Join us in celebrating Jashn-e-Sangam!

Thursday, August 21
6-8 pm
Library Mall, UW Madison (Rain Location: Memorial Union, TITU)

SOUTH ASIA FORUM - MADISON

Invites you to "POSSIBILITIES OF PEACE IN THE MODERN WORLD"

Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Time: 5:30 PM

Place: 2650 Humanities Building

Professor Devendra Oza served as vice chancellor of Gandhigram Rural University in India after a career in Indian civil service spanning over four decades. He is a specialist on Mahatma Gandhi and holds advanced degrees in both Gandhian thought and history.He has been both a Fulbright Scholar and a British Council Scholar. He is currently studying the occurrence of civil wars, from 1945 to the present, around the world. He has taught at Portland State University for the past 7 years on Gandhian methods of Conflict Resolution. 

In his courses, he covered the life and work of Mahatma Gandhi, the deadly conflicts facing the modern world, future conflicts that can be anticipated, and the possibilities of building long-lasting peace. Mahatma Gandhi's ideas and strategies of nonviolent civil disobedience were first applied during his South African days and eventually adopted by Indian masses towards their freedom struggle from the British.

"POSSIBILITIES OF PEACE IN THE MODERN WORLD" is an effort to look back at history from the Second World War, evaluate the work of the United Nations in maintaining peace, the long-term impacts of large-scale conflicts, the role of NGOs and women's groups in peace building, and the need for a peace syllabus in multicultural education.

In his talk at The University of Madison Campus on " Possibilities of Peace in the Modern World " he will also cover the history of Gandhian methods in South Asian subcontinent as well as South Africa and their application towards conflict resolution in the modern world.

The talk will be followed by open discussion with Prof. Devendra Oza

AN EVENT BY SOUTH ASIA FORUM - MADISON "PROMOTING A PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE DIALOGUE" http://www.southasiaforum.org/

Co-sponsors: The MultiCultural Council and Associated Students of Madison

After months and months of deliberations, multiple bills and fake anger over illegal immigration, the Senate announced its so called grand bargain immigration bill and the message from the US Senate to legal, skill based immigrants was, "so long suckers!"

A great majority of the skill based non-immigrants waiting to legally immigrate to the US (in simple words, temporary worker visa holders waiting to get their green cards) are from South Asia. While these workers don't win by numbers compared to illegal workers, they are definitely an asset to the American society. Largely law abiding, highly motivated and skilled, by some estimates, these people are responsible for starting up to 25% of the companies in the Silicon Valley.

These people have been waiting patiently for years working their way through grad school or working in different jobs in different states in the hope of achieving that ever elusive American dream, and yet, when the US lawmakers had the chance to set the system right, they screwed this law abiding group, sending a strong message that in the US, illegal workers get the priority.

US lawmakers often accuse President Bush of living in a bubble, but one wonders what kind of bubble are they themselves living in? Or maybe, they are not living in the bubble at all, because despite all the platitudes about this bill being forward looking, it actually is exceedingly favorable towards illegal workers.

It seems like the lobbies of illegal immigrants were present behind closed doors when details of this bill were being thrashed out. You can read about some of the many flaws of this bill here, but to highlight just a few absolutely absurd ones:

1. Instead of the current allocation of 140,000 immigrant visas (green card) to skilled workers, this bill brings it down to 90,000.
2. It will require H1B holders to renew their visas on an annual basis.
3. Under its merit based points system, an agriculture worker can earn 25 points for working 100 days a year for 5 years, while a skilled individual will get 10 points for working the same number of years!
4. Economic contribution by the undocumented is recognized by awarding points for property ownership but not for people working legally.

Legal workers in the US have for years maintained the right of the United States to implement an immigration system that is fair and is in the best national interest of the country. By any reasonable standards, the current bill is neither in the best national interest of the US, nor does it offer a fair shake to the people who've been law abiding residents for years.

An interesting piece by Vijay Prashad on Pass the Roti on the Left Hand Side:

http://www.passtheroti.com/?p=487

NOTE: Rafia Zakaria is a member of the Asian American Network Against Abuse of Women (ANAA).

Vol:23 Iss:22 URL:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2322/stories/20061117000106100.htm

____________________________________

WORLD AFFAIRS

Islam in America
RAFIA ZAKARIA
The largest Muslim organisation in North America gets its first woman
president, who is also the first convert to occupy the position.
AFP/HO/HARTFORD SEMINARY

Ingrid Mattson, the new ISNA president.

