The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dropout of female students

ABOUT sixty percent of the female students who receive stipend drop out of the higher secondary courses. The trend has been noticed in three academic sessions from 2006 to 2008. The social and human development index of Bangladesh went up as a result of some pragmatic steps including higher enrollment of girls. According to official statistics, 8.32 lakh female students were given stipend during this period; but 4.93 lakh of them dropped out.

Poverty is one of the major causes of the dropout. Most of the students who cannot continue their studies are from poor families. They reportedly fail to meet the stipend eligibility criteria like scoring at least GPA 2.5 in SSC exam, promotional and qualifying tests for HSC and minimum 75 percent class attendance. Though stipends have facilitated education for girls, the poor students usually do not have congenial environment in the family, sufficient food and other essential supports. For all these they cannot meet the stipend criteria. Early marriage under social pressure is another reason. Poor parents cannot but yield to such pressure. Whenever a girl is married usually her in-laws do not allow her to continue study. One of the criteria for the stipend is that a girl should be unmarried. If a poor girl is married to a poor husband, she would not get the stipend. So, application of the criteria should be flexible, at least, in case of poor students. Motivational campaigns among the people should also be conducted to raise social awareness. Regular inspections of educational institutions must be carried out to probe whether eligible students get the stipend money. Without addressing these problems, attraction and retention of female students to schools and colleges turn difficult and the target of promoting women empowerment under the Millennium Development Goals might remain lofty.

GM crops or not

SPEAKERS at a seminar expressed their concern that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) rice would ruin ecological balance in the long run. They informed that the cultivation of GM rice is controlled or banned in the countries of Europe. The introduction of biotechnology gave rise to a sharp controversy as to whether GM food would be harmful or helpful for humans and nature. Proponents of genetic modification base their arguments on the need to feed growing world's population which has already crossed 6 billion mark and is predicted to double within the next 50 years. They say that GM foods promise to meet this demand.

According to them, through biotechnology it is possible to develop crops resistant to pests, diseases, cold and drought and even to salinity. Genetic engineering would make production of more nutritious crops possible. GM plants would also help keep pollution low. But according to critics of genetic engineering, GM foods would create hazards in the environment, human health and economy. Genetic modification may cause harm to other organisms like bees or butterflies that are essential for pollination of crops. This technology may lead to gene transfer to non-target species of plants and animals. Introduction of gene into a plant may create new allergens to cause life-threatening allergic reaction among the consumer. Should Bangladesh adopt bio-technology to grow sufficient food to feed the fast growing population? If this option is taken the country will have to take every precautions. GM crops must be tested on a case-to-case basis before introduction. Indiscriminate introduction of GM crops may prove counter - productive. Before adoption of biotechnology Bangladesh must ensure bio-safety and conservation of the natural system. Bangladesh has a bio-safety law. It needs to be enforced urgently.

Maoist movement gets a fillip in India

Shamsuddin Ahmed

The prediction of Gwynne Dyer has come true. From thousands of miles away in London, the veteran columnist wrote in 2006 that the Maoists in Nepal 'are only miles away from taking over power'. The victory of the Maoists has belied the expectation of most diplomats in Kathmandu who were given to believe that the people of Nepal revered the King as incarnation of god. They would not vote for the party that declared an end to the centuries old monarchy in its election manifesto. Election results came to the consternation of Maoists' rivals - Nepali Congress and associates, who have long ruled the impoverished country-and most commentators as well.

Until King Gyanendra bowed to mass upsurge two years ago, the Maoists had fought guerrilla war against government forces for a decade. The US government had declared the Maoists 'a terrorist group'. Former US president Jimmy Carter, who was in Nepal as election observer during the voting, has expressed the hope that his country would change its attitude towards the Maoists and recognize the elected government in Nepal. During the Maoist insurgency, India used to accuse China of arming, training and financing the Maoists, whose aim is to overthrow the world's only Hindu monarchy and establish a people's republic. Sunanda K Datta Ray, the former Editor of Statesman, as back as 2002, saw the rise of Maoists as 'a danger for India in Nepal'. He wrote (International Herald Tribune June 6, 2002), "That is why Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government agreed to … give full military and political support to Nepal to fight the guerillas." BJP in a resolution on April 18 said, "Now Nepal is being declared a secular state. We hope Nepal will not become anti-Hindu and anti-India." It said India should keep a watch on the developments in Nepal and take 'timely steps'.

