Posts Tagged ‘jeewanjee’
June 23, 2012
Schools in Pakistan’s Rural Areas
The big news in Pakistan right now is about the newly elected Prime Minster, deteriorating diplomatic relations with the United States and match fixing charges on star cricketers, but there is a less publicized, but important story that CNN published last week “Family’s 20 Kids Highlight Pakistan’s Population Explosion”. The article warns that Pakistan is currently among the top ten most populous countries and by 2050 will rank third only behind China and India. The author’s attribute this population explosion to a lack of birth control, and insufficient access to family planning information. And while birth control and family planning organizations are certainly effective means to control population growth, dissemination of information that counters prevailing cultural norms and attitudes that discourage limiting family size are also important. The article accurately describes “a majority of the population – 70% is largely illiterate and resides in rural areas lacking the most basic services” and it is in those regions in Pakistan that are most influenced by the deep conservatism that often views birth control as “un Islamic”, but does not account for the large number of efforts that have been made to curb illiteracy in these areas. Well known nonprofit organizations including The Citizens Foundation and Development in Literacy are focused on educating Pakistan’s rural populations and DIL in particular focuses on countering female illiteracy.
DIL claims “empowering underprivileged students, especially girls” as part of their “student centered model schools in remote areas of Pakistan” as part of their mission statement. And female empowerment is exactly the kind of education that can help disseminate valuable information to facilitate controlling Pakistan’s population bulge. Successful NGO’s in the Microfinance space including Grameen Bank have demonstrated success in assisting with a reduction of birth rates of their members. Like DIL, Grameen Bank claims female empowerment as part of their mission, but unlike DIL, puts in place more direct mechanisms to achieve such objectives. Their “sixteen decisions” is testimony to a commitment to female empowerment making finance contingent to social development goals, including educating children, cleaner homes, maintaining and caring for one’s health, personal discipline, and cooperation with other females in the community. Number 6 on Grameen’s list explicitly has women pledge “We intend to have small families” and through these guidelines their microfinance model is supplemented by female empowerment strategies that encourage family planning and overall develop the social environment in which they live. Similarly, Microfinance organization Pro Mujer provides poor women with mechanisms for empowerment in Latin America in addition to development opportunities through lending capital. Their approach reads:
While most microfinance institutions focus only on financial services, Pro Mujer uses a holistic approach, making sure that clients are better prepared physically, emotionally and economically to improve their lives and that of their children. Education is one strategy. Pro Mujer teaches women about domestic violence, communication skills, and women’s rights, using workshops and group discussions to raise their awareness about leadership, gender issues, and self-esteem. It also links clients with other organizations for counseling, legal assistance, and education and vocational training programs. Women also become empowered as they join and become active in their communal associations. Pro Mujer organizes women in groups of 18 to 28 clients and teaches them how to organize and manage a community bank. The women elect a board of directors to run the meetings, form a credit committee to approve loan applications, and create solidarity groups to guarantee each other’s loans. Members of the communal banks gain confidence and self-esteem as they successfully borrow and repay their loans, set up savings accounts, and become more aware of their own potential and abilities. What’s more, they apply their new skills as leaders in other community organizations.
Education + Empowerment for development
Pro Mujer and Grameen Bank are first and foremost Microfinance institutions, as DIL is to education. These organizations converge in their commitment to “women’s empowerment”, but diverge in their mechanisms to achieve that objective. Microfinance, and education are important development goals for a larger purpose of empowerment so it is important that direct efforts are put in place that have a positive impact on female empowerment. Nonprofit organizations have a profound responsibility not only to those they seek to help, but to their donors, and women’s empowerment must be more than just a catch phrase in Pakistan. It requires a serious commitment by organizations who want to have a positive, long term and sustainable impact for women. Education is an important starting point, but the work will not end there. Given the population growth numbers, empowerment must increasingly become part of the plan to develop Pakistan. Education focused NGO’s are in a good position to begin such models of development, especially if empowerment is a stated part of their mission.
Posted in International Affairs, Pakistan | Tagged development in literacy, developments in literacy, DIL, educating pakistan kids, educating pakistani girls, grameen bank, illteracy in pakistan, jeewanjee, ngo in pakistan, ngos in pakistan, over population pakistan, pakistan education of girls, pakistan schools, pakistani education, population growth in pakistan, pro mujer, rural pakistan, tcf, tfc, the citizens foundation, zainab, zainab jeewanjee | Leave a Comment »
January 9, 2012
Ron Paul speaks during the Republican Leadership Conference: 2011
Is it just me, or are seemingly incessant GOP debates the past few months allowing President Obama’s lack of public exposure to seem more and more like solid leadership? The Republican lineups simplistic, square and reactionary focus on “Anti-Obama” rhetoric especially on foreign policy has highlighted a resoundingly hawkish stance on Iran with little attention to our current engagements in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it may be expedient amongst a certain political base to try and one-up each other in aggressive foreign policy talk, only Ron Paul challenges the party line on Americas role in the world.
When it comes to Pakistan, compared to Democrats Republicans have a consistent history of preferring to work closely with the military establishment in Islamabad. While there is a level of bipartisanship post 9/11, (case in point is Obama’s continuation of Bush era drone use with little debate), Republicans have through the Cold War and beyond preferred dealing with the military establishment rather than focusing on democratic, or liberal institution building. Which is not necessarily an entirely erroneous policy; part of the rationale is that state building is expensive in blood, toil, time and treasure and rarely feasible. Further, there are an endless number of constraints and uncertainties that profoundly hinder institution, or democratic state building in a place like Pakistan, rendering Republican policies simply pragmatic.
Which brings us to current policy: the bipartisan endorsed “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act” (S. 1707) enacted in 2009 has yet to bear tangible fruit. Granted the aforementioned that institution building is time exhaustive, the fact remains that Pakistan has deteriorated politically, in the realm of security and economically. And having watched everyone from Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorun, Gov. Perry, Rep. Bachmann and yes even the soft spoken Gov. Huntsman, reiterates hawkish foreign policy while refusing to acknowledge a need for meaningful improvement. In the Republican camp only Rep. Ron Paul’s extreme calls for an isolationist posture offer some semblance of change. And because his prescriptions have yet to be tried, the utility of his ideas have yet to be tested. And now may be a time to consider his stance since they call for exactly what the Pakistani public wants right now.
