Without being emotionally involved in a project you do not take ownership of it and you therefore do not operate to the best of your capabilities.
The capability that comes from training, education, hard work has limitations while emotional involvement gives release to those limits and enables you to operate at the best of your capacity.
Often the possibilities can then be limitless.
Emotions are driven by fear and love. The fear of losing something or the love of acquiring something.
Beyond the emotion and it’s origin is the Goal. If reaching God is the Goal the possibilities are limitless.
Khusro
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The maps in our minds
As we grow up from being children to adults, we develop in our heads a map of how things are. Through experience and observation this map keeps getting amended and refined. This is a map of spiritual, physical, psychological and emotional dimensions. It is a map of our reality or reality as we see it.
There comes a time when for many of us this map becomes carved in stone. In other words while life goes on, the journey towards truth comes to a halt. For most others, there comes a time when the distance covered in this journey decreases by the day.
How fast you travel and how focused you remain depends on whether you lose direction or how many distractions you allow on the way. The chances of losing direction are good if the map you follow is flawed.
If this was a race, people who lose direction are a little less handicapped then people who have a good map but allow themselves to be distracted along the way. The fable of the tortoise and the hare comes to mind although the tortoise never lost his way.
Each one of us should examine:
The quality of our maps.
Whether we are living life only ( passing time) or are embarked on a journey.
How distracted we allow ourselves to become.
The quality of our maps is determined by the clarity we are able to achieve about things.
Clarity is achieved only through getting out of our comfort zones. Undergoing rigor and hardship are not to be avoided but embraced because this is part of the process of the discipline of achieving clarity.
The best way to lose clarity is to serve the ego. Every year of serving the ego will muddy the waters, clog up the drains, block the filters more and more until a time is reached when all light is blocked out and our condition becomes one of an addict who cannot be cured.
When I talk about clarity, I am talking about
Clarity of Purpose
Clarity of Thought
Clarity of Vision
Clarity of Purpose « Clarity of Thought « Clarity of Vision.« Actions
^^^ vvv
Clarity of thought
^^^ vvv
Clarity of Vision
^^^ vvv
Actions
Does Clarity of purpose precede clarity of thought ? not necessarily because purpose and thought by themselves are inanimate. It is only through acts that purpose and vision are refined and clarified.
Khusro
There comes a time when for many of us this map becomes carved in stone. In other words while life goes on, the journey towards truth comes to a halt. For most others, there comes a time when the distance covered in this journey decreases by the day.
How fast you travel and how focused you remain depends on whether you lose direction or how many distractions you allow on the way. The chances of losing direction are good if the map you follow is flawed.
If this was a race, people who lose direction are a little less handicapped then people who have a good map but allow themselves to be distracted along the way. The fable of the tortoise and the hare comes to mind although the tortoise never lost his way.
Each one of us should examine:
The quality of our maps.
Whether we are living life only ( passing time) or are embarked on a journey.
How distracted we allow ourselves to become.
The quality of our maps is determined by the clarity we are able to achieve about things.
Clarity is achieved only through getting out of our comfort zones. Undergoing rigor and hardship are not to be avoided but embraced because this is part of the process of the discipline of achieving clarity.
The best way to lose clarity is to serve the ego. Every year of serving the ego will muddy the waters, clog up the drains, block the filters more and more until a time is reached when all light is blocked out and our condition becomes one of an addict who cannot be cured.
When I talk about clarity, I am talking about
Clarity of Purpose
Clarity of Thought
Clarity of Vision
Clarity of Purpose « Clarity of Thought « Clarity of Vision.« Actions
^^^ vvv
Clarity of thought
^^^ vvv
Clarity of Vision
^^^ vvv
Actions
Does Clarity of purpose precede clarity of thought ? not necessarily because purpose and thought by themselves are inanimate. It is only through acts that purpose and vision are refined and clarified.
Khusro
Friday, October 19, 2007
Benazir's second homecoming
Sample Post
"Continued, open-ended military presence in Afghanistan increases Western dependence on Pakistan, which, in essence, increases the role of the Pakistani military. Incrementally, the army has developed a vested interest in the Western military presence in the region. "
Editorial Comment
The Musharraf-Benazir partnership is a match made in Hell by the Devil himself. Musharraf would love to get hold of the Bhutto name as long as Benazir did not come with it. Benazir would love to take off Musharraf's uniform and then kick his nuts in.
If you go to Ebay, "Sovereign Countries for sale" section, you will find Pakistan on the block with the US as the highest bidder and standing ready to up the price. Unfortunately the sellers are not yet in a position to deliver. Benazir's terms of sale appear to be unconditional whereas Musharraf hopes to cheat the Americans out of an outright sale.
The fact that Pakistan is not theirs ( Musharraf/Benazir) to sell or for America to buy, seems to bother none of the parties. The fact that the rules of how the game will be played have dramatically changed is not understood by these three. America more than any one else is besides themselves as to how distracting all this is from the main agenda of beating up the Iraqis and then go on with beating up the Iranians.
Benazir has succeeded in degrading herself as being several nothches below the The Taliban and Al Qaeda and if you thought no one could get any lower then you do not know her husband. The good news is that the public is begining to understand all this although their votes are still for sale. Ofcourse Pakistan would not be worth the paper this article is written on but for one fact, that it is a Nuclear power. Benazir promises to hand over the man who was technically responsible for this( AQ Khan) to the Americans. The other man who took the decision to test the bomb is also under house arrest. ( Nawaz Sharif).
Oddly the triangle is made up of people who have lost all sense of reality. They are trading a country which they do not own, they are exercising powers that they do not possess and going into partnerships in which no one trusts the other. If Benazir and Musharraf can be forgiven as third world types who don't know any better who is to hold America to the test,when they should know better?
The people of Pakistan specially those paying with their lives every time have gone into a state of resignation. Stoicly going through daily hartals, Suicide bombings, power cuts and phone disorders knowing that things are not going to get better. Meanwhile across the border India chugs on powered by a sense of nationhood. The poor are still poor and not getting any richer but somehow there is a sense that things will get better.
Khusro
Benazir's second homecoming By M K Bhadrakumar
By any reckoning, a very unusual moment comes when a politician is called upon to pass the test of public support under intense glare of the world community. For the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, Thursday posed one such dramatic test - crucial even by the extraordinary yardstick of her tumultuous life. She passed the test, as the bemused world stood by and curiously watched.
She still possesses traces of that rare magic when a politician connects with the people, when a politician comes alive and ignites public imagination. The eight years of absence and the numerous scandals surrounding her track record in power, including charges of personal corruption, do not seem to have dented her ability to inspire. The Pakistani province of Sindh, Bhutto's political base, went into raptures on her homecoming. At the same time, she provokes strong feelings of hostility among powerful sections of opinion within Pakistan as the twin bomb blasts on her convoy in Karachi testify. It is even possible that her attackers include "rogue" elements within the Pakistani establishment. Agent provocateurs are surely actively putting roadblocks in her campaign to mobilize support. Obviously, her political opponents take her seriously despite their saying that her charisma is much diminished.