Indian media manifested a shock at the Maoist victory. "There is a collective shock in the Indian government about the Maoists sweeping to power in Nepal … India read the tea leaves so desperately wrong," commented Times of India. India's concern is not without reason. First, it sees the end of 1950 peace and friendship treaty with Nepal. Second, which is considered more perilous, is Maoist rule in Nepal will encourage the Maoist movement in the Indian States, especially those bordering on Nepal, which are heavily infested by Maoists.

Under the Indo-Nepal peace and friendship treaty people of both the countries could freely travel across the border and reside in either place, and do preferential trade. India maintains security posts in Nepal's northern border with China and Indian military mission in Kathmandu for ensuring its security needs. Any traveler to Kathmandu will find the business and economic interests wholly controlled by the Indian nationals. Indian currency is accepted in hotels and by retailers. Maoist leaders have recently sounded about scrapping the peace and friendship treaty and review of water and irrigation agreements with India, which they consider detrimental to the interest of the country. Young Communist League, the youth front of the Maoist communist party, is louder in demanding the scrapping of the peace treaty and withdrawal of Indian troops, estimated at 6,000, from the Nepalese soil at Kalapani close to border with China.

Indian institute of conflict management in its recent report said Maoist violence affects a total of 192 districts in 16 states. Former chief of Intelligence Bureau said nearly 40 percent of India's landmass and 35 percent of the population are affected by the Maoist insurgency.

Reuters reported on August 10, 2007 "77 percent of people earn Rs 20 a day in Shining India" that gave rise to Maoist insurgency. Jagmohan writing in Frontline in its February 2, 2008 issue said Maoist movement has entered a stronger phase.

Three major groups - Maoist Communist Centre, People's War Group and CPI (ML) - have merged to form a united outfit, CPI (Maoist), with the objective of seizure of power. It supports the struggle of the sub-nationalities for self-determination, other legal rights politically reiognised.

This being the internal situation, the worries of New Delhi have intensified. Bangladesh is a close neighbour of Nepal but has no common territorial border. Political observers here do not see the prospect, even in distant future, of Maoist movement and has little or no impact of the emergence of Maoists in power in Nepal. The ideology had long melted away with the passing of hardcore Maoist Abdul Haq and Mohammad Toaha who had worked underground since 60s (Toaha later shunned the path and was placated by Ziaur Rahman to be elected to parliament).

Their followers have been derailed from the true Maoist ideology and few are still thriving in southwestern districts on extortion in the name of class struggle.

Police intelligence says most of the activists have fled across the border or returned to normal life under strict vigilance of the law-enforcing agencies.

Political observers here keenly monitoring the developments in Nepal believe that whatever Maoist leader Prachanda had said so far, he is to walk the extremely tightrope in dealing with India. He cannot nor is likely to venture for scrapping the peace treaty or throw out Indian soldiers from the Nepalese soil until and unless he has secured alternative supply lanes to his landlocked country.

It is widely speculated that king Gyanendra will live in political asylum in India, which, however, has been dismissed by his press secretary. But will he live at home as a commoner? Prachanda has already urged the king to leave the palace or be forced out. In the event New Delhi grants Gyanendra political asylum, India will become the home of two giant adversaries, one of China and the other of Nepal, with governments in exile. New Delhi has virtually accorded Dalai Lama's office at Dharmashala the status of a government in exile. A deputy secretary-level officer from the foreign ministry remained deputed to the court of Dalai Lama to percolate the government policy and guide the Dalai Lama . One lakh Tibetans allowed to live in India are seeking independence of rom China.

A wave of change across Southeast Asia

Dr Farish a. Noor

THE latest results from the elections in the provinces of West Java and North Sumatra, Indonesia, would suggest that a sea change of sorts is taking place in Indonesia.

Shortly after the shock election results following the General Elections held in Malaysia earlier this year, the gubernatorial elections of Indonesia have led to the victory of the Justice and Prosperity party (PKS) and the National Mandate party (PAN), both of which are Islamist in character and both of which trace their ideological and intellectual genealogy back to the Islamist Masjumi party of the 1950s that struggled to make Indonesia an Islamic state until it was finally banned by president Sukarno in 1960.

What do these results entail and what does it say about the state of Indonesian politics today? More importantly, should the victories of PKS and PAN be seen as the victory of political Islam, and does this signify a shift towards a more Islamist-inclined politics for the rest of the country?

