Andhra politics

– N S Rajaram

Some people in India has stated that “The western governments with their homogenising and de-nationalising mission are as much a threat to Hindu India as the jihadis. So please take the report seriously as an indicator of both contemporary and future foreign policy trends of the US.”

I am not sure I agree. I have close ties with the U.S. military among others and I don’t see it that way. In any event, what is the alternative? Not work with them but shun them as untouchables and cry among ourselves?

I have worked with RAND and nothing is accomplished by talking among ourselves. Also I don’t hold on to the belief that the U.S. is driven by white racism. If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation with white people– be it Sonia Gandhi, Michael Witzel or Jean Dreze. None of them would be taken seriously in the West. We are creating these white monsters. We needn’t scare ourselves so much.

See how the Japanese defeated them, but went and begged Mountbatten. We need to get out of this fear psychosis. As Franklin Roosevelt once said: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Rajaram

Seconded by
– by Ram Narayanan

“If anything, it is India that has excessive precoccupation
with white people” You are exactly right! 

The fact is that India started its independence with  a huge burden – a morbid sense of inferiority complex in relation to the white man!! My estimate or guesstimate will be that 80 percent of educated Indians of that time suffered from this complex. However, the new generation that has largely replaced the first post-independence generation, is full of self confidence and knows it has the ability to beat the white man in the global game that’s unfolding. India’s is, therefore, now well set on the road to its tryst with destiny! Yet, I guess probably  20 percent of the educated guys in India today may still be suffering from that “disease”. It’s that section that one often comes across in various walks of life including the media.

Ram Narayanan

Please read Page 57 of the report, the very last paragraph:

Exploring Religious Conflict
Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost

“For the intelligence community, a different set of conceptual tools must be employed to better understand this new reality. It requires both understanding of religions and knowledge of non-Western culture and history as seen through a non-Western lens. For an analyst who is American by culture and training, this is a formidable task but one that is not insurmountable. The lens through which one views cosmic war and state response can be helpful. The next steps in building a framework for thinking about religion and conflict or violence might be to look in more depth at the particulars of religious extremists – such as their leadership or their patterns of education and indoctrination.”

ANALYSIS :

If someone translate this into plain English it appears that the recommendation is to target the leadership. As was done recently with Kanchi Shankaracharya who was identified as an accused even before Sankararaman was murdered. If such thundering recommendations can come as a result of mere ‘conversations’ (this is what Greg claims) in a RAND workshop with wackos, woe unto the ‘informed’ policy-making process in USA.

Please read Page 57 of the report, the very last paragraph:

Exploring Religious Conflict
Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost

“For the intelligence community, a different set of conceptual tools must be employed to better understand this new reality. It requires both understanding of religions and knowledge of non-Western culture and history as seen through a non-Western lens. For an analyst who is American by culture and training, this is a formidable task but one that is not insurmountable. The lens through which one views cosmic war and state response can be helpful. The next steps in building a framework for thinking about religion and conflict or violence might be to look in more depth at the particulars of religious extremists – such as their leadership or their patterns of education and indoctrination.”

ANALYSIS :

If someone translate this into plain English it appears that the recommendation is to target the leadership. As was done recently with Kanchi Shankaracharya who was identified as an accused even before Sankararaman was murdered. If such thundering recommendations can come as a result of mere ‘conversations’ (this is what Greg claims) in a RAND workshop with wackos, woe unto the ‘informed’ policy-making process in USA.

Co(s)mic war

‘GREGORY TREVERTON’S CO(S)MIC WAR’ – HINDU REVIEW OF THE RAND REPORT

Story Religious expert Mark Juergens Meyer and his other religious expert friends

Script Gregory F Treverton & Co. of the RAND National Security Research Division

Directors Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, Department of the Navy, the U.S. intelligence community, allied foreign governments, and Foundations.

