Banner Advertise

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

[chottala.com] Saudi women fight for autonomy



Saudi women fight for autonomy

In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to travel without the say-so of a male relative. Will they put up with it for much longer?
Picture of Nesrine Malik
 Nesrine Malik is a Sudanese-born writer and commentator who lives in London and works in the financial sector

When living in Saudi Arabia, every time I wanted to travel outside the kingdom I had to produce a piece of paper from my male guardian authorising my movements in order to be granted an exit visa. This process became more difficult when my father passed away, after which my sisters and I were left scrambling for the closest male relative to sanction our travel.

Several of my Saudi friends had to forgo completing their studies abroad when their families refused permission. The lucky few managed to get a younger brother to accompany them for the entire duration of their studies.

The wali, or guardian, is the practical underwriter of a woman's existence in Saudi Arabia. These mahrams (male relatives whom it is haram – forbidden – to wed) sit in a pyramid of patronage with the father and husband at the pinnacle, descending through uncles (paternal uncles higher up the scale, naturally) and bottoming out with brothers.

The power and significance of the wali in each woman's life differs according to the family and relationship. While some are relatively relaxed about their duties and their approval for travel, etc, is merely a formality, others abuse their positions and can totally dictate the course of a woman's life.

Recently, according to Sabria Jawhar in an article for the Huffington Post, "Pressure from outside Saudi Arabia has been building to abolish guardianship laws, and a number of women who fashion themselves as activists have led the charge."

Jawhar is upset with a female Saudi activist named Wajeha al-Huwaider whom she accuses of "showboating" and "unseemly" behaviour. Huwaider's "showboating" involved a public protest in which she was driven to the Saudi border with Bahrain and then got turned back due to her inability to produce her guardian's written permission to travel.

To counter this liberal activism, a conservative campaign – under the slogan "My Guardian Knows the Best for Me" – was recently launched to oppose dismantling of the guardianship system. The movement, launched by Rawdah el-Yousif (although ironically, she is in dispute with a man over who can claim the credit for the campaign) is a vehicle for, in Rawdah's words, expressing "dismay at the efforts of some who have liberal demands that do not comply with Islamic law or with the kingdom's traditions and customs".

In an overwhelmingly patriarchal and segregated society, where there is little accommodation of women in official circles, it is not surprising that men should be able to conduct affairs on behalf of their female relatives. For a female without a mahram, carrying out even the most basic transactions in places staffed entirely by ogling, dismissive, men is excruciating. But to legally hand the reins entirely to men signs over the fate of half the population to those who are potentially capricious, overbearing and misogynistic in a deeply traditional society.

The additional legal layer, in most cases, is entirely superfluous as most families will act according to custom, tradition and specific family values. The majority will self-regulate. As Sabria Jawhar says, "Many families treat their wives, daughters and sisters with great respect and don't follow their every move. Permission to travel or to conduct business abroad is often granted carte blanche with a signed piece of paper from a mahram. Many women travel freely with this document and consult little with the men in their families about their movements."

But what this legal dimension does in other cases is ensure that despotic guardians have an iron grip, leaving little leeway for their women to flee, travel or challenge their guardianship. Abolition of the guardianship system (in itself an improbable event) is unlikely to result in hordes of women running amok in the streets and airports of Riyadh – so what is it that prompts other women to entreat the authorities not to do away with a way of life that is not immediately under threat?

I do not believe it is anything as clichéd as Stockholm syndrome or even a sincere commitment to what they believe are religious values. Even under subjugation, women have power, mostly over other women, and that power is drawn from their hard-earned position in the established hierarchy.

Those that have excelled at compliance have achieved some status and can then look down on the less honourable and rebellious. An assault on this system destroys an entire arsenal of survival skills and lifetime of work. Like the chronically redundant, they would have to retrain and re-enter the job market at junior level with all the other upstarts. In fact, by allying themselves to the male guardians, women are then delegated power that they can in turn wield themselves. They have a vested interest in the status quo and in maintaining their positions as the matrons of propriety.

It is true that public demonstrations of opposition to the wali system may alienate popular opinion and rally support only from abroad, but launching such a counter campaign reeks of distasteful one-upmanship of its own. The agenda is to discredit any women who call for more freedom in Saudi as agents of external liberal forces before any of their efforts or values become remotely mainstream.

Nobody is stopping women from deferring to their guardians' authority in their private lives, but insisting that this authority applies across the board shows a shocking disregard for other women not privileged enough to have guardians who "know what's best for them".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/05/saudi-arabia-womens-rights

Image Shock

hanadizakariaalhindi4ac.jpg 

Capt. Hanadi Zakaria Al-Hindi: The first Saudi woman to got a pilot's license in Jordan. She has a ten-year contract with Prince  Al-Waleed bin Talat's Kingdom Holding Company as a chief captain of his private jet, the Kingdom. Reports highlighted the irony that a Saudi woman is allowed to pilot an aeroplane but may not drive a car.