For a start, we should begin with some important observations comparing the results in Indonesia with the recent results in Malaysia. In both cases, the parties that won fielded candidates who are young and relatively unknown compared to the older veterans of the more established parties like Golkar in Indonesia.

Yet, as was the case in Malaysia recently, it was precisely the relatively younger age and lack of exposure that perhaps accounted for the victory of the candidates of the PKS and PAN, for they were certainly not associated with the older modes of politics in the past and were not involved or implicated in many of the long-standing political and economic scandals associated with the old regime that dates back to the time of former President Suharto.

Secondly, it should be noted that the Indonesian parties, like the opposition parties that did extremely well in Malaysia, campaigned on a reformist ticket calling for change and a new vision of politics for Indonesia.

While speaking to Indonesian students at the Muhamadiyyah University of Surakarta and Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University of Jogjakarta, I was struck by the overwhelming consensus among all of them that Indonesia is thirsting for a new form of politics that breaks away from the norms of the old feudal past.

Like Malaysia, Indonesia today has an entirely new generation of younger voters, many of whom will be voting for the first time during the General Elections of 2009, next year. Already many local analysts are predicting a major shift in voting patterns and are awaiting results that may shock all the older established parties.

Change, however, is always a contested process and needless to say it will take much more than an election to deal with the chronic problems of corruption, nepotism and lack of transparency and accountability in Indonesian politics.

While the more modernist Islamist parties like PKS and PAN have totally abandoned the sectarian and divisive discourse of holy war, Shariah and the calls for the imposition of an Islamic state and Islamic constitution in Indonesia; a counter-reaction is also brewing among the more conservative movements in the country.

While the members of the PKS and PAN celebrate their fresh victories, on the very same day the Indonesian government's religious authorities have formally declared that the minority Ahmadia community - a sect that originated from South Asia but has spread all over the Muslim world - are deviants and that the sect should be banned 'for their own good'.

The reason behind this somewhat bizarre pronouncement is that many extreme right wing Islamist groups in Indonesia like the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI), Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and others have openly declared total war against the Ahmadia community.

Thus ironically on the same day that Muslim moderates of PKS and PAS celebrated their victories in West Java and North Sumatra, the leaders of the Islamic Defenders Front have openly called for the members of the FPI to go out and kill the members of the Ahmadia community all over the country.

Indonesian politics is likely to remain on the boil well into next year when the General Elections will pit the new Islamist parties like PKS and PAN against the old guard led by Golkar and even parties like the Partai Demokrat of current President Bambang Yudhoyono.

While tempering their public discourse some leaders of PKS and PAN have already stated that they will not compromise on issues of public morals such as imposing a ban on consumption of alcohol for Muslims, stricter dress codes and personal morality laws for Muslims, bans on rock concerts and in particular the very popular form of local pop music known as Dangdut.

With the Islamists-both moderate and conservative-setting the terms for the debate on Islam and politics in Indonesia, it is clear that religion will remain one of the central issues of Indonesian politics for a long time to come. But what sort of religious politics?

Will it be the modernist vision of the Islamists of PKS and PAN (which is already conservative enough on social and moral issues), or will it be the exclusive and sectarian vision of Islam currently pushed by the likes of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council? Only time will tell, but for now Indonesia remains a focal point for the battle for hearts and minds of two hundred million Muslims.

(Dr Farish A. Noor is Senior Fellow, Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Research Director for the Research Cluster 'Transnational Religion in Contemporary Southeast Asia', Nanyang Tech Uni, Singapore)

Murder, media and intolerance?

Dr Moeed Pirzada

THEY kept beating him with boots, bars and screw drivers and left him only after someone pointed out that he is already dead. Jagdeesh Kumar, a 22 year old, Hindu factory worker from interior Sindh was subject to mob justice in Karachi's industrial area. The mood was so intense that the police that had arrived was unable or unwilling to wrench his lifeless body from the crowd. What was his crime? Apparently, he was being lynched by his co-workers for insulting the Prophet of Islam.

Before we move ahead it may be helpful to remember that in his life, the Prophet never allowed his followers to harm anyone who insulted him. The case of the Bedouin who almost choked him in Masjid-e-Nabawi and his pardon for the family of Abu-Sufyan and Hinda following the conquest of Makkah are just two instances that come to my mind in a nano second flash. And if I start recounting it will be beyond the word limit my editors allow me for this column.