Referring to our policies to Pakistan as nothing short of “Bombs for Bribes” Ron Paul acknowledges the nobility, yet inherent futility in calling for democratic institutions in places of strategic engagement. He understands that we are already engaged in “130 countries” with “700 bases around the world” and in this speech against the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, he bluntly explains:
“the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do and if they do it, we give them money. If they don’t we bomb them. Under this condition we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan and innocent people get killed. If you want to promote our good values and democratic processes, you can’t antagonize the people”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZPTRrPg4bY
He goes on to suggest dialogue and trade as alternatives to current policy. And although his statement is simplistic and was made in 2009, it highlights Ron Paul’s isolationist, more economically focused prescriptions on foreign policy that seek to reduce our military footprint abroad based on pragmatic constraints, like military and fiscal overstretch. And these calls seem more reasonable than before, especially when it comes to Pakistan and the fact that our aid has yet to yield satisfactory results. So while the Obama administration continues engagement and GOP candidates refuse to acknowledge much concern over current policy to Pakistan, can Ron Paul really be the only alternative available?
Someone once considered completely out of left, excuse me, right field, could be the reminder we need to moderate our engagement with countries of interest. Because what is interesting is that current rhetoric in Pakistan is very much in line with Ron Paul’s ideas. Ron Paul isn’t touting conspiracy theories, nor does he echo far left foreign policy thinkers like Noam Chomsky. Rather, his past statements on our engagement in Pakistan as “inadvertently causing chaos” and “violating security and sovereignty” are exactly what the average Pakistani seems to feel and hears about in their mainstream TV, and print media. Takeaway for us means, it’s a perception the is realistic; perhaps more so than current policy reflects.
In fact, legendary cricket star turned politician Imran Khan’s recent surge in popularity is in large part due to his highly critical foreign policy rhetoric that vociferously calls for D.C. to adopt a more isolationist stance so Pakistan might reclaim lost autonomy. Imran Khan steadily built support for his party on the continued observation that America’s “War on Terror” has intensified insecurity and his subsequent promises to curtail American involvement is a first step in alleviating Pakistan’s problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cegk0q4WRDA&feature=related
He underscores Ron Paul’s sentiment that perceptions urgently matter in a climate where American intervention is increasingly received hostilely. Both politicians insistence on winnings hearts and minds renders Ron Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions worthy of consideration. Imran Khan’s recent ascendency and Governor Paul’s gradually increasing support marks a convergence in shifting to a direction of a less militarized approach to Pakistan. Two men once considered out of the realm of politician viability now increasingly resonate in their respective publics; policymakers ought to take note.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION
Posted in International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, South Asia, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized, US Foreign Polciy, US Pakistan relations | Tagged 2011 debates, aid to pakistan, american policy to pakistan, biden lugar bill, bombs bribes, congressman ron paul, debates, enhanced partnership act pakistan, foreign policy to pakistan, GOP debates, gop debates pakistan, gop republican debate, governor romney, imran khan, iran foreign policy, isolationism, isolationist, jeewanjee, john hunstman, kerry lugar bill, michelle bachmann, pakistan politics, pakistan us affairs, Pakistan US relations, pakistani american relations, presidential debate, pti, race 2012, race 20123, rick perry, rick santorum, ron paul, ron paul militarization, tehreek e insaaf, us policy to pakistan, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 1 Comment »
October 4, 2010
-
Freedom through Dictatorship?
Well, I called it: Pervez Musharraf is staging a return to Pakistani politics. Launching his new “All Pakistan Muslim League” (AMPL) party this week in a plan to return to the country, the former General will have to face a tremendously skeptical, increasingly hardened citizenry and even tougher adversaries in the judicial branch and opposition parties. In an Al Jazeera special report, Musharraf’s former Legal Advisor Ahmed Raza Kasuri insisted that should tacit approval come from the country’s military establishment and most importantly, with support of a “silent majority” Kasuri measures at 60-65% of moderate Pakistani’s, Musharraf will garner required support to win in future elections. Political analyst Imtiaz Gul insisted otherwise explaining not only would the military establishment be weary of backing Musharraf who cost them valuable political capital when he sacked the judiciary in 2007 and issued a State of Emergency, but also because he has “lost relevance” in Pakistan today.
Gul makes a valuable point: without relevance a political figure is climbing an uphill battle of garnering credibility, and because credibility is deeply intertwined with legitimacy, Musharraff undoubtedly faces a bumpy comeback.
But relevance is not necessarily an impediment to power in Pakistan since the current situation lends a valuable opportunity for it to be readily earned. Current President Asif Zardari usurped such an opportunity when his wife was tragically murdered and assumed leadership, riding the waves of sympathy that swept the nation to win elections. While that “relevance” is waning now, it was enough to allow him a seat of power for 2 years and actually shake off some of the “Mr. 10%” infamy, which is a far larger feat than what Mushrraf faces today.
While the main opposition party leaders Asif Zardari and Nawaaz Sharif are forever bogged by allegations of corruption, Musharraff’s criticisms revolve around issues of “democracy”.
His most vociferous opponents will cite his sacking of the judiciary, coup to power, and 9 year dictatorial reign as subverting democracy in Pakistan. But such criticism of Musharraf is both misleading and mostly hyperbole.
The deficient part of such rhetoric lies in lacking recognition of liberalism. Notions of individual human rights and liberty, free trade, separation of church and state and religious tolerance are erroneously assumed to come only with democratic leadership in Pakistan. On the contrary, liberal policies extending specifically to women’s rights, fostering regional cooperation and trade, namely with India, opening domestic markets, such as free media and holding free and fair elections were successfully carried out previously by Musharraf.
