|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << March26, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net] 26th March updates part-1 |
March27, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net]March 27th updates >> |
|
[6] From: "Ram Narayanan" <ramn_one@adelphia.net> Date: Mon Mar 26, 2007 Subject: Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-03\ -23T002513Z_01_N21290159_RTRUKOC_0_US-KORAN-FEMINIST.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&c\ap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3 REUTERS Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:25pm ET By Manuela Badawy NEW YORK (Reuters) - A new English-language interpretation of the Muslim Holy book the Koran challenges the use of words that feminists say have been used to justify the abuse of Islamic women. The new version, translated by an Iranian-American, will be published in April and comes after Muslim feminists from around the world gathered in New York last November and vowed to create the first women's council to interpret the Koran and make the religion more friendly toward women. In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word "idrib," traditionally translated as "beat," which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women. "Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away'," she writes in the introduction to the new book. The passage is generally translated: "And as for those women whose illwill you have reason to fear, admonish them; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!" Instead, Bakhtiar suggests "Husbands at that point should submit to God, let God handle it -- go away from them and let God work His Will instead of a human being inflicting pain and suffering on another human being in the Name of God." Some Muslims said the new interpretation strayed from the original. Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque, questioned Bakhtiar's interpretation. "There is nothing to stop a woman from translating the Holy Koran. The translator should have good command of the Arabic language in order to convey it and translate it into other languages. I don't know if Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar has good command of Arabic," Imam Abu-Namous said. "Maybe she is depending on other translations, not on the original," he said. BAKHTIAR DEFENDS HER WORK Bakhtiar defended her work, telling Reuters she translated from the Arabic text and that she "reads and knows classical Arabic." The New York imam also said the passage she is challenging speaks of when a woman wants a divorce, and only allows a man to "hit his wife, according to the Prophet, with a 'miswak,'" or a twig of a pencil's length, on her hand. Arabic Language Professor at the American University in Cairo Siham Serry said her interpretation of the word "idrib," was "to push away," similar but slightly different from Bakhtiar's "to go away." She said she agrees with the imam that 'miswak' means twig and that the Koran does not encourage the harm of women. But she also said that men can interpret that passage to justify their own behavior. "How can you hurt someone by hitting her with a very small, short and weak thing?" she asked by telephone from Cairo. "But sometimes the interpretation of the Koran is according to men, and sometimes they try to humiliate the woman." Bakhtiar writes in the book that she found a lack of internal consistency in previous English translations, and found little attention given to the woman's point of view. In other changes to the text, she cites the most accurate translation of the word traditionally translated to mean "infidel" as "ungrateful." And she uses "God" instead of "Allah," saying that God is the universal English term. Bakhtiar has been schooled in Sufism which includes both the Shia and Sunni points of view. As an adult, she lived nine years in a Shia community in Iran and has lived in a Sunni community in Chicago for the past 15 years. "While I understand the positions of each group, I do not represent any specific one as I find living in America makes it difficult enough to be a Muslim, much less to choose to follow one sect or another," she writes. The new text is published by Islamic specialty bookseller Kazi Publications, which has a store in Chicago and online. ---------------- [7] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Sun Mar 25, 2007 Subject: A Statement by "Left" intellectuals on Nandigram Incident A Statement by "Left" intellectuals on Nandigram Incident [Quote And the CPI(M), the leading partner of the Left Front, has asked for a judicial inquiry into the tragedy. Unquote Can someone explain: I. When and where did the CPIM ask for a judicial enquiry? II. What stops the West Bengal government from doing so? III. Are the "non-leading" partners stopping the State government from going ahead? IV. Why then the apologists of the CPIM