Now comes another test. As she travels to the province of Punjab in the coming days, what will be her reception? Will it match another homecoming - no less fortuitous, no less breathtaking - two decades ago? Punjab's reaction will be keenly watched. Without Punjab's support, or its acquiescence at the very least, it will be difficult for her to be the monarch of all she surveys as a national leader. No Pakistani politician can hope to make a serious bid for power without mobilizing support in Punjab. But the powerful Choudhury clans in feudal Punjab, which ruled the roost there under the Pervez Musharraf regime, cannot be expected to surrender political space easily to Bhutto. They're surely spoiling for a fight. A scuffle may ensue which could be rough and, in turn, it will significantly determine the calculus of political power in Islamabad in the coming few years.
For the present, it is just about possible to say that democracy might have gained a degree of traction in Pakistan on Thursday afternoon. But there have been numerous similar false starts in that unhappy country. Much remains in the womb of time. The element of uncertainty still remains whether the "powers that be" - the establishment, which includes the armed forces - will be prepared to accommodate Bhutto. Her return to Pakistan has been almost completely choreographed by Britain and the United States. The Musharraf regime needed to be dragged by the collar to the promised land of political cohabitation with Bhutto. Top officials of the George W Bush administration, laden with rich experience in making brutal despots in Latin America behave, repeatedly intervened with the Musharraf regime to play ball - at times cajoling, at times threatening, at times blackmailing. But beyond a point, Washington cannot act as Bhutto's mentor. From now onward, she must perform mostly on her own.
In the past, Pakistani armed forces viewed her leadership with distaste. She may be somewhat better off now, as the new incumbent Vice Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, who is expected to succeed Musharraf as military chief, is known to her previously as her military secretary in her first government in 1988.Equally, the Kiani clan wields great influence in the northern Jhelum province of Punjab, and traditionally provided a large chunk of soldiers to the Pakistani Army. Kiani, when he succeeds Musharraf, will also have the unique stature as the only boss of Pakistan's ubiquitous Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, to have ever risen to head of the Pakistani Army. The general will also be a dependable hand in any tricky dealings by a Bhutto government with India. He played a crucial role in the winter of 2001-2002 as Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations in keeping tensions with India under check when the two countries got embroiled in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation over the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. But that will be taking a tardy premature peep into the misty future of Pakistan-India relations that Washington may want to promote under a government in Islamabad spearheaded by the Musharraf-Bhutto-Kiani troika.
For the present, though, Washington's focus will be on two other fronts. First and foremost, Washington would expect the new dispensation in Islamabad to ensure that popular fury within Pakistan doesn't engulf that country, leave alone assume the nature of an uprising, in the event of a US military attack on Iran in the coming months. Equally, the Bush administration will expect the incoming military-cum-civilian regime to forcefully crack down on the extremist forces getting entrenched in Pakistan's lawless tribal agencies bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani Army would have no more excuses to avoid undertaking such an operation. Washington will expect the civilian components of the new regime - the Pakistan Muslim League faction led by the Choudhury clan, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Awami Nationalist Party (ANP) - to hold the fort of public opinion whilst the army cracks down on the militants in the tribal border tracts. In this risky adventure that is about to commence, Bhutto has a vital role to play. Her presence is expected to help consolidate the inchoate majority opinion in Pakistan, which militates against radicalism and views the rising tide of militant Islam with extreme disquiet bordering on abhorrence.
Even if they do not share Bhutto's brand of secularism, and are devout Muslims, she can galvanize Pakistan's silent majority and thereby help isolate the forces of extremism, which despite their loud clamor and muscle are still a marginal phenomenon in Pakistan's polity. But this would make her enemy number one for the terrorist squads, diffuse and aplenty in today's Pakistan. Similarly, the JUI can provide a useful bridge to the Taliban camp. Though the JUIforms a part of the Deobandi Muslim movement and may pose as ideologically rigid, Rahman himself is in practice a man of many parts. He got along comfortably with Bhutto during her second prime ministership in 1993-96, even heading the Pakistan Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. His inclusion in the new regime will throw the Islamic platform in Pakistani party politics into great disarray and almost certainly reduce them to noisy rubble with no real capacity to bite. Rahman is no stranger to the US security establishment, either - having been a significant protagonist in the Taliban saga. The ANP is expected to have a go at channeling Pashtun nationalism away from the Islamist path. It enjoys the confidence of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, and can play a limited but useful role in the current process of negotiations with the Taliban. Unfortunately, the ANP is a pale shadow of its past strength (and caliber) in the era prior to the Afghan jihad of the 1980s when Islamism got superimposed on the traditional modes of Pashtun life built around tribal chieftains or maliks. But in the present day circumstances, ANP still provides a much-needed representation for the Pashtun segments that remain defiant of the Islamic leadership dictating the rhythm of their political and social life, though its real clout and gusto remains indeterminate.
The house that the Bush administration has built in Islamabad, therefore, is not bereft of logic altogether. It looks imposing. It has interesting possibilities. But the main uncertainty lies in its durability. Pakistani politicians are extremely quarrelsome. Coalition politics is a very sophisticated form of governance that requires tact and accommodation. The requisite spirit of give-and-take may be lacking. Also, the corporate interests of the army are bound to cross paths with the vaulting ambitions of politicians, especially if the politicians unduly insist on civilian supremacy, as they will at some point. The pervasive anti-Americanism in Pakistani public opinion may seem a problem. But then, the US has not been traditionally upset over its popularity ratings in similar circumstances when the end justified the means. In the entire Middle East and the Persian Gulf, Washington impassively enforced US dominance decade after decade. A key ally like South Korea seethed with anti-Americanism in the 1970s and into the 1980s until democracy gained foothold and began tempering the public mood.
Meanwhile, there are three main directions in which the US can help Pakistan. First, by remaining focused on the central point that it is a long haul to bring Pakistan back from its present slide into an increasingly ungovernable country. That requires commitment in intrinsic terms, both in resources and in political capital. Nor can it be a piecemeal approach. It must also take place in a conducive regional environment. But the US has no proven record in nation building. Washington's attention span is usually limited.
Second, the "war on terror" in Afghanistan needs to be redefined. The Afghan insurgency is not a marginal phenomenon that can be eliminated by force. It is well rooted within Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan. (Arguably, it is relatively stronger within Pakistan). The Taliban should not be confused with al-Qaeda. A negotiated solution to the insurgency is possible. But, on the other hand, the US (and Britain) should not be cynical by loading the Afghan settlement with a geopolitical agenda. Any attempt to finesse the irredentist Islamist elements in the region as an instrument of geopolitics aimed at perpetuating the Western military presence in the region or for encircling Iran or for advancing the US's so-called "Great Central Asia" strategy will be resented and eventually opposed by other regional powers. At the moment, though, the Anglo-American intentions are far from clear - to say the least. The first step in transparency should have been by widening the gyre of regional involvement in a genuine intra-Afghan dialogue. But the tendency to monopolize an Afghan settlement is what is on continued display. The present selective involvement of the United Nations is not a substitute.