AT the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) held in Chicago this September, thousands of American Muslims clamoured to give a standing ovation to their new president, Ingrid Mattson. A Professor of Islamic Studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, Mattson is the first woman and the first convert to Islam to lead ISNA,the largest Muslim organisation in North America. Since her elevation to the post, she has been interviewed by scores of publications around the world and touted as the new face of American Islam. In a recent conversation we had at the ISNA headquarters in Indiana, she spoke about her views on America, Islam and the challenges faced by Muslim women.

The most striking aspect of Ingrid Mattson's conversion to Islam is how it exemplifies coming to faith as the culmination of a spiritual and intellectual quest. Raised in a Roman Catholic family in small-town Canada, Mattson was initially introduced to Islam during a college trip to Paris. There, intrigued by the practices of West African friends, she decided to learn more about the faith. After studying the Koran and other works on Islam, she and a number of her friends converted to Islam.

Listening to her account, it is impossible not to feel envious of this beatific, existentially inspired and intellectually moored introduction to faith. Indeed, her story points to the existence of a spiritual marketplace that many people living in the West are able to avail themselves of without fear of persecution or ostracism.

Her account is also inspiring in that it represents ultimately what human interaction with faith should be - deeply personal, intellectually examined and completely uncoerced. In a country like the U.S. where liberal values have enshrined the separation of the Church and the state - and religion though sometimes political, remains for the most part intensely personal - Islam too, in the person of Ingrid Mattson, seems refreshingly and gloriously purified of political taints.

AT A MOSQUE in Falls Church, Virginia, near Washington D.C. Ingrid Mattson's message to American Muslim congregations is succinct and unapologetic: "There is no point in hiding our problems."

It is also true that the vast majority of ISNA members have markedly different interactions and understandings with their faith. Unlike most of them, Ingrid Mattson, who is also the first native-born North American to lead ISNA, brings a refreshingly different perspective to the organisation. Since she has lived in a Muslim country for only a very short time, her experience of being Muslim is unmarred by the use of Islam for political manipulations, nationalistic agendas and sectarian warfare.

In being so, she epitomises the new, developing face of American Islam, which can perhaps transcend such corrupting influences. Her election, touted by many as a ground-breaking event that exemplified the truly progressive nature of the American Muslim community, represents the dream that Islam in America
can be rescued from the detrimental and caustic influences of politics and patriarchy.

Ingrid Mattson revealed the American attitudes towards organisation and reform. While grappling with the question of how American Muslim women are often relegated to the side rooms and basements of mosques, she laments the lack of organisational structure in mosques where women who "do most of the work are not given the ability to provide input in questions such as space allocation". Her solution to this is to create concrete organisational structures that require women's input prior to the making of decisions.

Similarly, Ingrid Mattson emphasises the need for institutional training for religious leaders as opposed to the informal, experiential learning often provided by those trained in non-Western nations. Indeed, Ingrid Mattson brings to ISNA a style of management and problem-solving meant to transform the immigrant-based character of the organisation to one that is representative of the native-born population comfortable with notions such as organisational structures, institutionalised training and rule-based decision-making
procedures.

There are, however, several intellectual challenges inherent in this project of constructing a distinctly "American" Islam. In addressing how the diverse constituency of ISNA resolves problems, Ingrid Mattson said that a consensus was reached after turning to actual sources of religious knowledge such as the Koran and fiqh rather than to culturally held beliefs about what was religiously prescribed.

Her solution makes sense since carving a community perhaps requires undermining the individual cultures of the constituents in favour of evolving a new "American" identity. The more problematic inquiry is whether this community of American Muslims will admit to being distinctly American and thereby a
variation of Islam or a culturally transcendent "true" Islam that looks condescendingly on its cousins in other parts of the world who may not be as theologically sophisticated and grounded in purely doctrinal sources of religious knowledge.

Achieving a precise segregation between faith and culture may never be entirely possible given that all interactions with faith inevitably take place within a certain culture and are inescapably influenced by it.

Indeed, even Ingrid Mattson's conversion to Islam is arguably distinctly American in its self-guided and ultimately personal connection with faith. Finally, denying American Islam's connection to American culture and positing it instead as the authentic and culturally unaffected Islam flirts with the danger of creating hegemonic associations that are too often a part of American hyphenations.

