The distance from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, to Abbottabad, Pakistan, is 158.9 miles, or approximately 160 miles. Let's say that half of this distance lies in Afghanistan and half in Pakistan.
This means that the four AH-60 Black Hawk stealth choppers (if published reports are to be believed) that the SEAL commandos used to kill Osama Bin Laden flew for half of 320 miles, that is, 160 miles round trip inside Pakistan.
Typical speed of these choppers range from 140-160 mph. Using the lower limit as the average speed of the choppers over mountainous terrain at night implies that they flew in Pakistan's airspace for just over an hour. Add 40 minutes to that for the operation itself, an additional 10 minutes to destroy the damaged helicopter, and the total time the commandos spent in Pakistan amounts to no more than 2 hours.
Did U.S. forces jam Pakistani radars? Who knows, but the fact is that 2 hours is too long for a country not to be aware that its airspace has been violated. Pakistan's intelligence service and the army probably were complicit in the operation. If so, that was a good thing. After all, if Pakistani forces killed bin Laden or got into a confrontation with the commandos in the terrorist's compound, it would have been disastrous for the Muslim nation.
All's well that ends well. The terrorist mastermind has been eliminated. Al-Qaida has received a debilitating blow. The world is safer. And Muslims can go about toppling dictators in the Middle East for tyranny to end, freedom to triumph and an Arab renaissance to begin.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Muslims Must Protect Their Minorities
What is happening to Muslims? In Egypt's Alexandria, Muslim terrorists killed 21 Coptic Christians on New year's Eve and wounded hundreds. This community has lived in Egypt for almost two thousand years and at 8 million, comprise 10 percent of Egypt's population. In Nigeria, a Muslim terrorist cult attacked several churches last year that left scores dead. In Iraq, a church was taken over by Muslim fanatics on October 31, 2010, that resulted in the killing of about fifty Christians. In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian and a mother of five, faces a death sentence under the country's notorious blasphemy law. For daring to speak out against this law, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was gunned down by one of his bodyguards.
"My name is Ahmad and I'm a Muslim, but that's not important now," said a young Egyptian high-school student who had gathered spontaneously with a thousand other Egyptians in the Center of Cairo on the first of the year. He was holding the Quran in one hand, a crucifix in the other. "I've come to protest against what happened to our Christian brothers and to show that the religious communities in Egypt won't let themselves be divided."
Such sentiments are indeed being expressed by outraged Muslims at the deaths of minorities who have lived among them for centuries. Unfortunately, they are relatively few in number. Too many Muslims are either afraid or reluctant to speak out against atrocities committed by other Muslims. But let a non-Muslim mock Islam or attack mosques and suddenly these lambs turn into lions as they take to the streets condemning Western aggression and attacking Western interests.
We Muslims cannot continue with this hypocrisy and double-standards for long. We are the ones committing the ultimate blasphemy, through our silence and appeasement of Muslim fanatics. We see Western conspiracy at every corner but are blind to the elephant in the room, the terrorism by Muslims against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We deny constantly that our cruelest enemies are from within our folds.
We cannot be good Muslims unless we are also good Christians and good Jews. That is what I understand by the reference to "People of the Book" in the Quran. Unless we commit to protecting the minorities living among us, we will be betraying the fundamental tenets of our faith. It is as simple as that. If Muslim minorities living in the West come under attack, can we really blame anyone but ourselves?
"My name is Ahmad and I'm a Muslim, but that's not important now," said a young Egyptian high-school student who had gathered spontaneously with a thousand other Egyptians in the Center of Cairo on the first of the year. He was holding the Quran in one hand, a crucifix in the other. "I've come to protest against what happened to our Christian brothers and to show that the religious communities in Egypt won't let themselves be divided."
Such sentiments are indeed being expressed by outraged Muslims at the deaths of minorities who have lived among them for centuries. Unfortunately, they are relatively few in number. Too many Muslims are either afraid or reluctant to speak out against atrocities committed by other Muslims. But let a non-Muslim mock Islam or attack mosques and suddenly these lambs turn into lions as they take to the streets condemning Western aggression and attacking Western interests.
We Muslims cannot continue with this hypocrisy and double-standards for long. We are the ones committing the ultimate blasphemy, through our silence and appeasement of Muslim fanatics. We see Western conspiracy at every corner but are blind to the elephant in the room, the terrorism by Muslims against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We deny constantly that our cruelest enemies are from within our folds.
We cannot be good Muslims unless we are also good Christians and good Jews. That is what I understand by the reference to "People of the Book" in the Quran. Unless we commit to protecting the minorities living among us, we will be betraying the fundamental tenets of our faith. It is as simple as that. If Muslim minorities living in the West come under attack, can we really blame anyone but ourselves?
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Do Cry for Me, Argentina (and Brazil)!
Germany's ruthless dismantling of Argentina 4-0 on the world's biggest sporting stage will haunt the South American nation for decades to come. Somewhere down the road, there maybe revenge or redemption but not anytime soon. Diego Maradona relied far too much on the artistry of Messi and Tevez and perhaps a few others but ignored the fact that he also had to defend his fort. His "attack, attack, attack" style of play could not mask the holes in his defense and midfield. Argentine defense was porous and second-class at best, and the Germans exploited it to the hilt.
