance without a veil not be described. “I want to be tested in that way. The niqab is a constant reminder to do the right thing. It’s God-consciousness in my face.”
But there were secular motivations, too. In her job, she worked with all-male teams on oilrigs and in labs.
“No matter how smart I was, I wasn’t getting the respect I wanted,” she said. “They still hit on me, made crude remarks and even smacked me on the butt a couple times.”
Wearing the niqab is “liberating,” she said. “They have to deal with my brain because I don’t give them any other choice.”
Her first run-in with public opinion came, ordinarily enough, while driving.
“A woman in the car next to me was waving, honking, motioning for me to roll down my window,” she said. “I tried to ignore her, but finally, we both had to stop at a light. I rolled down the window and braced myself. Then she said ‘Excuse me, your burqa is caught in your door.’ That broke the ice.”
Her sister Sarah started wearing a niqab around the same time, while completing her engineering degree at Rice University. The learning curve was steep; both sisters found they needed to carry straws for drinking in public, but eating was another story. Once Sarah forgot she was wearing a niqab and took a bite of an ice cream cone. “Humiliating,” she said, shaking her head.
Breathing wasn’t as difficult as they had imagined, but Hebah had a hard time contending with all the material around her.
“I kept losing things or leaving them behind,” she said. “But it’s like when you first put on high heels or a bra. It’s not the most comfortable thing, but there’s a purpose, and you believe that purpose outweighs the discomfort.”
WOMEN who cover totally, called niqabis, make up a tiny sliver of the estimated three million to seven million Muslims in the United States, yet they have come to embody much of what Westerners find foreign about Islam. Hidden under yards of cloth, they are the most visceral reminders of the differences between East and West, and an indisputable sign that Islam is weaving its way into American culture.
In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy is backing a bill to ban women from publicly wearing the niqab and its more conservative cousin, the burqa, which covers the wearer’s eyes with a mesh panel. Similar legislation is being considered in Canada and Belgium.
In the United States, there have been flashpoints: in 2006, Ginnnah Muhammad, a plaintiff in a small claims case in Detroit, refused the judge’s request to take off her niqab during court proceedings and so her case was thrown out. She later found herself in front of the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing for her right to wear the niqab in court. The high court upheld the judge’s action.
Ms. Muhammad and five other American niqabis were interviewed for this article, in addition to the Ahmed sisters. All of them made the decision to wear the niqab when they were single. And, although the Muslim faith does not require women to cover their faces, all believe the niqab gave them a bit of extra credit in the eyes of God. “The more clothes you wear, the closer you are to God,” Ms. Muhammad said.
Menahal Begawala, 28, was raised in Queens, the daughter of Indian immigrants. She began covering her face at age 19. “I suppose there is some part of me that wants to make a statement, ‘I am a Muslim,’ ” she said.
She is a former grade school teacher now living in Irving, Tex. “I think I blow perceptions because I speak English, I’m educated and it’s my choice to cover,” Ms. Begawala said.
Sarah Zitterman, who as a teenager was a blond California surfer, converted to Islam after living in Zanzibar as a student. In Africa, she felt more at peace with the call to prayer than she ever did at church back home in San Diego. Now 30 and the mother of three in Fresno, Calif., Ms. Zitterman said that being white and American has made her experience under the niqab a little easier.
“It’s less scary for others,” she said. “But the hardest is when kids are frightened. If there’s no men around, I’ll uncover and say ‘Hey, I’m just a mommy — see?’ ”
Most of the niqabis interviewed said that they have received almost as much criticism at their local mosques as at their local malls. Many Muslim Americans do not like being associated with the niqab, saying it gives non-Muslims the wrong idea about their faith.