For those Americans who have harboured fears that the anti-assimilation sentiment so visible among European Muslim communities may be spreading its insidious influence to America, Ingrid Mattson's election is certainly a cause for celebration. Her views on terrorism, anti-Semitism and reform within the
Muslim community all represent the voice of a community committed to carving a place for itself within American society.

In her sedate and soft-spoken manner, Ingrid Mattson condemns acts of terrorism in the name of Islam with the same severity with which she comes down on Islamophobic critics who deign to indict an entire faith for the acts of a few. She is equally unequivocal in her scathing condemnation of the intolerance that permits attitudes like anti-Semitism to exist among the Muslim community.

Even more admirably, Ingrid Mattson is quick to recognise the dual challenges facing American Muslims, who must ward off criticisms emanating from Islamophobic beliefs while at the same time work for reform within their own communities.

Her message to American Muslim congregations is succinct and unapologetic: "There is no point in hiding our problems." About the preoccupation many American Muslims seem to have regarding the "image" of the community, she says, "Our goal is not to craft an image but to do the right thing." In an age when
many in the American Muslim community see all criticism against it as born out of Islamophobia and all efforts towards change as promoted by anti-Islam interests, her candour is both refreshing and promising.
However, if Ingrid Mattson's persona is to be typified as the image of American Islam, it is certainly not a liberal apparition. Adhering to the strict dress code of headscarf, long-sleeved shirt and long skirt, Ingrid Mattson practises the "Muslim norms of modesty" that she preaches.

In her essay on the topic, she writes: "The Koran orders Muslim men and women to lower their gaze when speaking with the opposite sex." She advises women not only to wear headscarves but also "to adjust the ends of their headscarves to cover their chest". In keeping with the Islamic norms of modesty, she does not shake hands with men; she also feels that Muslim women should not take part in musical erformances.

The most controversial and arguably ironic position of Ingrid Mattson is her unequivocal opposition to women holding positions of religious leadership within Islam. Distinguishing between religious and political leaderships, she holds that the Islamic injunction against "bida" or forms of innovation in
worship must be upheld to protect the unity of the faith community around the world, even when it excludes women. Since Muslims around the world in all their cultural, linguistic and racial diversities have for centuries followed the same patterns of worship, the core unity that the uniformity of the practice entails makes innovations, in her view, unequivocally forbidden.

Ingrid Mattson's organisational solution to the consequent challenge presented by maintaining communal unity at the expense of gender exclusion is simply to create alternative forms of organisation that would allow women input in decision making if not actual religious leadership. She suggests that women
can give "religious lectures" although not the traditional Friday sermon or "khutba"; women can also be made part of the decision-making process in a mosque "through female board members who represent women" even though they may never become imams.

It is possible that Ingrid Mattson's views may have much to recommend themselves to some American Muslim women, yet their contradictions cannot be explained away in every case. The theological dilemma of women's leadership represents precisely the problems encountered in reconfiguring religious belief in a liberal society where differential treatment based on gender is historically, culturally and legally considered a form of injustice. How indeed can young Muslim women, raised in America and educated in American public schools(where they are raised on a steady diet of equality of opportunity in every field), be made to digest the different approach towards gender relations within their religious community?

Ingrid Mattson has expended much scholarly effort around this problem in her entry in the Encyclopedia of Women in Islamic Cultures; she explains the Islamic legal conception of gender relations as being based on "complementarity" rather than equality. Gender complementarity, according to her, means that men and women simply fulfil different functions and are judged not on the calculus of relative power but on the relative suitability for their roles. While gender complementarity may very well be a theologically grounded and inherently just concept in itself, its problematic aspect lies in its divergence from the concepts of gender relations prevalent in the U.S.

In theological discussions on human rights, tolerance and justice, there may be precious little to present a real conflict between Islamic and liberal American perspectives. In the case of woman as "complementary" versus woman as "equal", the two conceptions present a troublesome and almost hideous incongruity.

So while Ingrid Mattson encourages Muslim girls to enter the field of Islamic theology so that women may be better represented within Islam, she must also consider the fact that many women schooled in the value of gender equality rather than complementarity may be turned away from Islam precisely because
they see strictures on religious leadership as inherently unjust and stifling.

Existentially speaking, she must help American Muslim women make sense of the fact that their biological status as females makes them incapable of performing certain functions within Islam. Indeed, doing so would require addressing difficult debates about gender relations that would, among other things, also address the propriety or utility of gender segregation within centres of religious worship when no such segregation is practised in educational institutions or places of employment.