The inventive and unselfish Germans had two advantages going into the quarterfinals: a) Michael Ballack's absence and b) the loss to Serbia 1-0 in the group match. The first meant that the predictable and ponderous Ballack would not stymie the free-flowing game of the young and the relentless Germans. The second was a wakeup call that only increased the fierce resolve of the team to win.
But perhaps the greatest asset of the Germans is the mix of their players. Mesut Ozil is a Muslim of Turkish descent. Sami Khedira and Jerome Boateng have Tunisian and Ghanaian fathers., respectively. Cacau is a naturalized Brazilian and Dennis Aogo boasts a Nigerian heritage. Combining forces with Klose, Mueller and the rest of the team, they ran Messi and company ragged for 60 minutes. The last 30 minutes of the game was painful to watch as the Argentines simply folded. They were outrun, outhustled, and outperformed in every aspect of the game. Messi's weak shots were easily blocked. In all, he took 30 shots on goal in the tournament and not one went in, a deeply disappointing performance. Messi may yet redeem himself in 2114 but that's an eternity away.
As for Brazil, although its defense was also poor overall, the player responsible for the perennial favorite to get the boot in the quarterfinals was Kaka. This "star" also failed to score a single goal in the World Cup. The moment of truth came deep into the second half against Holland when Kaka fielded a ball in the penalty area and had ample time to take a look at the goal to line up the perfect shot. He took the shot and ... what a letdown! There was no curve to the ball as it floated harmlessly away. At that moment you knew that Brazil would lose. The only player who lived up to his billing was Robinho but even he proved to be not a finisher like Romario or Ronaldo.
Brazil will have to remain content with the "five-time champion" label for years to come. The 2114 World Cup will be held in Brazil but unless players like Romario or Ronaldo (too much to expect a Pele or a Garrincha) arrive to lead a young and energetic team who can change strategy as the dynamics of the pitch demands, quarterfinals will be as far as the host nation will go.
Brazil and Argentina remind me of India and Pakistan in field hockey. Until the '70s, these two nations always met in the final in the Olympics. Then other nations began investing in the sport and now India and Pakistan are often eliminated even before reaching the quarterfinals stage.
The German brand of soccer we are now witnessing is the result of a decade-long investment in developing new talents and new approaches to the game. German players seem to combine the flair and flamboyance of the South Americans and the athleticism and work ethic of the, well, Germans. It is unlikely that Spain, which was unconvincing in its 1-0 wins against both Portugal and Paraguay, can hold back the irresistible German force. Look for Germany against Holland in the final and for Klose and his rainbow team to hoist the World Cup after a hard-fought game.
The inventive and unselfish Germans had two advantages going into the quarterfinals: a) Michael Ballack's absence and b) the loss to Serbia 1-0 in the group match. The first meant that the predictable and ponderous Ballack would not stymie the free-flowing game of the young and the relentless Germans. The second was a wakeup call that only increased the fierce resolve of the team to win.
But perhaps the greatest asset of the Germans is the mix of their players. Mesut Ozil is a Muslim of Turkish descent. Sami Khedira and Jerome Boateng have Tunisian and Ghanaian fathers., respectively. Cacau is a naturalized Brazilian and Dennis Aogo boasts a Nigerian heritage. Combining forces with Klose, Mueller and the rest of the team, they ran Messi and company ragged for 60 minutes. The last 30 minutes of the game was painful to watch as the Argentines simply folded. They were outrun, outhustled, and outperformed in every aspect of the game. Messi's weak shots were easily blocked. In all, he took 30 shots on goal in the tournament and not one went in, a deeply disappointing performance. Messi may yet redeem himself in 2114 but that's an eternity away.
As for Brazil, although its defense was also poor overall, the player responsible for the perennial favorite to get the boot in the quarterfinals was Kaka. This "star" also failed to score a single goal in the World Cup. The moment of truth came deep into the second half against Holland when Kaka fielded a ball in the penalty area and had ample time to take a look at the goal to line up the perfect shot. He took the shot and ... what a letdown! There was no curve to the ball as it floated harmlessly away. At that moment you knew that Brazil would lose. The only player who lived up to his billing was Robinho but even he proved to be not a finisher like Romario or Ronaldo.
Brazil will have to remain content with the "five-time champion" label for years to come. The 2114 World Cup will be held in Brazil but unless players like Romario or Ronaldo (too much to expect a Pele or a Garrincha) arrive to lead a young and energetic team who can change strategy as the dynamics of the pitch demands, quarterfinals will be as far as the host nation will go.
Brazil and Argentina remind me of India and Pakistan in field hockey. Until the '70s, these two nations always met in the final in the Olympics. Then other nations began investing in the sport and now India and Pakistan are often eliminated even before reaching the quarterfinals stage.