 

Pursuing happiness behind the veil

OTHER HALF: Saudi women hang out at a mall in Riyadh. Under the strict Saudi interpretation of Islam, women must be fully covered in public and are not allowed to drive or vote. Wives need their husbands permission to leave the country. (EPA)

Sex-segregated sidewalks

saudi women in national dress

 



__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Re: Tragic demise of Mr. Saifur Rahman--May Allah Bless him



 
May Allah rest deceased Saifur Rahman in Peace and reward him for his actions and contributions to his country!  We also pray for his bereaving family and friends! 
 
Minister Rahman was a patriot and an outstanding servant of the people.  Those who knew him or got near him, knew that his motives were sincere and for the good of the country.  His captainship of the path to progress of Bangladesh economy is well recognized. 
 
Regards,
             Sultan Chowdhury
             Potomac, Maryland



 


--- In khabor@yahoogroups. com, Abdul Mannan <abman1971@.. .> wrote:
>
> Mr. Saifur Rahman, former Finance Minister and BNP leader died of a tragic
> road accident this afternoon at 3.00 near Brahamna Baria. (Innah
> Lillah...... .....Razeun) .
>
> --
> ____________ _________ _________ ___
> Abdul Mannan
> Professor
> School of Business
> University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh
> House # 56, Road # 4/A
> Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka-1209
> Bangladesh.
> BDT=GMT +6
> Working Days Sunday-Thursday
> E-mail: abman1971@.. .
>





__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Lubna Hussein stands firm - refused to pay her fine, goes to jail ............



Sudanese journalist and U.N. staffer Lubna Hussein, wearing the same trousers that had sparked her arrest, arrives at the court where she was convicted of violating the public indecency law by wearing trousers outdoors and fined US$ 200, in Khartoum, Sudan Monday, Sept. 7, 2009. Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police after which ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later, but Hussein said Friday she would rather go to jail than pay any fine, out of protest at the nation's strict laws on women's dress. (AP Photo/Abd Raouf)

Lubna Hussein stands firm

Lubna Hussein, convicted in Sudan for wearing trousers, has refused to pay her fine. She'll now go to jail as a result

Lubna Hussein is greeted by supporters outside the court in Khartoum

Lubna Hussein is greeted by supporters outside the court in Khartoum. Photograph: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images

The scenes I saw outside the court which convicted Lubna Hussein were even more dramatic than those during the last quickly adjourned trial. Security forces and female protestors clashed again, but a third party introduced itself into the fray – Islamist men who proceeded to abuse the women and rip up their banners while the police joined in the name-calling. It seems the whole case has flushed out the nastier elements in Khartoum society as female supporters of Hussein were branded "prostitutes", that being the most polite word into which I can translate the insults.

According to Najlaa Al Maahi, one of Hussein's legal team, with whom I spoke after the trial, the proceedings were hastily conducted and the defence was not allowed to make its case. The general sentiment was that the guilty verdict and the sentence, a fine of £130, had been decided in advance and the trial was merely a formality. The goal apparently was to tar Hussein as indecent but not resort to lashing. This would leave the case against her intact, but not enact a brutal punishment while the world watched. Government supporters were hailing her conviction as a victory while their opponents saw the fine as a climb-down from the initial penalty of flogging, one which Hussein would have endured had she not challenged those who detained her.

The nominal fine and an admission of culpability – in effect a plea bargain – was rejected by Hussein for whatever residual admission of wrongdoing it suggested. The sentence for refusing to pay, a month's imprisonment, was threatened in order to put pressure on her to pay, but the judge may have underestimated her defiance. Sending her away for a month not only allows the court to flex the muscles it had been unable to flex through flogging, but also hide her away from scrutiny by the world's media, dampening any spirit of victory or jubilation.

More disturbingly, the end of the case has flushed out hardline elements allied with the government who appear to be relishing the opportunity to villify the women who have been protesting. The irony is that on the way back from court I witnessed several women in trousers freely walking the streets of Khartoum proving that it was never about modesty but about Hussein's refusal to capitulate to the authorities' temperamental and arbitrary invocation of public order laws.

The court may believe that it has struck a face-saving balance by refusing to rescind the charges against Hussein while also avoiding flogging her. However, her supporters are regrouping, an appeal is already being planned and the case had crystallised a hitherto unaddressed conflict over the public face of Khartoum. A regime keen to encourage foreign investment and prosperity after forging peace in the South has relaxed its grip over the city with sporadic reversions to its earlier, more Islamic incarnation. The aftermath of the case may determine whether this chaotic and inconsistent approach will be tolerated for much longer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/08/lubna-hussein-trousers-sudan

Lubna Hussein stands firm

guardian.co.uk - ‎2 hours ago‎
Lubna Hussein, convicted in Sudan for wearing trousers, has refused to pay her fine. She'll now go to jail as a result The scenes I saw outside the court ...
Video: Sudan Journalist Fined, Wore Pants in Public
 The Associated Press

 

 



__._,_.___


[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....