Producer CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence

Cast Christian God and Muslim God, Christian terrorist groups, Islamic Jihadi outfits, White Christian and Islamic Governments overtly and overtly supporting religious terrorism, New Religious Movements belonging to Christianity and Islam and the Jewish, Hindu and other victims of Islam and Christianity, and Rand’s ‘religious experts’ and US intelligence analysts.

Now showing in some theatre near your home.

The lasting impression of the average viewer is confusion followed by outrage. The Hindu critic sat through two-thirds of the movie for an agonizing 2 hours and then conducted an exit poll outside a cinema hall showing Gregory Treverton’s ‘Cosmic War’, questioning viewers as they emerged after the show. 83% of those questioned told us they did not know even at the end of the movie if the war or the story had ended when it ended while 17% expressed the view that the movie must be renamed ‘comic war’. While 42% thought the story of ‘cosmic war’ was boring old stuff redeemed however in small measure by excellent modern special effect visuals provided by White Christianity’s nuclear weapons and the Islamic world’s other weapons of mass destruction, 36% thought the ‘cosmic war’ between the Christians and Muslims was action like they get to see on WWF on the small screen where two fat men in funny underclothes and gaudy painted faces merely pretend to kill each other and that it was a lot of fun; 22% told us they were not sure if the film was meant to amuse them, scare them or bore them. All of them agreed that Jurgensmeyer story and Treverton’s script sucked and that the Directors were trying to sell them a lemon and that they would think twice before watching a Rand Corporation movie again.

The story in brief: The Christian God wants Christians to believe just as the Muslim God wants Muslims to believe that He alone is God and therefore ‘good’. It follows therefore that the God who is not God is not good but evil and this depends on which God shouts louder. Both Gods want the same cosmos for their kingdom and decide to fight to the finish for it. That is why the movie is named ‘Cosmic War’ and that is why Treverton, the principal author calls the war between the two ‘only me God’, a war of good and evil. The story is straight forward up until here.

After a while both these ‘only me God’s get weary of beating up each other to a pulp and call off their war to take a breather. They declare the first of their several cease-fire agreements, agree that fighting each other to death is silly when they can get others to do it for them and so come to a mutually beneficial agreement to convert the ‘Cosmic War’ from the metaphysical into the physical. Both ‘only me God’s begin the process of creating their own terrorist armies who from now on will not only fight each other to the finish, but will also exterminate from the earth those who refuse to join them. From fighting an invisible war in some remote corner of the cosmos, both Gods create their own terrorists to fight the wars on their behalf and descend invisibly to earth to oversee the acts of murder, mayhem, rape, plunder, loot and destruction performed for them and in their name.

The biggest disappointment of the story and the script and the film is that just as the two ‘only me God’s could not fight each other to the finish, their terrorist armies too cannot seem to fight each other to the finish. And so Jurgensmeyer, seeks to present a twist in the tale. He advocates the two terrorist armies of the two ‘only me Gods’ to declare yet another cease-fire, to realize that they are the children of Siamese twins separated at birth and to turn as one against those that refuse to join either army. The ‘Siamese Twins’ lie must be exposed, the Hindu critic thought. Jurgensmeyer forgot the Jews. It should actually be Siamese Twins of three Gods and their armies.

Obedient to the Jurgensmeyer exhortation, as the two (should be three) ‘only me God’s look around the as yet unconquered cosmos, their attention is caught by a bare-chested Hindu dwarf clad in a small piece of white cloth from the waist down sporting a wooden umbrella, who was pressing the Christian and Muslim nether world firmly under one small foot while the other small foot effortlessly soared over their own heads to span the cosmos which both ‘only me God’ s hoped some day to control. The act of spanning the cosmos with one small foot was one of the several stupendous visual treats of the film and the fury of the ‘only me God’ s, understandably, knew no bounds.