The German brand of soccer we are now witnessing is the result of a decade-long investment in developing new talents and new approaches to the game. German players seem to combine the flair and flamboyance of the South Americans and the athleticism and work ethic of the, well, Germans. It is unlikely that Spain, which was unconvincing in its 1-0 wins against both Portugal and Paraguay, can hold back the irresistible German force. Look for Germany against Holland in the final and for Klose and his rainbow team to hoist the World Cup after a hard-fought game.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Nicholas Kristof: Citizen of the World
No one has done more to motivate Americans to engage with people from other countries and cultures in the last two decades than Nicholas Kristof. The New York Times columnist is unique among his peers in inspiring us to look beyond
Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for his reporting on the genocide in
Kristof has often written about women because of his conviction that unless they have free and easy access to education and entrepreneurship, particularly in developing countries, there will be neither peace nor progress in the world. (In his latest book, “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide,” co-written with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, Kristof expands on his argument that developing countries can best fight poverty and promote democracy by helping women achieve personal and financial independence.)
“Religions derive their power and popularity in part from the ethical compass they offer,” he wrote in a column. “So why do so many faiths help perpetuate something that most of us regard as profoundly unethical: the oppression of women? It is not that warlords in
His column on “Bead for Life” (http://www.beadforlife.org/) was another inspiring story about the vision and generosity of ordinary Americans. Torkin Wakefield and Devin Hibbard, a mother-daughter team from
I wonder how many Americans were inspired to act by Kristof’s column on the Salwen family of
Since 2007, Kristof has been sponsoring a “win-a-trip” contest for American university students. The winner goes on a reporting trip with him to
The columns cited here offer only a glimpse into the global humanitarian work that Nicholas Kristof promotes through his powerful and persuasive pen. Americans ask him for suggestions as to which charities around the world they should contribute to, without worrying about tax breaks. He has written about Greg Mortenson, the
Not all of Kristof’s columns are noteworthy. He has missed his mark on occasions. Some of his pieces are predictable. But what distinguishes him from his peers is his desire to make the world a better place. He does this not by wearing rose-colored glasses but by describing what he sees with clear and direct prose and offering solutions that manage to be both practical and altruistic. It is a tribute to his humanity – and his status as a global citizen - that more Americans ask him, rather than any other journalists, that most telling of questions: “What can I do?”
Friday, August 28, 2009
Edward Kennedy's Quest for Justice
The date is etched in my memory. February 14, 1972: First day of spring in the newly independent nation of Bangladesh. 
Ted Kennedy arrived at theDhaka University
“Even though the United States government does not recognize you,” Kennedy said that morning, “the people of the world do recognize you.” (The United States recognized Bangladesh on April 4, 1972. Bangladesh became an independent nation on December 16, 1971).
“Joi Kennedy,” we roared, a play on the “Joi Bangla” slogan that carried our country to independence. (Joi is Bengali for victory).
The Pakistan army had launched its attack on the night of March 25, 1971. 10,000 Bangladeshis were massacred in the first three days alone. Over a period of nine months, as many as 3 million were killed and 10 million had to flee to India for safety. Kennedy witnessed firsthand their plight when he toured parts of India and spoke of “one of the most appalling tides of human misery in modern times.”
On that spring day, our hearts filled with gratitude for the man who had denounced the Nixon-Kissinger policy of “tilting” toward Pakistan. Kennedy compared our struggle for independence with the American Revolution, drawing tumultuous applause.
Bangladesh had found a friend in need who would remain a friend indeed for as long as the new nation existed. And so it had been.
That is why, when Edward Moore Kennedy passed away on August 25 at the age of 77 after a year-long battle with cancer, Bangladeshis took it personally. Many of us had made the West our home now but who could forget his fight on our behalf during those fateful days of 1971?
I replayed the scene of his visit to Dhaka University over and over again in my mind, reliving those magical moments when anything seemed possible and freedom resonated in every fiber of our being. A human wave brought me close enough to shake Kennedy’s hands; the next minute another wave carried me back to the periphery. When Rab, the student leader, finally managed to establish some order in the crowd, Kennedy planted a banyan sapling at the spot where another banyan tree was uprooted by the Pakistan army.
It was under that ancient and historic tree that students had first planted the seeds of Bangladesh’s independence movement. Kennedy’s sapling was a reminder to tyrants everywhere that while you could uproot a tree, you could never uproot the sapling of freedom that sprouted in every human heart.
In subsequent years, Kennedy experienced both triumphs and tragedies. We learned of his undisciplined personal life, his reckless pursuit of pleasure. But in a second act of self-renewal that is unique in American history, Kennedy conquered his personal demons to become, in President Barack Obama’s words, “not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy … For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives - in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.”
Kennedy was most animated by the quest for justice. Although he was the prince fated never to be king, his achievements far exceeded those of many presidents. He had no taste for abstract ideas. He excelled in the particular, in the painstaking and prosaic legal processes that resulted in laws that brought meaning to millions of lives. He inspired us by proving that we could overcome our failings, however deep and many, if we dedicated ourselves to causes larger than ourselves.
Once asked what he considered was his most valuable trait, Kennedy replied, “persistence.” His persistence was the product of his convictions – justice, equality, opportunity for the marginalized and the forgotten - on which he staked his political fortune. “I have believed,” he once said, “that America must sail toward the shores of liberty and justice for all. There is no end to that journey, only the next great voyage. We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live on in the future we make.”
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when hate and prejudice against Islam and Muslims gripped America, Senators Kennedy and Richard Lugar sponsored a "Cultural Bridge to the Islamic World” program. Addressing visiting Muslim students in June, 2004, Kennedy said, "After a year here, each of you are now unofficial American ambassadors to your home countries. I am sure you don't agree with everything the United States says and does, but I hope that you'll be able to explain our country and our values to your friends and family. Each time you do, you'll be sending forth a new ripple of hope.”