Ironically, under the title of “dictator”, he brought forth more liberal triumphs than any other leaders in my lifetime. And it is important to not confuse democracy with liberalism. Fareed Zakaria makes this distinction in tweaking “Democratic Peace Theory”. His ideas are described:
“democracy is defined in terms of the process by which a government is selected. In contrast, “constitutional liberalism” is defined not by how the government is selected, but rather b the extent to which the society and its institutions protect individuals’ basic rights (to life, property, freedom of speech, and religion)”
Thus basic tenants of a such liberalism, to a fair extent were brought forth by Musharraf. And as political change seems imminent in Pakistan, if we continue looking to political theory one might advance a case for liberalism by way of identifying Musharraf’s opposition. If we take a voluntaristic view of government, wherein heads of states are integral parts of policymaking as opposed to looking mostly at system wide determinants of policy, one finds that not only corruption, but the fact that both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are part of feudal, landowning elites in Pakistan is meaningful. With that background, and likely subsequent value sets which are diametrically opposed to liberal notions of liberty and individual rights, Pakistan runs the risk of remaining socially, and economically stagnant under their leadership. Moreover, with the U.S. winding down our war in Afghanistan and shifting in to Pakistan, more than ever liberal ideals are needed.
No amount of drones, target killings or CIA intervention have yet quelled extremism let alone terrorism in Pakistan since 9/11. Modernity and liberalism are Pakistan’s best bet at framing a solution for the long run.
It cannot be an overnight shift, but it will require leadership that espouses liberal ideals. Because without credible experience in upholding individual rights and freedoms, only halfhearted appreciation will come for liberalism and even weaker attempts to implement them.
Is Musharraf the solution Pakistan is looking for? I do not know. But until new, more modern and liberal alternatives in political leadership are available, he just might be the best option now.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @
Posted in Current Affairs, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan | Tagged ahmed raza kasuri, al jazeera, al jazeera musharraf, al jazeera pakistan, al jazeera report, all pakistan muslim league, approval rating pakistan, Asif Zardari, benazir, CIA, corruption, corruption in pakistan, dictator musharraf, dictator of pakistan, dictators, elections in pakistan, elections leadership in pakistan, essence of decision, Fareed Zakaria, free fair elections, future of asif zardari, future of musharraf, future of pakistan, General Musharraf, imtiaz gul, jeewanjee, leadership in pakistan, liberal pakistan, liberalism, military of pakistan, military rule pakistan, moderation pakistan, modern pakistan, modernity, musharaf, musharaf in hindsight, musharaf return to pakistan, musharaff, Musharraf, musharraf in hindsight, musharraff in hindsight, Nawaz Sharif, pakistan citizens, pakistan corruption, pakistan leadership, pakistan leadership roles, pakistan politics, pakistani current affairs, pakistani politics, pakistans leaderhsip, Pervez Musharraf, pervez musharraf comeback, policies pakistan, policy pakistan, policymaking in pakistan, problem in pakistani politics, support, supreme court pakistan, US pakistan cooperation, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 11 Comments »
July 29, 2010
Zainab Jeewanjee with Ambassador Hussain Haqqani
“30 years of this whole business that started with the jihad against the Soviet Union is what we are trying to deal with the aftermath of. Its 30 years of these groups, supporting them, funding them, the opening of radical madrassahs in various parts of the country. Now I think we’ve done a decent job in the last two years of beginning the cleanup”
Pakistan is serious about cleaning up terrorism, but the mess runs deep. And If you want to share in an insightful discussion on the Wikileaks reports, I recommend watching Charlie Rose from last night. Because Pakistan pulled out the big guns in responding to the reports that suggested their Interservices Intelligence Agency is “aiding” the enemies in Afghanistan. Ambassador Hussain Haqqani was Rose’s guest and spoke directly to American anxieties that Pakistan is not entirely interested in ousting terrorists from the region. Specifically responding to the question of ISI links to the Taliban, Haqqani said:
“It goes back to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The CIA and ISI both worked with the Mujahedeen who morphed into Taliban. But now the Pakistani military and ISI are conducting successful military operations in SWAT and South Waziristan.
He elaborated:
“We’ve Taken out extremists and 74 ISI personnel have been killed in the past two years. With as many as 233 injured. That alone should be sufficient to convince people that was then and now is now and Pakistan is standing firmly on the side of those who want to eliminate the Taliban and extremists”
The statistics were particularly hard hitting. They brought a human element to our somewhat sterilized discussion about Pakistan here in the states. Being geographically removed, and with a vastly distinct culture, we are mostly informed of how the government in Islamabad deals with our administration in D.C., resorting to diplomatic sound bites and news for our information. But Haqqanis statistics provoke us to realize that just as we have struggled in Afghanistan, Pakistan too has sacrificed greatly as an ally in our war and continues to be deeply invested in combating terror.
Haqqani reminds us that the Wikileaks story is just that; a whistleblower. Without subtracting from the value of revealing what governments might otherwise keep classified, the Ambassador offered facts that quell sensationalized reception of the reports.
Rose asked weighty questions in trademark straightforwardness allowing us a chance to get answers to that the Wikileaks story leaves us lingering with. For instance, “what keeps Pakistan from doing more”; a question even those with ample knowledge and understanding of history and ground realities who can put the Wikileaks story into context sometimes wonder. Rose speculated it was a concern with India, and a fear of U.S. withdrawal. The Ambassador responded:
“There is a concern that India is not yet reconciled to our nationhood and statehood. Those are concerns reflected in public opinion and government has to deal with view that the US has not been a consistent friend of Pakistan and if we do too much at the behest of US they could leave us in the lurch and walk away again. The Biggest concern is the US can actually leave projects incomplete it has happened in the past US assistance and economic aid suspended arbitrarily and at short notice. Things have been left incomplete. They have had a very difficult relationship in the past 6 decades. We are trying tot address the totality of these issues”
It is no secret that India Pakistan relations are a primary driver of action in South Asian politics so the real nugget in the Ambassador’s above response is the talk of Pakistani Public opinion.