Third, Pakistan must be provided with a guarantee of peace and tranquillity in its Pashtun borderlands. Only by legitimising the Durand Line as a proper, duly accepted international border can this be achieved. Again, Pakistani hegemony over Afghanistan is inconceivable, but Islamabad should nonetheless be given the confidence that Pakistan's legitimate influence in Afghanistan will not come under challenge.
Finally, any enduring peace in Afghanistan will remain predicated on that country's neutrality in the geopolitics of the region. The bottom line is the vacation of the Western military presence. But, unfortunately, Afghanistan has come to be the playpen where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's gumption to assume a global security role is being put to the test. Reducing the NATO forces' casualty figures for assuaging European public opinion should not turn out to be the core objective of engaging the Taliban in negotiations.
Continued, open-ended military presence in Afghanistan increases Western dependence on Pakistan, which, in essence, increases the role of the Pakistani military. Incrementally, the army has developed a vested interest in the Western military presence in the region. But that only contributes to the assertiveness of the army in Pakistan's political arena, and, paradoxically, it serves to undermine the foundations of the very same comely architecture that the Bush administration has erected in Islamabad in the recent days and weeks. The bomb blasts in Karachi on Thursday night do have an ominous ring about them. Admittedly, nerves are on edge in Pakistan. It is a sign of the times that in an early impromptu comment, Asif Ali Zardari, husband of Bhutto, blamed the Pakistani intelligence agencies for the bomb blasts. Bhutto herself demanded the sacking of the intelligence chief. The government promptly assured that there is no move to postpone the elections due in Pakistan in January, but suggested all the same that Bhutto eschew public contacts for the sake of her own security.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
"Continued, open-ended military presence in Afghanistan increases Western dependence on Pakistan, which, in essence, increases the role of the Pakistani military. Incrementally, the army has developed a vested interest in the Western military presence in the region. "
Editorial Comment
The Musharraf-Benazir partnership is a match made in Hell by the Devil himself. Musharraf would love to get hold of the Bhutto name as long as Benazir did not come with it. Benazir would love to take off Musharraf's uniform and then kick his nuts in.
If you go to Ebay, "Sovereign Countries for sale" section, you will find Pakistan on the block with the US as the highest bidder and standing ready to up the price. Unfortunately the sellers are not yet in a position to deliver. Benazir's terms of sale appear to be unconditional whereas Musharraf hopes to cheat the Americans out of an outright sale.
The fact that Pakistan is not theirs ( Musharraf/Benazir) to sell or for America to buy, seems to bother none of the parties. The fact that the rules of how the game will be played have dramatically changed is not understood by these three. America more than any one else is besides themselves as to how distracting all this is from the main agenda of beating up the Iraqis and then go on with beating up the Iranians.
Benazir has succeeded in degrading herself as being several nothches below the The Taliban and Al Qaeda and if you thought no one could get any lower then you do not know her husband. The good news is that the public is begining to understand all this although their votes are still for sale. Ofcourse Pakistan would not be worth the paper this article is written on but for one fact, that it is a Nuclear power. Benazir promises to hand over the man who was technically responsible for this( AQ Khan) to the Americans. The other man who took the decision to test the bomb is also under house arrest. ( Nawaz Sharif).
Oddly the triangle is made up of people who have lost all sense of reality. They are trading a country which they do not own, they are exercising powers that they do not possess and going into partnerships in which no one trusts the other. If Benazir and Musharraf can be forgiven as third world types who don't know any better who is to hold America to the test,when they should know better?
The people of Pakistan specially those paying with their lives every time have gone into a state of resignation. Stoicly going through daily hartals, Suicide bombings, power cuts and phone disorders knowing that things are not going to get better. Meanwhile across the border India chugs on powered by a sense of nationhood. The poor are still poor and not getting any richer but somehow there is a sense that things will get better.
Khusro
Benazir's second homecoming By M K Bhadrakumar
By any reckoning, a very unusual moment comes when a politician is called upon to pass the test of public support under intense glare of the world community. For the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, Thursday posed one such dramatic test - crucial even by the extraordinary yardstick of her tumultuous life. She passed the test, as the bemused world stood by and curiously watched.
She still possesses traces of that rare magic when a politician connects with the people, when a politician comes alive and ignites public imagination. The eight years of absence and the numerous scandals surrounding her track record in power, including charges of personal corruption, do not seem to have dented her ability to inspire. The Pakistani province of Sindh, Bhutto's political base, went into raptures on her homecoming. At the same time, she provokes strong feelings of hostility among powerful sections of opinion within Pakistan as the twin bomb blasts on her convoy in Karachi testify. It is even possible that her attackers include "rogue" elements within the Pakistani establishment. Agent provocateurs are surely actively putting roadblocks in her campaign to mobilize support. Obviously, her political opponents take her seriously despite their saying that her charisma is much diminished.
Now comes another test. As she travels to the province of Punjab in the coming days, what will be her reception? Will it match another homecoming - no less fortuitous, no less breathtaking - two decades ago? Punjab's reaction will be keenly watched. Without Punjab's support, or its acquiescence at the very least, it will be difficult for her to be the monarch of all she surveys as a national leader. No Pakistani politician can hope to make a serious bid for power without mobilizing support in Punjab. But the powerful Choudhury clans in feudal Punjab, which ruled the roost there under the Pervez Musharraf regime, cannot be expected to surrender political space easily to Bhutto. They're surely spoiling for a fight. A scuffle may ensue which could be rough and, in turn, it will significantly determine the calculus of political power in Islamabad in the coming few years.
For the present, it is just about possible to say that democracy might have gained a degree of traction in Pakistan on Thursday afternoon. But there have been numerous similar false starts in that unhappy country. Much remains in the womb of time. The element of uncertainty still remains whether the "powers that be" - the establishment, which includes the armed forces - will be prepared to accommodate Bhutto. Her return to Pakistan has been almost completely choreographed by Britain and the United States. The Musharraf regime needed to be dragged by the collar to the promised land of political cohabitation with Bhutto. Top officials of the George W Bush administration, laden with rich experience in making brutal despots in Latin America behave, repeatedly intervened with the Musharraf regime to play ball - at times cajoling, at times threatening, at times blackmailing. But beyond a point, Washington cannot act as Bhutto's mentor. From now onward, she must perform mostly on her own.