On September 27, 2002, a year before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Kennedy gave a prescient speech in which he voiced his opposition to the war. “War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support - could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.”
In another speech on January 9, 2007, he called the Iraq War “George Bush’s Vietnam.” The Iraq war, he said, “is the overarching issue of our time, and American lives, American values and American honor are all at stake … Congress can demand a justification from the President for such action before it appropriates the funds to carry it out … This bill will give all Americans – from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska and Hawaii – an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions.”
Another person who worked hard to focus world attention on the genocide in Bangladesh was former Beatle George Harrison. Along with Ravi Shankar and other musicians, he organized the Concert for Bangladesh in Madison Square Garden in New York City on August 1, 1971. Harrison’s signature song was “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.”
Musicians and politicians, of course, use different media to express themselves, each effective in its own way, but there was no gentle weeping for Kennedy when it came to opposing injustice and atrocities. Rather, he thundered. No equivocation or considerations of political expediency. Simply state the truth as you see it and reveal the crimes, wherever the chips may fall.
As I was reminiscing about the events of 1971-72, I tried to articulate anew my thoughts and feelings on that spring morning in Dhaka almost four decades ago when Kennedy came to our campus. Then I read these memorable words of Kennedy himself, delivered at the 1980 Democratic convention in Madison Square Garden, and knew that I had found what I was looking for: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”
Thanks to Ted Kennedy and those like him, our hope endures and our dream of a just world moves toward reality step by step, moment by moment.
Ted Kennedy arrived at the
“Even though the United States government does not recognize you,” Kennedy said that morning, “the people of the world do recognize you.” (The United States recognized Bangladesh on April 4, 1972. Bangladesh became an independent nation on December 16, 1971).
“Joi Kennedy,” we roared, a play on the “Joi Bangla” slogan that carried our country to independence. (Joi is Bengali for victory).
The Pakistan army had launched its attack on the night of March 25, 1971. 10,000 Bangladeshis were massacred in the first three days alone. Over a period of nine months, as many as 3 million were killed and 10 million had to flee to India for safety. Kennedy witnessed firsthand their plight when he toured parts of India and spoke of “one of the most appalling tides of human misery in modern times.”
On that spring day, our hearts filled with gratitude for the man who had denounced the Nixon-Kissinger policy of “tilting” toward Pakistan. Kennedy compared our struggle for independence with the American Revolution, drawing tumultuous applause.
Bangladesh had found a friend in need who would remain a friend indeed for as long as the new nation existed. And so it had been.
That is why, when Edward Moore Kennedy passed away on August 25 at the age of 77 after a year-long battle with cancer, Bangladeshis took it personally. Many of us had made the West our home now but who could forget his fight on our behalf during those fateful days of 1971?
I replayed the scene of his visit to Dhaka University over and over again in my mind, reliving those magical moments when anything seemed possible and freedom resonated in every fiber of our being. A human wave brought me close enough to shake Kennedy’s hands; the next minute another wave carried me back to the periphery. When Rab, the student leader, finally managed to establish some order in the crowd, Kennedy planted a banyan sapling at the spot where another banyan tree was uprooted by the Pakistan army.
It was under that ancient and historic tree that students had first planted the seeds of Bangladesh’s independence movement. Kennedy’s sapling was a reminder to tyrants everywhere that while you could uproot a tree, you could never uproot the sapling of freedom that sprouted in every human heart.
In subsequent years, Kennedy experienced both triumphs and tragedies. We learned of his undisciplined personal life, his reckless pursuit of pleasure. But in a second act of self-renewal that is unique in American history, Kennedy conquered his personal demons to become, in President Barack Obama’s words, “not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy … For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives - in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.”
Kennedy was most animated by the quest for justice. Although he was the prince fated never to be king, his achievements far exceeded those of many presidents. He had no taste for abstract ideas. He excelled in the particular, in the painstaking and prosaic legal processes that resulted in laws that brought meaning to millions of lives. He inspired us by proving that we could overcome our failings, however deep and many, if we dedicated ourselves to causes larger than ourselves.
Once asked what he considered was his most valuable trait, Kennedy replied, “persistence.” His persistence was the product of his convictions – justice, equality, opportunity for the marginalized and the forgotten - on which he staked his political fortune. “I have believed,” he once said, “that America must sail toward the shores of liberty and justice for all. There is no end to that journey, only the next great voyage. We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live on in the future we make.”
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when hate and prejudice against Islam and Muslims gripped America, Senators Kennedy and Richard Lugar sponsored a "Cultural Bridge to the Islamic World” program. Addressing visiting Muslim students in June, 2004, Kennedy said, "After a year here, each of you are now unofficial American ambassadors to your home countries. I am sure you don't agree with everything the United States says and does, but I hope that you'll be able to explain our country and our values to your friends and family. Each time you do, you'll be sending forth a new ripple of hope.”
On September 27, 2002, a year before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Kennedy gave a prescient speech in which he voiced his opposition to the war. “War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support - could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.”