“The idea of covering one’s face is challenging, even in our community,” said Edina Lekovic, communications director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “For more-mainstream Muslims, the understanding is that you dress modestly and cover everything but your hands and your face. So for a woman to choose to wear niqab is above and beyond what the Koran calls for.”
SARAH and Hebah Ahmed live only a few miles apart in Albuquerque’s East Mountains — Hebah off a winding dirt road with her children and husband, Zayd Chad Leseman, an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico; Sarah in a rural geodesic dome with her son and husband, Yasser Soliman, an engineer with Intel.
Hebah and her husband, who is from Moline, Ill., met as graduate students at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. By the time they were married in 2003, he had converted to Islam and taken the first name Zayd. People were often confused by the sight of the couple, she said, because he looks like “a corn-fed, Midwestern guy, then he’s walking with this covered women who’s dark — they can tell from my eyes.” She laughed and added, “They must wonder where he bought me.”
Mr. Leseman supports his wife’s decision to wear the niqab. “I am proud of my wife’s conviction to her beliefs, but it took some adjustment being out in public with her, especially with all the stares and comments,” he said.
Once, he said, “we wanted to go to my sister’s softball game, and my mother said ‘Yeah, right! Hebah will have to stay in the van.’ People think because her face is covered that her feelings are, too.”
The sisters make the 30-minute drive to Albuquerque a few times a week to grocery shop, attend prayers at the Islamic Center of New Mexico and drink smoothies at Satellite Coffee. The trunk of Hebah’s car is filled with pamphlets on Islam, English translations of the Koran and granola bars for her children.
When it comes to dealing with the public, she is a niqabi ambassador, friendly and outgoing. “I look at those run-ins with people as an opportunity to explain who I am and maybe shed some light on Islam,” Hebah said. “If they knew me or more about my faith, I’m sure they would think differently.”
She is used to explaining that a niqab is not a burqa and that no, she doesn’t wear it at home. In an all-female setting like Curves, one would not be able to identify a niqabi among the other women in workout gear. It does get hot under the jilbab, but as Sarah explained, it is “sort of like a self-contained air-conditioning unit that circulates cool air.”
Hebah has grown so used to her attire, she often forgets she has it on. “Sometimes I’ll pass a guy who’s looking at me, and I’m like ‘Is he checking me out?’” she said. “Then I’ll catch a glimpse of myself in a window and it’s like, ‘Uh, hello, Hebah — no.’ ”
WHILE driving on Interstate 40, heading home, Ms. Ahmed wedged her cellphone between her khimar and ear, then joked, “Look, a hands-free device.” Sarah rolled her eyes.
There are many types of niqabs, Hebah explained, pulling at least a half-dozen out of her closet. Pushing aside her worn copy of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus,” she made room for them on the bed.
Her niqabs were made by a seamstress in Egypt whom she met while visiting extended family, but many American niqabis buy their garments online. “You can’t get them here,” Hebah said. “I mean, the ones at the back of our local halal store — hideous.”
As she rummaged through her scarves, Khadijah tied one around her waist and twirled like a ballerina. Muslim women who cover usually wait until puberty to conceal their hair and bodies in public, but Khadijah likes to wear a hijab for dress-up — especially the pink one with sparkles.
Hebah said she wanted Khadijah “to be a confident female who is not victimized or abused.” She explained: “For me, the best way to do that is to do what I’m doing, and not just because Mama told her to, but because of her conviction. At the end of the day, she has to stand in front of God alone.”
When reminded that hers is a rocky path, and it would likely be the same for her daughter, Ms. Ahmed paused, then began to cry.
“People don’t understand,” she said, wiping a tear with the edge of her sleeve. “We’re really strong, but it takes a toll on you. Sometimes you think, ‘I just want to rest.’ ”
Sarah, helping her sister out, said: “We think of paradise at that point. Heaven is where we’re supposed to rest. That’s what gets us through.”