In the past, Pakistani armed forces viewed her leadership with distaste. She may be somewhat better off now, as the new incumbent Vice Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, who is expected to succeed Musharraf as military chief, is known to her previously as her military secretary in her first government in 1988.Equally, the Kiani clan wields great influence in the northern Jhelum province of Punjab, and traditionally provided a large chunk of soldiers to the Pakistani Army. Kiani, when he succeeds Musharraf, will also have the unique stature as the only boss of Pakistan's ubiquitous Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, to have ever risen to head of the Pakistani Army. The general will also be a dependable hand in any tricky dealings by a Bhutto government with India. He played a crucial role in the winter of 2001-2002 as Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations in keeping tensions with India under check when the two countries got embroiled in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation over the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. But that will be taking a tardy premature peep into the misty future of Pakistan-India relations that Washington may want to promote under a government in Islamabad spearheaded by the Musharraf-Bhutto-Kiani troika.
For the present, though, Washington's focus will be on two other fronts. First and foremost, Washington would expect the new dispensation in Islamabad to ensure that popular fury within Pakistan doesn't engulf that country, leave alone assume the nature of an uprising, in the event of a US military attack on Iran in the coming months. Equally, the Bush administration will expect the incoming military-cum-civilian regime to forcefully crack down on the extremist forces getting entrenched in Pakistan's lawless tribal agencies bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani Army would have no more excuses to avoid undertaking such an operation. Washington will expect the civilian components of the new regime - the Pakistan Muslim League faction led by the Choudhury clan, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Awami Nationalist Party (ANP) - to hold the fort of public opinion whilst the army cracks down on the militants in the tribal border tracts. In this risky adventure that is about to commence, Bhutto has a vital role to play. Her presence is expected to help consolidate the inchoate majority opinion in Pakistan, which militates against radicalism and views the rising tide of militant Islam with extreme disquiet bordering on abhorrence.
Even if they do not share Bhutto's brand of secularism, and are devout Muslims, she can galvanize Pakistan's silent majority and thereby help isolate the forces of extremism, which despite their loud clamor and muscle are still a marginal phenomenon in Pakistan's polity. But this would make her enemy number one for the terrorist squads, diffuse and aplenty in today's Pakistan. Similarly, the JUI can provide a useful bridge to the Taliban camp. Though the JUIforms a part of the Deobandi Muslim movement and may pose as ideologically rigid, Rahman himself is in practice a man of many parts. He got along comfortably with Bhutto during her second prime ministership in 1993-96, even heading the Pakistan Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. His inclusion in the new regime will throw the Islamic platform in Pakistani party politics into great disarray and almost certainly reduce them to noisy rubble with no real capacity to bite. Rahman is no stranger to the US security establishment, either - having been a significant protagonist in the Taliban saga. The ANP is expected to have a go at channeling Pashtun nationalism away from the Islamist path. It enjoys the confidence of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, and can play a limited but useful role in the current process of negotiations with the Taliban. Unfortunately, the ANP is a pale shadow of its past strength (and caliber) in the era prior to the Afghan jihad of the 1980s when Islamism got superimposed on the traditional modes of Pashtun life built around tribal chieftains or maliks. But in the present day circumstances, ANP still provides a much-needed representation for the Pashtun segments that remain defiant of the Islamic leadership dictating the rhythm of their political and social life, though its real clout and gusto remains indeterminate.
The house that the Bush administration has built in Islamabad, therefore, is not bereft of logic altogether. It looks imposing. It has interesting possibilities. But the main uncertainty lies in its durability. Pakistani politicians are extremely quarrelsome. Coalition politics is a very sophisticated form of governance that requires tact and accommodation. The requisite spirit of give-and-take may be lacking. Also, the corporate interests of the army are bound to cross paths with the vaulting ambitions of politicians, especially if the politicians unduly insist on civilian supremacy, as they will at some point. The pervasive anti-Americanism in Pakistani public opinion may seem a problem. But then, the US has not been traditionally upset over its popularity ratings in similar circumstances when the end justified the means. In the entire Middle East and the Persian Gulf, Washington impassively enforced US dominance decade after decade. A key ally like South Korea seethed with anti-Americanism in the 1970s and into the 1980s until democracy gained foothold and began tempering the public mood.
Meanwhile, there are three main directions in which the US can help Pakistan. First, by remaining focused on the central point that it is a long haul to bring Pakistan back from its present slide into an increasingly ungovernable country. That requires commitment in intrinsic terms, both in resources and in political capital. Nor can it be a piecemeal approach. It must also take place in a conducive regional environment. But the US has no proven record in nation building. Washington's attention span is usually limited.
Second, the "war on terror" in Afghanistan needs to be redefined. The Afghan insurgency is not a marginal phenomenon that can be eliminated by force. It is well rooted within Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan. (Arguably, it is relatively stronger within Pakistan). The Taliban should not be confused with al-Qaeda. A negotiated solution to the insurgency is possible. But, on the other hand, the US (and Britain) should not be cynical by loading the Afghan settlement with a geopolitical agenda. Any attempt to finesse the irredentist Islamist elements in the region as an instrument of geopolitics aimed at perpetuating the Western military presence in the region or for encircling Iran or for advancing the US's so-called "Great Central Asia" strategy will be resented and eventually opposed by other regional powers. At the moment, though, the Anglo-American intentions are far from clear - to say the least. The first step in transparency should have been by widening the gyre of regional involvement in a genuine intra-Afghan dialogue. But the tendency to monopolize an Afghan settlement is what is on continued display. The present selective involvement of the United Nations is not a substitute.
Third, Pakistan must be provided with a guarantee of peace and tranquillity in its Pashtun borderlands. Only by legitimising the Durand Line as a proper, duly accepted international border can this be achieved. Again, Pakistani hegemony over Afghanistan is inconceivable, but Islamabad should nonetheless be given the confidence that Pakistan's legitimate influence in Afghanistan will not come under challenge.
Finally, any enduring peace in Afghanistan will remain predicated on that country's neutrality in the geopolitics of the region. The bottom line is the vacation of the Western military presence. But, unfortunately, Afghanistan has come to be the playpen where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's gumption to assume a global security role is being put to the test. Reducing the NATO forces' casualty figures for assuaging European public opinion should not turn out to be the core objective of engaging the Taliban in negotiations.
Continued, open-ended military presence in Afghanistan increases Western dependence on Pakistan, which, in essence, increases the role of the Pakistani military. Incrementally, the army has developed a vested interest in the Western military presence in the region. But that only contributes to the assertiveness of the army in Pakistan's political arena, and, paradoxically, it serves to undermine the foundations of the very same comely architecture that the Bush administration has erected in Islamabad in the recent days and weeks. The bomb blasts in Karachi on Thursday night do have an ominous ring about them. Admittedly, nerves are on edge in Pakistan. It is a sign of the times that in an early impromptu comment, Asif Ali Zardari, husband of Bhutto, blamed the Pakistani intelligence agencies for the bomb blasts. Bhutto herself demanded the sacking of the intelligence chief. The government promptly assured that there is no move to postpone the elections due in Pakistan in January, but suggested all the same that Bhutto eschew public contacts for the sake of her own security.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Setting the right expectations
Those who expect that life should be easy going and relaxed will be very frustrated unless they are reconciled to not achieving much in it.
Those who expect life to be tough and challenging will have fewer disappointments but can still find the pace of progress frustrating.