One of the first rules we learn in politics is that perceptions matter and what our pundits and political speechwriters have left out of the conversation is how Pakistani opinions factor into Islamabad’s policymaking.
The Obama administration made clear by way of allocating funding in the Kerry Lugar bill that America would no longer support military regimes at the expense of democracy in Pakistan, yet we still tend to leave consideration of Pakistani public opinion out of our own expectations. Apprehensions of U.S. foreign policy are increasingly common as Pakistan deteriorated economically, politically in overall security post 9/11.
Ambassador Haqqani did an eloquent job of explaining this tremendous sensitivity with which Islamabad must balance its interest in continuing bilateral cooperation with D.C. while alleviating a rampant fear amongst Pakistani citizens that the United States might not be trustworthy, or as the Ambassador put it “ungrateful” for all their country does.
And although Ambassador Haqqani concluded on a positive note , citing increased military cooperation in fighting terrorism and tripartite agreements on trade, he gave viewers a clear view of the “totality” and complexity of issues from the Pakistan side.
To tally Islamabad’s task list thus far: in addition to 30 years of deep cleaning, speedy recovery from loss of life, toil, treasure and time, one must add mending 60 years of mistrust with the worlds superpower to Pakistan’s list of things everyone wants done yesterday.
So let’s think twice, maybe even thrice before sponging the Wikileaks reports without an understanding of context and implicating Pakistan for not doing enough. Prime Minister Cameron, that’ means you.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ the Foreign Policy Association
Posted in Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, U.S. Politics, US Foreign Polciy, US Pakistan relations | Tagged amabassador haqqani, american diplomacy, american foreign policy, american politics, bilateral, bilateral cooperation, bilateral talks, cameron pakistan, charlie rose, charlie rose pakistan, charlie rose politics, d.c, diplomacy pakistan, diplomat pakistan, hussain haqqani, India Pakistan, inter services intelligence agency, International Relations, ISI, islamabad, jeewanjee, pakistan haqqani, pakistan intelligence services, pakistan isi, pakistan not doing enough, pakistan politics, Pakistan war on terror, pakistani isi, pakistani politics, prime minister david cameron pakistan, sphere of influence afghanistan, strategic influence, US foreign policy, US Pakistan relations, war on terror, war on terror pakistan, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 6 Comments »
May 13, 2010
Friedric Nietzsche & Zainab Jeewanjee : Can't agree on Religion
There’s an amazing article this week at TruthDig.com by Mr. Chris Hedges entitled “After Religion Fizzles, We’re Stuck with Nietzsche”. Hedges’ gist is that the core teachings of Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) “are now lost in the muck of church dogma, hollow creeds and the banal bureaucracy of institutional religion”
Not a new argument; criticism of organized religion for being dogmatic is as ubiquitous as my generations disdain for Michael Jackson (God Rest his Soul).
And Hedges’ does a fairly sound job of supporting a censure of religious institutions by the notion of their failure to “unequivocally denounce unfettered capitalism, globalization and pre-emptive war” concluding that “empowerment of the individual conscience which was the starting point of great ethical systems of civilization” from Confucius to Kant have been traded for adherence to poorly outlined ideologies touted by dogmatic religious institutions. He prescribes we revert to an introspective, individual questioning of authority to guide our moral sense. And I like it; I want to expand on that notion, especially since Nietzsche, although super duper fascinating always irked me with his too sweeping condemnation of religion.
To pick up where Hedges article leaves off; what does happen when we’re “stuck” with the emptiness of Nietzsche’s notion that there is no morality? Like Hedges Nietzsche criticizes religion as inherently dogmatic, but to a far greater extent. Nietzsche says organized religion is riddled with the voids created by an incorrect contention that fixed perspectives exist. I read his work Beyond Good and Evil last year wherein with Christianity in particular,
Nietzsche finds religion prescribes actions, if not an entire way of life based on faulty contentions; faulty in that they are rooted on a morality that is inherently relative; he might even say contrived.
Specifically contrived is morality rooted in asceticism that accompanies organized religious expectations such as those calling for chastity (think Catholic priests) or abstinence from both food and sexual pleasure in the form of fasting (think the Muslim Holy month of Ramadaan). Such boundaries according to Nietzsche give rise to a society of undiscerning masses who wallow, yet make every effort in their struggle to achieve nothing more than a kind of denial, suffering and ultimately, mediocrity.
On top of that, prescriptions of asceticism being rooted in religious truths assumed to be absolute, constant and certain come into question and eventual conflict in light of more modern rationality which is less rooted in faith and instead in science, as Hedges would agree. Thus atheism becomes more readily accepted as the concept of God in and of itself is less able to be reconciled with advances in science that defy so called truths upon which religious prescriptions for a faithful life are based.
So to accept that time and space are relative, denying that absolute truth can ever be experienced and that religious asceticism in specific is nothing more than a pacifying consolation for an individual, Nietzsche’s philosophy condemns Abrahamic faith for their prescription’s of ultimately, a lifetime of mediocrity.
Thus his subsequent explanation for increasing atheism is understandable, however makes religion out to be a dismal experience in utter ignorance. And the bleak realization of such an argument can immediately prompt a kind of defensiveness wherein such radical challenges are immediately contested.
Although I consider myself moderately religious with a most certain faith in a monotheistic God, without intentionally being defensive in response to Nietzsche’s criticism of religion, I find his assertions contradictory to a notion of faith. Because if his premise is that there are no absolutes, and the problem with religion is that it cannot easily be reconciled with science, which is often considered to be in and of itself a kind of certainty, then it is perhaps difficult to reconcile the very notion that absolute truths do not exist and perspectives are relative to time and space.
By arguing that something mostly accepted as absolute, certain and “true” as science is a reasonable explanation against the spread of theism, Nietzsche himself lends credibility to the notion that certain truths might actually exist.
To clarify: if institutionalized religion is embedded in dogmatism founded on untruths as proved by its inability to reconcile with the realities of science, then would science then not be, in its strong opposition to religion, a body of at least some truths? Especially given that science is today generally regarded as irrefutable given its own roots in empirical procedures and products.