Jurgensmeyer points to the dwarf and tells the two ‘only me God’ s that it is the dwarf which poses the biggest challenge to their military power and cosmic hegemony and that the Siamese twins instead of trying to finish each other off which in any case they cannot do, must try to finish off the followers of this dwarf whom he calls the RSS. From then on the film rapidly descends into bathos. The third part of the Siamese Twins decides to strike a tactical alliance with the army of the Hindu Dwarf. At intermission, the viewers are left with the question, who, for God’s and Cosmos’ sake, is the bad guy in all this. If both ‘only me God’s want the same Cosmos, if both think they are Good while the other is Evil, if the madmen and women who constitute the terrorist armies of these Gods cause the same death and destruction, who, asks the Hindu critic, is good and who evil?

Jurgensmeyer’s answer to that one – Ravana, the metaphysical ‘evil one’ and his terrorist army, the RSS! Even as the Hindu critic rubbed his ears and eyes in total disbelief, Jurgensmeyer and Co. present Ayodhya as Kurukshetra the Cosmic battlefield at which point the Hindu critic walks out of the hall in disgust. He like many others is considering suing the Rand Corporation to get his money back. This can’t be serious, agree those questioned by the exit poll. If the Rand wants to avoid litigation it must first rename ‘Cosmic War’ to ‘Comic War’ which should not be too difficult and then have the film certified as ’spoof’ so that viewers are not deceived.

Viewer Rating: *

Critic rating: */2

16th August, 2005.

Co(s)mic war

‘GREGORY TREVERTON’S CO(S)MIC WAR’ – HINDU REVIEW OF THE RAND REPORT

Story Religious expert Mark Juergens Meyer and his other religious expert friends

Script Gregory F Treverton & Co. of the RAND National Security Research Division

Directors Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, Department of the Navy, the U.S. intelligence community, allied foreign governments, and Foundations.

Producer CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence

Cast Christian God and Muslim God, Christian terrorist groups, Islamic Jihadi outfits, White Christian and Islamic Governments overtly and overtly supporting religious terrorism, New Religious Movements belonging to Christianity and Islam and the Jewish, Hindu and other victims of Islam and Christianity, and Rand’s ‘religious experts’ and US intelligence analysts.

Now showing in some theatre near your home.

The lasting impression of the average viewer is confusion followed by outrage. The Hindu critic sat through two-thirds of the movie for an agonizing 2 hours and then conducted an exit poll outside a cinema hall showing Gregory Treverton’s ‘Cosmic War’, questioning viewers as they emerged after the show. 83% of those questioned told us they did not know even at the end of the movie if the war or the story had ended when it ended while 17% expressed the view that the movie must be renamed ‘comic war’. While 42% thought the story of ‘cosmic war’ was boring old stuff redeemed however in small measure by excellent modern special effect visuals provided by White Christianity’s nuclear weapons and the Islamic world’s other weapons of mass destruction, 36% thought the ‘cosmic war’ between the Christians and Muslims was action like they get to see on WWF on the small screen where two fat men in funny underclothes and gaudy painted faces merely pretend to kill each other and that it was a lot of fun; 22% told us they were not sure if the film was meant to amuse them, scare them or bore them. All of them agreed that Jurgensmeyer story and Treverton’s script sucked and that the Directors were trying to sell them a lemon and that they would think twice before watching a Rand Corporation movie again.

The story in brief: The Christian God wants Christians to believe just as the Muslim God wants Muslims to believe that He alone is God and therefore ‘good’. It follows therefore that the God who is not God is not good but evil and this depends on which God shouts louder. Both Gods want the same cosmos for their kingdom and decide to fight to the finish for it. That is why the movie is named ‘Cosmic War’ and that is why Treverton, the principal author calls the war between the two ‘only me God’, a war of good and evil. The story is straight forward up until here.

After a while both these ‘only me God’s get weary of beating up each other to a pulp and call off their war to take a breather. They declare the first of their several cease-fire agreements, agree that fighting each other to death is silly when they can get others to do it for them and so come to a mutually beneficial agreement to convert the ‘Cosmic War’ from the metaphysical into the physical. Both ‘only me God’s begin the process of creating their own terrorist armies who from now on will not only fight each other to the finish, but will also exterminate from the earth those who refuse to join them. From fighting an invisible war in some remote corner of the cosmos, both Gods create their own terrorists to fight the wars on their behalf and descend invisibly to earth to oversee the acts of murder, mayhem, rape, plunder, loot and destruction performed for them and in their name.