The price of democratic feudalism - By Tavleen Singh - The Indian Express


HATS OFF TO TAVLEEN SINGH FOR WRITING SUCH A GREAT ARTICLE - FOR THE FIRST TIME CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE MONSTER IN OUR MIDST!

GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI
-------------------------------------------------------------






The price of democratic feudalism


Tavleen SinghTags : tavleensinghcolumnPosted: Sun Jun 13 2010, 02:14 hrs
Last Sunday when I wrote about the Indian media’s reverence for Sonia Gandhi and her family, I had not foreseen that an event would shortly prove me right. That event was the judgment on the Bhopal gas tragedy that came soon after my column appeared and incensed public opinion because it amounted to no more than a gentle reprimand for those who had been responsible for the deaths of more than 25,000 people.
It was so shameful a verdict that our news channels went out of their way to hunt down those responsible for the tragedy and the terrible miscarriage of justice. We heard from pilots who flew Warren Andersen out of Bhopal in a government aircraft, drivers who drove him around, officials who shifted blame and retired officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation who said the Government of India ordered them to let Andersen off the hook. When the Congress Party’s spokesmen were called to answer, they happily blamed Arjun Singh who was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh at the time but nobody dared blame Rajiv Gandhi. Surely as Prime Minister he was more responsible for letting Andersen go? Surely it would have been impossible for Arjun Singh to let him flee the country without the Prime Minister’s permission?

When I tweeted about this I got some support but not a lot because it is not just the media that reveres and forgives our democratically elected royal family but a vast majority of Indians too. As a country we have accepted democratic feudalism as our preferred political system. So why should it surprise us that something as horrible as the Bhopal gas tragedy should happen and justice not be done for a quarter of a century? What does democratic feudalism have to do with what happened in Bhopal? Let me explain.
Feudalism through the ballot box is similar to real feudalism in that as a system it relies on keeping the majority of the populace poor and illiterate. The good thing about poor and illiterate people is that they can be relied on not to protest even in the face of horrible injustice. Not because they like it that way but because they cannot afford to do anything else. More than 4,000 people were gassed to death by Union Carbide on December 3, 1984 and our political leaders have behaved as if it were just another industrial accident. Worse still, the victims have accepted this in virtual silence. Social activists led a few protest marches but these were sporadic since most victims were too poor to do more than get on with their lives. This would be unthinkable in a country that had real democracy and people who were literate enough to understand that their rights as citizens went beyond voting in elections.
In India, ninety per cent of voters exercise their democratic rights only at election time and then wait for their lives to improve without realising that for real change you need real policies not just a leader who comes from the right family. Today, the roots of democratic feudalism have spread so far and wide that most Indian political parties revolve around personalities and not ideas or ideology. Even apolitical observers cannot fail to notice that nearly every political party from Kashmir to Kanyakumari is the property of some family and always there is an heir waiting in the wings. Among the heirs in waiting the most powerful is Rahul Gandhi because his inheritance is not Punjab or Tamil Nadu but the whole of India. The New York Times pointed out recently that all he has to do is collect his ‘inheritance’ when he decides that its time.
He is nice enough, our Rahul, and has spent the past few years being trained in politics, economics and statecraft. So, a worthy prince but a prince all the same. He will not change the system, no matter what he says, because feudalism of any kind needs poor and illiterate people to survive. Please notice that he has said not one word about the Bhopal verdict and nor has his Mummy. The victims of the tragedy are too desperate and poor to ask for more. It is for you and I who know better to recognise that democratic feudalism is the main reason why India remains mired in medieval problems of poverty and monumental injustice.
Since the verdict I have found myself wondering what India’s reaction would have been if that cloud of poisoned gas had wandered over Lutyen’s Delhi instead of a wretchedly poor slum on the edge of Bhopal. What would India’s reaction have been if among the 25,000 dead were senior members of the Indian government? Would Warren Andersen have been allowed to run away? Would an American company have been allowed to get away with mass murder?
Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter @ tavleen_singh

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Mandela v/s Gandhi/Nehru/Patel - While Mandela united a divided nation, Congress trio divided a united nation - By Ghulam Muhammed


Saturday, June 12, 2010

Mandela v/s Gandhi/Nehru/Patel

While Mandela united a divided nation, Congress trio divided a united nation

There is conventional myth that Gandhi inspired South Africa’s freedom movement and South Africans are generous in acknowledging the debt. However, Gandhi who is such a powerful symbol of justice and fairplay for the discriminated worldwide unfortunately could not do justice to his own nation.