Furthermore, this raises the inevitable question that, in the absence of religion or philosophy then, what is morality, or the “right thing to do”? Nietzsche may argue that there is no certain definition of what is moral since it would be relative to time and space. However, again, accepting that a certain epistemic confinement is a plausible result of the dogmatism of religion, then is faith not then a credible means to achieving morality since it is rooted not in any tangible, scientific or absolute truth?
Faith is then relative as it requires no truth. Given the absence of absolute truths, faith then becomes quite conducive to my understanding of Nietzsche in that it seamlessly accepts the possibility of not knowing for certain.
Of course, this can itself become dogmatic and therefore problematic when individuals reach an extreme wherein reason and scientific and other rationale are abandoned for fanatical faith and harmful ends. But bracketing the extreme and assuming moderation as the norm for most individuals of “faith”, religious spirituality, especially a sincere belief in an intangible God who Nietzsche himself describes as “incapable of making himself clearly understood”, then can be a strong, and perhaps ironically, “spiritual” acceptance in the notion of a relative existence.
***sigh*** So guess I’m gonna have to just beg to differ with the late, great Nietzsche on this one and send my props to Mr. Hedges for a very insightful piece 😉
Posted in Religion & Society, Totally Random | Tagged chris hedges, friedric nietzsche, jeewanjee, nietzsche philosophy, nietzsche religion, philosophy, truthdig.com, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 4 Comments »
March 3, 2010
Zainab Picks the Pretty Boy 😉
Even though I miss the maximize button and know MS Office is easier to use on a PC, I can’t imagine switching away from Mac. I converted last summer amidst pressure from my brothers, both Mac users who pointed and laughed each time I would start up my Sony VAIO. The laughter would last anywhere from 2, to 4 minutes, chuckling at the slow, tired fan of my laptop, chugging away as if gasping for air to load 50 programs that I never used but came pre-installed anyway. And that was just the startup process.
While blogging, and patiently waiting as my laptop stalled for a good 20 seconds when I opened up MS Word and 3 tabs in an Explorer window one evening, my brother placed his arm on my shoulder and said “Zainab, don’t let your computer control you. Ever since I switched to MAC, I have less stress”. I looked at him. I had a deadline for an article and had to be up at 6 am for work the next morning, and at that moment I wanted nothing more than to experience the carefree state of mind my brother had. That’s when I decided to take the plunge and give Mac a chance.
I realized soon that just like other great forms of art, less is often more, and therein lies the genius of Apple.
“Apple products are known for being stylish, powerful and pleasing to use. They are edited products that cut through complexity, by consciously leaving things out — not cramming every feature that came into an engineer’s head, an affliction known as “featuritis” that burdens so many technology products“
There’s no burden with my Mac. It’s given me technological autonomy to browse the web, word process, download, and organize the way I want. My PC had me living in a constant state of fear! Mac doesn’t impose hundreds of programs I have no use for or interest in. It doesn’t accuse me of committing an “illegal operation and will shut down” or crash in the middle of writing my senior thesis. It simply leaves things out. By offering less options, it gives more freedom.
There’s a book I looked at but never fully read by Barry Schwartz entitled the Paradox of Choice describing this phenomenon. The first part went over how Americans shop for jeans. Back in the day, and by back in the day I assume the author meant the 80’s and before, purchasing jeans was a simple, mostly enjoyable activity. Today, because we’re bombarded with so many options for jeans the desire to purchase one becomes tiresome, shopping becomes a task when burdened by extraneous, often redundant options. It seemed like a somewhat convincing argument, although I think it’s more applicable in the case of the Mac/PC debate.
So, on this rainy northern California winter day, I thought I’d take a moment to reflect in hindsight of a well made decision: once you go Mac, it’s hard to go back 😉
Posted in Totally Random | Tagged apple fast, apple mac, apple microsoft, apple pc debate, apple vs microsoft, barry schwartz, compare apple and microsoft, compare mac and pc, jeewanjee, mac computer, mac computer compare apple, mac fast, mac is better than pc, mac pc competition, mac spped, mac vs pc, macbook, macbook pro, microsoft always crashes, microsoft apple debate, microsoft crashes, microsoft sucks, pc apple speed, pc crashes, pc mac debate, pc slow, pc stall, pc stinks, pc sucks, pcs crash, schwartz paradox of choice, the paradox of choice, the paradox of choice book, why are pcs do slow, why do pcs crash, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 3 Comments »
February 26, 2010
Futility of Military Motivated relations Minus Democratic Input
While working in D.C. some years back almost every Congress person, Think Tank and academic I came across was certain on one thing on nuclear proliferation: if an atomic bomb ever goes off again, it’s going to happen in South Asia. It was a dismal but resounding notion that I have even heard expressed amongst South Asians. Profound mistrust, three wars, land disputes, all spurred by a gory colonial partition 60 odd years ago has left Pakistan and India scarred in a way that makes cynics of even the best of us.
A realist might tell you that nuclear armed neighbors by way of deterrence have allowed India and Pakistan to refrain from war since testing their atom bombs, but even they would conclude war is inevitable. Liberals would make a case for enhanced trade to gradually spur economic interdependence to help avoid conflict, which is perhaps the most palatable idea, but statistics show that deepening trade between India and Pakistan has not yet improved relations:
“trade between India and Pakistan was at its highest ever in the year following Kargil.
Even the Mumbai attacks have not significantly dented India-Pakistan trade relations. Pakistan trades with 100’s of countries, India being the 9th largest trading partner”
So if deepening trade and deterrence haven’t yielded what confidently could be considered lasting peace, what will it take? I’m of the opinion that realist and liberalist policies must be accompanied by ground level, macro scale diplomacy. Because while deterrence satisfies the all mighty military institutions, and trade satisfies highly influential business elites there’s little attention given to the masses; and by masses I mean billions of South Asians who have yet to even fathom peace as a possibility.