The biggest disappointment of the story and the script and the film is that just as the two ‘only me God’s could not fight each other to the finish, their terrorist armies too cannot seem to fight each other to the finish. And so Jurgensmeyer, seeks to present a twist in the tale. He advocates the two terrorist armies of the two ‘only me Gods’ to declare yet another cease-fire, to realize that they are the children of Siamese twins separated at birth and to turn as one against those that refuse to join either army. The ‘Siamese Twins’ lie must be exposed, the Hindu critic thought. Jurgensmeyer forgot the Jews. It should actually be Siamese Twins of three Gods and their armies.

Obedient to the Jurgensmeyer exhortation, as the two (should be three) ‘only me God’s look around the as yet unconquered cosmos, their attention is caught by a bare-chested Hindu dwarf clad in a small piece of white cloth from the waist down sporting a wooden umbrella, who was pressing the Christian and Muslim nether world firmly under one small foot while the other small foot effortlessly soared over their own heads to span the cosmos which both ‘only me God’ s hoped some day to control. The act of spanning the cosmos with one small foot was one of the several stupendous visual treats of the film and the fury of the ‘only me God’ s, understandably, knew no bounds.

Jurgensmeyer points to the dwarf and tells the two ‘only me God’ s that it is the dwarf which poses the biggest challenge to their military power and cosmic hegemony and that the Siamese twins instead of trying to finish each other off which in any case they cannot do, must try to finish off the followers of this dwarf whom he calls the RSS. From then on the film rapidly descends into bathos. The third part of the Siamese Twins decides to strike a tactical alliance with the army of the Hindu Dwarf. At intermission, the viewers are left with the question, who, for God’s and Cosmos’ sake, is the bad guy in all this. If both ‘only me God’s want the same Cosmos, if both think they are Good while the other is Evil, if the madmen and women who constitute the terrorist armies of these Gods cause the same death and destruction, who, asks the Hindu critic, is good and who evil?

Jurgensmeyer’s answer to that one – Ravana, the metaphysical ‘evil one’ and his terrorist army, the RSS! Even as the Hindu critic rubbed his ears and eyes in total disbelief, Jurgensmeyer and Co. present Ayodhya as Kurukshetra the Cosmic battlefield at which point the Hindu critic walks out of the hall in disgust. He like many others is considering suing the Rand Corporation to get his money back. This can’t be serious, agree those questioned by the exit poll. If the Rand wants to avoid litigation it must first rename ‘Cosmic War’ to ‘Comic War’ which should not be too difficult and then have the film certified as ’spoof’ so that viewers are not deceived.

Viewer Rating: *

Critic rating: */2

16th August, 2005.

From: N.S. Rajaram
To: Gene_Gritton@rand.org
Cc: Nurith_Berstein@rand.org ; gregt@rand.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RAND report ‘Exploring Religious Conflict’– better work needed
N.S. Rajaram, Ph.D.
13908 Plantation Way
Edmond, OK 73103

(405) 749 7811

August 16, 2005

Mr. Gene Gritton
NSRD Vice President and NDRI Director
RAND National Security Research Division
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 9040 - 2138

Dear Mr. Gritton:

SUBJECT: RAND Report– Exploring Religious Conflict and need for a conference

As one who has had a fruitful association with RAND, not recently but years ago when Tony Hearn used to be the head of the Computer Science Division, it was with high expectations that I looked up your new report Exploring Religious Conflict by Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost released on August 8, 2005. There is no more important subject for study and anlysis in today’s world, and no better organization to do it than RAND with its reputation for scholarship depth of analysis.