In another speech on January 9, 2007, he called the Iraq War “George Bush’s Vietnam.” The Iraq war, he said, “is the overarching issue of our time, and American lives, American values and American honor are all at stake … Congress can demand a justification from the President for such action before it appropriates the funds to carry it out … This bill will give all Americans – from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska and Hawaii – an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions.”
Another person who worked hard to focus world attention on the genocide in Bangladesh was former Beatle George Harrison. Along with Ravi Shankar and other musicians, he organized the Concert for Bangladesh in Madison Square Garden in New York City on August 1, 1971. Harrison’s signature song was “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.”
Musicians and politicians, of course, use different media to express themselves, each effective in its own way, but there was no gentle weeping for Kennedy when it came to opposing injustice and atrocities. Rather, he thundered. No equivocation or considerations of political expediency. Simply state the truth as you see it and reveal the crimes, wherever the chips may fall.
As I was reminiscing about the events of 1971-72, I tried to articulate anew my thoughts and feelings on that spring morning in Dhaka almost four decades ago when Kennedy came to our campus. Then I read these memorable words of Kennedy himself, delivered at the 1980 Democratic convention in Madison Square Garden, and knew that I had found what I was looking for: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”
Thanks to Ted Kennedy and those like him, our hope endures and our dream of a just world moves toward reality step by step, moment by moment.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Obama by a Landslide
TIME magazine (May 19, 2008) analyzes the mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her quest for the democratic nomination. There are vague statements like “She misjudged the mood,” “She didn’t master the rules,” and so on. At best, this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. It would have been more relevant to identify why Barack Obama won the nomination (Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly concede in the next few days). There are many reasons: excellent grassroots organization, intelligent use of Web 2 technologies to spread the word, stirring speeches to inspire Americans, particularly the young. But one factor contributed to Obama’s nomination more than any other, and that was his opposition to the Iraq war when everyone, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, competed to jump onto Bush’s bandwagon. He opposed the ‘rash war’ in Iraq in 2002 and never wavered in his judgment. This made him the candidate of substance that voters had been pining for, as opposed to candidates whose views were dictated by the shifting political wind.
There is an unfortunate tendency by pundits and Clinton loyalists to attribute Obama’s ascendancy to race. “Obama won the democratic nomination because blacks voted en masse for him,” has been the refrain heard from opposing camps. This is blatant racism. Nowhere is there any recognition that African-Americans voted for Obama because they decided that he was the better candidate on issues and policies. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment that if Hillary Clinton offered better choices and options for Americans, blacks would have voted for her. In fact, that’s how the campaign began, with blacks backing Hillary more than Obama. But as the campaign progressed, voters began to see that one candidate remained true to his principles, while the other resorted to race-baiting and polemics. A difficult choice it wasn’t.
I was surprised by the attitudes of my fellow Americans of sub-continent origin (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan). “Americans are not ready for a black president,” many of them insisted. On probing further, it became clear that what they meant was that they found the idea of a black president unacceptable. Probing further still, I came to the conclusion that this was due to a strange and curious combination of racism and narrow world-view. I don’t know about other states but certainly in California, many Americans who migrated from the Indian sub-continent are bitter that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning her party's nomination has dwindled to zero.
As for those Clinton loyalists who assert that they will not vote for Obama in November, I think the feeling will pass. The passions are still raw but six months offer enough time for reconciliation and closing of ranks. I have no doubt that once Obama formally wins the nomination, Hillary Clinton will urge her supporters to vote for him.
So what will happen in November, 2008? Here is my prediction: Barack Obama will defeat John McCain, increasingly seen as Bush III or the Son of Bush, by a landslide to become the 44th president of the United States of America.
TIME magazine (May 19, 2008) analyzes the mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her quest for the democratic nomination. There are vague statements like “She misjudged the mood,” “She didn’t master the rules,” and so on. At best, this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. It would have been more relevant to identify why Barack Obama won the nomination (Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly concede in the next few days). There are many reasons: excellent grassroots organization, intelligent use of Web 2 technologies to spread the word, stirring speeches to inspire Americans, particularly the young. But one factor contributed to Obama’s nomination more than any other, and that was his opposition to the Iraq war when everyone, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, competed to jump onto Bush’s bandwagon. He opposed the ‘rash war’ in Iraq in 2002 and never wavered in his judgment. This made him the candidate of substance that voters had been pining for, as opposed to candidates whose views were dictated by the shifting political wind.
There is an unfortunate tendency by pundits and Clinton loyalists to attribute Obama’s ascendancy to race. “Obama won the democratic nomination because blacks voted en masse for him,” has been the refrain heard from opposing camps. This is blatant racism. Nowhere is there any recognition that African-Americans voted for Obama because they decided that he was the better candidate on issues and policies. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment that if Hillary Clinton offered better choices and options for Americans, blacks would have voted for her. In fact, that’s how the campaign began, with blacks backing Hillary more than Obama. But as the campaign progressed, voters began to see that one candidate remained true to his principles, while the other resorted to race-baiting and polemics. A difficult choice it wasn’t.
I was surprised by the attitudes of my fellow Americans of sub-continent origin (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan). “Americans are not ready for a black president,” many of them insisted. On probing further, it became clear that what they meant was that they found the idea of a black president unacceptable. Probing further still, I came to the conclusion that this was due to a strange and curious combination of racism and narrow world-view. I don’t know about other states but certainly in California, many Americans who migrated from the Indian sub-continent are bitter that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning her party's nomination has dwindled to zero.