Gandhi, unfortunately joined Nehru and Patel, (the trio that was most powerful after ostracizing Maulana Azad within the inner coterie) and historically stands as THE symbol that failed the United India and agreed to divide the nation.

The relevant question is if the Indian Muslims were as bad and oppressive as the Afrikaans were in South Africa that a case can be made out for partition.

Did Muslims divide the country into castes as the Brahmins had religiously divided over thousands of years?

If Muslims were supposed to be foreigners, were not the Brahmins too from Caucasian region. Urdu poet Iqbal indulges in a nostalgic trance when he fondly asks Ganges to remember the times when Brahmin caravans descended on its banks:

Ae a'abe roode Ganga, woh din hai yaad tujhko

Utra tere kinare jab caravan hamara

Sixty years is long time in a young nation’s freedom history and instead of it getting united, it is continuously threatened with fragmentation and divisions. Something is wrong somewhere in the Idea of India that the Brahmins are imposing on the multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-language continent size nation that is incongruent with building of a strong and united nation.

Is there a Mandela like figure born among us even in this moment in time that arises to unite the nation and put it on the path of peace and prosperity? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is making some moves to improve relations with our neighbours, Pakistanand Sri Lanka. However, unification at least in economic terms to the fullest extant possible, can only become the foundation for a later unification of India, in its real ethos.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Who rules India? Who owns India? By Ghulam Muhammed


Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Who rules India? Who owns India?

With World Cup 2010 opening this Friday in South Africa, world media attention is focused on practically all facets of South African life. The young leaders of ANC’s youth wing, replied to a BBC reporter that while Africans rule the country, they do not own it and now it is their aspiration is to own it too. The statement refers to national wealth in Gold, diamond mines and vast agricultural lands that is still in the hands of European whites and consequently it is that group, though no longer ruling the nation, has full control on its economy, through ownership of most of its economic resources.

In India, we had been fortunate that a wave of nationalization and state investment policies under India’s first Prime Minister and his advisers, had consolidate the rule and ownership in the hands of Indian people. However, after the entry of Manmohan Singh, first as Finance Minister and later as Prime Minister, and the phase of liberalisation ushered under his watch, the ownership of India is passing into the hands of other than Indian State or the majority of its suffering masses. The transfer of PSU, to private hands is nothing but transfer of India’s resources. As the liberalisation policy goes through its various versions, the nation is gradually passing into the hands of foreign investors, who will first own India’s resources and corporate assets and later will demand to rule the country. In fact, it is already happening and foreign countries especially US and its corporate section work in tandem to impose their own interests on Indian government policies, be that in signing of civilian nuclear sale agreements, the banking and industry, commerce and insurance, defence and security. While US President Obama is haranguing against British Petroleum, to pay to all that have suffered the consequences of the off-shore oil spill, the Indian government apparently tied up in invisible bondages of its leadership, is cowering under differing statements, when people realise that not only the government but even judiciary is under cloud to claim adequate compensation for Bhopal victims. Imagine Indian state paying damages of up to Rs. 4 lakhs to Railway accident victims, while it settles with the US Company for a meagre sum of around Rs. 40,000/- for the life of its own people. All judicial and diplomatic remedies are there, but the government is hampered by its subservience to foreign interest. (Is it for the reason that majority of the Bhopal victims are Muslims and the communalized government machinery is loath to stand up for Muslims?)

Practically every sector of our national polity is under threat. There is a danger that the 63 year old freedom of India will only be a paper freedom, where Indians will be forced to sign on blank papers.

The way a loot is going on to use government power to sell off, or hand over effective exploitation of our mining and forest resources, without any care for the local population’s present and future well-being and their rights on the land that they have inhabited since ages, Indian government is nothing better than any foreign colonial government that legitimised such loot and took care of toadies and middle-man. The Naxal movement appears to be a desperate attempt to seek justice, but the methods they have chosen and the people behind the movement are not clean and Indian people will be seriously short-changed.