Imagine my disappointment when I found not a sharp analytical study but a metaphysical polemic that trivializes the threat before the world with obscure statements like: “NRMs (New Religious Movements) can be found in Hinduism— the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, Israel (Gush Emunim), Christianity (the US-based Identity Movement) and Islam, including Al-Qaeda, a global network with a transcendant vision that draws support in the defence of Islam.”

Someone unfamaliar with RAND’s sterling reputation could easily draw the conclusion that the whole exercise is meant as a whitewash of Al Qaeda by comparing it to other religious (and non-religious) organizations like the RSS, Eminum et al which, unlike the Al Qaeda, have no international terror network and are not engaged in terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London tube stations. I am surprised that the authors have not bracketed the YMCA also with Al Qaeda.

I am partcularly appalled that Mark Juergensmeyer’s personal and partisan views of Indian politicians like Vajpayee and Advani (both out of power) should have found their way into what should be an objective assessment to help policy-makers. The report is put together in haste by inexperienced workers (probably graduate students) unfailiar with the area. This alone can account for howlers like the one on pages 48-9 where the BJP Government that came came to power in 1996 and 1998 is contrived to be responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s death in 1948! I can uderstand a novice making a blunder like that, but not a supposed ‘expert’ like Juergensmeyer. It is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.

At the same time, it is of paramount importance to study the impact of religious conflict, especially of Jihad, which is the openly proclaimed ideology of Al Qaeda. Jihad is the basis of all conflict in the world today. Note that none of the other so-called religious groups mentioned by Juergensmeyer—not even the YMCA—has anything comparable to Jihad. So Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist outfits cannot be swept under the carpet as just another religious group.

I suggest that the threat of religious conflict cannot be isolated in space or time, but needs to be studied in its proper historical setting. (See The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, 2005, Phoenix Books.)

I feel that RAND should explore the possibility of organizing a major international conference on the subject with participation by internationally known experts in the field. It should not be partisan and should involve scholars of independent views and substance, not lightweight academics and graduate students. The idea should be to make the public and policy-makers aware of the nature of the conflict, not to sweep unpleasant truths under the rug with metaphysical generalizations false history and faulty comparisons.

I feel that both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security might be interested in sponsoring such a conference or workshop. If you feel it can be useful, I am willing to help you in preparing the proposal. It is only fair to inform you that I will be approaching other U.S. and other organizations with such a proposal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
N.S. Rajaram (nsrajaram@vsnl.com)

From: N.S. Rajaram
To: Gene_Gritton@rand.org
Cc: Nurith_Berstein@rand.org ; gregt@rand.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RAND report ‘Exploring Religious Conflict’– better work needed
N.S. Rajaram, Ph.D.
13908 Plantation Way
Edmond, OK 73103

(405) 749 7811

August 16, 2005

Mr. Gene Gritton
NSRD Vice President and NDRI Director
RAND National Security Research Division
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 9040 - 2138

Dear Mr. Gritton:

SUBJECT: RAND Report– Exploring Religious Conflict and need for a conference

As one who has had a fruitful association with RAND, not recently but years ago when Tony Hearn used to be the head of the Computer Science Division, it was with high expectations that I looked up your new report Exploring Religious Conflict by Gregory F. Treverton, Heather S. Gregg, Daniel Gibran and Charles Yost released on August 8, 2005. There is no more important subject for study and anlysis in today’s world, and no better organization to do it than RAND with its reputation for scholarship depth of analysis.

Imagine my disappointment when I found not a sharp analytical study but a metaphysical polemic that trivializes the threat before the world with obscure statements like: “NRMs (New Religious Movements) can be found in Hinduism— the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, Israel (Gush Emunim), Christianity (the US-based Identity Movement) and Islam, including Al-Qaeda, a global network with a transcendant vision that draws support in the defence of Islam.”

Someone unfamaliar with RAND’s sterling reputation could easily draw the conclusion that the whole exercise is meant as a whitewash of Al Qaeda by comparing it to other religious (and non-religious) organizations like the RSS, Eminum et al which, unlike the Al Qaeda, have no international terror network and are not engaged in terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London tube stations. I am surprised that the authors have not bracketed the YMCA also with Al Qaeda.