While it is true that in the current political context many American Muslim women do not find the abridgement of their choices within mosques or the wearing of headscarves as a form of oppression or gender discrimination, this may not always be the case in the U.S. The emergence of Islam as an
anti-imperialist ideology and the reinterpretation of overt symbols of Islamic identity such as headscarves and gender segregation into icons of group unity and faith-based resistance have in many ways made religious conservatism appealing to many who would otherwise reject them.

However, such momentary political reinterpretations of religious symbols do not eliminate the possibility that many Muslim American women who pin their hopes on Ingrid Mattson as a harbinger of true change, a leader who would work to eliminate the contradiction between equality as an American and equality
as a Muslim, will be disappointed if she does not avail herself of this incredible opportunity to engage with these pressing questions.

Rafia Zakaria is a graduate student in Political Science at Indiana University.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL0250204920070503

LONDON (Reuters) - Anyone tempted to pick on a headscarf-wearing Muslim woman better hope they don't run into a Ninjabi.

Every week around 30 Muslim women, most wearing veils, gather in a community centre in east London to learn how to block, knee and punch would-be attackers or lecherous men targeting passive-looking victims.

The organisers, who named the classes after Japanese Ninja warriors and women who wear the hijab, say Muslim women are looking to fight back against unwanted advances and a rising number of anti-Muslim attacks.

"The ladies love the Ninjabi thing. It gives them a good giggle," said class instructor Dee Terry, who is not a Muslim herself.

One of the attendees, 31-year-old mother Mahmuda Mazid, said she took up the classes after a gang of youths tried to rob her teenage brother while she was with him in a local park.

"There was this sheer feeling of helplessness that I couldn't help myself or my brother... and there was absolute rage," she said. "I knew I had to do something to equip myself.

"In the classes I saw protection and self defence. That's what I needed."

The classes start with a warm-up and then the women -- no men are allowed -- practise punches, strikes using the heel of the hand, knee strikes to the groin and defences against knives and sticks. Terry also teaches the women how to deter potential attackers by looking assertive.

The loose full-length clothing favoured by Muslim women rules out high-kicking manoeuvres but does not otherwise hinder movement, says Terry.

The Hijab and the Niqab -- which covers the face and leaves only the eyes visible -- clearly identify Muslim women, increasing their chances of becoming victims of anti-Muslim hostility. But Terry says Islamic clothing itself does not make it easier to attack a woman.

"An attacker can pull your headscarf but they can also pull your hair, so Islamic clothes don't make that much of a difference," added Terry, who also teaches Judo, Jujitsu and Kickboxing.

"PERVY MEN" AND "HOODIES"

In the dilapidated area where the classes are held, Muslim women said their biggest worry was harassment from "pervy men" and the violent anti-social behaviour of teenagers from urban low-income communities, popularly called "hoodies" and "chavs".

In other areas of London, Muslim women said growing hostility towards Muslims -- commonly called Islamophobia -- since London's July 7th bombings in 2005 was a big fear.

Attacks on Muslims in London nearly quadrupled in the days after the July attacks. Figures collated by London's Metropolitan Police, and presented in a report by the Muslim Safety Forum, showed 303 attacks in July 2005, up from 82 in the previous month.

Azad Ali, chairman of the forum, said the attacks ranged from verbal abuse and vandalism of mosques to physical attacks. But because of limitations in the way attacks are reported, the real number is likely to be far higher, he added.

National figures are lacking because there are no universally agreed criteria among the country's police forces for what constitutes an Islamophobic attack, said Ali.

Muslims, who make up about 3 percent of Britain's population, also do not readily report attacks.

An initiative by London's police to engage with Muslim women found many did not report attacks because they felt the police would not act. Others had limited English and were unable to register complaints without help.

"The issue of reporting crime... was a major concern amongst certain (Muslim) communities," the police said in a report on meetings with Muslim women.

"This may lead to disenchantment with the process and eventual disengagement from the police and justice system," the police added in the report.

"ENTER THE NINJABI"

Official figures cite London as having the largest proportion of Muslims in the UK at 3.8 percent. The Ninjabi classes are held in the Newham area of the capital, where Muslims make up 24 percent of local inhabitants.

The organisers said the classes were a response to overwhelming demand from Muslim women.

"It was a need. Women were coming and asking for self- defence classes. We had heard of increasing Islamophobia and other sorts of attacks on Muslim women," said Mizan Raja, a coordinator of Islamic Circles, the organisation running the classes.