Khusro
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Comments on Karachi Bombing of Bhutto Caravan
From: omar ali To: asiapeace Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:52:14 PMSubject: Bombs hit Bhutto caravan
I had said yesterday that we have to keep our fingers crossed about the bombers. Well, they have struck and many innocent people have lost their lives. My immediate reactions:
1. Condolences to the poor victims who travelled miles to take part in a caravan of democracy. They have been let down dozens of times by everyone including Benazir herself, but they have not lost hope. Benazir and her cohorts are not the best leaders in the country, but the poor followers of the Bhutto name are the best followers in our unfortunate country and they did not deserve this.
2. Musharraf and his army have brought pakistan to this point. 6 years (and billions in aid) later, this is the state of security in the largest city of the country.
3. Who is responsible? It could be the taliban and their nihilistic suicidal maniacs, but it could still be other forces as well. In all probability, we will never know for sure.
4. The immense welcome accorded to Benazir has shown (once again) that the biggest and most popular politician in Pakistan continues to be Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto...and he holds that position because 28 years later, no other political force has articulated the wishes of the great mass of the people. Instead, we have an endless parade of sycophants, incompetents, dead-end fanatics and tinpot napoleons. And now even that great hope of peaceful progressive politics (always more hope than reality, but how many millions are mobilized in that name every time they get half a chance?) is flickering and dying. Next, the bombers and their creators-turned-enemies will fight it out over the bodies of innocents killed while dancing in the streets. very very sad indeed...
Omar AliModerator, Asiapeace
Editors Comments
I agree with Dr Omar Ali, that the people responsible for the bombing could be anybody. Security was so lax that any one wanting to kill Benazir could have easily done it. At one mile an hour, she was a sitting duck. This was the work of some one who did not want Benazir dead. We can only speculate on what their motives might be.
Khusro
I had said yesterday that we have to keep our fingers crossed about the bombers. Well, they have struck and many innocent people have lost their lives. My immediate reactions:
1. Condolences to the poor victims who travelled miles to take part in a caravan of democracy. They have been let down dozens of times by everyone including Benazir herself, but they have not lost hope. Benazir and her cohorts are not the best leaders in the country, but the poor followers of the Bhutto name are the best followers in our unfortunate country and they did not deserve this.
2. Musharraf and his army have brought pakistan to this point. 6 years (and billions in aid) later, this is the state of security in the largest city of the country.
3. Who is responsible? It could be the taliban and their nihilistic suicidal maniacs, but it could still be other forces as well. In all probability, we will never know for sure.
4. The immense welcome accorded to Benazir has shown (once again) that the biggest and most popular politician in Pakistan continues to be Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto...and he holds that position because 28 years later, no other political force has articulated the wishes of the great mass of the people. Instead, we have an endless parade of sycophants, incompetents, dead-end fanatics and tinpot napoleons. And now even that great hope of peaceful progressive politics (always more hope than reality, but how many millions are mobilized in that name every time they get half a chance?) is flickering and dying. Next, the bombers and their creators-turned-enemies will fight it out over the bodies of innocents killed while dancing in the streets. very very sad indeed...
Omar AliModerator, Asiapeace
Editors Comments
I agree with Dr Omar Ali, that the people responsible for the bombing could be anybody. Security was so lax that any one wanting to kill Benazir could have easily done it. At one mile an hour, she was a sitting duck. This was the work of some one who did not want Benazir dead. We can only speculate on what their motives might be.
Khusro
Are the Muslims the Red Indians of the 21st Century?
By Khusro Elley
For centuries the Red Indians sat on the most valuable Real Estate in the world and did nothing with it. It took a bunch of adventurers , outcasts from society, religious exiles form their own countries to annihilate the Indians and start exploiting the riches of what has now come to be known as the United States of America.
Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia are sitting on a wealth of oil and doing nothing better than investing their oil Revenues in US Treasuries for the benefit of the ruling elite of these countries. Unlike the Indians they( the Muslims) cannot be liquidated quietly, away from the eyes of the world. In the age of globalization, the liquidation will be seen by all on their TV screens and Internet screens and newspapers. The best way to liquidate them is to have them kill one another and keep arming which ever side starts losing.
The Palestinians (who have no oil) have already been herded into reservations after their lands were confiscated and are ready to slaughter one another. The Iraqis are slaughtering one another. The Afghanis are slaughtering one another. The Pakistanis are about to slaughter one another. The Bangladeshis will disappear as a result of global warming under mountains of sea water. The Saudis and the Gulf Countries are very few in numbers and can be dealt with later. The Saudis are ready to slaughter the Iranians in any case so let them do that first (with a lot of help). Liquidating 1.2 billion people is beginning to look viable. Hitler tried to do this with the Jews but he made the mistake of trying to do it with his own bare hands. The Muslim Holocaust has begun.
There is just one problem. The Muslims have an impressive History and they have a Book.
How many Muslims have to die before the Muslims realize that they are their own worst enemy? Between the Iran/Iraq war and the war on terrorism over 2 million Muslims have died mostly at the hands of one another. I don’t believe the message has gotten through. Maybe after another two million, the penny may begin to drop. If non Muslims were killing Muslims that might unite the Muslims temporarily because once the threat is removed they would turn on one another. This became evident when the Russians were repelled in Afghanistan. Now with Muslims killing Muslims there is a greater finality. Unite or perish.
How many Muslims need to get killed before the Muslim Ummah starts asking some obvious questions. Let us assume that after another three million are slaughtered, the remaining billion will begin to get worried. What are they likely to do? They can let the slaughter continue to see who comes out on top, if any one or they can overthrow and slaughter all the Muslim elite, who are basically agents of Foreign interests. In either event another five million Muslims will get killed before any one realizes that these were not the problem. My conservative estimate is that at least another eight million Muslims need to get killed and I mean slaughtered before people start realizing that there must be something wrong with Islam the way it is being practiced. Unfortunately there is no other choice.
From 1618 to 1648, the Europeans fought a thirty year war amongst themselves and happily killed one another ostensibly for religious reasons. The seeds originated with a man called Martin Luther.
“Martin Luther (1483-1546) stands in history as one of those unique forces, an individual who by force of will and by his ideas changed the world fundamentally. There are several ironies incumbent on Luther's pivotal role in history: 1) he doesn't really represent a break with the past, but rather a flash point where ideas and trends which had been smoldering in Europe for several centuries suddenly blazed aflame; 2) Luther initially saw himself as a great reformer of the Catholic church, a simple monk who thought the force of his ideas would single-handedly redirect the Leviathan of the church; in the end, however, he divided Christianity into two separate churches and that second division, Protestantism, would divide over the next four centuries into a near infinity of separate churches; 3) finally, Luther (and all the other reformers) saw themselves as returning Christianity to its roots, they believed that they were setting the clock back; in reality, their ideas irreparably changed the world and pushed it kicking and screaming, not into some ideal past, but into the modern era.” **
The difference with Islam is that there is no church to reform. The difference with Islam is that there is no movement from within Islam which wants to challenge its practices or malpractices. The difference is that Muslims are becoming aware of their vulnerabilities through others taking over their lands, their resources, their freedoms. The similarity is that the Muslims do want to look at their past for inspiration. They do want to go back to basics before they can move forward. The difference is that Muslims have been asleep and therefore colonized ever since the Industrial Revolution. So deep is their slumber that there is no way to reawaken them without killing ten million of them. ( by there own hands). If they do wake up, the battle would have just begun.