I am partcularly appalled that Mark Juergensmeyer’s personal and partisan views of Indian politicians like Vajpayee and Advani (both out of power) should have found their way into what should be an objective assessment to help policy-makers. The report is put together in haste by inexperienced workers (probably graduate students) unfailiar with the area. This alone can account for howlers like the one on pages 48-9 where the BJP Government that came came to power in 1996 and 1998 is contrived to be responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s death in 1948! I can uderstand a novice making a blunder like that, but not a supposed ‘expert’ like Juergensmeyer. It is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.

At the same time, it is of paramount importance to study the impact of religious conflict, especially of Jihad, which is the openly proclaimed ideology of Al Qaeda. Jihad is the basis of all conflict in the world today. Note that none of the other so-called religious groups mentioned by Juergensmeyer—not even the YMCA—has anything comparable to Jihad. So Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist outfits cannot be swept under the carpet as just another religious group.

I suggest that the threat of religious conflict cannot be isolated in space or time, but needs to be studied in its proper historical setting. (See The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, 2005, Phoenix Books.)

I feel that RAND should explore the possibility of organizing a major international conference on the subject with participation by internationally known experts in the field. It should not be partisan and should involve scholars of independent views and substance, not lightweight academics and graduate students. The idea should be to make the public and policy-makers aware of the nature of the conflict, not to sweep unpleasant truths under the rug with metaphysical generalizations false history and faulty comparisons.

I feel that both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security might be interested in sponsoring such a conference or workshop. If you feel it can be useful, I am willing to help you in preparing the proposal. It is only fair to inform you that I will be approaching other U.S. and other organizations with such a proposal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
N.S. Rajaram (nsrajaram@vsnl.com)

Unfree Under Islam

Shariah endangers women’s rights, from Iraq to Canada.

BY AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:01 a.m.

In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance.
Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Some women have found a way out of this dilemma in the principle of separation of organized religion and state affairs. They fight an uphill battle to achieve and hold on to their basic rights. Two cases demonstrate just how difficult that struggle can be, in the context of new as well as established democracies.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting–using the Canadian Charter of Rights–to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.

It seems strange to associate the context of Canada with that of Iraq, but a closer look at the arguments used to reassure the demonstrating women in both countries reveals the similar ordeals that Muslim women in both countries must go through to secure their rights. It shows how their legitimate and serious worries are trivialized, and how vulnerable and alone they are. It shows how the Free World led by the U.S. went to war in Iraq, allegedly to bring liberty to Iraqis, and is compromising the basic rights of women in order to meet a random date. It shows how the theory of multiculturalism in Western liberal democracies is working against women in ethnic and religious minorities with misogynist practices. It shows the tenacity of many imams, mullahs and self-made Muslim radicals to subjugate women in the name of God. Most of all, it shows how many of those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing see their energy levels rise when it comes to Bush-bashing, but lose their voice when women’s rights are threatened by religious obscurantism.
Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq’s constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein’s regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah–which gives a husband complete control over his wife–is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot? I thought that President Bush and all the allies who supported the Iraq war aspired to bring democracy and liberty to all Iraqis. Aren’t Iraqi girls and women human enough to share in that dream?

Under Shariah, a girl becomes eligible for marriage from the moment she starts to menstruate. In countries where Islamic law is practiced, child-brides are common. Do the drafters of the constitution grasp what this will mean for the school curriculum of girls or the risks of miscarriages, maternal fatalities and infant deaths? These and other hazards that affect subjugated women are common phenomena in the 22 Arab-Islamic countries investigated in the Arab Human Development Report. An early marriage also means many children in an area of the world that is already overpopulated and poor.