As for those Clinton loyalists who assert that they will not vote for Obama in November, I think the feeling will pass. The passions are still raw but six months offer enough time for reconciliation and closing of ranks. I have no doubt that once Obama formally wins the nomination, Hillary Clinton will urge her supporters to vote for him.
So what will happen in November, 2008? Here is my prediction: Barack Obama will defeat John McCain, increasingly seen as Bush III or the Son of Bush, by a landslide to become the 44th president of the United States of America.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Dark and Mighty Hearts
The recent release of the movie, “A Mighty Heart,” based on the book of the same name by Mariane Pearl, widow of journalist Daniel Pearl who was slain in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002, has revived memories of this harrowing event and its implications in a post-9/11 world that seems to be spinning out of control.
Pearl was the Mumbai-based India correspondent of The Wall Street Journal who arrived in Karachi in January, 2002 with his five-month pregnant wife to pursue the investigation of “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and his possible al-Qaida links in Pakistan.
Trusting, curious and driven by a passion for truth, Pearl agreed to meet a mysterious, elusive imam named Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani whose followers, it was believed, included Reid. A man named Muhammad Bashir arranged the meeting.
It was a trap, and on January 23, 2002, Daniel Pearl walked straight into it.
A frantic search begins when Mariane suspects that her husband has been kidnapped. Pakistan’s intelligence agency (inter-services intelligence, the ISI), US consulate in Karachi and the FBI pool their resources to rescue Pearl.
The movie is faithful to these well-known facts but what is remarkable is the skill with which director Michael Winterbottom conveys them. Although we know at the outset what happens to Pearl, the movie plays like a thriller. Ordinary scenes pulsate with foreboding. Here is Pearl waving goodbye to Mariane as he is driven away in a yellow taxi for his rendezvous with Gilani from the Karachi villa rented by the writer Asra Nomani. Later in the evening, an anxious Pearl riding a different car asks the driver how much longer it will take to reach his destination, and the driver remains silent. Meanwhile, Mariane fights fear, fatigue, bureaucracy and pains of pregnancy to cling to her sanity as the clock ticks away and her husband fails to return.
After five weeks of false leads and midnight raids into the dens of terror suspects in the labyrinthine alleys of Karachi, an FBI agent posing as a journalist receives a grisly video in a hotel lobby. In graphic detail, it shows Pearl being beheaded by his captors weeks earlier, after he is coerced into confessing his “Jewishness.”
Angelina Jolie is brilliant as Mariane Pearl, at once restrained and explosive, worldly and transcendent. When informed that her husband has been murdered, Jolie retreats to her room in a trance and collapses into what has to be among the most heartrending wail in movie history.
Also impressive is an officer whom Mariane calls “Captain.” Played by Irrfan Khan, whom many Americans recently saw as the father in 'Namesake', the "Captain" is the head of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism unit. He vows to Marianne that “I will bring your Danny home” and afterwards, that he will bring Pearl’s killers to justice “even if it is going to take a lifetime, my lifetime.” He speaks softly, but there is no mistaking the steel beneath the velvet.
It was the "Captain" who found that “Bashir,” who lured Daniel into the fatal trap, was in reality Omar Saeed Sheikh, the London School of Economics dropout arrested in 1994 in New Delhi for kidnapping American and British tourists. He was released by the Indian government in exchange for the hostages of an Indian airliner hijacked to Afghanistan in December 1999.
Omar Saeed Sheikh was sentenced to death in July 2002 by a Pakistani court for the murder of Daniel Pearl but with several appeals pending, he remains in jail.
In the tangled world of terror, however, the truth behind the killing of Daniel Pearl remains as elusive as ever.
On March 15, 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks who was captured in Rawalpindi in March 2003, told a U.S. military tribunal that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl. “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”
Mohammed claimed that he was tortured while in CIA custody, but told the judge at his hearing that he was speaking freely and was telling the truth.
How will Mohammed’s confession affect the fate of Omar Saeed Sheikh? No one seems to know, a source of anger and frustration for Mariane and all those who wish to see justice done.
Mariane, whose mother is Cuban and father Dutch, gave birth to Daniel’s posthumous son, Adam D. Pearl, on May 26, 2002 in Paris. (We learn from the book that as she is getting ready to give birth in the delivery room, she is wearing a long white shirt she and Danny bought in Dhaka, Bangladesh.) Through Adam, she hopes to continue the legacy of her husband.
What is this legacy? As Mariane explains, it is to remain true to your purpose in life and to never let hate consume you. It is to reject a Manichean worldview where subjective versions of good vs. evil is locked in an eternal battle, a world without hope, a world where violence is the only solution.
“Part of my ‘revenge’ (against the fanatics) was that my purpose wouldn’t change – not how I live, the work that I do or my approach to the world,” she recently said in TIME magazine. In response to “Has your view of Islam changed?”, Mariane replied, “No, it hasn’t changed at all. I grew up with Muslim people, so I was very acquainted with Islam. So it is not like the people who killed Danny taught me what Islam was about. They are hijackers of their own faith.”