are still feeling shy of asking for a judicial enquiry? We should also keep in mind: I. The CPIM refused/refuses to condemn it despite being demanded by the LF partners themselves nor they announced any enquiry whatever on their own again despite being demanded by the partners. II. Had the CPIM been actually able to recapture Nandigram, none of the defensive and apologetic tones would have had been there. Instead of calling it "tragic, they would have had by now flaunted it like a trophy - yet another glorious instance of "people's victory". No matter whatever be the cost to the actual flesh and blood people.] * STATEMENT* We the undersigned, who have long been associated with the Left movement in the country, feel deeply pained and anguished by the loss of lives and injuries suffered during the police action in Nandigram on March 14. Nobody belonging to the Left would ever justify repressive action against peasants or workers who are the basic classes of the Left. The tragedy at Nandigram on March 14 was an entirely unanticipated, unjustified and unfortunate turn of events, whose exact origin and course should be established through a proper inquiry. The Left Front government meanwhile has announced the removal of the police force from Nandigram, has reiterated its policy that no land will be acquired for industrial purposes without the consent of the peasants and other people concerned, has put on hold all land acquisition, and has put a halt to the construction of SEZs until the Central legislation on SEZs itself, to which the Left has always been opposed, is suitably amended. And the CPI(M), the leading partner of the Left Front, has asked for a judicial inquiry into the tragedy. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the state government has committed itself to recompensing the families of the victims, all efforts must be made so that tension subsides and normalcy returns to the area, allowing the numerous refugees, who have been driven out from there and living in makeshift camps, to return home. We appeal to all concerned not to let the wounds of Nandigram become festering sores. Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Professor, Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata. M. K. Raina, Thetare Activist, Delhi. Ram Rahman, Freelance Photographer, Delhi. Malini Bhattacharya, Formerly Professor, Jadavpur University , Kolkata. Utsa Patnaik, Professor, Center for Development Studies and Planning, JNU, Delhi. Javeed Alam, Formerly Professor, CIEFL, Hyderabad. Mihir Bhattacharya, Formerly Professor, Jadavpur University , Kolkata. Jayati Ghosh, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU, New Delhi. Mohan Rao, Professor, Centre for Social medicine and Community Health, JNU, Delhi. Nasir Tyabji, Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Meena Rajyadhyaksha, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi. Praveen Jha, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU, Delhi. Prabhat Patnaik, Professor, Centre for Development Studies and Planning, JNU, Delhi. Teesta Seetalvad, Co-editor, Communalism Combat, Mumbai. D. N. Jha, Formerly Professor, Department of History, Delhi University, Delhi. Ruchira Gupta, Consultant, UNICEF, Delhi. Released by Prabhat Patnaik, Tel: 011-26163541 --------- [8] From: Regi P George <george_regi@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Mar 26, 2007 Subject: Re: Nandigram: A Rejoinder to CPIM Politbureau Look at the so called Fact Finding teams oWn report: 1. · While the Chief Minister states that the notice was "informal", it needs to be questioned how a written notice issued by a Government authority can be informal. Also, the Chief Minister did not till recently, a few days after the 14 th massacre, actually give a written notification to say that land would not be acquired. They cannot trust the Chief Minister. But They are ready to trust whom? read below: 2· In spite of earlier statements by the CM saying no land would be acquired if the people of Nandigram did not want it, the representative of Salim in India stated in as late as March that there had been no discussion with the State Government on withdrawal of the chemical hub from Nandigram and that the hub would be established in Nandigram. 