The draft Iraqi bill of rights favors men in other respects, such as the right to marry up to four wives, and the right to an easy divorce, without the interference of a court, simply by repeating “I divorce you” in the presence of two male witnesses. A wife divorced in such a fashion will receive an allowance for a period of three months to one year, and after that period nothing. On the other hand, if a wife wants a divorce, she must go to court and prove that her husband does not meet her material needs, that he is infertile and that he is impotent. Once a divorce is finalized, if there are children, the custody of the children will automatically go to the father (for boys at age 7 and for girls from the start of menstruation). Inheritance based on the Shariah means that wives will get only a small portion of the property of their husbands and a sister will get half what her brother gets.
Canadian women are told that the Arbitration Act of 1992 was passed in order to provide citizens with the opportunity to resolve minor conflicts through mediation and thereby save valuable court time. They are reassured that Muslim women in Canada have nothing to fear because parties must enter into arbitration out of their free choice, and that there are enough limits to safeguard the rights of women. The Muslim women’s arguments that “free choice” is relative when you are psychologically, financially and socially dependent on your family, clan or religious group seem to fall on deaf ears. The populations of battered Muslim women in “tolerant” Canada’s women’s shelters seem to be ignored. In Canada, battered Muslim women say that their husbands told them that it is a God-given right to hit them. If the current Iraqi constitution goes through, Iraqi wife-abusers will be able to add “It is my constitutional right to beat you.”

An Iraqi constitution is necessary, and the need for urgency is apparent, but urgency is a bad argument for passing a bill that strips half the nation of its rights. In Ontario, minorities come first and individual women within minorities last, living as second-class citizens and suffering in silence.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament for the Liberal Party, was born in Somalia. She took refuge in the Netherlands in 1992 to escape an arranged marriage, and has had armed bodyguards after receiving death threats from Muslim extremists. She writes at http://www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/.

Unfree Under Islam

Shariah endangers women’s rights, from Iraq to Canada.

BY AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:01 a.m.

In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance.
Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Some women have found a way out of this dilemma in the principle of separation of organized religion and state affairs. They fight an uphill battle to achieve and hold on to their basic rights. Two cases demonstrate just how difficult that struggle can be, in the context of new as well as established democracies.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting–using the Canadian Charter of Rights–to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.

It seems strange to associate the context of Canada with that of Iraq, but a closer look at the arguments used to reassure the demonstrating women in both countries reveals the similar ordeals that Muslim women in both countries must go through to secure their rights. It shows how their legitimate and serious worries are trivialized, and how vulnerable and alone they are. It shows how the Free World led by the U.S. went to war in Iraq, allegedly to bring liberty to Iraqis, and is compromising the basic rights of women in order to meet a random date. It shows how the theory of multiculturalism in Western liberal democracies is working against women in ethnic and religious minorities with misogynist practices. It shows the tenacity of many imams, mullahs and self-made Muslim radicals to subjugate women in the name of God. Most of all, it shows how many of those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing see their energy levels rise when it comes to Bush-bashing, but lose their voice when women’s rights are threatened by religious obscurantism.
Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq’s constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein’s regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah–which gives a husband complete control over his wife–is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot? I thought that President Bush and all the allies who supported the Iraq war aspired to bring democracy and liberty to all Iraqis. Aren’t Iraqi girls and women human enough to share in that dream?

Under Shariah, a girl becomes eligible for marriage from the moment she starts to menstruate. In countries where Islamic law is practiced, child-brides are common. Do the drafters of the constitution grasp what this will mean for the school curriculum of girls or the risks of miscarriages, maternal fatalities and infant deaths? These and other hazards that affect subjugated women are common phenomena in the 22 Arab-Islamic countries investigated in the Arab Human Development Report. An early marriage also means many children in an area of the world that is already overpopulated and poor.