**Richard Hooker (Washington State University).
For centuries the Red Indians sat on the most valuable Real Estate in the world and did nothing with it. It took a bunch of adventurers , outcasts from society, religious exiles form their own countries to annihilate the Indians and start exploiting the riches of what has now come to be known as the United States of America.
Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia are sitting on a wealth of oil and doing nothing better than investing their oil Revenues in US Treasuries for the benefit of the ruling elite of these countries. Unlike the Indians they( the Muslims) cannot be liquidated quietly, away from the eyes of the world. In the age of globalization, the liquidation will be seen by all on their TV screens and Internet screens and newspapers. The best way to liquidate them is to have them kill one another and keep arming which ever side starts losing.
The Palestinians (who have no oil) have already been herded into reservations after their lands were confiscated and are ready to slaughter one another. The Iraqis are slaughtering one another. The Afghanis are slaughtering one another. The Pakistanis are about to slaughter one another. The Bangladeshis will disappear as a result of global warming under mountains of sea water. The Saudis and the Gulf Countries are very few in numbers and can be dealt with later. The Saudis are ready to slaughter the Iranians in any case so let them do that first (with a lot of help). Liquidating 1.2 billion people is beginning to look viable. Hitler tried to do this with the Jews but he made the mistake of trying to do it with his own bare hands. The Muslim Holocaust has begun.
There is just one problem. The Muslims have an impressive History and they have a Book.
How many Muslims have to die before the Muslims realize that they are their own worst enemy? Between the Iran/Iraq war and the war on terrorism over 2 million Muslims have died mostly at the hands of one another. I don’t believe the message has gotten through. Maybe after another two million, the penny may begin to drop. If non Muslims were killing Muslims that might unite the Muslims temporarily because once the threat is removed they would turn on one another. This became evident when the Russians were repelled in Afghanistan. Now with Muslims killing Muslims there is a greater finality. Unite or perish.
How many Muslims need to get killed before the Muslim Ummah starts asking some obvious questions. Let us assume that after another three million are slaughtered, the remaining billion will begin to get worried. What are they likely to do? They can let the slaughter continue to see who comes out on top, if any one or they can overthrow and slaughter all the Muslim elite, who are basically agents of Foreign interests. In either event another five million Muslims will get killed before any one realizes that these were not the problem. My conservative estimate is that at least another eight million Muslims need to get killed and I mean slaughtered before people start realizing that there must be something wrong with Islam the way it is being practiced. Unfortunately there is no other choice.
From 1618 to 1648, the Europeans fought a thirty year war amongst themselves and happily killed one another ostensibly for religious reasons. The seeds originated with a man called Martin Luther.
“Martin Luther (1483-1546) stands in history as one of those unique forces, an individual who by force of will and by his ideas changed the world fundamentally. There are several ironies incumbent on Luther's pivotal role in history: 1) he doesn't really represent a break with the past, but rather a flash point where ideas and trends which had been smoldering in Europe for several centuries suddenly blazed aflame; 2) Luther initially saw himself as a great reformer of the Catholic church, a simple monk who thought the force of his ideas would single-handedly redirect the Leviathan of the church; in the end, however, he divided Christianity into two separate churches and that second division, Protestantism, would divide over the next four centuries into a near infinity of separate churches; 3) finally, Luther (and all the other reformers) saw themselves as returning Christianity to its roots, they believed that they were setting the clock back; in reality, their ideas irreparably changed the world and pushed it kicking and screaming, not into some ideal past, but into the modern era.” **
The difference with Islam is that there is no church to reform. The difference with Islam is that there is no movement from within Islam which wants to challenge its practices or malpractices. The difference is that Muslims are becoming aware of their vulnerabilities through others taking over their lands, their resources, their freedoms. The similarity is that the Muslims do want to look at their past for inspiration. They do want to go back to basics before they can move forward. The difference is that Muslims have been asleep and therefore colonized ever since the Industrial Revolution. So deep is their slumber that there is no way to reawaken them without killing ten million of them. ( by there own hands). If they do wake up, the battle would have just begun.
**Richard Hooker (Washington State University).
Poems from Guantanamo
Sample Posting
"When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees,
Hot tears covered my face.
When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed
A message for my son."
Editorial Comment
The role of Pakistan in apprehending these innocent men is amongst the most despicable by an agent state. America is already paying for their role in keeping them there. It is yet another blot to their reputation and their claim to leadership of the world suffers another blow.
Khusro
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2686838.ece
Inmates' words: The poems of Guantanamo
The publicationb of an anthology of works, composed on paper cups by detainees, provides a harrowing insight into the torments and fading hopes of prisoners. Leonard Doyle reports
Published: 21 June 2007
The words of the celebrated Pakistani poet were scratched on the sides of a Styrofoam cup with a pebble. Then, under the eyes of Guantanamo Bay's prison guards, they were secretly passed from cell to cell. When the guards discovered what was going on, they smashed the containers and threw them away, fearing that it was a way of passing coded messages.
Fragments of these "cup poems" survived, however, and are included in an 84-page anthology entitled Poems from Guantanamo: the Detainees Speak, to be published later this year by the University of Iowa Press.
The verses provide a harrowing insight into the torments and fading hopes of the prisoners. Only two Guantanamo inmates have been charged with a crime.
They were brought to light by Marc Falkoff, a US professor of law with a doctorate in American literature. He represents 17 Yemeni inmates and has made 10 visits to Guantanamo. He dedicates the book to "my friends inside the wire".
In the summer of 2005 Professor Falkoff was sent two poems from his clients. Written in Arabic, they were included in letters they could legally send. Because all communication with the detainees is deemed a potential threat to national security, everything - letters, interview notes, legal documents - must be sealed and sent to a US intelligence facility for review. The two poems were deemed a potential risk and remain classified to this day.
Professor Falkoff contacted other lawyers and discovered that several had received poems from their clients. Other detainees, like the two released Britons, Moazzam Begg and Martin Mubanga, wrote poetry while in prison and brought them with them on their release.
Censorship remains absolute at the camp however. As far as the US military is concerned: "poetry ... presents a special risk, and DoD [Department of Defence] standards are not to approve the release of any poetry in its original form or language". The fear, officers say, is that allegorical imagery in poetry may be used to convey coded messages to militants outside.