3. Certain elements had resorted to violence and cut off roads and bridges in the area… The repeated efforts to have meetings so that peace could be restored were rebuffed with these parties and elements refusing to attend the meetings. Point of Contention : Why did people cut off roads and bridges and isolate themselves? What did happen in these peace meetings? It was the bitter experience with a partisan state administration and CPI(M) terror that forced people to resort to the cutting off of roads and bridges. These experiences occurred on several occasions i. e. On 3rd January. This is the fact finding team and its report! How much public can trust this fact finding team? SO AFTER 3RD JAN. WHAT HAPPEND? read below. The miscreants started moving with arms and began to destroy bridges and culverts linking roads. They created an atmosphere of terror. On January 4 and 5, they virtually destroyed every link road and bridge connecting Nandigram and Khejuri to the outside world. They also burnt a 25KV electric sub-station. An armed gang equipped with firearms attacked the CPI(M) local committee office in Rajaramchawk and burnt it. Cadres of TMC and other forces roamed around and threatened CPI(M) leaders and sympathisers with dire consequences. On both these days many houses of CPI(M) workers and sympathisers were looted. A large number of CPI(M) workers were forced to leave the villages and take shelter in a nearby camp. That the mob was armed could be seen in the photographs published in newspapers. The entire incident was meticulously planned. The ousted CPI(M) workers and their families took shelter in a camp in the southern side of the Bhangabera bridge in Khejuri area. On January 6 miscreants of the so-called Jami Rakkha Committee (a conglomeration of TMC, Congress, SUCI, Naxalite groups, Jamiat ulema-e-Hind) attacked the camp at about 3 a m. They even prepared bunkers for the attack. There was resistance from the camp and in the ensuing conflict three of the attackers died. One of them, Seikh Salim was a resident of South Kendemari, about 12 kms away from the spot. It was evident that they gathered there to attack the camp in a planned manner. On January 7th morning, the miscreants attacked the house of Sankar Samanta, CPI(M) Panchayat member, looted his house and burnt it. They dragged Samanta to Shitpara and burnt him alive in a haystack. Bhudeb Mandal, another CPI(M) supporter was seriously injured in the attack. The miscreants left him, assuming that he was dead. He however, regained consciousness and somehow reached a relative’s house. Later he was hospitalised. In all 153 houses were looted. The houses and shops of Lakhman Mandal, Sonachura Panchayat pradhan, Samerun Bibi, Kalicharanpur Panchayat pradhan, Arjun Maity, Dr Pratap Paul, Rabiul, Annapurna Das – all CPI(M) workers – were burnt. Among those evicted from the villages are 2 district committee members of CPI(M), 2 local committee secretaries, 6 zonal committee members, 16 local committee members and 56 Party members. More than 200 families were forced to stay in relief camp or relatives’ houses. Later, the number surged and more than 2000 people were ousted from the village. Their houses were looted and their lands were forcefully occupied. Hundreds of people were forced to pay ransom. REGI ------------ [9] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Sun Mar 25, 2007 Subject: Nandigram: Its Lessons by Praful Bidwai Khaleej Times 24 March 2007 LEARNING NANDIGRAM LESSONS by Praful Bidwai WEST Bengal's Left Front, led by the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM), has barely pulled back from a potentially self-destructive disaster following the Nandigram carnage by adopting an 8-point agreement. This acknowledges that the March 14 Nandigram incident, in which 14 people were gunned down, "was tragic" and won't be repeated; the government "will not acquire any land in Nandigram for any industry" and the police "will be withdrawn in phases". The agreement says the Front's partners will "meet more frequently" to take "all important political decisions... after discussion." The agreement became possible primarily because of the public outrage Nandigram caused and the tough stand taken by the CPM's main partners-Communist Party of India, Forward Bloc, and Revolutionary Socialist Party. They condemned the police firing as undemocratic and "brutal and barbaric", and threatened to withdraw from the government. Critical here was the role of the Grand Old Man of Bengal politics, former Chief Minister Jyoti Basu. He said the CPM is running "one-party rule in this state. It doesn't look like a coalition government at all..." He reprimanded Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, and told the Front's non-CPM leaders to quit if the CPM doesn't change course. The agreement represents a victory for the people - and forces of sanity. The victory was costly. And yet, it doesn't settle all issues: Will the Front completely abandon its Special Economic Zones (SEZs) policy? Will it refuse any truck with Indonesia's Salim group - a front for the super-corrupt Suharto family-for whom 10,000 acres was to be acquired in Nandigram? Will it revise Bhattacharjee's "industrialisation-at-any-cost" orientation, with total disregard for social and environmental consequences? And will the CPM consult its allies on policy issues in advance, rather than throw the weight of its 176 seats in the 294-member Assembly, against their 51 seats? It's necessary to place Nandigram in context. The immediate cause of