India helped Bangladesh in 1971 not for liberation of Bangladesh but for separation Bangladesh (Then East Pakistan) from Pakistan to breaking & weaking Pakistan for its own political economical & geographical interest.
After separation Bangladesh from Pakistan all mill Industry of then East Pakistan are closed & destroyed. Bangladesh now has  become the market of Indian goods & the top political leaders of Bangladesh  are now the agents of Indian.They are working for the interest of India not for the Interest  to the people of Bangladesh. 

--- On Thu, 3/9/09, Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....
To: "Dhaka Mails" <dhakamails@yahoogroups.com>, khabor@yahoogroups.com, "alochona" <alochona@yahoogroups.com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroups.com>, "odhora" <odhora@yahoogroups.com>, "dahuk dahuk" <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: enayet_2000@yahoo.com
Received: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 2:06 AM

 
 
Please read ....

 
Why did India help in 1971?
 
By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

Unlike our other neighbours India has a special place in our history because of its help in our liberation war. When the Pakistani military was murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed people and raping the women of the then East Pakistan, India came forward with its helping hand and contributed to arming and training the mukti bahini. Almost 10 million people took shelter in India, especially in the states adjacent to East Pakistan border. Nobody in Bangladesh questions the fact that we got help from India but many question the nature of the help. Was it selfless help or India had a strategic interest in helping Bangladesh?

With a view to find out the truth we have to analyze what India gained from our freedom struggle and its attitude toward Bangladesh after our liberation war. Let us examine the entire thing from strategic, economic, and political point of views.

Strategic point of view

India’s peculiar geographic position constituted a major threat to its national security. Due to the geographic location of then East Pakistan, the seven sisters were completely isolated from the mainland. A small corridor, popularly known as chicken neck, was the only passage that could be used for traffic movement. Militarily, India was pretty vulnerable especially due to Chinese presence along the border. The war that was fought between India and China taught India the lesson that faster troops mobility is the only way to win a war. So, India needed transit facility through East Pakistan to transport troops and logistics faster to defend its vulnerable North Eastern states. Besides that, Pakistan was playing a vital role in instigating the insurgents in Assam and elsewhere to break up the entire region. The Indian military strategists were out of options and didn’t know how the North Eastern region would be saved. The Hawkish politicians in India came to the conclusion that breaking up Pakistan is the only way to save the militarily insecure North Eastern region. By doing so,

•They could weaken Pakistan and reduce the threat level.

•Recapture the Pakistani portion of Kashmir

•Create a new state that would be militarily and economically weak and provide the much needed transit for troops and logistics transportation

•Project India as a regional superpower and warn all elements inimical to India’s security that India had the power to defend itself.

Economic point of view

India also had an economic objective to dismember Pakistan. India was a country with huge population and needed additional resources to uplift its economy. The economic cooperation with Pakistan was all but encouraging. Besides that, the water resources of the Himalayas were needed for India for irrigation and power generation. Due to Pakistan’s strong military, India was unable to use the resources unilaterally. Despite being a third world nation, Pakistan was a huge economic market that was able to absorb millions of dollars worth of Indian commodities. But the hostility between the two nations retarded the possibility of a robust economic cooperation between the two nations.

Indian policymakers thought that if they could break Pakistan and create a new and weaker Bangladesh then they would be able to gain unrestricted access to its economic market. India knew that as a new nation, Bangladesh would need cheap industrial products to revive its economy. So, there was a tremendous potential for economic cooperation between the two nations. India also wanted to get transit through Bangladesh to transport raw materials for its North Eastern states. The economically backward North Eastern region needed more investment and various products to energize its economy. So, the Indians thought Bangladesh would be much more beneficial for Indian economy than East Pakistan. The economic calculation was very accurate because India managed to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cheap products to Bangladesh both legally and illegally. They destroyed the thriving jute industry of Bangladesh to build their own right after our independence.

India flooded the local Bangladeshi market with its products and offered millions of dollars more as loans to buy Indian commodities. We were reduced to a trading nation and almost destroyed the very basis of our own industry. India encouraged smuggling along the Indo-Bangla border so the government of Bangladesh had to close the border to stop the rampant smuggling to save the local traders. India never wanted an economically prosperous Bangladesh rather it wanted to use us as a market for its own products and in the process make us dependent on them.

If we look at the present situation, the lopsided trade relation between the two nations speaks volume of the Indian intention to help us in 1971. Bangladesh is an open market economy and allows duty free access for Indian products to our market. But India follows a restricted policy when it comes to importing Bangladeshi products and imposed numerous tariffs and para-tariffs on the Bangladeshi goods. The yawning trade imbalance is a testament to the fact that India never wanted an economically self-sufficient Bangladesh.