The organisers say although similar self-defence classes are common the light-hearted approach which respects the women's faith has made the Ninjabi classes massively popular.

"We could fill a class a day. It's totally oversubscribed," said Raja.

The organisers plan to split the class according to experience, using names inspired by 1970s Hong Kong films starring martial arts legend Bruce Lee.

The beginners' level will be called "Enter the Ninjabi", the next will be "Return of the Ninjabi", then "Way of the Ninjabi". The organisers also plan to expand the Ninjabi concept.

"It's about empowering Muslim women... We could do it throughout the country," Raja added.

http://pakistaniat.com/2007/05/11/pakistan-czech-republic-flag-diplomacy-check-checkered/#more-699

From: Adil Najam

On your left is a picture of the flag of the Czech Republic. On your right is a 'Check' (or, rather, checkered flag; often used in car racing. The two should never be confused. Except for the fact that 'Czech' is pronounced as 'check.' Ordinarily, this should not be a problem. But right now the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic is visiting Islamabad, and the Capital's PR people have adorned a number of (very) large banners to welcome him in the spirit of good hospitality. The only problem is that instead of putting the 'Czech' flags on the banners, they have 'Check' flags!

I saw these while driving back into Islamabad from the Airport. I rushed back to see if I would figure out who was responsible for this little gaffe and maybe alert them to the mistake before the Czech PM arrived. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Czech PM was already here.

I wonder what he and his team thought of this. Did they even mention it to their hosts or did they just keep politely quiet? I also wonder what they thought about the banner that read: "We Pray for the Czech Progress and Prosperity"?I am sure they liked the sentiment, but maybe they also wondered why Pakistanis are praying for Czech progress and prosperity instead of working harder for Pakistani progress or prosperity. On the other hand, maybe they do not think as hard about what is written on banners as I do!

I have no way of knowing this, but my theory of how this might have happened is this - Someone tells someone to find out what a Czech (read 'check') flag looks like; they look up 'check flag' on Google, and that is the one which makes it way on the banner.
Nice story for a chuckle? But how would you feel if the Pakistan Prime Minister goes to another country and they mess up the flags this way?

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070521&fname=HPak+Namrata+%28F%29&sid=1&pn=1

VIEW FROM PAKISTAN
Them Pictures
Pakistani identity vs Bollywood swamp, it's an uneven war

Asha'ar Rehman

Special Issue: 60 Years Of Patriotic Cinema

Nationalism in cinema is a tricky subject in Pakistan, a country that struggled painfully to make a film on its founder, and which has been experiencing various brands of nationalism in its search for 'new roots' after Partition.

Jinnah, made by a Pakistani, Akbar S. Ahmed, created a controversy when it was released in 1998. Not many Pakistanis approved of their Quaid-e-Azam being shown in tears and fewer still could reconcile to the horror of watching Christopher Lee, of Dracula fame, in the title role. If that wasn't enough, Jinnah's producer committed the cardinal sin of casting Shashi Kapoor, an Indian, in the role of the narrator.

Things Indian do bring out the nationalist sentiment in Pakistanis. For instance, the focus of discussions around the dinner table can quickly change from descriptions of the grand Aishwarya-Abhishek wedding to talk of anti-Muslim biases, as someone points out that none of the famous Khans were included in the guest list. "Amitabh has this bias against Muslims...", "He's anti-Pakistan...." It takes a little while (10-15 seconds) before everyone returns to feast on some more delicious nuggets from the Bachchan-Rai wedding dished out by the local media. Entertainment and curiosity get the better of nationalism again.

This love-hate theme is repeated over and over again. Apprehensions about Indian culture swamping the pure landscape of Pakistan are familiar arguments in Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The "threat" of this cultural invasion appears to be more real today than ever before. Pakistani cinema owners are demanding that they be allowed to screen Indian films (for sheer survival) on account of the long slump in the local film industry. In order to make their demand more acceptable to critics, some have even come up with the preposterous suggestion that Indian films be cleansed of "unfit material" by local censors before being put on show over here.