Among the middle-men and toadies, are a very select group of communities who are very strategically placed to enrich themselves at the cost of other less fortunate communities. The danger is that all have-nots will resort to unconventional methods to right the wrongs and the majority of people will suffer without any hope to get any redressal from such upheavals. The economic and political scenario is so bad that only anarchy appears to be the nation’s destiny. The people at the helm of affairs, with exception of few, are all corrupt and deceitful. And even those that are honest, welfare minded and humane, are so caught up in the system of corruption that the way forward is most treacherous and dangerous. Only people’s awareness of the dire and alarming portents for the future under current regime can, if at all, hope to support a silent revolution to set India to make course correction.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

UPA inner war begins? By Rajinder Puri - The Free Press Journal, Mumbai

UPA Inner War Begins?
by Rajinder Puri

The first detailed information regarding Sharad Pawar’s involvement in an IPL bid publicized by media was most likely leaked only by official sources. If this inference is correct, the first shot in a power struggle to wrest control of the Union government has been fired.

On May 23 this scribe wrote in his comment "Political Climate Change Begins":
“While one set of ruling politicians under pressure of public opinion is impelled to expose the names involved (in corruption)… there is another set of politicians who are aware that their heads are on the chopping block. The second set that feels threatened cuts across political parties. For survival… to pre-empt their exposure… (They can only succeed) by toppling the government and seizing power. According to the political grapevine they are already on the job…The conspiracy to change the government within the next few months is under way. It remains to be seen whether a clash between the two groups is ignited to create a major political realignment ... Before winter we should know.”
If this surmise was correct, the government has pre-empted the toppling exercise by exposing Sharad Pawar. The renewed IPL crisis is not the only signal of the impending war within the UPA. There are other signs. Telecom Minister D Raja is crucial to the Karunanidhi dynasty. The Tamil Nadu patriarch has made clear more than once that he would not brook action by the Union government against his favourite. If there is vast corruption in the Spectrum scam for which Raja is responsible the kickbacks collected would include several beneficiaries in Tamil Nadu and possibly even elsewhere. The close rapport that exists between Sharad Pawar and Karunanidhi goes back a long way. Indeed it was their combined initiative that compelled the Congress to select Pratibha Patil to become the UPA presidential candidate.

Now the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has intervened to prevent Raja from participating in an international conference. The snubbing is not one sided. Raja on his side has removed the Congress Minister of State Gurudas Kamat from the Telecom department and confined him to the department looking after Posts. Clearly, tension between the Congress and DMK is growing. If Raja is subjected to any action or is transferred to another ministry the tension could escalate to an open break. At present therefore there are two potential parties that could revolt against the UPA government, NCP and DMK.

Together the DMK and NCP account for 27 Lok Sabha MPs – 18 with DMK, 9 with NCP. In all there are 543 Lok Sabha MPs. For getting a majority 272 are required. The UPA has a total of 268 MPs. The NDA has 153, the Third Front has 114. There are 8 independents. The UPA government has succeeded in getting the required majority each time largely because of a divided opposition. Also, very often UPA majority is obtained by the fact that several opposition leaders have CBI inquiries pending against them which persuade them to keep the government in good humour.

If 27 MPs of the DMK-NCP combination were to walk out of the UPA the government could be in an insurmountable crisis. To cover the loss neither Mulayam Singh’s SP, with 22 MPs, nor Mayawati’s BSP, with 21 MPs, would suffice. On present reckoning both these parties cannot be on the same side. The Left Front with 24 MPs along with either Mulayam Singh or with 8 independents could conceivably fill the breach. But that can safely be ruled out. If the Left supports Congress, 19 MPs of Trinamool Congress will quit UPA. All this makes the Congress spokespersons exceedingly circumspect when commenting on either Sharad Pawar or D Raja.
Why then would official sources have leaked damning exposures related to Pawar or Raja in the first place? The likely answer is that certain government circles know that regardless of what the government may or may not expose, the conspiracy to topple the government is already under way. Exposure was pre-emptive action. Pawar is the crucial kingpin of Operation Topple. Why so, when he has only 9 MPs? Well, he is the biggest political fund raiser in the country.
Many MPs to support the toppling exercise would require proof that in the event of a mid-term poll they would be financially looked after. Curiously, two national dailies, supporting respectively CPI-M and BJP, grossly underplayed the Pawar exposure. The last time CPI-M and BJP colluded was against the Indo-US nuclear deal.