Political point of view

Former Indian foreign secretary Mr. Dixit said, "We helped in the liberation of Bangladesh in mutual interest, it was not a favour,"

His statement is clear evidence that India did not help Bangladesh on humanitarian ground. India had a long-term strategic plan to dismember Pakistan for its own gain. India had cultivated deep political relation with the disgruntled elements within the erstwhile East Pakistan. [1] As per a senior RAW intelligence officer, “Bangladesh was the result of a 10 year long promotion of dissatisfaction against the rulers of Pakistan�..

This goes to prove that helping Bangladesh was not an instantaneous decision of India rather it was a carefully designed strategic plan that was executed in pinpoint precision.

One of the top bosses of RAW, K.. Sankaran Nair, was responsible for training the erstwhile East Pakistani officers in guerrilla warfare. He also established excellent relation with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The relation was maintained via a RAW operative Mr. Banerjee. RAW even funded the 1970s election, in which Sheikh Mujib emerged as the winner [2].

But after the liberation, things did not go the way India had planned. Mujib was assassinated and Awami League was ousted from the power. General Ziaur Rahman came to power and adopted an anti India foreign and defense policy to drag Bangladesh out of Indian sphere of influence. He established good economic and political relation with America and China. He also repaired relations with the Middle Eastern countries and created a huge opportunity for the Bangladeshi workers in the Arab nations. Money started to pour in and the economy got better. He amended the constitution to give it an Islamic flavour in a country where 90% people were Muslims. The Indian policymakers observed the political development in Bangladesh and clearly understood that things were getting worse as far as Indian interest was concerned.

In the meantime, General Ziaur Rahman took various measures to upgrade the military. A close defense relation was established between Bangladesh and China. This irked the military establishment of India. They considered it a hostile act and found it hard to digest. The disgruntled elements in Delhi decided to create a rebel group in Chittagong hill tracts to keep Bangladesh under pressure and drain as much resources of this newly born poor country as possible. Shanti bahini played havock with the lives and properties of the people in CHT. General Zia quickly decided to populate CHT with Bengalees to maintain the territorial integrity of Bangladesh. In the meantime, India forcefully occupied South Talpatty disregarding Bangladesh’s request for a joint survey to determine the ownership of the Island. [3] General Zia was assassinated in 1981 and many observers believe that RAW had a hand in the incident.

General Ershad came to power in 1982 and more or less followed the same foreign policy as General Zia. But Ershad knew he should not annoy India beyond a certain limit so a tendency to keep India in good humour was obvious in his India policy. During his tenure, he agreed to abolish the guarantee clause from the water sharing treaty signed by General Zia. It went against our national interest because after abolishment of the guarantee clause, India reduced the water supply even further and that affected our agriculture and ecology. But the fact of the matter is even General Ershad couldn’t take a fully pro-Indian stance due to public pressure. He had to continue the military modernization and amended the constitution to declare Islam as the state religion. This drew ire from the top leaders of India. Ershad didn’t even try to take any initiative to give transit to India fearing wide spread protest across the country.

Actually, the Indian leaders knew that the only party that was able to meet the Indian strategic demands was Awami League. They never stopped keeping relations with Awami League and provided all sorts of logistis support to Sheikh Hasina. According to some well-informed observers, India provided Tk. 300 crore to Awami League to win the 1996 election(Weekly Shugondha, 26th April, 1996). India’s clandestine support for a particular party is a testament to the fact that India had a strategic reason to help Bangladesh in 1971.

If India’s help was altruistic in nature, India would have tried to win the hearts and minds of the people of Bangladesh but they never felt the need to do that and continued with their policy to clandestinely help bring Awami League to power. Even today, India leaves no stone unturned to malign Bangladesh. The Indian foreign ministry spends millions of dollars to hire foreign journalists to make fictitious reports to portray Bangladesh as Taliban sympathizer. Fortunately, Bangladesh took quick action to hang a few mis-guided Mullahs who were creating some disturbances. Bangladesh even signed various treaties to help the international community to combat terrorism.

More can be written to prove that India’s help in 1971 was not an altruistic one rather it was for gaining strategic advantages. India has an ambitious vision of becoming a world power but how can they achieve their goal if they cannot convince their neighbours that their intentions are benign? Using force to subjugate the weaker neighbours is not the way to go to establish a relation based on mutual trust and respect.

References

1.RAW: Top-Secret Failures, p: 5
2.Ibid. , p: 8
3.Limits of Diplomacy: Bangladesh, Partha. S. Ghosh



Email slow, clunky, unreliable? Switch to Yahoo!Xtra Mail, New Zealand's new email address.

__._,_.___


[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___