And when asked, “You have a great love for the Pakistani people. Has that love changed?”, Mariane said, “Not at all … For me the nationality and the religion is really a secondary matter. For me, it is all a matter of human behavior … The people who I truly love in Pakistan are the most noble, powerful and deep people that I have ever met in my life. At times like that you encounter the worst human behavior possible, so you are also going to be very sensitive to the best human behavior possible ...”
In the context of the war on terror waged by the U.S. government since 9/11, in which the certitude of zealots is matched by the certitude of the movers and shakers in Washington, Mariane Pearl is a beacon.
While she is more eager than anyone to see the killers of her husband, and the killers of innocent people anywhere, brought to justice, she has achieved the ultimate victory against the extremists by remaining true to her goal, and her husband’s, of bridging races, religions and cultures through compassion and understanding. She has done this without in any way compromising with the fanatics and their nihilistic ideologies.
Like her husband, Mariane gives substance to Hemingway’s observation about the fearless fisherman in The Old Man and the Sea: “A man can be destroyed but not defeated.”
Against the mighty hearts of the likes of the Captain and the Pearls, the heart of darkness symbolized by the likes of Omar Saeed Sheikh and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad stand no chance. There is a lesson here: Never succumb to despair, and never allow fear to overcome courage and hope.
The recent release of the movie, “A Mighty Heart,” based on the book of the same name by Mariane Pearl, widow of journalist Daniel Pearl who was slain in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002, has revived memories of this harrowing event and its implications in a post-9/11 world that seems to be spinning out of control.
Pearl was the Mumbai-based India correspondent of The Wall Street Journal who arrived in Karachi in January, 2002 with his five-month pregnant wife to pursue the investigation of “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and his possible al-Qaida links in Pakistan.
Trusting, curious and driven by a passion for truth, Pearl agreed to meet a mysterious, elusive imam named Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani whose followers, it was believed, included Reid. A man named Muhammad Bashir arranged the meeting.
It was a trap, and on January 23, 2002, Daniel Pearl walked straight into it.
A frantic search begins when Mariane suspects that her husband has been kidnapped. Pakistan’s intelligence agency (inter-services intelligence, the ISI), US consulate in Karachi and the FBI pool their resources to rescue Pearl.
The movie is faithful to these well-known facts but what is remarkable is the skill with which director Michael Winterbottom conveys them. Although we know at the outset what happens to Pearl, the movie plays like a thriller. Ordinary scenes pulsate with foreboding. Here is Pearl waving goodbye to Mariane as he is driven away in a yellow taxi for his rendezvous with Gilani from the Karachi villa rented by the writer Asra Nomani. Later in the evening, an anxious Pearl riding a different car asks the driver how much longer it will take to reach his destination, and the driver remains silent. Meanwhile, Mariane fights fear, fatigue, bureaucracy and pains of pregnancy to cling to her sanity as the clock ticks away and her husband fails to return.
After five weeks of false leads and midnight raids into the dens of terror suspects in the labyrinthine alleys of Karachi, an FBI agent posing as a journalist receives a grisly video in a hotel lobby. In graphic detail, it shows Pearl being beheaded by his captors weeks earlier, after he is coerced into confessing his “Jewishness.”
Angelina Jolie is brilliant as Mariane Pearl, at once restrained and explosive, worldly and transcendent. When informed that her husband has been murdered, Jolie retreats to her room in a trance and collapses into what has to be among the most heartrending wail in movie history.
Also impressive is an officer whom Mariane calls “Captain.” Played by Irrfan Khan, whom many Americans recently saw as the father in 'Namesake', the "Captain" is the head of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism unit. He vows to Marianne that “I will bring your Danny home” and afterwards, that he will bring Pearl’s killers to justice “even if it is going to take a lifetime, my lifetime.” He speaks softly, but there is no mistaking the steel beneath the velvet.
It was the "Captain" who found that “Bashir,” who lured Daniel into the fatal trap, was in reality Omar Saeed Sheikh, the London School of Economics dropout arrested in 1994 in New Delhi for kidnapping American and British tourists. He was released by the Indian government in exchange for the hostages of an Indian airliner hijacked to Afghanistan in December 1999.
Omar Saeed Sheikh was sentenced to death in July 2002 by a Pakistani court for the murder of Daniel Pearl but with several appeals pending, he remains in jail.
In the tangled world of terror, however, the truth behind the killing of Daniel Pearl remains as elusive as ever.
On March 15, 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks who was captured in Rawalpindi in March 2003, told a U.S. military tribunal that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl. “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”
Mohammed claimed that he was tortured while in CIA custody, but told the judge at his hearing that he was speaking freely and was telling the truth.
How will Mohammed’s confession affect the fate of Omar Saeed Sheikh? No one seems to know, a source of anger and frustration for Mariane and all those who wish to see justice done.
Mariane, whose mother is Cuban and father Dutch, gave birth to Daniel’s posthumous son, Adam D. Pearl, on May 26, 2002 in Paris. (We learn from the book that as she is getting ready to give birth in the delivery room, she is wearing a long white shirt she and Danny bought in Dhaka, Bangladesh.) Through Adam, she hopes to continue the legacy of her husband.