Call it ground level diplomacy, soft power or good ol’ winning hearts and minds: it’s the missing ingredient in bilateral relations. Resident Indian’s and Pakistani’s have a perceived animosity for one another that verges on the irrational. Catapulting cricket matches between both countries as akin to war, hate crimes against Muslims in India to cross border terrorism is absurd for states divided by man made, post colonial borders.
So the problem is not one of trade, or military might: it’s epistemic. Both countries must engage one another from the ground up. Shashi Tharoor, the decorated Indian Parliamentarian described the effectiveness of Indian soft power best at a TED conference last year:
“India’s soft power, its true of music, dance of arts, yoga, aryuveda, even cuisine. With these examples come the sense that in todays world its not the side of the bigger army that wins, it’s the one that tells a better story. And india is the land of a better story. Stereotypes are changing. Today people in Silicon valley people talk of IIT’s with same reverence of MIT”
Why not apply that soft power in Pakistan? And vice versa. I laud the Aman ki Asha initiative for doing exactly this. Launched by Pakistani media conglomerate Geo T.V. and on the Indian side, the Times of India, both companies have taken up the task of engaging both countries using soft power. As media houses, through television, print and web placements, they engage masses directly, finally sidestepping politically or economically motivated discourse both countries are used to. THeir mission statement reads:
Public opinion is far too potent a force to be left in the hands of narrow vested interests. The people of today must find its voice and force the rulers to listen. The awaam must write its own placards and fashion its own slogans. The leaders must learn to be led and not blindly followed. Skepticism about the given is often the genesis of faith. This skepticism has been brewing. It can be unleashed to forge a new social compact between the people of this region. A social compact based on a simple yet powerful impulse – Aman ki Asha. A desire for peace.
Aman ki Asha taps the widespread but underrepresented sentiments of commonality shared by South Asians. By engaging the masses directly with soft power it’s is a brilliant first step at mitigating the most potent problem in bilateral relations: mistrust. And what is most brilliant about the initiative is that could have teeth. Unlike countless other proposals for peace, Aman ki Asha uses mass media to speak to masses directly with a specifically outlined agenda:
“Issues of trade and commerce, of investments, of financial infrastructure, of cultural exchanges, of religious and medical tourism, of free movement of ideas, of visa regimes, of sporting ties, of connectivity, of reviving existing routes, of market access, of separated families, of the plight of prisoners, will be part of our initial agenda. Through debates, discussions and the telling of stories we will find commonalities and space, for compromise and adjustment, on matters that have bedevilled relations for over 60 years”
It sounds promising, because although I do not anticipate this dissemination of smart power to yield results immediately, if it’s done consistently it might have a capacity to democratize the push for peace. It ought not to be the military, or economic institutions setting the agenda, rather, policies should reflect the will of the people. Aman ki Asha is a hugely cooperative step in bilateral ties. More peaceful relations in South Asia can begin by reminding the masses of what my Pakistani born and raised mother said when she came back from a trip to India in 2005 “they (Indians) eat the same food, sound the same, act and even look the same as us”. With such strong commonality felt amongst everyday people, one questions the legitimacy of policymaking that has historically divided, rather than united South Asians. And if that sentiment disseminates, albeit gradually, there’s much to hope for in the future.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @
Posted in Current Affairs, India Pakistan, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, South Asia | Tagged aman ki asha, bilateral relations india pakistan, deterrence effective india pakistan, geo tv times of india, india gdp growth, India Pakistan, india pakistan america politics, india pakistan economic growth, india pakistan growth, india pakistan nuclear, indian economic growth, indian gdp growth, indian pakistan relations, indian pakistani politics, indias gdp, indo pak, indo pak conflict, indo pak cooperation, indo pak peace, indo pak peaceful relations, indo pak relations, indo pak ties, international affairs south asia, jeewanjee, nuclear deterrence south asia, nuclear pakistan india deterrence, peaceful relations india and pakistan, politics in south asia, politics in south asia india and pakistan, politics pakistan america, politics south asia india, politics south asia pakistan, politics south asian india pakistan, prime minister manmohan singh, south asia bilateral ties, south asian cooperation, south asian political affairs, times of india aman ki asha, us india pakistan relations, us pakistan international affairs, zainab jeewanjee, zainabs blog, zainyjee | 25 Comments »
February 11, 2010
Are the Drones Worth the Cost of Cooperation ?
Read Part 1 – Reconciling CIA Drones In Pakistan
Read Part 2 – Concessions & Collateral Damage
The most provocative piece I’ve seen on drones in Pakistan was published last week. Not the most detailed, well researched article (the New Yorker takes the cake so far) but certainly the most confrontational. Farhat Taj writes in the Daily Times that International media, including American and Pakistani reports critical of drone use are totally unfounded. Vehemently, Taj writes:
” The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and al Qaeda”
It’s a grand, almost inconceivable statement given that Anti Americanism is on a rapid rise and India / Pakistan are widely considered notorious Arch Nemesis in international relations today. Taj says inhabitants of Waziristan actually “welcome” drone attacks and dismisses all accusations of civilian casualties as Taliban propaganda. Basing this on the idea that almost no media are allowed in the area, she concludes there is no verifiable evidence, and therefore no reason for concern of civilian casualties. But mere logic would indicate otherwise. Although surgical, drones are not so precise to as to obliterate one individual at a time. When they strike, the range of damage inflicted by any drone is bound to cause peripheral damage, destroying more than just a singular terrorist.
Taj also too vehemently dismisses the concern that drones infringe on Pakistan’s sovereignty. She says greater Pakistan is oblivious to the more pressing priority of wiping out Taliban. And while I agree the Taliban is inflicting profound, perpetual and grave damage on Waziristan, greater Pakistan’s perceptions are important and not to be overlooked so easily.
Waziristan is but a fraction of Pakistan. If the majority of Pakistani’s see drones as an infringement of sovereignty, future cooperation with strategically poised Pakistan can become difficult. The alliance is already waning and one of politics’ golden rules is: perceptions matter. Whether or not there are exact numbers of civilian casualties, Pakistani’s are strongly against unmanned aircraft dropping bombs in their territory. Regardless of circumstances, the perception of an alliance with America, and our War on Terror is endangered by the drones. Hence arguments that drones are counter productive.