I have spent years in civil services and media, interacting with the so-called political, bureaucratic and literati elite. And I know the kind of limits that exist in this country to talk about religion. Ensconced comfortably within the drawing rooms of multi-layered villas, prompted and egged on with the help of few drops of smuggled whisky, in an atmosphere thick with references of Rushdie, Russell and Voltaire, and that too after ensuring that every face in the room is an old pal some bold intellectual types do venture out to express their atheism, but even here any careless comments about Prophet of Islam are rare. These are the limits and we all know it.

So how realistic is the possibility that Jagdeesh, a poor worker from Sindh's amiable Hindu community was uttering profanities against the Prophet. That too while he was alone hundreds of kilometres away from his hometown? He had come to Karachi to enhance his daily income from US $1 to US $3 a day. Please give me a break!

In reality these incidents almost always take place in the backdrop of an ongoing conflict between majority Muslims and a member of a minority - be it Christian, Hindu or Ahmedi does not really matter. And an angry Muslim and his friends looking to take revenge for totally private agendas find it convenient to exploit the existence of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

Few years ago, while doing a TV programme from London, I had asked Jamaat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed why we need such laws? And his answer was to contain the Muslim anger, to prevent the possibility of communal instability.

Now given the fact that I am a kind of history worm I do understand where he is coming from. But if last few decades make us any wiser then these laws have only served to provide legitimacy to the biliary desires of goons and potential criminals. And why do we need blasphemy laws to protect the feelings of the Muslims in a 97 per cent Muslim country? If anything, such laws should only be there to protect the identity and self-respect of the minorities.

I can appreciate the stresses and strains that threaten the vulnerable identity of Muslim immigrants, say in Geert Wilders' Europe. But if my sense of Muslim identity surrounded by a sea of 97 per cent Muslims all around is so insecure that I have to protect it through laws then something somewhere is seriously wrong in the way I perceive myself.

And in this age of global inter-dependence - 24/7 news channels, Internet and You Tube - this insecurity, this feebleness of heart and mind will only increase and with disastrous implications for communal stability. Come up with a better solution, Qazi Sahib, please!

But what looks religious on the face of it, is also driven by something even more primitive than it; and that is: Pakistani belief in majoritarianism. And nowhere was it better reflected than in the antics of Pakistan's burgeoning electronic media.

We now have almost 50 domestic TV channels, with at least ten 24/7 news networks, swarming with hundreds of anchorpersons and increasingly aquiline featured, gelled haired ladies more ferocious than the rugged old men and all spitting fire with the buzz words of democracy, freedom of expression, rule of law, and the restoration of judges.

But - like my friend Ghazi Salah-ud-din, a columnist in The News - I wonder why none of them could fit Jagdeesh Kumar into a popular national agenda?

But I may offer an answer. Farid Zakaria, a few years ago, jolted our consciousness with his provocative thesis: "The rise of the illiberal democracy". It is a long discussion but in a nutshell, he argued that constitutional freedoms are separate and distinct to the principle of popular elections and majoritarianism. What we see in Western Europe and North America is a joint and parallel evolution of both concepts.

But few in this country, while condemning Fox USA and its juicy and dark portrayal of Muslims since 9/11 as a sinister American agenda, have reflected on the populism of Pakistan's proliferating electronic media?

So when Naeem Bokhari, a senior Supreme court advocate, was thrashed inside a court room, the lawyers, the media and the civil society brigades justified it by citing his unsavory act of writing letter against the former Chief Justice. When Arbab Raheem, the former Chief Minister of Sindh was thrashed inside the Sindh Assembly many in the media reminded public that he being what he was deserved this. And when Sher Afghan, the former minister in Musharraf-Aziz government was attacked by lawyers in Lahore, prominent TV anchors were showing clips of his utterances in favour of Musharraf to prove that the old man deserved it.

No wonder in a media driven and controlled by popular and often pedestrian national mood no one had time to reflect that Jagdeesh Kumar's lifeless torso, in Pakistan's largest urban center was not merely that of a 'man of no importance' but was the battered face of the state of Pakistan. And while the demons of the majoritarianism were dancing naked, the rule of law was begging media's suo motu notice. Ladies and gentlemen, there are issues beyond the restoration of judiciary!

(Dr Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a Britannia Chevening Scholar at London School of Economics and Political Science. Email: mp846@columbia.edu)