That is scoffed at by Professor Falkoff. "These are the same military censors who in 2004 tried to stop me receiving allegations of abusive treatment of my clients who were being subjected to intense heat and cold and forced to remain standing." He added: "If the inmates were writing words like 'the Eagle flies at dawn,' the censors might have a case, but they are not. I fully accept their right to stop any coded messages to militants outside. But what the military fears is not so much the possibility of secret messages being communicated, but the power of words to make people outside realise that these are human beings who have not had their day in court."
The thoughts of the inmates are considered so potentially dangerous by the US military that they are not even trusted with pen and paper. The only exception is an occasional 10-minute period when they are allowed to write to their families via the International Red Cross. Even then the words they write are heavily censored.
The 380 or so inmates of Guantanamo include some avowed Islamic militants and al-Qa'ida fighters. But the majority are there because they were swept up by the police and intelligence services of other countries working on behalf of the US. In their despair many of these detainees have turned to verse to express their innermost feelings.
Others have attempted or committed suicide. One of the poets is a Bahraini man who has been held in solitary confinement since the end of 2003. He has tried to kill himself 12 times while in the prison. On one occasion, he was found by his lawyer, hanging by his neck and bleeding from a gash to his arm.
There are other tragic tales behind the verses. The "cup poems" of Guantanamo speak of the strange absence of flowers in spring, the bangles worn by young women and handcuffs on the militants.
Fragments survived in the memory of the poet Shaikh Abdurraheem Muslim Dost after his eventual release, but thousands of lines of poetry he wrote in prison have disappeared.
Dost, a respected religious scholar, poet, and journalist - and author of nearly 20 books - until his arrest in 2001, spent nearly three years in Guantanamo with his brother. Sent home two years ago, the brothers were picked up by Pakistani intelligence and they too disappeared. Nothing has been heard of them since.
Aami al Haj, a Sudanese national, was a journalist covering the war in Afghanistan for al-Jazeera television, when, in 2001, he was arrested stripped of his passport and press card and handed over to US forces. He was tortured at both Bagram air base and Kandahar before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The US military says he was a financial courier for Chechen rebels and that he assisted al-Qa'ida but has offered no evidence to support the claims.
"When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees, Hot tears covered my face," he wrote from his prison cell. "They have monuments to liberty And freedom of opinion, which is well and good. But I explained to them, that Architecture is not justice."
THE POEMS
Humiliated In The Shackles
By Sami al Hajj
When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees,
Hot tears covered my face.
When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed
A message for my son.
Mohammad, I am afflicted.
In my despair, I have no one but Allah for comfort.
The oppressors are playing with me,
As they move freely around the world.
They ask me to spy on my countrymen,
Claiming it would be a good deed.
They offer me money and land,
And freedom to go where I please.
Their temptations seize
My attention like lightning in the sky.
But their gift is an empty snake,
Carrying hypocrisy in its mouth like venom,
They have monuments to liberty
And freedom of opinion, which is well and good.
But I explained to them that
Architecture is not justice.
America, you ride on the backs of orphans,
And terrorize them daily.
Bush, beware.
The world recognizes an arrogant liar.
To Allah I direct my grievance and my tears.
I am homesick and oppressed.
Mohammad, do not forget me.
Support the cause of your father, a God-fearing man.
I was humiliated in the shackles.
How can I now compose verses? How can I now write?
After the shackles and the nights and the suffering and the tears,
How can I write poetry?
My soul is like a roiling sea, stirred by anguish,
Violent with passion.
I am a captive, but the crimes are my captors'.
I am overwhelmed with apprehension.
Lord, unite me with my son Mohammad.
Lord, grant success to the righteous.
An Al-Jazeera cameraman, Sami al Hajj, a Sudanese, was visiting his brother in Damascus after the 11 September attacks when he got a call asking him to go to Pakistan to cover the impending war in Afghanistan. Instead, he ended up in Guantanamo where he claims he has been severely and regularly beaten, scarring his face.
Death Poem
By Jumah al Dossari
Take my blood.
Take my death shroud and
The remnants of my body.
Take photographs of my corpse at the grave, lonely.
Send them to the world,
To the judges and
To the people of conscience,
Send them to the principled men and the fair-minded.
And let them bear the guilty burden, before the world,
Of this innocent soul.
Let them bear the burden, before their children and before history,
Of this wasted, sinless soul,
Of this soul which has suffered at the hands of the "protectors of peace".
Arrested in Pakistan and held in solitary confinement since 2003, Jumah al Dossari's mental wellbeing is worrying his lawyers. The 33-year old Bahraini national has tried to kill himself 12 times since his incarceration in Guantanamo. On one visit, his lawyer found him hanging in a bedsheet noose, with a deep gash in one wrist. In a letter Mr Dossari wrote in 2005, he said: "The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people and I have been destroyed."
Is It True?
By Osama Abu Kadir
Is it true that the grass grows again after rain?
Is it true that the flowers will rise up again in the Spring?
Is it true that birds will migrate home again?
Is it true that the salmon swim back up their streams?
It is true. This is true. These are all miracles.
But is it true that one day we'll leave Guantanamo Bay?
Is it true that one day we'll go back to our homes?
I sail in my dreams. I am dreaming of home.
To be with my children, each one part of me;
To be with my wife and the ones that I love;
To be with my parents, my world's tenderest hearts.
I dream to be home, to be free from this cage.
But do you hear me, oh Judge, do you hear me at all?
We are innocent, here, we've committed no crime.
Set me free, set us free, if anywhere still
Justice and compassion remain in this world!
Shortly after 11 September, Osama Abu Kadir travelled to Pakistan to perform charity work in Afghanistan with the Islamic missionary group Tablighi Jamat. The US claims Tablighi was providing fighters for jihad in Afghanistan and arrested Mr Kadir near Jalalabad in November 2001. In his native Jordan, he was known as a dedicated family man who worked as a truck driver. In Guantanamo, he is known as prisoner number 651.
"When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees,
Hot tears covered my face.
When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed
A message for my son."
Editorial Comment
The role of Pakistan in apprehending these innocent men is amongst the most despicable by an agent state. America is already paying for their role in keeping them there. It is yet another blot to their reputation and their claim to leadership of the world suffers another blow.
Khusro
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2686838.ece
Inmates' words: The poems of Guantanamo
The publicationb of an anthology of works, composed on paper cups by detainees, provides a harrowing insight into the torments and fading hopes of prisoners. Leonard Doyle reports
Published: 21 June 2007
The words of the celebrated Pakistani poet were scratched on the sides of a Styrofoam cup with a pebble. Then, under the eyes of Guantanamo Bay's prison guards, they were secretly passed from cell to cell. When the guards discovered what was going on, they smashed the containers and threw them away, fearing that it was a way of passing coded messages.
Fragments of these "cup poems" survived, however, and are included in an 84-page anthology entitled Poems from Guantanamo: the Detainees Speak, to be published later this year by the University of Iowa Press.
The verses provide a harrowing insight into the torments and fading hopes of the prisoners. Only two Guantanamo inmates have been charged with a crime.