At what cost are we using drones to wipe out a few key leaders from militant and extremist groups? Might we accomplish the same success in hunting down terrorists by employing Pakistani forces to take these guys out themeslves using close cooperation with our counter terrorism, intelligence and military operations?
Some already argue that Islamabad tacitly works with the United States on drones in the north, however, the official and public stance of the Pakistani government is of staunch disapproval of drones. It’s a fair argument because without Islamabad’s approval, the United States would be in violation of international law, and protocol in using drones in Waziristan minus Pakistsan’s approval. So I buy the argument that Islamabad works closely in using drones in the north. But the fact that the government goes to the extent of constantly assuring its public that they disapprove of drones on record, is testimony to how offensive the use of unmanned aircrafts are in Pakistan.
So while our heightened use of drones might be effective in obliterating key leaders from the Taliban ranks for success in the immediate term, the consequences of drones entail potentially riling further anti Americanism which could compromise our interests in the future.
Cooperation is key, and I’m not convinced increased use of drones will help us engage Pakistan in the future.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @
Posted in Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, US Foreign Polciy, US Pakistan relations | Tagged 2010 pakistan politics, International Affairs, international affairs in pakistan, International Affairs international affairs in pakistan International Affairs Pakistan international politics pakistan International Relations international relations pakistan jeewanjee Pakistan Pakis, International Affairs Pakistan, international politics pakistan, International Relations, international relations pakistan, jeewanjee, jeewanjee politics, pakistan international, Pakistan international affairs, pakistan policy, pakistan politiacal affairs, pakistan political, pakistan political affairs, pakistan politics, pakistan united states afghanistan, Pakistan US cooperation, Pakistan war on terror, pakistani affairs, pakistani policies, pakistani political affairs, pakistani politics, pakistani poltics, pakistani poltiis, pakistani us relations, politics in pakistan, politics of pakistan, terrorism of pakistan, united states assistance pakistan, United states foreign policy pakistan, united states pakistan cooperation, united states pakistan policies, united states pakistan relations, united states zia ul haq, us assistance to pakistan, US foreign policy, US foreign policy to pakistan, us led war on terror, us led war on terror pakistan, us neutrality pakistan, US Pakistan relations, us winning hearts and minds, war on terror in pakistan, war on terror united states pakistan, zainab, zainab jeewanjee, zainab jeewanjee foreign policy, zainab jeewanjee internation, zainab jeewanjee international affairs, zainab jeewanjee international relations, zainab jeewanjee Pakistan, Zainab jeewanjee politics, zainab politics, zainyjee | 6 Comments »
January 31, 2010
Catcher in the Rye - Salingers Invaluable Gift To the American Imagination
“I don’t even know what I was running for – I guess I just felt like it”
~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye, Chapter 1
I was 16 when I first picked up Catcher in the Rye. It was winter, my junior year at single sex, college prep Catholic School, probably much like the one Holden Caulfield attends in the book. The book wasn’t assigned until Spring semester, but I couldn’t sleep one night so I picked it up and thought it would lull me to bed. Little did I realize that a couple hours later I had to force myself to put it down, only to find myself putting it in my backpack to read at school in the morning. The next day, I sat at the very back of all my classes, hid it just above my knees under the hem of my skirt and read as many lines as I could. I had it finished by the time I got home and was captivated. The beauty of Catcher in the Rye is that not only is it a page-turner to read, but after reading it the real fascination begins.
There’s a great article in Forbes lamenting Salinger’s death and it reminds us why the book was revolutionary in it’s time and still captures imaginations today:
In the 1950s, the life stage we call adolescence lasted a relatively short time. High schools prepared the majority of students not for college but for the responsibilities of adulthood. A “life adjustment” curriculum taught students to dress right, date right, engage in civic life and take on the trappings of maturity. Notably Catcher in the Rye called into question this entire program of social engineering, with Holden exploding the notion that adulthood was something to strive for. What was the rush?
Salinger revealed “social engineering” in all it’s humdrum and futility. The Forbes piece aptly describes Gen X’ers and beyond as in no way rushing to grow up. On the contrary, we’ve developed an existence that lingers in adolescence, finding and defining our own value sets. We give ourselves room to grow at our pace, not limiting ourselves to “engineered” time frames. Holden struggled in a world that was unkind to that mindset,*SPOILER ALERT* and winds up in a mental asylum as a result. Spending too many years in school jumping from major to major to discover one’s passion, or spending vast time and money to become a medical doctor only to graduate and make music is exactly what we’re taught not to do. It was the height of being counter-productive in the 50’s but today is increasingly seen as acceptable, and perhaps even romantic.
Holden Caulfield’s passion was caring for children, and 1950’s America might have shunned him for finding work that would normally fall in a feminine domain. Society would censure him for not “developing to his potential”, which translates to society seeing zero ROI in occupations with relatively little pay after parents have paid huge sums for kids to attend the best private schools. Society might balk at Holden the high school counselor, or pre-school teacher. But today the idea of social engineering, engineering itself is balked at to a greater extent. It’s easier to accept a path of self-definition now than ever before. Societal engineering and impositions still exist, and are often the easier route, but Holden Caulfield would have faired much better in this decade, perhaps in a place like San Francisco than he did in the past century, upstate New York.
Salinger’s work allowed our generation the freedom to question confines of “social engineering” and be less fearful of pursuing our passions. It’s an enormous contribution that no government or corporation could have given us. Such gifts only come from art.