What is this legacy? As Mariane explains, it is to remain true to your purpose in life and to never let hate consume you. It is to reject a Manichean worldview where subjective versions of good vs. evil is locked in an eternal battle, a world without hope, a world where violence is the only solution.
“Part of my ‘revenge’ (against the fanatics) was that my purpose wouldn’t change – not how I live, the work that I do or my approach to the world,” she recently said in TIME magazine. In response to “Has your view of Islam changed?”, Mariane replied, “No, it hasn’t changed at all. I grew up with Muslim people, so I was very acquainted with Islam. So it is not like the people who killed Danny taught me what Islam was about. They are hijackers of their own faith.”
And when asked, “You have a great love for the Pakistani people. Has that love changed?”, Mariane said, “Not at all … For me the nationality and the religion is really a secondary matter. For me, it is all a matter of human behavior … The people who I truly love in Pakistan are the most noble, powerful and deep people that I have ever met in my life. At times like that you encounter the worst human behavior possible, so you are also going to be very sensitive to the best human behavior possible ...”
In the context of the war on terror waged by the U.S. government since 9/11, in which the certitude of zealots is matched by the certitude of the movers and shakers in Washington, Mariane Pearl is a beacon.
While she is more eager than anyone to see the killers of her husband, and the killers of innocent people anywhere, brought to justice, she has achieved the ultimate victory against the extremists by remaining true to her goal, and her husband’s, of bridging races, religions and cultures through compassion and understanding. She has done this without in any way compromising with the fanatics and their nihilistic ideologies.
Like her husband, Mariane gives substance to Hemingway’s observation about the fearless fisherman in The Old Man and the Sea: “A man can be destroyed but not defeated.”
Against the mighty hearts of the likes of the Captain and the Pearls, the heart of darkness symbolized by the likes of Omar Saeed Sheikh and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad stand no chance. There is a lesson here: Never succumb to despair, and never allow fear to overcome courage and hope.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Oct. 14, '05
Earthquake in South Asia
The devastating 7.6 earthquake that hit Pakistan, Kashmir, India and Afghanistan on Saturday, October 8, has already claimed over 38,000 lives. The death toll will undoubtedly rise once more bodies are retrieved. Particularly in the mountainous, rugged part of Kashmir where winter has made an early and sinister appearance, the misery of the wounded, the homeless and the destitute are beyond words. The “paradise on earth” has turned into a graveyard.
As in other regions of the United States, local mosques and charities in the Bay Area began to mobilize immediately. South Bay Islamic Association (SBIA) of San Jose and Muslim Community Association (MCA) of Santa Clara led drives to collect donations of cash, warm clothes, blankets and other necessary materials. The collections are being sent to Pakistan mostly through Edhi Foundation (www.paks.net/edhi-foundation), and Hidaya Foundation (http://www.hidaya.org/). All donations that SBIA collected on Friday, October 14, at the Jumah prayers at its 3 locations – Downtown, Evergreen and Napredak – were set aside for the earthquake victims.
The tragedy has shaken believers in this holy month of Ramadan. If there is one lesson we should take from it, it is that we must be grateful to God for what we have and not waste our life by chasing after what we don’t. When we read about barely-alive children rescued from under the rubbles whose arms or legs had to be amputated because gangrene had set in, the simple fact that we can breathe and are able to walk should be reasons enough for thanking the Creator. When we read about families huddling under trees day after day against freezing rain and howling winds, we should be thankful for the house we live in and not be consumed by thoughts of bigger, fancier houses because others have it or because we just want it. This lesson must not fade after the heart-rending images of quake victims disappear from the front pages; otherwise, we have learned nothing.
Earthquake in South Asia
The devastating 7.6 earthquake that hit Pakistan, Kashmir, India and Afghanistan on Saturday, October 8, has already claimed over 38,000 lives. The death toll will undoubtedly rise once more bodies are retrieved. Particularly in the mountainous, rugged part of Kashmir where winter has made an early and sinister appearance, the misery of the wounded, the homeless and the destitute are beyond words. The “paradise on earth” has turned into a graveyard.
As in other regions of the United States, local mosques and charities in the Bay Area began to mobilize immediately. South Bay Islamic Association (SBIA) of San Jose and Muslim Community Association (MCA) of Santa Clara led drives to collect donations of cash, warm clothes, blankets and other necessary materials. The collections are being sent to Pakistan mostly through Edhi Foundation (www.paks.net/edhi-foundation), and Hidaya Foundation (http://www.hidaya.org/). All donations that SBIA collected on Friday, October 14, at the Jumah prayers at its 3 locations – Downtown, Evergreen and Napredak – were set aside for the earthquake victims.
The tragedy has shaken believers in this holy month of Ramadan. If there is one lesson we should take from it, it is that we must be grateful to God for what we have and not waste our life by chasing after what we don’t. When we read about barely-alive children rescued from under the rubbles whose arms or legs had to be amputated because gangrene had set in, the simple fact that we can breathe and are able to walk should be reasons enough for thanking the Creator. When we read about families huddling under trees day after day against freezing rain and howling winds, we should be thankful for the house we live in and not be consumed by thoughts of bigger, fancier houses because others have it or because we just want it. This lesson must not fade after the heart-rending images of quake victims disappear from the front pages; otherwise, we have learned nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)