They were brought to light by Marc Falkoff, a US professor of law with a doctorate in American literature. He represents 17 Yemeni inmates and has made 10 visits to Guantanamo. He dedicates the book to "my friends inside the wire".
In the summer of 2005 Professor Falkoff was sent two poems from his clients. Written in Arabic, they were included in letters they could legally send. Because all communication with the detainees is deemed a potential threat to national security, everything - letters, interview notes, legal documents - must be sealed and sent to a US intelligence facility for review. The two poems were deemed a potential risk and remain classified to this day.
Professor Falkoff contacted other lawyers and discovered that several had received poems from their clients. Other detainees, like the two released Britons, Moazzam Begg and Martin Mubanga, wrote poetry while in prison and brought them with them on their release.
Censorship remains absolute at the camp however. As far as the US military is concerned: "poetry ... presents a special risk, and DoD [Department of Defence] standards are not to approve the release of any poetry in its original form or language". The fear, officers say, is that allegorical imagery in poetry may be used to convey coded messages to militants outside.
That is scoffed at by Professor Falkoff. "These are the same military censors who in 2004 tried to stop me receiving allegations of abusive treatment of my clients who were being subjected to intense heat and cold and forced to remain standing." He added: "If the inmates were writing words like 'the Eagle flies at dawn,' the censors might have a case, but they are not. I fully accept their right to stop any coded messages to militants outside. But what the military fears is not so much the possibility of secret messages being communicated, but the power of words to make people outside realise that these are human beings who have not had their day in court."
The thoughts of the inmates are considered so potentially dangerous by the US military that they are not even trusted with pen and paper. The only exception is an occasional 10-minute period when they are allowed to write to their families via the International Red Cross. Even then the words they write are heavily censored.
The 380 or so inmates of Guantanamo include some avowed Islamic militants and al-Qa'ida fighters. But the majority are there because they were swept up by the police and intelligence services of other countries working on behalf of the US. In their despair many of these detainees have turned to verse to express their innermost feelings.
Others have attempted or committed suicide. One of the poets is a Bahraini man who has been held in solitary confinement since the end of 2003. He has tried to kill himself 12 times while in the prison. On one occasion, he was found by his lawyer, hanging by his neck and bleeding from a gash to his arm.
There are other tragic tales behind the verses. The "cup poems" of Guantanamo speak of the strange absence of flowers in spring, the bangles worn by young women and handcuffs on the militants.
Fragments survived in the memory of the poet Shaikh Abdurraheem Muslim Dost after his eventual release, but thousands of lines of poetry he wrote in prison have disappeared.
Dost, a respected religious scholar, poet, and journalist - and author of nearly 20 books - until his arrest in 2001, spent nearly three years in Guantanamo with his brother. Sent home two years ago, the brothers were picked up by Pakistani intelligence and they too disappeared. Nothing has been heard of them since.
Aami al Haj, a Sudanese national, was a journalist covering the war in Afghanistan for al-Jazeera television, when, in 2001, he was arrested stripped of his passport and press card and handed over to US forces. He was tortured at both Bagram air base and Kandahar before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The US military says he was a financial courier for Chechen rebels and that he assisted al-Qa'ida but has offered no evidence to support the claims.
"When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees, Hot tears covered my face," he wrote from his prison cell. "They have monuments to liberty And freedom of opinion, which is well and good. But I explained to them, that Architecture is not justice."
THE POEMS
Humiliated In The Shackles
By Sami al Hajj
When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees,
Hot tears covered my face.
When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed
A message for my son.
Mohammad, I am afflicted.
In my despair, I have no one but Allah for comfort.
The oppressors are playing with me,
As they move freely around the world.
They ask me to spy on my countrymen,
Claiming it would be a good deed.
They offer me money and land,
And freedom to go where I please.
Their temptations seize
My attention like lightning in the sky.
But their gift is an empty snake,
Carrying hypocrisy in its mouth like venom,
They have monuments to liberty
And freedom of opinion, which is well and good.
But I explained to them that
Architecture is not justice.
America, you ride on the backs of orphans,
And terrorize them daily.
Bush, beware.
The world recognizes an arrogant liar.
To Allah I direct my grievance and my tears.
I am homesick and oppressed.
Mohammad, do not forget me.
Support the cause of your father, a God-fearing man.
I was humiliated in the shackles.
How can I now compose verses? How can I now write?
After the shackles and the nights and the suffering and the tears,
How can I write poetry?
My soul is like a roiling sea, stirred by anguish,
Violent with passion.
I am a captive, but the crimes are my captors'.
I am overwhelmed with apprehension.
Lord, unite me with my son Mohammad.
Lord, grant success to the righteous.
An Al-Jazeera cameraman, Sami al Hajj, a Sudanese, was visiting his brother in Damascus after the 11 September attacks when he got a call asking him to go to Pakistan to cover the impending war in Afghanistan. Instead, he ended up in Guantanamo where he claims he has been severely and regularly beaten, scarring his face.
Death Poem
By Jumah al Dossari
Take my blood.
Take my death shroud and
The remnants of my body.
Take photographs of my corpse at the grave, lonely.
Send them to the world,
To the judges and
To the people of conscience,
Send them to the principled men and the fair-minded.
And let them bear the guilty burden, before the world,
Of this innocent soul.
Let them bear the burden, before their children and before history,
Of this wasted, sinless soul,
Of this soul which has suffered at the hands of the "protectors of peace".
Arrested in Pakistan and held in solitary confinement since 2003, Jumah al Dossari's mental wellbeing is worrying his lawyers. The 33-year old Bahraini national has tried to kill himself 12 times since his incarceration in Guantanamo. On one visit, his lawyer found him hanging in a bedsheet noose, with a deep gash in one wrist. In a letter Mr Dossari wrote in 2005, he said: "The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people and I have been destroyed."
Is It True?
By Osama Abu Kadir
Is it true that the grass grows again after rain?
Is it true that the flowers will rise up again in the Spring?
Is it true that birds will migrate home again?
Is it true that the salmon swim back up their streams?
It is true. This is true. These are all miracles.
But is it true that one day we'll leave Guantanamo Bay?
Is it true that one day we'll go back to our homes?
I sail in my dreams. I am dreaming of home.
To be with my children, each one part of me;
To be with my wife and the ones that I love;
To be with my parents, my world's tenderest hearts.
I dream to be home, to be free from this cage.
But do you hear me, oh Judge, do you hear me at all?
We are innocent, here, we've committed no crime.
Set me free, set us free, if anywhere still
Justice and compassion remain in this world!
Shortly after 11 September, Osama Abu Kadir travelled to Pakistan to perform charity work in Afghanistan with the Islamic missionary group Tablighi Jamat. The US claims Tablighi was providing fighters for jihad in Afghanistan and arrested Mr Kadir near Jalalabad in November 2001. In his native Jordan, he was known as a dedicated family man who worked as a truck driver. In Guantanamo, he is known as prisoner number 651.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)