That unfit material could, for instance, be a sexually explicit scene that the self-appointed guardians of Pakistani morality feel Pakistanis are too young to be exposed to, or it could be an 'anti-Pakistan' reference. Of course, films like J.P. Dutta's Border, which portrayed Pakistan as an enemy, stand no chance of making it across Attari to theatres here. Nor do other films of that variety, like Sarfarosh—an incredible tale of Indian supremacy over the Pakistani terrorist. In any case, they have already been privately seen and trashed by all and sundry here. The stars of such films most certainly do not endear themselves to Pakistanis. When they happen to be Muslims, like Aamir Khan and Naseeruddin Shah (both of whom played big roles in Sarfarosh), they morph, in the Pakistani mind, into members of a minority community who have to do something out of the ordinary to prove their patriotism to India.

"We should promote Pakistani culture instead of letting the Indian films in," a young man argues fervently on a TV show, reiterating the nationalistic point of view subscribed to by many of his countrymen. With a shake of his head, the anchor remarks that Indian films continue to be watched by the Pakistani nation in the privacy of homes, implicitly asking people in the name of clarity to acknowledge what they have been doing in secret for so long.

Taboos take time breaking. Even the media, normally so fond of pinpointing hypocrisy, found it extremely difficult until recently to refer to the Indian film world by name. Consequently, when a Meera or a Javed Sheikh or a Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan crosses over to India in search of a bigger audience and greater fame and wealth, the media here kept it all very ambiguous, referring to their pursuits as visits to a "padosi mulk (neighbouring country)".

The spirit of Pakistani nationalism is aroused every time people here find their countrymen playing second fiddle to the inhospitable, biased, scheming Indians across the border.

The biggest "betrayal" of a Pakistani actor, who went a bit too far in demonstrating his friendship with the Indians, was when Muhammad Ali, a superstar who died last year, was hard done in a badly put together film called Clerk by Manoj Kumar a.k.a. Mr Bharat. That Ali and his actress wife Zeba were reduced to the level of celebrity extras in the film was bad enough, but even more insulting for Pakistanis was that the humiliation wasn't unexpected—there were plenty of signs of it coming which, they believed, should have deterred Ali and Zeba from taking the bait.

At times, Pakistanis may have found more unfavourable references against them in Indian films than actually intended by the filmmakers—Manoj Kumar's patriotism was, without too much thought, taken as a sign of hatred for Pakistan.


And yet, at other moments, they have been facilitated by the sameness of language and culture to adapt Indian lines as their own. Mera joota hai Japani, yeh patloon Inglistani, sar pe laal topi Roosi, phir bhi dil hai... hmm...Pakistani. Without compromising on patriotism, and with no change in metre/rhyme, the song is naturalised as 'ours'.

It is that very sameness of culture that those in search of a new cultural identity and roots for a new state carved out of India have been at loggerheads with. It was thought that Pakistan as an ideological republic must sever its ties with its Hindu past to create a proud image of its own.

Pakistani filmmakers were in no small manner influenced by these thoughts, and tried to find sources of inspiration—primarily in the land from where Islam originated. This gave birth to the nationalism that was portrayed in Shaheed (Martyr),

An epitaph for filmmaker Riaz Shahid: Done in, not by cancer but by censor.

Emboldened by the warm reception given to these ventures, he tried to take up an issue closer to home and heart: Kashmir. But ran foul of the government. Shahid's Amn (Peace, 1971) was banned by the censors, part of a state that thought Kashmir was too complicated an issue to allow for cinematographic interventions or interpretations. The film was rid of its objectionable sequences and later a mutilated version of it was released under a modified, even if more suggestive, title, Yeh Amn. Riaz Shahid died in 1972 of leukaemia. According to one epitaph, he was done in not by cancer but by censor.

The urge to produce nationalistic cinema was thus discouraged, but the desire to create it could not be eliminated. It was rekindled from time to time, not least in response to what Indian filmmakers were up to in their studios. Many a cinematographic adventure aimed at combating Indian messages has been announced by famous and not-so-famous Pakistani filmmakers in recent years. But none of them have been able to take off—for there's a lack of historical experience in the genre as well as a lack of resources to match Indian films that are getting slicker by the frame. The Indian threat looms large over the Pakistani film horizon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Asha'ar Rehman is Lahore Resident Editor, Dawn)

From Shaheryar Azhar's Forum:


Subject: Sunset at Dawn: Hameed Haroon's op-ed in WSJ

Sunset at DAWN?
By Hameed Haroon
11 May 2007
The Wall Street Journal
A11
A critical point has been missed in much of the reporting on recent unrest in Pakistan: The people protesting in the streets are liberals, not religious extremists. The "rainbow coalition" opposing President Pervez Musharraf's infringement of judicial independence is composed of lawyers' associations, journalists' unions and other mainstream groups striving to bring Pakistan under the rule of law. It's a marked departure from the post-9/11, pro-bin Laden marches by right-wing religious extremists. But what is the rest of the world going to do to support today's protesters?
Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is, "not much." Western countries have relied on Mr. Musharraf's authoritarian regime to help fight the war on terror. For the past three years, the influential English-language publication group I manage -- which includes our flagship daily, DAWN, its sister the Star, and a newsmagazine, the Herald -- has been a victim of Mr. Musharraf's crackdown on the remnants of Pakistan's liberal, independent press. We have come under fire precisely for exposing his failure to firm up the country's security situation. We have reported on the ongoing pattern of ad hoc deal-making between the Pakistani government and pro-Taliban militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, not to mention the government's continued covert support for Kashmiri militants.
Matters came to a head in early autumn last year, when DAWN reported on leaked cease-fire agreements reached with pro-Taliban militants in the troubled western province of Balochistan. Senior officials from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting made a series of visits to newspaper offices and television channels throughout the country, demanding a blackout of additional reporting on security crackdowns in the troubled area. Newspapers were threatened with the total withdrawal of government advertising, which constitutes between one-third and one-half of all advertising revenues. (Government advertising in Pakistan includes commercial advertising by the public sector and by government ministries as well as regulatory notices issued by government departments and public utilities.)
DAWN was faced with the prospect of an overnight loss of approximately 15% of its advertising revenues. For the vernacular print media, losses could average anywhere between one-third and one-half of advertising revenues. For existing television news channels, the probable consequences of failure to comply are even grimmer: A cancellation of temporary television uplinking permission, coupled with a boycott by government-regulated cable operators, would result in permanent closure.
Add to this the specter of government levers deployed frequently against the press in the past -- such as the harassment of dissenting journalists, the cutoff of imported newsprint supplies and the cancellation of a newspaper's permission to publish under emergency public order laws -- and the vast majority of newspapers and TV channels concluded they had little choice but to comply with the government's requests, although we at DAWN have stood firm in the face of this intimidation.
Mr. Musharraf's government took the news of our reluctance badly. In late December, the volume of government advertising in DAWN suddenly declined by around two-thirds of its normal volume. Financial conditions within DAWN worsened when the television license for an upcoming news channel in English (which already had 350 journalists and technicians on its payroll) was turned down by the government regulatory authority for electronic media. This despite a landmark ruling by a superior court that earlier ordered the grant of a license to DAWN, and by implication to any affected newspaper that might apply to the court for relief.
The government's regulatory authority and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had both consented in court to the grant of this license, and with the passage of 60 days have lost the right to appeal against this judgment. At first the government continued to prevent its officials from implementing the court's orders. Then a decision was made to issue DAWN a temporary uplink permission valid until the end of May, in lieu of a license.
Privately, senior officials in government advise us that the DAWN "matter" will soon be rectified by direct presidential intervention, given that the government has no legal options left to reverse the court's ruling. The argument runs thus: What Mr. Musharraf's government cannot withhold legally, it may as well grant gracefully.
It is increasingly difficult, however, for us to accept private assurances when publicly the rule of law is more about words than action. Government machinations against us are steadily increasing the risk that my corporation could face an uncertain future before we receive a valid permanent license to which we are legally entitled. We are forced to spend money preparing to broadcast beyond May so that we are ready if and when such a license arrives. But if we aren't given our due soon, justice delayed will become justice denied.
And if we go, who will fill our shoes? Societies in this region are trapped in a vise between militant religious extremists on one hand and military-dominated authoritarian regimes on the other. Space for civil society has been reduced to a minimum.
We and others like us represent the ideals that supposedly animate the Western governments fighting the war on terror. Yet we are becoming collateral damage stemming from Western support for authoritarians like Mr. Musharraf.
Victory in the war on terror will depend in no small part on our ability to reshape the Middle East and Central Asia in a way that allows Western-style liberalism to triumph over religious extremism. Support for authoritarian regimes is at best an imperfect means to that end, but should never become the end in itself.
Whatever the level of Mr. Musharraf's cooperation in the short-term battles of the war on terror, he should not get a free pass for subverting the conditions -- like a free press -- that will ultimately sustain true democracy in Pakistan.
--- Mr. Haroon is the publisher of the DAWN group of newspapers in Pakistan.