In his recent press conference the PM said he would not retire until he had completed his unfinished tasks. His biggest unfinished task on which he has staked his reputation is to achieve a breakthrough in the Indo-Pak peace process. President Obama in Washington declared that he expected his November visit to India will create history. Does he expect that by November a breakthrough in the Indo-Pak peace process to which the US has committed itself will be announced?

Twice earlier a breakthrough in Indo-Pak peace was scuttled at the last moment. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s game-changing visit to Lahore was followed by the Kargil attack. The man who scuttled the Lahore effort, General Musharraf, later as the Pakistan President, was on the brink of a peace breakthrough in the Agra summit. At the very last minute differences over one word in the joint communiqué, whether it should be “terrorism” or “cross-border terrorism”, scuttled the agreement. It would seem that forces opposed to Indo-Pak peace have a very, very long reach. These forces have the ability to play upon the petty ambitions and concerns of politicians to manipulate them and thwart peace prospects.

The Indo-Pak peace process was jinxed twice. Will it be jinxed again or will India be third time lucky? The intrigues afoot deny easy answers. Before winter it should be known if the UPA government survives, whether major political realignments occur, and whether President Obama’s visit to India will end as victory or farce. All this may appear wildly fanciful. Perhaps. But suspend judgment till November, 2010.       

June 7, 2010

UPA inner war begins? By Rajinder Puri - The Free Press Journal, Mumbai

Monday, June 7, 2010

Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says - By Natasha Mosgovaya - HAARETZ.com


The silent majority world over is trying to send a message to Israel. The truth has to come out. How long the world will be gagged?

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/jews-should-leave-palestine-and-return-to-europe-top-u-s-journalist-says-1.294284


Mon, June 07, 2010 Sivan 25, 5770
  • Published 11:35 05.06.10
  • Latest update 19:48 05.06.10

Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says

White House reporter Helen Thomas also slams Obama administration for not condemning 'deliberate Gaza flotilla massacre.'

By Natasha MozgovayaTags: Israel news Barack Obama Gaza flotilla
Israeli Jews should get out of Palestine and  go back "home," to Germany and Poland, senior White House Press Corps member Helen Thomas was taped as saying earlier this week, bringing calls for her resignation by Jewish organization B'nai B'rith.
In a recently uploaded Youtube video, Thomas can be heard saying that Israel "should get the hell out of Palestine," adding that the land was Palestinian, "not German, it's not Polish."
Thomas, in response, posted the following statement on her website, saying she deeply regretted the "comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

When asked where then the Jews should go, the senior White House correspondent said they should "Go home…. To Poland, Germany…and America and everywhere else."
"Thomas’ comments are contemptible, "B’nai B’rith International President Dennis W. Glick said in a statement, adding that Thomas's "distortion of historical reality is astonishing. Her call for Jews to return to Poland and Germany—site of the Nazi genocide, the worst genocide in modern history—is beyond offensive."
Glick added that he felt "Thomas seems to have been schooled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a belief that Jews appeared in Israel after the Holocaust," while ignoring "historical facts that Jews have called the Land of Israel home for more than 3,000 years, long before any other group made a home in the land."

"These vile comments, unfortunately, are the culmination of Thomas' ongoing anti-Israel sentiments that she kept thinly veiled over the years," B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin said.
"There should be no place for her in a news organization. Her comments go beyond commentary and land well in the camp that will stop at nothing to delegitimize Israel."

Last week, during a briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Thomas' criticized the American reaction to the deadly Israeli raid of a humanitarian aid convoy, saying that "our initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful."
"What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is this sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship, where a country that deliberately kills people," Thomas had said.

Helen Thomas
Helen Thomas.