Posted in Totally Random | Tagged catcher in the rye, catcher in the rye society, holden, holden salinger, j d salinger catcher in the rye, j.d. salinger, jeewanjee, salinger catcher in the rye death, social engineering catcher in the rye, zainab, zainab j, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 2 Comments »
January 29, 2010
You’ve arrived in a foreign land, and are suddenly surrounded by distress. What do you do in a terrorist attack where you are caught entirely off guard, not fluent in the local language, and have no clue where help might be? It’s a frightening scenario and since 9/11, a concern Americans face when travelling abroad. And while individual travelers might not be able to prevent or predict terrorist activity, there are precautions and tips that help us when we leave home:
Pre Travel Precautions:
- Check State department Travel Warnings which explain places where our embassy might have constraints in assisting citizens due to present turmoil (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html)
- Avail the free Travel Registration Service allowing you to “record information about your upcoming trip abroad so the Department of State may assist you in case of emergency”. This is especially useful for long term international travel because it allows the embassy to know who missing persons are. In times of trouble, they might work with local government contacts to locate you, or if you’re injured, help you find proper medical attention. (https://travelregistration.state.gov/ibrs/ui/)
- Check in with close friends, family, and trusted contacts to get inside information from people who have visited or lived in your destination country and might know how and whom to address in emergency situations
On Arrival:
- Check local laws. Certain crimes carry heavier punishments than ours. A good example is the 1996 case of American Michael Fay who was caned for allegedly vandalizing cars with graffiti in Singapore (a charge he denies). Despite strong pressure from the U.S. embassy and even President Bill Clinton urging Singapore to ease the penalty, Fay suffered 12 strokes by cane and 4 months in jail. So be sure to mind local laws that could be vastly different from ours. Other examples include stricter penalties on drugs, including marijuana and even bans on pornography in some Middle Eastern countries.
- Keep trusted people informed of your plans. Email hotel information and other contact info of who you plan to visit in addition to your itinerary to trusted persons. It’s important others know of your whereabouts to help track you down in case of emergency or if you wind up missing.
- Maintain photocopies of passports separate from originals in your luggage in case originals are lost.
- Convert to local currency and carry only a couple credit cards. Americans usually have numerous cards, but Visa and Amex are mostly sufficient abroad. Don’t burden yourself with extraneous modes of payment, or reasons to be mugged!
When Abroad
(especially in places of turmoil, terrorist activity or where there could be Anti-American Sentiment):
- Consider refraining from using your first name when possible.
- Keep from walking into crowded places such as local markets when alone.
- Typical targets of terrorist activity are western hotels, American franchises, resort areas, and shopping places frequented by tourists and while those are places you might be likely to visit, be sure to go with trusted escorts and rarely alone.
- Be careful about getting into vociferous discussions on touchy political, religious or ideological issues.
- Merge with local customs and appearances. Don’t be loud or inadvertently disturb cultural sensitivities with your behavior or attire. Especially females. For instance, in some Muslim countries women opt for more modest clothes, and an American in shorts and a tank top might draw unnecessary, and unwanted attention in those situations
- Avoid public transport. Opt for government/federally authorized taxi services. Saudi Arabia and Mexico have been known for private taxi services that are unreliable if not entirely fake operations!
If An Attack Occurs:
- Distance yourself from the site of the attack and become as inconspicuous as possible.
- Don’t argue with authorities. And don’t assume Miranda rights or other American style protection services are immediately available to you. Cooperate with authorities: your “right to remain silent” or to “counsel” is secondary to safety and may not be relevant or offered at all.
- If transportation is operating normally, find the earliest flight back. If transportation is disrupted, seek assistance from the U.S. embassy
- Remember the point of terrorism is to instill fear, try not to fall into that trap. Don’t panic & remain calm.
If Kidnapped:
- Keep quiet & listen carefully. Answer questions but don’t voluntarily divulge extraneous information or opinions.
- Carefully assess the risk at hand. Is escape a viable opportunity? There is often a high risk involved in attempting to escape.
- Memorize the appearance of your surroundings and captors. If freed, that will be invaluable to bringing the terrorists to justice.
- Don’t be aggressive
- Patiently get to know your kidnappers and pay close attention to their sentiments so as to ensure you don’t offend them. Listening and even pretending to understand or be sympathetic to their cause/ideology, no matter how disturbing, might go a long way in buying negotiation time.
- Clearly ascertain the situation: what is their objective, demands and cause. Do they have a political objective or are they seeking ransom.
- Plead
Bomb or Sabotage:
- Assess the situation & be aware of your surroundings. The first moments are likely followed by shock & chaos. Gather yourself and find safe haven to distance yourself from harm
- Remain vigilant and listen and watch for where safety/medical attention is available – get to your hotel and contact the embassy who will guide you on what to do.
Chemical Warfare
– Shield yourself with clothing or something else to act as a gas mask.
– Most imperative is fleeing the area with some form of covering on your mouth and nose.
– If you can, wet your shirt and use it as a gas mask and breathe only enough air to get you away from the attack
Hijacking/Hostage Situation:
– Don’t antagonize your captors. Keep quite and listen.
– Evaluate the consequences of being proactive in battling terrorists. If hostage takers are on a suicide mission, it might be worthy to take action. If they are negotiating with authorities and have a financial objective, trying to be hero may be an impediment to ultimate safety for everyone. So a careful evaluation of the situation is key.
– As with kidnappers, memorize the appearance of your captors. Notice names, height, weight, language, hair color, eyes, hair type, clothing and whatever other details will help authorities recognize them in the future.
After an attack:
– Immediate evacuation might not be necessary, but you should consider cutting the trip short and leaving the country should the situation worsen
– Seek embassy advice and assistance in the event that there is a complete breakdown of law and order. They can help arrange for your evacuation in the absence of governmental control.
***** DISCLAIMER *****
Zainab Jeewanjee is not a security expert. She is a blogger, sales director and tenured student.
Anything written on this blog are her personal opinions, unless otherwise cited. You can take her advice at your own risk 😉
Posted in travel | Tagged airport security, how to stay safe when traveling, jeewanjee, safety during travel, safety travel, safety when abroad, security when you travel, terrorism, terrorism and travel, terrorism information travel, tips for travel, travel, travel insurance, travel laws, travel news, travel protect, travel protection, travel security, travel tips, traveling abroad tips, traveling tips, trip information, visit abroad tips, zainab jeewanjee, zainyjee | 5 Comments »
Zainab B. Jeewanjee
Zainab Jeewanjee 