The draft Iraqi bill of rights favors men in other respects, such as the right to marry up to four wives, and the right to an easy divorce, without the interference of a court, simply by repeating “I divorce you” in the presence of two male witnesses. A wife divorced in such a fashion will receive an allowance for a period of three months to one year, and after that period nothing. On the other hand, if a wife wants a divorce, she must go to court and prove that her husband does not meet her material needs, that he is infertile and that he is impotent. Once a divorce is finalized, if there are children, the custody of the children will automatically go to the father (for boys at age 7 and for girls from the start of menstruation). Inheritance based on the Shariah means that wives will get only a small portion of the property of their husbands and a sister will get half what her brother gets.
Canadian women are told that the Arbitration Act of 1992 was passed in order to provide citizens with the opportunity to resolve minor conflicts through mediation and thereby save valuable court time. They are reassured that Muslim women in Canada have nothing to fear because parties must enter into arbitration out of their free choice, and that there are enough limits to safeguard the rights of women. The Muslim women’s arguments that “free choice” is relative when you are psychologically, financially and socially dependent on your family, clan or religious group seem to fall on deaf ears. The populations of battered Muslim women in “tolerant” Canada’s women’s shelters seem to be ignored. In Canada, battered Muslim women say that their husbands told them that it is a God-given right to hit them. If the current Iraqi constitution goes through, Iraqi wife-abusers will be able to add “It is my constitutional right to beat you.”

An Iraqi constitution is necessary, and the need for urgency is apparent, but urgency is a bad argument for passing a bill that strips half the nation of its rights. In Ontario, minorities come first and individual women within minorities last, living as second-class citizens and suffering in silence.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament for the Liberal Party, was born in Somalia. She took refuge in the Netherlands in 1992 to escape an arranged marriage, and has had armed bodyguards after receiving death threats from Muslim extremists. She writes at http://www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/.

On August 15, the Russian military completed the first round of evacuation of combat hardware from Georgia. On that day, a convoy of wheeled combat and transport vehicles — the fifth overland convoy this year thus far — crossed the border at the Larsi checkpoint on the Georgia military road into Russia, bound for Vladikavkaz.

Also on August 15, two amphibious warfare ships of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet completed the unloading in Novorossiysk of heavy weaponry they had evacuated two days earlier from the Russian military base in Batumi. This consignment included 20 battle tanks of the T-72 type, five reconnaissance-patrol armored vehicles, 12 Kub surface-to-air missile launcher systems, and three Shilka self-propelled air defense systems. Bad weather had delayed this convoy’s departure from Batumi by several days.

Lt.-General Valery Yevnevich, deputy commander-in-chief of Russia’s Ground Forces, declared on August 15 that Russia has now fully implemented its pledge regarding evacuation of combat hardware from Georgia in 2005. The Russian military has thereby adhered to the timetable stipulated in the force-withdrawal agreement, signed on May 30 by Ministers of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and Salome Zourabichvili. Under that detailed timetable, the Russian military had until September 1 to complete the first round of evacuation of combat hardware from the Batumi and Akhalkalaki bases. The withdrawal began officially in July, unofficially somewhat earlier.

Yevnevich, who is responsible for “peacekeeping” operations within Russia’s ground forces command, concurrently heads an ad-hoc staff in charge of the withdrawal from Georgia, working out of the Tbilisi-based Headquarters of Russia’s Group of Forces in the Trans-Caucasus. Georgia’s deputy chief of staff, Maj.-General Aleko Kiknadze, in charge of overseeing the Russian withdrawal, confirms that the Russian side is working constructively with the Georgians in organizing a smooth withdrawal. Two incidents in July, when Russian soldiers aboard tanks strayed from the Gonio testing range into the city of Batumi, were resolved quickly and amiably.

Under the terms of the May 30 agreement, the Russian military was to have handed over the Tbilisi repair plant for armored vehicles to the Georgian side by June 15. The Russians are to hand over the Zvezda and Kojori communications relay stations (in the environs of Tbilisi) to the Georgians by September 1; and some further installations, according to a mutually agreed list, by December 31, 2005.

(Rustavi-2 TV, Interfax, NTV Mir, August 13-15; see EDM, May 24, June 3, August 1)

–Vladimir Socor