the violence there wasn't land acquisition, put on hold after popular protests in January. It was the CPM's attempt to regain control of the area for its "cadres". The "cadres" brook no challenge to their power. But on January 7, they faced the people's anger. Many were driven out. They were itching to come back. Nandigram wasn't solely a fight between the CPM and assorted Opposition groups, including the Right-wing, thuggish Trinamool Congress, backed by the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind and other factions, which had collected arms and blockaded the area. Like the TMC, the CPM too employed strong-arm methods, revealed by the arrest of 10 of its cadres. The blockade was a spontaneous people's initiative. As CPM general secretary Prakash Karat admitted, the local "people turned against us." The plain truth is, CPM apparatchiks instigated Black Wednesday's operation to settle scores in the "cadres'" favour by using the state's might. They imposed collective punishment, an obnoxious method, on the residents. The 4,000-strong police didn't use non-lethal anti-riot water cannons, rubber bullets and smoke grenades until their utility was exhausted-as mandated by police manuals. The police shot to kill. Most bullet injuries were above the waist level. Many people were shot in the back. At Bhangabera Bridge, the police pumped 500 bullets into 2,000 people. The Central Bureau of Investigation has gathered evidence that CPM "cadres" also fired into the crowd, many disguised in police uniform. It recovered 500 bullets from them. It also found a 657 metre-long "blood trail", which suggests "a gunny-bag holding a body was being dragged". It will take long to heal the wounds of Nandigram. It's worst outrage to have occurred under Left Front rule in West Bengal. Even Karat concedes that the firing was "disapproved by the people of West Bengal... [who] have a high democratic consciousness." The pivotal question is whether the CPM will learn the right lessons from Nandigram. Or else, it'll forfeit its greatest gains, which have ensured its victory in election after consecutive election for three decades - a record unmatched in any democracy. Sadly, Bhattacharjee hasn't lost any of his zeal for "industrialisation-at-any-cost". Bhattacharjee has a crude, dogmatic view of history, which sees industrialisation of any kind as progress. He fails to understand that corporate-led neoliberal industrialisation doesn't produce the collective Blue-collar worker (Marx's proletarian) and that it lacks the employment and social potential of classical capitalism. Rather, it bases itself upon Whiter-collar workers, is extremely capital-intensive, and creates enclave-based growth. Neoliberal industrialisation involves capital accumulation through expropriation of livelihoods. A progressive state must not condone it; rather, it should discipline and regulate capitalism in the interests of society. But for Bhattacharjee, the Tata car plant at Singur, being built on a neoliberal pattern, is the model. In reality, it's a stark case of crony capitalism, with subsidies equalling a fourth of its capital costs! It's also an instance of elitist, socially inappropriate, high-pollution industrialisation. Bhattacharjee is also an unreconstructed believer in "stages" of historical development. For him, semi-feudal India must first achieve capitalism and then attempt socialist reform. He says he's working strictly within "a capitalist framework". This view severely underestimates the possibilities for social transformation available within India's backward capitalism and for progress towards a more just society free of social bondage and economic serfdom. For Bhattacharjee, the ideal model to follow is China, with its giant SEZs like Shenzen, unfettered freedom for multinational capital, and legalisation of private property. He should know better. Shenzen is a workers' nightmare, where no labour rights exist. The mere loss of an identity card can reduce workers to destitution. Chinese vice-minister Chen Changzhi has just revealed that 80 per cent of the 1.84 million hectares of farmland earmarked for industrial development was illegally acquired. The Left, especially the CPM, must decide whether it wants to fight for socialism, or merely manage capitalism Chinese-style, however honestly. If it chooses the second option, it will go into historic decline. It must also make a decisive break with the undemocratic organisational culture it has inherited, which punishes dissidence and encourages a "my-party-right-or-wrong" attitude. Unless the Left undertakes ruthless self-criticism, it can't effect course correction. --------- |
|
| << March26, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net] 26th March updates part-1 |
March27, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net]March 27th updates >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |