Kiss my roti

I came, I saw, I voted

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:06:00 +0000

On the Arabness of Steve Jobs: Why it matters (and doesn't)?

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:37:00 +0000

I felt that it would only be appropriate to give everyone a head up. This is my official attempt at the obligatory Steve Jobs post. In case you missed it (and I highly doubt that, but still), Steve Jobs passed away last Wednesday due to complications from pancreatic cancer. This, of course resulted in ubiquitous cyber tributes, the ad nauseum repetition of his Stanford commencement speech, several twitter trending topics (#RIPSteveJobs, #iSad) and an elevation of personal status from technocrat to "the Edison of our generation" and "Messiah".

For me, the interesting discovery about Jobs at his passing was his "Arabness". Let me elaborate. Steve Jobs was adopted. His biological parents were graduate students; his mother German-Swiss-American, his father Syrian. Some call him Arab, others half Arab. There is nothing to indicate that he considered himself as such. What is more interesting is the reaction of Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners in general to this fact. One of the most bizarre responses to Jobs's heritage was this modest post at Yahoo Answers:

I'm not surprised at the vigour with which "we" (some Pakistanis included) have claimed Steve Jobs as our own (Steve Jobs = half Arab=Arab= Muslim-ish meme). After all, I would be hard pressed to find Arab/Muslim visionaries, scientists and technocrats that would serve as role models, especially anyone within the last 500-600 years. If a new generation of Arab/Middle Eastern/Muslim youth are finding inspiration from Jobs as a role model, why not?

At the same time, we are all aware that Jobs did not become a visionary solely on the basis of his "Arabness. His achievements are at best a product of his work ethic, passion and the stochastic nature of opportunity (ala Malcolm Gladwell) and at worst his arrogance, ambition and backhanded opportunism. If these traits are truly the determinants of his success, does Steve Jobs's "Arabness" actually matter?

Do Muslim militant organizations employ a class bias?

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:34:00 +0000

There are two conflicting narratives that seem to resound within security, terrorism, international relation and political science discussions (both academic and non-academic) surrounding the proximate and ultimate causes of global Muslim militancy. The first emphasizes the role of social, political and economic stagnancy and instability in the Muslim majority states as the primary cause of militancy. Extremist organizations within these communities harness these grievances towards militancy against individuals, communities and states that are considered as the perpetrators of this injustice. The second narrative embraces the "clash of civilizations" suggesting that Islam as a religion is incompatible with the foundations and mores of modern Western civilization, such as secularism, constitutionalism, human rights and democracy. It suggests that Muslim militancy is a response to the supremacy of the "infidel" Western civilization. This narrative argues that even if Muslim majority states were to gain equal footing with "the West" economically, militancy would still be rampant.

Both these narratives employ stock characters. In the first narrative, the stock character is a poor, uneducated, disenfranchised in a system that favours the powerful over the weak. This person is drawn into extremist organization and ends up participating in militancy. The purveyors of the second narrative employ the "every-Muslim" character. The education level, social and economic status and political power of the person do not matter. The only important factors in determining militancy is their religious beliefs, i.e. are they Muslim or not?

The problem with these narratives and their stock characters is that they tend to partially describe a profile of individuals involved in Muslim militancy. Not all involved in Muslim militancy come from underprivileged or backgrounds (see Osama bin Laden, Mohammad Atta and Khaled Shiekh Mohammad) However, there is a definite link between political, social and economic instability and participation in Muslim militancy. The madrassah system in Pakistan, a primary source of recruitment for extremist organizations in the country, owes its success to the failure of the state education program.

Which leads me to the title of this post. While Muslim extremist organizations recruit across social boundaries, anecdotal evidence (my own!) suggests that some sort of class bias is involved especially in terms of leadership and assignments. Militants from privileged background or with post secondary education often populate the leadership. Marc Sageman's 2004 study on the social composition of important Al Qaeda operatives (under US surveillance and suspected to have direct or indirect links to OBL) found that 72.5% of them belonged to upper or middle class backgrounds. Only 9.4% of these individuals had religious education and almost a third had completed some form of post secondary education. At this level of the organization, very few individuals had been involved with religious fundamentalist madrassahs such as those in Pakistan. Anecdotal evidence also suggests Al Qaeda's preference for educated upper and middle class individuals when it comes to transnational militancy. Note that 13 of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (see individuals profiles) attended either post secondary institutions, or came from middle class backgrounds.

I am by no means asserting that individuals from impoverished backgrounds, with lack of formal education are being passed over by Muslim militant organizations such as Al Qaeda. However, there does seem to be a glass ceiling in place. As Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy highlighted in her recent documentary "Children of the Taliban", these individuals, especially if they happen to be children are often used in attacks at a smaller scale i.e, local or regional. Additionally, different militant organization have different preferences. Local organizations such as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) do not seem to distinguish by class or educational background in assigning leadership positions (again anecdotal, if someone has any data please send it my way). In fact, given the roots of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi; both rose as a response to the feudal system of Jhang, Punjab which was dominated by Shiite feudal lords and Sunni serfs, I would be surprised if both of these organizations did employ some sort of class bias. I am unsure about class preferences with the Haqqani network. I suspect that given the class and educational background of Jalaluddin Haqqani, militancy experience and tribal allegiance would seem to be a greater factor here (again unconfirmed).

There is no one narrative that can be used to explain militancy within Muslim societies. Social unrest, economic instability and political stagnancy cannot solely explain the numeracy of individuals from educated upper-middle class backgrounds at leadership positions within some Muslim militant organizations. Likewise, religious fervor cannot be considered as a principal factor in militancy given the involvement of individuals from uneducated and underprivileged backgrounds, especially in terms of violence at a local and regional scale. A closer study of Muslim militant organizations on an individual basis focusing on goals, structure and recruitment will be helpful in parsing the proximate and ultimate causes of militancy within Muslim societies.

On mosques and misogyny

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:31:00 +0000

Warning: This is a rant on the blatant misogyny that is present within mosques (as in my experience, Pakistani mosques in Toronto). Comments are ALWAYS welcome, but trolls are NOT! As a grad student in my final semester I don't have a lot of time to respond right away (why I haven't blogged for a while), so please be patient. I will get to you when I can (within a day or so).

I don't go to mosques anymore. Mostly since I've realized that it's a huge waste of time. You often don't learn anything and you spend the entire time feeling guilty for stuff that would be considered insignificant in another context. I have never felt spiritual at a mosque. I have always felt unworthy and unwanted.

It starts from the moment you enter the mosque. The literal separation of the male and female. Men go one way and women go another. Almost all of the time, women end up in a small, cramped room in either the side of the building or the basement. Men get the nicer halls. They get to see the face of the person who is speaking to them. Women get to see a TV (high tech, I know). Men interact with the speaker. Women listen. The speaker is always male. Always.

In the Shiite Islamic tradition, you have the right to contest religious authority. You have the right to ask questions and demand answers. But how can you exercise this right when you are trapped in a cramped room with only a TV version of a human being? How can you ask questions? How can you discuss and debate the ideas that are presented? How can you participate?

Perhaps, that is the point.

The self appointed leaders of the Muslim community (Imams, Maulavis, Committee chairmen (ALWAYS men)) have no problem paying lip service to the ideals of gender equity. I have heard countless speakers say that in Islam men and women are considered equal. But this means nothing when you are only physically addressing a congregation full of men.

If anyone is serious about gender equity, they would end the segregation of the sexes in our places of worship. They would address the blatant sexism in the attitudes of the leadership towards women's issues. They would stop referring to women as emotionally unstable beings, incapable of rational thinking as a way to justify male control (I'm talking about needing permission from men to make decisions). They would invite women as religious speakers for the entire community (not just female congregations).

But this is not the case.

And until there is real effort towards gender equity in our mosques and places of worship (imambargas, etc), let's stop pretending that is everything is fine.

Hate Bait

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:09:00 +0000

I always wondered why most Pakistanis cringe (both physically and emotionally) at the suggestion that Ahmadis could have a legitimate claim to Islam as well. We accept other "deviant" groups (Shias) as well (on a token level), don't we? Why single them out?

I'm not asking anyone to convert into an Ahmadi, but let's stop treating these people as evil incarnate and start considering them as human beings and our fellow coreligionists. We have much more important things to worry about than the "Ahmadi" takeover of Islam.

Missing the point entirely

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 17 May 2011 16:15:00 +0000

In the political fallout following the death of OBL in Pakistan, there has been much speculation (both formal and informal) on its continuing role in the "War on Terror". At the epicenter of all this political drama, is the future of the financial aid that Pakistan receives from the US ($20.7 billion since 2002 via Foreign Policy Magazine). Given the inadequate (to say the least) performance of Pakistan's military establishment in the OBL fiasco and its double game of sponsoring militancy in Afghanistan, it would be obvious to think that military aid would be first up on the chopping block.

Apparently not.

From what the Cable has been reporting, it is in fact civilian aid (Kerry-Lugar bill, $7.5 billion in 5 years) to Pakistan that is being reviewed. According to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) chairman of the Senate armed services committee, while the United States is interested in "developing a stable democracy", it is not the most pressing issue at the moment. There are also additional concerns that the civilian aid about its appropriation and lack of spending oversight.

I'm not here to defend the civilian government in Pakistan or to point out that concerns regarding spending and oversight are exaggerated. However, given the primary role of the military and security establishment in this fiasco, to only review civilian aid is (I'm sorry to say) idiotic.

First of all, unconditional military aid is one of the biggest mistakes that the United States has made in its dealings with Pakistan. Given that this aid has been used to fund the war machine against India, not securing the AfPak border or dealing with militant networks responsible for destabilizing Afghanistan, continuing it without question is only going to embolden the military to remain in this way.

Secondly, a stable democracy in Pakistan is vital to the long term interests of the United States. The problem of militancy in Pakistan is linked directly to the failure of the state to develop institutions and infrastructure that address the most pressing concern of its people. While the civilian government(s) (past and present) are to blame for this failure, the military establishment has also played an important role in undermining development by actively pushing for increased defense spending (which has increased by 17% this year) at the cost of other government programs. While military spending can deal with militancy itself, it cannot solve its underlying causes (social inequality, lack of access to education, religious fundamentalism and unemployment). Civilian aid will go further in dealing with these problems than military spending ever can.

Over the past 10 years, military aid to Pakistan has not yielded substantial results in the reduction of militancy in the region. With the obvious involvement of the military and security establishment in maintaining OBL in Pakistan, it's time to try something new. May I suggest seriously reviewing military aid packages as well?

A bag of mixed feelings

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:59:00 +0000

I was going to write this obligatory post on the "death" (killing would be more appropriate) of OBL sooner, but I decided to hold off for a variety of reasons:

1) I am in the process of performing an intensive analysis of the relationship between different metrics of thermal preference of freshwater fish and the evolutionary/phylogenetic relationship between different fish species. It's a lot of work, so I am (still) very busy. Sorry, but fish are more important than OBL

2) Once again, I couldn't decide what I could add to the debate taking place in newspapers, blogs and social media. I only write, if I feel I have something meaningful to say

3) I wasn't quite sure how I felt about his death in the first place. I needed a few days worth of REM sleep to figure this out.

Despite taking some time to think, I still haven't been able to sort myself out. On the one hand, I felt absolutely nothing when I heard about his death. Nothing. There was no joy or sorrow. I had no visceral reaction. It's as if my internal self shrugged and continued on with my workday. While the aftermath of 9/11 has shaped to some extent the reality in which I, my friends (worldwide) and my family (Pakistan) live, for me the policy decisions following 9/11 are more important that the tragedy of 9/11 itself. Part of this (lack of) reaction has to do with the fact that OBL's death will not change my reality anytime soon. It will not stop suicide bombings in Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta and countless other Pakistani towns and cities. It will not stop the spread of religious extremism within our society. It will not result in massive reforms in the way we are governed or improve the general condition of masses.

On the other hand, I am disturbed with the extra-judicial nature of this entire event. I can't say that I am very comfortable of the killing of OBL without a judicial decision. First of all, the circumstances surrounding his death are not very clear. With reports indicating anything from he was lunging for his AK-47 to he was captured when shot (in front of his family) to the order from the start was to kill, not capture, him (via Glen Greenwald) there is no way to assess the legality of his death. If the US government indeed gave the orders for an extra-judicial killing, I am worried about the example that this sets for the rest of the world. If the most powerful country in the world decides without due process the innocence or guilt of a person and claims moral authority, this gives the green light for retaliation against other individuals who have been involved in mass murder and can be rightly classified as embodiments of evil as well (e.g. Slobodan Milosevich, Charles Taylor, Muammar Gadafi).

At the same time I understand the actions of the US government. If Bin Laden was captured alive and tried in court, there is very good chance that Al Qaeda would create a hostage crisis (with either civilians or military personnel) to negotiate for his release. It would be doubtful that the United States government would enter such negotiations, but depending on the scale and the nature of this crisis it could create a potentially embarassing situation for the current government (see Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis).

Then again, politics don't trump principles. At least in my book.

Politics is much more fun south of the border

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:02:00 +0000

As I was reading Dan Drezner's attempt at taking the front runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination Donald Trump (of the Apprentice fame) a short while ago, I was struck by the sheer absurdity of American (in case you didn't figure it out by now) politics. And as a Canadian, I was jealous! For all the non-canucks (FYI Canuck= Canadian slang for the word Canadian) out there, let me put this into context. We Canadians are preparing to cast our ballots on May 2nd to vote in a new government (hopefully not another conservative minority or even worse a conservative majority), and are therefore being bombarded daily by radio and TV ads, facebook notifications and tweets (check out #elxn41 #cdnpoli) impressing on us to vote for this party or that. Yet, despite the election fever there is nothing going on in Canadian politics right now which is vaguely as impressive as the GOP presidential nomination race. Nothing!

This is definitely a good thing. Showmanship and politics should not go together, especially given the far reaching impacts of the legislative process. Still the inner child in me keeps wanting more excitement, at least in this election campaign. This is not to say that I am disenfranchised with the Canadian political system. I do plan on participating in the democratic process on May 2nd. But sometimes I feel that the political grass is indeed greener on the other side.

On second thought, it's better if the crazies remained on the other side.

P.S. Canada explained. For all the non-Canucks out there.

If you're young (18-24), Canadian and interested in screwing with the establishment, then vote on May 2nd (personally I would go for the Marijuana party, just think of how much money our economy would make). Rick Mercer explains why:

Some thoughts on unionizing child labour in Pakistan

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:44:00 +0000

One of the ideas that I have been debating with myself over the past few months (I'm not exaggerating) is morality, feasibility and (potential) success of child labour unions as a way of dealing with the mass child labour crisis in Pakistan. Before I outline the reasoning behind my support for child labour unions (albeit very reluctantly), I would like distinguish between what I consider to be three types of child labour:

1)Vocational/apprenticeship: Children employed within a small business involving merchant, skilled labour or artisanal work (e.g. mechanic, shop keeper, carpenter, truck artist etc). Within this labour environment, children obtain skills and experience that can lead to further employment.

2)Domestic: Child employed in positions within the household, often as servants.

3)Mass Production: Children employed within industries involved in mass production such a factories, workshops and brick bhattis (mass production of bricks). Most people associate these industries with child labour.

From the above list, it is clear that: a) child labour is a broad term encompassing many different labour settings, b)child labour within Pakistan is prevalent across all levels of society and c) there can be no one solution when dealing with the child labour crisis in Pakistan and that a child labour ban in of itself is inadequate in dealing with this.

I first came across the idea of unionized child labour through this FP article describing child labour unions in Bolivia. The case for child labour unions can be summed up in this quote:

Unionized child workers and their advocates argue that because child labor is a necessity born of poverty, it can't and shouldn't be eradicated. But they want the government and NGOs to differentiate between child labor -- which they see as an economic necessity -- and exploitation, which is how they characterize children working in dangerous jobs, like mining, and harvesting Brazil nuts and sugar cane. "We need to focus on eradicating abusive work," says Jorge Domic, a child psychologist and director of social education at Fundación La Paz, a Bolivian NGO. "If we propose to end all forms of child labor, we're not going to do it. We'll just have more clandestine labor in an even worse form than it currently exists."

Within the Pakistani labour context, much of this is true. There are two major causes of the prevalence of child labour: poverty and lack of affordable access to education. Instituting a complete ban on child labour without tackling these issues is disingenuous to those suffering from it. Additionally, it is important to recognize the difference between exploitation and labour. Vocational/apprenticeship labour should not be dealt in the same way as domestic or mass production. Unionization is very important for this purpose. First of all, it will allow child labourers to bargain for fair wages and ensure safer working environments. Unions can also administer an institutional framework for education initiatives by providing members with access to schooling and literacy classes on a part time basis. Secondly, unions have the potential to reduce and even eliminate child exploitation in mass production labour settings by providing proper documentation for abuses and giving child labourers bargaining rights.

There is a dark side to all of this as well. If child labour unions are officially recognized, then basically we are legalizing child labour in Pakistan. I'm will not deny that I am very uncomfortable with this idea on an ethical level. However, without massive investment in job creation initiatives or affordable education, I don't see how this crisis is going away anytime soon. At least unionization, if implemented properly (this is key) has the potential to provide child labourers with protection within their workplaces. In the long run, unionization implemented with a child labour ban in certain exploitative industries (mining, carpet factories, brick bhattis) and government investments in job creation initiatives and affordable education can (hopefully) reduce the prevalence of child labour in Pakistan.

Tweet of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:24:00 +0000

From @smokenfog

Dear Muslims, freedom of expression doesn't only revolves around burqa, it also covers right to burn any book u want & say whatever u want.

I agree! I find it very hypocritical that the many people who choose to identify themselves primarily as "Muslims" have no problem with using freedom of religion and expression to defend what they hold dear and opposing the very same values when it offends them. Either you are for freedom of religion and expression or you are not. Pick a side and stick to it!

Video of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 04:26:00 +0000

Via Cafe Pyala, Member of Pakistan National Assembly (equivalent to parliament) Asyia Nasir reveals some uncomfortable truths about the conditions of minorities in Pakistan.

Forgetting the Original Sin

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 04:13:00 +0000

Since I heard of the assassination of Shabaz Bhatti (Pakistan's Minister of Minorities), I have been trying to avoid writing this post, mostly due to the shock but also as I am not sure what I can add to the Pak Blogosphere. Ahsan (Five Rupees) has already covered its possible implications on our national development. Cafe Pyala has provided an excellent coverage of this event from a media oriented perspective. Not to mention that the blogosphere is dripping with analysis ranging from a CIA conspiracy to divert attention from the Raymond Davis case, to how this assassination is the beginning of the end for Pakistan.

I'm going to start off by condemning unequivocally, the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti. He was a beacon of hope for the minorities in this country and his death is a loss for all of us. But as I continue to read blog after blog, and talk show after talk show, I have noticed two important trends in the conversations taking place. Most people condemn the murder without talking about the context in which it took place; the infamous blasphemy laws. They tend to denounce this event, but with qualifying statements. E.g. Shahbaz Bhatti's assassination was wrong but it was a case of extremism, a conspiracy etc... The very few willing to connect the dots constantly mention Zia ul Haq. This is not surprising. After all, Zia introduced the infamous blasphemy laws within Pakistan's penal code and institutionalized religion within the public sphere as deliberate policy. However, the role of an important historical figure in the development of these laws is often omitted.

I am talking about Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Most of us belonging to Pakistan's liberal elite class view Bhutto in positive secular terms. He is the man who raised the socialist slogan of "Roti, Kapra aur Makan" (Bread, Clothing and Housing). He is the man who fought for democracy under Ayub Khan. He laid the foundations for the nuclear program (not really positive, but considered as such in uber patriotic circles). He is one of the nation's greatest martyrs, executed over fraudulent charges of murder of a political rival. What most people tend to forget (either through ignorance or deliberately) is that Bhutto laid the foundation for the criminalization of blasphemy in Pakistan.

When Jamat-e-Islami contested the elections in 1970 and lost, it started a massive campaign against Ahmadis in Pakistan. This campaign turned Jamat-e-Islami into a popular political force agitating for regime change. In order to buy off Jamat-e-Islami, Bhutto acquiesced, implementing constitutional changes that declared Ahmadi Muslims as apostates. This action opened the door for state involvement in religious affairs, setting precedent for Zia's blasphemy laws (Pakistan Penal Code 295A-C and 298A-C) including the notorious Ordinance XX (criminalizing Ahmadis Muslims from referring to themselves as Muslims through speech, writing and action with a three year prison sentence).

The reason for this (in my somewhat informed opinion) is based on the success of Zulfiqar Bhutto as a symbol. By this I am referring to the larger than life image created by Benazir throughout her political campaigning against Zia's regime. We ignore the role Zulfiqar Bhutto played in the blasphemy laws, or the separation of East and West Pakistan, or his brutal suppression of uprisings in Balochistan following Bangladesh's separation, or the fact that he passed three amendments curtailing the rights of the detained, limiting the jurisdiction of the courts in providing relief to political opponents and reducing the power of the judiciary because it does not correspond with our narratives of Pakistani history.

This is not simply about shifting the blame from Zia-ul-Haq to Bhutto. It`s about recognizing that it not only the religious or conservative members of our society are responsible for the rise of intolerance in our society, but that we "liberals" have also played an equal role in the subjugation of our religious minorities. And until we admit to this, its is unlikely that conditions for minorities will change any time soon.

Human mating systems and the cultural delineation of incest

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 03:02:00 +0000

I have always been interested in the differences in the delineation of incest among various cultures. For example, Pakistanis consider marriage between first cousins to be completely acceptable and sometimes even preferred. In North America and Western Europe, this would be considered incest. In pre-industrialized Japan uncle-niece marriages were common and accepted, another form of incest within Western society. Marriage or sexual relations between individuals of the immediate family (mother, father, sister, brother) is considered as incest within all cultural contexts.

This leads me to believe that there are at least two degrees of incest: absolute, involving members of the immediate or nuclear family and relative, involving members of the extended family. The processes that define absolute incest are biological. Immediate family members share half of their genetic material with their offspring. Offspring from the same parents are related to each other by half as well. Therefore, when parents-offspring and sibling reproduce the resultant offspring is related to the parents by more than 3/4 of their genome. This is problematic for two reasons:

1) The offspring produced has decreased genetic variation, reducing its ability to exist within a wide range of environmental conditions. Decreased genetic variation also leads to decreased immune response, making the offspring more vulnerable to diseases affecting his/her parents.

2) The offspring has a higher probability of inheriting genetic problems, since the probability of both parents having the same genetic problem is higher. This is the reason why offspring of incest tend to have debilitating physiological conditions or diseases.

The lack of fitness (by this I am referring to Darwinian fitness; the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce) of offspring of absolute incest as compared to others is the main reason for the vehement rejection of such incestuous relationships globally. Now, offsprings from the relative incest category also have lower genetic variation as compared to others. However, unlike the case of absolute incest, the level of relatedness to its parents is between 1/2 and 3/4 (depending on the familial relationship of the parents). Therefore, the probability of offspring from such relationship to develop debilitating conditions or diseases is much lower as compared to absolute incest, but higher when compared to offspring from unrelated individuals.

One more factor in the delineation of relative incest is the social mating system. In societies that are monogamous/historically monogamous or consider monogamy to be a virtue, incest tends to include relationships between members of the extended family. In polygamous (one male partners with more than one female) and polyandrous (one female partners with more than one male), incest is limited to relationships between members of the immediate family. In my opinion, this is because offspring of polygamous or polyandrous systems are less related to each other (share one parent) than offspring from monogamous relationships (share two parents). Therefore, it is very likely that relationships between individuals of the extended family within polygamous or polyandrous relationships produce offspring that are less genetically related to each other than those from monogamous systems. This means that the probability of offspring from such relationships in polygamous/polyandrous systems to develop diseases and such is lower than from offsprings in monogamous systems. Given the low cost of darwinian fitness from relationships between extended fmaily members in such systems, theoretically speaking, there is a strong possibility that such relationships would be socially accepted.

I would like to point out that my post is based on basic genetic theory and anecdotal evidence of the delineation on incest within different cultural contexts. I would encourage all of my readers to take my opinion with a grain of salt as nothing posted above has been verified either through scientific experimentation or meta analysis. Also, my theory of human mating systems does not fit a wide variety of examples of both relative or absolute incest. It does not explain the cousin marriages in the case of European royalty or the prevalence of first cousin marriages in Europe before the 1900s or the insistence of sibling marriages among most ancient Egyptian dynasties

Blasphemy Laws: A call to action

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:57:00 +0000

Last week, I posted my response to Salman Taseer's assassination over his support for Aasia Bibi, arguing for delegitimizing social acceptance and support for blasphemy using a religious framework. A week later, it seems like Pakistan's blasphemy laws have claimed another victim. This time, it is 17 year old Muhammad Samiullah who has been accused of blaspheming in an examination paper during intermediate exams in North Nazimabad, Karachi (incidentally, where I grew up).

I know that last week I emphasized the importance of conducting debates within the public sphere on the legitimacy (religious and otherwise) of Pakistan's blasphemy laws. With the arrest of Muhammad Samiullah, this can't happen sooner. However, more needs to be done. At the moment, we need to put pressure on the Pakistani government for the release of Muhammad Samilullah. Over the long term, we need to push for the repeal of the blasphemy laws.

Many members of the Pakistani diaspora believe that there are few avenues available to respond to such situations. I disagree. Unlike those in Pakistan, we have the freedom to express ourselves without severe repercussions. We must use this privilege to denounce such actions on the behalf of those who cannot. We cannot feign ignorance or impotence in this matter. It is our responsibility to ensure that Salman Taseer's fate is never repeated again.

There are many options in terms of response available to those in the diaspora. The first and easiest is to send an email protesting the arrest of Muhammad Samiullah to their closest Pakistani consulate as well. A list of contact information for Pakistani consulates in Canada and the United States are posted below:

Canada

Ottawa

High Commission for Pakistan
10 Range Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 8J3
Tel # (613) 238-788
Fax # (613) 238-7296
Email: parepottawa@rogers.com

Toronto
Consulate General of Pakistan
1120 Finch Avenue West,
North York, ON
M3J 3H7
Tel # 416-250-1255
Fax #(416) 250-1321
pareptoronto@rogers.com

Montreal
Consulate General of Pakistan, Montreal
3421 Peel Street,
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1W7, Canada
Tel # (514) 845-2297
Fax # (514) 845-1354
Email: parepmontreal@bellnet.ca

Vancouver
Consulate General of Pakistan
Suite 1400, 510 West Hastings
Vancouver BC, V6B 1L8
Tel# 1-604-569-1743
Email:info@pakistanconsulatevancouver.com

United States of America

Washington DC
3517 International Court NW
Washington, 20008
Phone: 1-202-243-6500
Fax:1-202-686-1534
info@embassyofpakistanusa.org

New York
12 East 65th Street New York,
NY 10065
Phone: 01-212-879-5800
Fax: 01-212-517-6987
info@pakistanconsulateny.org

Los Angeles
10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone:310-441-5114
Fax:310-441-9256
consul@pakconsulatela.org

Houston
Consulate of Pakistan-Houston
11850 Jones Road, Houston, TX 77070
Telephone: 281-890-2223
Fax: 281-890-1433
parephouston@sbcglobal.net

If anyone has any contact information for Pakistani Consulates in other countries, please post in the comments section below and I will continue to update this post. I am also posting a sample email below (for people who consider email or letter writing to be daunting):

Dear Honorable (Name of the Consular General)

I am concerned that a number of people facing charges of blasphemy, or convicted on such charges have been detained solely for their real or imputed religious beliefs. Most of those charged with blasphemy belong to the Ahamdiyya community but Christians have increasingly been accused of blasphemy, among them a 13-year-old boy accused of writing blasphemous words on the walls of a mosque despite being totally illiterate. The following case histories are supplied: Anwar Masih, a Christian prisoner; Arshad Javed, reportedly mentally ill, sentenced to death; Gul Masih, a Christian, sentenced to death; Tahir Iqbal, a convert to Christianity, died in jail while on trial; Sawar Masih Bhatti, a Christian prisoner; Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan, Muslim social activist; Chand Barkat, a Christian acquitted of blasphemy but continuously harassed; Hafiz Farooq Sajjad, stoned to death; Salamat Masih, Manzoor Masih, and Rehmat Masih three Christians. Recently Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assasinated for raising the possibility of a pardon for Aasia Bibi who was sentenced to death under Section 295B and 295C of Pakistan’s Penal Code, for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. On Feb 1 2011, Muhammad Samiullah was arrested in Karachi, Pakistan on allegations of blaspheming on an exam paper in his Intermediate exams.

I call for the immediate release of Aasia Bibi as well as Muhammad Samiullah, unless they are charged with internationally regognizable offences and tried in proceedings and under laws that meet international human rights standards.I urge the government of Pakistan to repeal Section 295B and 295C of the Penal Code, which carries the death penalty for anyone found guilty of blasphemy and fulfill its pledge to review and improve “laws detrimental to religious harmony”, announced by Prime Minister Gilani in August 2009.

Sincerely,
(Your Name)

In addition to contacting your local consulate, please send these emails to President Asif Ali Zardari and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudary. Their contact information posted below:

President Zardari
Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9207458
E-mail:
publicmail@president.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear President Zardari

Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice of Pakistan
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9213452
Salutation: Dear Chief Justice Chaudhry

If you live in Canada, contact information for your MP is available here. If you live in the United States, you can find contact information about your representative here. For these emails, I am also providing an altered template below:

Dear Honorable (Name of Representative or MP here)

I am concerned that a number of people facing charges of blasphemy, or convicted on such charges in Pakistan have been detained solely for their real or imputed religious beliefs. Most of those charged with blasphemy belong to the Ahamdiyya community but Christians have increasingly been accused of blasphemy, among them a 13-year-old boy accused of writing blasphemous words on the walls of a mosque despite being totally illiterate. Recently Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated for raising the possibility of a pardon for Aasia Bibi who was sentenced to death under Section 295B and 295C of Pakistan’s Penal Code, for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. On Feb 1 2011, Muhammad Samiullah was arrested in Karachi Pakistan on allegations of blaspheming on an exam paper in his Intermediate exams."

I am calling on the (your country here) government to push for the immediate release of Aasia Bibi as well as Muhammad Samiullah, unless they are charged with internationally recognizable offences and tried in proceedings and under laws that meet international human rights standards. I also call on the (your country here) government to urge the government of Pakistan to repeal Section 295B and 295C of the Penal Code, which carries the death penalty for anyone found guilty of blasphemy and fulfill its pledge to review and improve “laws detrimental to religious harmony”, as announced by Prime Minister Giliani in August 2009.

Sincerely,
(Your Name)

Once again, phone calls are more effective than email. If you are able, please call your representative or MP directly to speak about pressuring Pakistan to repeal the blasphemy laws. If you are part of the Pakistani diaspora elsewhere, please post contact information for local government representative in your country in the comments section below. I will update accordingly.

A revolution in Pakistan is a bad idea...for now

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:00:00 +0000

As most of the people in the Pakistani blogosphere (at least on the political side of things), I have been glued to my computer screen tweeting and retweeting news, facts and opinions (often pointless and completely unnecessary) ever since protests have intensified in Egypt against Mubarak following the fall of Ben Ali government in Tunisia (protests are now also underway in Libya, Yemen and Jordan). Not that my interest in these non-violent movements/revolts/revolutions is purely political. Growing up in an oppressive society where the circumstance of your birth determines your future, where there is no opportunity for upwards mobility ( not if you're unwilling to be corrupt) and where survival is a daily struggle for most, these events are affecting me at an emotional level

When I was in my early teens, I would often ask my parents that if the government was so corrupt, dishonest, unaccountable and greedy, why didn't we simply overthrow it? Why didn't 150 million people simply march in the streets and take over? After all, only a few were in power and wasn't the majority was on our side?

A few university level history courses later and I dropped these questions all together. Political change from a historical perspective usually involved violence (of course there is post-apartheid South Africa and the Velvet divorce). Most of the time a lot of people died. Revolutions required unification around an idea, and we were short on those. Also, I had ceased to believe that Pakistanis were actually capable of a political revolt. The success of the protest movement in Tunisia (and Egypt, god-willing), has changed my opinion on this.

This of course raises the point of whether a revolution is a viable form of meaningful political change in Pakistan? Given the demographic pressure, the lack of economic opportunity, the floods and the lack of proper response, the increasing gap between the elite (people like me) and the rest of the country, rising food and commodity prices, the apparent failure of state institutions such as health care and education and an ongoing Islamist insurgency, dissatisfaction with the current Pakistani government has never been higher. This does not automatically translate to revolution. Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, no one person or party can be blamed for Pakistan's downward spiral. As much as I despise Zardari, he is not solely responsible for the condition that we are in. Afterall, Nawaz Sharif bankrupted the country, Benazir Bhutto officially recognized and supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the military established the policy of using Islamic militants against India, Zia ul-Haq introduced the blasphemy laws, Zulfiqar Bhutto declared Ahmadis as non-muslims to save his political ass, Ayub Khan promoted corruption and nepotism as official policy and no one invested national resources into health, education or social welfare. Pakistan is also an ethnically, socially and politically diverse country, perhaps more so than either Egypt or Tunisia, making it difficult for everyone to agree with each other on any political platform.

Let's assume for one moment, that a revolution is viable now. Does this necessarily mean that it is most appropriate course of action to take for tangible political and social change in the country? I don't think so. Religious fundamentalism in Pakistan is at an all time high. We have an armed insurgency fighting to overthrow the government and establish an Islamic state. We have a power hungry military waiting in the wings to topple a weakened state. If there is to be a revolution right now, it would most definitely not be the one that we liberals are waiting for. The outcome would either be a same old same old military takeover (most likely) or a more disturbing prospect of Islamic fundamentalists and militants regaining power (less likely since the military will probably not allow this). And given long simmering ethnic and religious tensions, you can be sure that any peaceful protest movement is quickly going to devolve into a violent one with many breakaway groups competing for power.

If what we desperately desire in Pakistan is real social and political change, a revolution is not the way to go about it...at least not now. If our government(s) are inept and corrupt, then we have to shoulder the responsibility of building the social institutions that are so desperately needed. Pakistani civil society, especially the liberal elites behind computer screens and English language blogs (myself included) need to create a critical mass of people willing to disregard their ethnic, political and religious allegiances to embrace a common goal of political change using non-violent means. In this process of reform, a revolution should be considered as the last step.

A religious argument against blasphemy laws

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:19:00 +0000

Since the murder of Salman Taseer over his position in the case of Aasia Bibi, a Christian women charged with blasphemy, there have been numerous discussions in the Pakistani blogosphere on dealing with Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Specifically, Cafe Pyala's excellent post calling for the supporters of the blasphemy laws to be treated as blasphemers themselves and Ahsan's rebuttal (also excellent) stick out in my mind as the kind of conversations that we (liberals/leftists) should be engaging in. If there is some good to come from Taseer's death, at the very least it is our responsibility to ensure that these conversations are being carried out at an increasing volume. I am not going to wax poetic about Taseer. I disagreed with many of his political decisions and his assassination will not change my opinions on this matter. However, he fought to change the constitutional basis for blasphemy and stood up for Aasia Bibi at tremendous costs. For this, he has my eternal respect.

While Ahsan makes an excellent argument against attempting to beat the mullahs at their own game, I am going to have to disagree. Considering the prevalent religiosity in Pakistani society, it is impossible for this debate to take place on any other level. As long as people continue to believe that it is religiously sanctioned and therefore acceptable to try, convict, punish and kill people for blasphemy, there can never be any real progress on this front. For this reason it is essential that debates on this issue take place within public view to at least raise the possibility of another legitimate religious view in this matter. This debate is not for the mullahs, make no mistake about is. We will (most probably) never convince them. It is for the audience alone.

Neither can a debate of this gravity be supported by a few hadith and sunnah. If we are to delegitimize violence and the acceptance and approval of its use against blasphemers (and those perceived to be blasphemers), we need to bust out more robust arguments than the some events in the Prophet's life where he was nice to people being mean to him.

This leads me to the main point of my post. Let's consider "The chapter of the Elephant" (Surah 105:1-5), in the Quran. This surah talks about the confrontation between Abraha, the ruler of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) and the tribes of Mecca. Basically the tribes of Mecca attack Yemen, then a protectorate of the Abyssinian empire, looting many population centers and specifically destroying churches in the region. This of course angers Abraha who decides to march on a war path to Mecca, with an army of elephants (hence the name) to destroy the Kaaba, an economically and religiously important place for Meccans (pagan and otherwise). At this time, the Kaaba is under the administration of the tribe of Quraish, specifically the clan of Banu Hashim lead by Abdul-Muttalib (also happens to be grandfather of the Prophet). Once Abraha reaches Mecca, he decides to goad the Quraish into war by taking ~1000 red camels (number disputed by various sources) belonging to Abdul-Muttalib. Abdul-Muttalib seeks an audience with Abraha to demand the return of his camels. Abraha is surprised by this request. He asks Abdul-Muttalib, why he is only asking about his camels and not the Kaaba which he is the administrator of. Abdul-Muttalib replies that he is responsible for protecting his property (i.e. camels) and that Allah is responsible for protecting his (i,e, Kaaba). Abraha attacks the Kaaba and is defeated by flocks of starlings/sparrows dropping pebbles on his army at the behest of Allah.

So my argument is as follows. If you believe that Prophet Muhammad is a true prophet of Allah (and the Quran is the true message of Allah), then based on the logic behind the words of Abdul-Muttalib, Allah is completely responsible for his good name. The responsibility of defending the Prophet's honor is neither mine nor yours. This is not to say that one does not have the right to feel insulted by actions considered as blasphemy (if you so desire), but that you cannot act against it in the form of intimidation, violence or legal actions. After all, if you feel that those that commit or participate in blasphemy should be dealt through human intervention, either you have no faith in the ability of Allah to protect the good name of the Prophet/Quran or you feel that you can do a much better job. In both cases, you are doubting the ability of Allah to take care of his messenger and his message. In both cases, it is you who is committing blasphemy.

P.S. For the record, I prefer the secular/non-religious argument against blasphemy laws over religious ones. Since most Pakistanis reject secular arguments as being a) foreign and b)not-religious (obvious!) and therefore not legitimate, it is more effective to debate these matter within a religious framework. It's sad that the packaging of an argument matters more than the argument itself, but this is the social reality within which we exist and we need to deal with it.

Irrationality vs irrationality? The theist vs atheist debate

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 05:53:00 +0000

This blog is the summary/review of the series of conversations that I have had with myself, my friends and colleagues after the Blair-Hitchens debate in Toronto, a couple of weeks ago.

I did not have the opportunity to attend the Blair-Hitchens; theist-atheist debate in Toronto. This is mainly because:

1) I do not like Tony Blair; not simply because he started a war (although that would be good enough), but his lack of articulation bothers me...

2)I'm getting tired of Christopher Hitchens's crude argumentation...calling others irrational without defining what exactly he means by rationality or irrationality. His arrogance also annoys me

3)I'm a grad student. I don't have a lot of money. I don't have a lot of time(Youtube version is decent and free!)

That said, the main reason I felt no need to attend is that I am officially over the theist/atheist debate. Why? Because if you really think about it, the positions of both theists and atheists are equally irrational. Before I get into my (non)argument, I would like to present my definition of rationality/irrationality. Rationality in my opinion is the application of reason when coming to conclusions or making decisions based on given information (aka evidence). Irrationality is the opposite (sorry for the laziness).

Let's start off with the easy part: irrationality on part of the theists. If you have been following the theist/atheist debate, then you should know why theological belief is considered irrational. It all boils down to the acceptance of statements without evidence. In the Quran (7:54) and Bible (Genesis1:3-2:4), God states that he created the world/universe in a number of days (Quran: 6-8 days, Genesis: 7 days). Well, modern astrophysics show that the earth was in fact created over billions of years. From an argumentative standpoint, given that God in western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) at least (can't comment on eastern ones, don't know enough) is not bound by the confines of space and time, why god would use time to define his creation? More so, what exactly is day? It is the rotation of the earth around its axis. If there is no earth, how can a day even exist? And so on and so forth. Not to mention the basic acceptance of a deity that is the creator and master of all things without any physical evidence. (Note: the questions "how can the something as complex as the world exist without a creator?" is an argument, it is NOT evidence) Not only is there no evidence to prove the existence of god, there can be no evidence to prove his/her/it's existence. After all, if something exists beyond the realm of space and time, how can something from space and time be used as proof?

This leads me to my next part: the irrationality of atheists. Since most atheists juxtapose scientific evidence with theological statements to automatically concede that their position is the most rational one. Therefore, I am going to base my argument within this framework. From a scientific perspective, statements can only be proved through experiments. Now the experimental framework is based around the hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. In most scientific experiments there are two subsets of hypotheses: null and alternate. The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between phenomena being studied. The alternate hypothesis would be that there is a relationship between the phenomena being studied. For a relationship between the phenomena being studied to exist, the null hypothesis has to be negated (proven wrong)

Let's apply this framework to the god question: Does god exist? (Note: here I am assuming that god refers to any all power encompassing deity and is not limited to western religious conceptions of what a deity is). For this question, most people would assume that the null hypothesis is that god does not exist and that the alternate is that god does exist? Since theists cannot reject this null hypothesis using evidence, they cannot prove that god exists, at least using a scientific method. Therefore, god does not exist!

However, this is the incorrect application of the scientific framework. In actuality, the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between "god" and the existence of the universe. The positive alternate hypothesis is that there is a positive relationship between "god" and "the existence of the universe" i.e. there is a god and he/she/it created the universe (theist). The negative alternate hypothesis is that there is a negative relationship between "god" and "the existence of the universe" i.e. there is no god and therefore there is no creation (atheist). If god is as theists (at least western religious ones) believe exists beyond the realms of space and time, then as I stated earlier it is not possible to use something from space and time as proof of his/her/it's existence. Conversely, it is also not possible to use something from space and to disprove his/her/it's existence. In this case, since evidence cannot support neither the positive nor the negative alternate hypothesis, the null hypothesis continues to hold.

Based on this framework, the only rational statement is that there is neither proof for the existence or against the existence of god. Any statements made beyond this point on either side (theism/atheism) are equally irrational as they do not utilize an evidence, but rather arguments. Just because an argument is strong, it does not mean that it is correct. Logical inference cannot stand in for evidence (especially if both sides have different ideas about what is considered logical). In light of all of this, I have two main conclusions:

a) The theist/atheist debate is simply about beliefs. Belief based debates are never resolved. So good luck to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. You have a long ways to go!

b)In the spectrum of ideological stances from atheism to theism, the only truly rational position is of the one who admits that there is no evidence for either stance (I'm thinking agnostics).

Here is the Hitchens vs Blair debate in full. Enjoy!
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Final Part

Ecology of a man-made disaster I: Dams and Barrages

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:27:00 +0000

First, an aside: I would like to apologize to all my readers for my unplanned hiatus from blogging. To put it succinctly, I was busy with thesis related work as well as figuring out what direction I want to take this blog in. As most of you know, I comment mostly on political and religious events in Pakistan, South Asia, Middle East and the world. But given my background in science, I have decided to incorporate on occasion the overlap between science and society from a Pakistani/Canadian/Middle Eastern/South Asian/global perspective. The post below belongs to a series of articles in which I will be exploring these interactions. Let me know how you feel. Do you like it? Hate it? Don't care? Any questions, comments or thoughts on this development is welcome.

By now, all of us (Pakistanis, expats, regional/political junkies and news buffs) know the stats all too well. Approximately 2,000-3,000 deaths have been reported (official death tolls haven't begun to update information). Twenty two million people are affected directly. One fifth of the country is under water. The arterial network of roads and bridges connecting the country together have collapsed. Then, there is the political side. The incompetency of the elected elites has been revealed (again). Their disinterest in the welfare of the Pakistani people has been duly noted . The political ambition of the armed forces had become evident (no surprise). On a social scale, the deep rooted xenophobia against Ahmadis with the withholding of government aid has risen its ugly head, only months after the mass murder of more than 80 Ahmadi muslims in their mosques in Lahore. And let's not forget about the marginalization of Christian, Hindus and other religious minorities affected by the flood. I'm going to stop here. Bloggers more informed and educated than myself have explored these issues previously in their posts. There is nothing enlightening that I can add to these debates. However, what is missing from the discourse around these floods is an understanding of the basic ecology of this disaster.

Before I proceed, I would like to clarify my stance on these floods. These floods are a man-made disaster. They are the direct consequence of the incompetence of our ruling elite (civilian or military) to recognize flood vulnerability, develop necessary infrastructure and agencies capable of dealing with disasters and reveal the lack of basic geophysical understanding of the region which they rule.

Let's start with some basic facts about the Indus. The hydrology (rate of water flow) is influenced by three factors: seasonal snow melt, glacial and permanent snow melt from the Himalayan, Hindu Kush and Karakorum mountain ranges and monsoon rains from July to September. These three flow components vary seasonally in fairly consistent patterns which are termed 'hydrological regimes'. As we all know, greater than normal monsoon rains caused an increase in seasonal flow leading to flooding. But why did these monsoons deviate from the norm in the first place? Consider the diagram below:

(Image taken from New Scientist , Aug 2010)

According to Dr. Mike Blackburn from University of Reading UK, there has been a shift in the normal pattern of the jet stream; a fast flowing narrow air current which separates areas of high and low pressure, moving north and south as it rushes around the globe from west to east. Its wave-like shape is caused by Rossby waves – powerful spinning wind currents that push the jet stream north and south. Under normal conditions, the jet stream moves eastwards during the summer months carrying with it moisture and rain. However, meteorologists noticed a change in this regular pattern. Instead of moving eastwards, the jet stream is currently fixed in place, dumping all of the rain in the northern Pakistan resulting in greater than normal flows.

The floods may start here, but their impacts have been exacerbated by human mismanagement. Firstly, there is excessive sedimentation. According to the Climate Himalaya Initiative, the Indus is one of the most sediment producing rivers on the planet. The Indus transports 250 megatons (Mt) of sediments, the equivalent of 15 million dump trucks to the Arabian sea annually. This amount has fallen to100 Mt, with construction of dams and barrages which trap the majority of the sediment. The massive sediment deposition at Tarbela Dam specifically, is the most problematic. Completed in 1976, Tarbela Dam was assumed to have a lifespan until 2030. However, given that over 6 billion tons of sediment (sand, silt and mud) have already accumulated in the first twenty-five years, forming an underwater delta slowly growing towards the dam and greatly affecting its structural stability and electricity production, it is very possible that Tarbela Dam may become ineffective over a shorter than predicted period of time.

Close up of Tarbela Dam (Image Credit: Through the Sand Glass)

Following in this vein, I would also like to point out the engineering failure at Taunsa Barrage, which was highlighted in this article (August 20th 2010) by Mushtaaq Gaadi:

The main problem with Taunsa barrage is the rising riverbed owing to huge sediment deposition in the upstream areas(...)Taunsa barrage traps huge sediments left over from the upstream storage and diversion structures. Moreover, the pond area is additionally fed annually with large amounts of silt eroded from the highly degraded catchment areas of the Suleiman Range. These heavy silt loads are transported through western tributaries (hill-torrents) of the Indus River.

Sediment deposition due to dams and barrages becomes a problem in the light of the river's base level. Base level refers to the lowest point at which it can flow. In the context of the Indus, the base level is equal to the sea level which has been shown to profoundly impact its structure and behaviour. When a dam/barrage is erected, it behaves like a base level on a local scale causing the upstream part of the river to respond. Because the base level of the river upstream from the dam has been raised, the flows react with sediment deposition. This should not be a problem, if a constant reservoir level is maintained (a new stable state is achieved). However, if this level remains unstable, the flow will alternate between deposition and erosion. For both Tarbela Dam and Taunsa Barrage, the reservoir levels have been raised, inducing more deposition. This has lead to major modifications in the riverbed upstream, resulting in large changes in local flow. Consider this: the floods upstream of Tarbela were more deadly and destructive as compared with downstream.

(Image Credit: Critical Threats)

With every dam and barrage, the system of the Indus is modified. Every time the base level changes, the Indus changes. The system of barrages and dams across the region have resulted in a unnatural riverine system, with no checks and balances. If these structures are built, proper maintenance is crucial. However, at this time Pakistan does not possess the technology or the expertise to maintain reservoir levels and control this massive sedimentation problem. As one Pakistani civil engineer told me, "it's not as if we are not aware of the problems surrounding sedimentation, it's just that we can't deal with it."

All of this is not to say that the flood would not have occurred if proper measures were taken. But it would be dishonest to not point out the ways in which human modifications across the Indus river considerably heightened these impacts.

Coming Soon: Ecology of a man-made disaster II: The implementation gap

Appendix: For those of you who would like to know more about the river management system currently in place in the Indus, click here to view a map of all of Pakistan's dams and barrages (source: UN World Food Programme)

Burn Baby Burn (Updated)

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:27:00 +0000

Let me start off by saying that the whole "Burn a Koran Day" does not hold my attention in the slightest, basically because I don't believe in giving religious extremists a podium to preach their ideology from. So when I initially heard of "Burn a Koran Day" in late July, I ignored it. After all, both Reverend Terry Jones and his Dove Outreach Centre in Gainsville Florida were condemned early on by hardcore evangelists. However, despite my most sincere wishes this story has grown to epic proportions. Case in point, the CNN video page showcases more than four different entries for this story ranging from the basic story itself to the Muslim reaction to it, to the reaction of the Pentagon and other senior US officials, to condemnations from all over the world including the Vatican.

What started out as an attention seeking activity from a rogue church leader has become an internationally significant event, even if it doesn't happen. People are going to die. Somewhere in the world on September 11th, some nutcase is going to kill Americans or American looking individuals, or individuals and groups affiliated with Americans or individuals and groups thought to be affiliated with Americans (Pakistani Shiites and Ahmadis, I'm looking at you). And if that wasn't bad enough, here is kicker. From the worldwide condemnations that have been issue so far, it is clear that the rest of the world expects with absolute certainity that Muslims or individuals within the fabric of the Islamic faith will participate in violence against their fellow man. Basically, the world expects us to be violent.

If this isn't screwed up, I don't know what is.

P.S. I would like to apologize for all of my regular readers for my hiatus. I just had a lot of thesis related work to do.

Update I: Burn a Koran Day has been cancelled as of 5:23pm EST. More details to follow

We are all Harami

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:58:00 +0000

On August 15th 2010, two brothers Moiz Butt and Monib Butt were publicly tortured and beaten to death by a mob in a village near Sialkot. Not the Taliban or any extremist organization, but by the public. And not just murdered, but brutally tortured for two hours for "allegations" of robbery (even if the allegations were true, it is still not acceptable). As Haroon Riaz points out, there was no proof, no trial. Nothing, but public justice. According to reports, the Punjab Emergency Service 122 arrived at the scene, but were prevented from intervening by the local Police and security organizations.

To top it all off the whole incident was recorded for posterity. Apart from being extremely violent and highly distrubing the videos also highlight the indifference, the lack of response by the public. No one, I repeat, no one looks perturbed by what is happening in front of them. They are indifferent, enjoying this brutal spectacle, this "tamasha" and at times egg the attackers on. The crowd is dotted with the grey caps of Police officers, but no one steps in to stop this mass lynching. At one point, a young child steps in and participates.

Image Credit: Cartoon Stock

So much for Pakistan's "image deficit". From where I'm standing, it seems pretty well deserved.

Remember, when the Ahmadi mosques were attacked in Lahore earlier this year and everyone; the media, the politicians and the civil society blamed the Taliban and extremists.

Image Credit: Pak Defense Forum

Well, it was all a lie. To be more specific, we were lying to ourselves.

Image Credit: Sodahead

You see by pushing the responsibility of the murder of 90 Ahamdis on the extremists, we absolved ourselves from any sins in this matter. Forget about the ostracism of Ahmadis on a national scale.

Image Credit: The Persecution

Forget about the calls for the removal of Ahamdis from public office.

Image Credit: Ahmadiyya Times

It wasn't us.

Image Credit: Martin Kronicle

But as this gruesome lynching shows, we do not need any extremist ideology to precipitate extreme acts of violence. We just need ourselves.

Image Credit: Parental Gleanings

This is not to say that the prevalence of extremist ideology is not a problem, but that this ideology is not simply something thrust upon us by evil Saudi petrodollars. The prevalence of extremism in our society is a product of our gradual descent towards intolerance.

Image Credit: Txt2Pic

As a society we do not tolerate dissent of thought and action from the accepted social norms. Anyone who engages in any behaviour deemed to be outside of these norms is ostracized and put down, often through violence. The blasphemy laws, the ~~discrimination of~~ special provisions for Ahamdis in the Pakistani constitutions, the mal treatment of religious minorities, the imposition of Urdu as the national language are all a product of this social mindset. These political developments nurture an intolerant national narrative. This creates a negative feedback loop heightening social intolerance which leads to the Lal Masjid incident, the burning of more than 70 christian houses in Gojra, Punjab and the increasing attacks on Ahamdis, Shiites and Hindus, the almost daily suicide bombings in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the attack on the Data darbar shrine.

The general reaction to this public lynching has been extremely predictable at least within the blogosphere. Many of my fellow bloggers are wondering how people could have stood by and watched, even participated in the murder of two human beings. In my opinion this outrage is entirely superfluous. After all in a society where dissent is not tolerated, where difference of opinion is not respected, where a group of flood victims were denied aid and governmental assistance because they were Ahamdis, would you expect anything else?

In several conversations, I have heard people refer to the individuals involved in this violence as harami. However, to paraphrase Thomas Moore if we are the ones who create these individuals/haramis in the first place and then we punish them, what does this say about us? Aren't we equally, if not more Harami?

Sidenote 1: Harami is a Urdu/Hindi profanity which can be interpreted as being equivalent to bastard X10.

Sidenote 2: One of the pioneers to develop the concept of Pakistanis as Haramis was my fellow blogger Karachi Khatmal, whom I hold in the highest regard.

Pakistan Floods: How to donate effectively

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:26:00 +0000


Villagers jostle for relief supplies at flood hit area in Basera, near Muzaffargarh. Image Credit: Associated Free Press

With rampaging floods moving towards Southern Sindh threatening the ruins of Moenjodaro and Benazir Bhutto's mausoleum in Garhi Khuda Baksh and leaving behind a fourth of the country under water, Pakistan is facing a massive humanitarian crisis. Anywhere from 6 million to over 20 million people have been displaced by the floods, more than the number of people affected by the 2004 Tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake combined. With reports of cholera outbreaks and other water-borne diseases on the rise, there are fears that the death toll could rise. Given that only 20% of United Nations $460 million dollar relief goal has been raised so far, there is a serious need for more relief funds. According to this BBC statistic, only $6.85 has been donated so far per flood survivor (most of this is unconfirmed pledges).

If you are like me and have decided to donate an X amount of funds to this disaster, it is very likely that you are now facing a conundrum. With the vast amount of donation options out there and your limited funding capability as an individual, how can you ensure that the donation that you make will provide flood victims with the most bang from your buck?

You have to determine two things: 1) what are the resources needed and 2) what are the resources that you are interested in funding. In the case of Pakistan's floods, there are three main immediate resource needs: adequate shelter, food supplements and medical supplies. There are several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in fulfilling these needs. (Side note: Pakistanis can also donate to a government trust, but considering the level of corruption within the bureaucracy, I'm not going to opt for that).

Adequate Shelter and Food Supplements

1) United Nation High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has partnered with mGive in the United States to allow for mobile donations. Text SWAT to 50555 will help donate towards flood victims helping to fund tents and emergency aid to families in need (US only). Please reply YES when prompted to confirm your gift. You can also donate to the UNHCR emergency fund which will help to provide blankets, refugee survival kits (containing a mattress, cooking stove, blankets and soap) and weather proof tents to displaced persons.

2) Save the Children
Save the Children has been working to provide food supplies, shelter materials and hygiene kits to 37,800 adults and children in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa region and are currently expanding their services into the affected regions of Punjab and Sindh. They are also fund raising through mobile donations (US only); Text 20222 to donate $10 to the Pakistan emergency fund. You can also donate online as well as via telephone. About 90% of all donations go towards their designated programs. Click here to access their financial records for fiscal year 2008 and 2009.

3) United Nations World Food Programme (UNWFP)
The UN World Food Programme is providing food supplies to flood victims all over Pakistan. They work in partnership with other local and international NGOs to ensure that food supplies reach where they are needed. The WFP is currently supporting 430,000 individuals and hopes to reach 2 million people by the end of this August 20th, the largest amount ever supported in this organization's history. You can donate online here. Donations are tax deductible for residents of the Unites States, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, Australia, and Hong Kong.

4)Edhi Foundation
Edhi Foundation is leading the flood relief efforts in Pakistan and have already begun providing services to affected individuals in Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Punjab. They are the largest and the most respected private NGO in Pakistan and known for their notorious approach to effectively lowering administrative and service costs. In you are in Pakistan, donating to this organization is probably a good idea. Donations can be made in person or through the phone at local Edhi Centers.

Medical Care

5)Medicins Sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders)
Medicins Sans Frontiers is providing emergency medical care to flood victims in Pakistan via mobile clinics and health centers in all four provinces affected as well as sanitation equipment, water, drugs and medical material to displaced persons. You can donate online or through the phone at local MSF offices. MSF's audited financial statements for the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 can be accessed here.

6)International Red Cross/Red Crescent (ICRC)
The joint International Red Cross/Red Crescent is currently seeking $16,333,000 (US) of funds to support 25,000 families for a period of nine months in terms of food, water, sanitation services and emergency medical services. It is working closely with the Pakistani branch of the IRC to deliver these services on the ground. You can donate online or at your local Red Cross and Red Crescent offices via telephone. Please select Pakistan when asked to specify a program.

Once you have identified which resources you would like to provide, you can donate to the organization of your choice (not limited to list above).

For individuals abroad: If you and your family members are considering making individual donations, you might want to consider spreading out funds across a large number of NGOs, both Pakistani and international so that you can assist with a variety of resource needs. If you are considering pooling your funds together as a family, pick an organization of your choice and ensure that at least 85% of the funds donated are going to the designated services. If you have relatives in Pakistan, it would be more effective to send donations to them which can be used to purchase items needed by small local NGOs. A list of items urgently needed can be accessed here. Note: The list is located halfway through the document, so please scroll down.

For individuals in Pakistan: You have the option of purchasing and donating the goods and resources needed. There is currently a great need for food supplies, clothing, water purification tablets, bedding materials, medicines and drinking water. Please contact the NGO of your choice when determining which items to donate. When donating money, keep in mind that the most effective way to donate is through cash. Donations made through credit card or cheque may take up to a week to be processed and can slow down the aid process considerably.

Dealing with the Floods: How can you help?

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:13:00 +0000

Both Kalsoom(Chup) and the good folks at All Things Pakistan have compiled a list of organizations you can donate to. If you've already donated and can give more, please do so. If you are in Pakistan and in close proximity to any of the areas that are affected, please volunteer. The victims of these floods need all the help they can get.

Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, here is the before picture (from NASA via Tazeen @ twitter) of Sindh and Punjab

and here is the after

And the beat goes on

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:18:00 +0000

With the widespread tragedy unfolding in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Northern Balochistan, one would think that across the country people would be mobilizing to collect and distribute aid, house refugees and rebuild. And most are. But others are bent on contributing to the human tragedy. Just as the official death toll rises from 360 people to 900 people to 1,200 people where it currently stands, the public assassination of MQM Member of Provincial Assembly (MPA) Raza Haider has left ethnic tensions running high in Karachi. According to the most recent reports,within two hours of the assassination, widespread rioting began resulting in the burning of over forty vehicles, with an estimated fourteen dead and a hundred injured. There are no signs of this violence abating and more is on its way. According to Babar Ghauri, a senior MQM figure "if the municipal, provincial and national government does not react to this appropriately then we will be unable to control our party members."

So more people are going to die because members of the MQM are prone to behave like overly emotional two year olds in contrast to mature adults that they consider themselves to be. In my opinion, both the ANP and the MQM need to realize that political tension between them has life altering consequences for the rest of us who couldn't care less about their feud. People die because they are unable to reconcile their political differences, because they are bent on vengeance. Both parties may address valid social and political concerns of their respective ethnic groups, but the level of violence precipitated by these two groups effectively delegitimizes these concerns. I'm not alone in saying that Karachi would be a far better place if these groups did not exist.

In addition to inflamed ethnic tensions, there have been some indications that the assassination of Raza Haider, a prominent Shiite politician bear the hallmarks of a Sipah-e-Sahaba (SSP)/ Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) attack. Considering that Sipah-e-Sahaba has made a comeback in Karachi especially with the targeted attack on a Shiite religious procession last year and have connected with Taliban movements across Pakistan, this is very likely. This issue has been raised by Interior Minister Rehman Malik, though it is possible that both SSP and LeJ are being used as scapegoats since the federal government might be unwilling to take sides in this contentious issue because it depends on MQM support.

To sum up, we don't know who killed MQM MPA Raza Haider, was it ANP or the super sectarian duo SSP-LeJ? Not that it makes any difference. The MQM is already behaving in a manner that suggest that it blames the ANP. Member of MQM Coordination Committee Wasey Jalil in an interview with Express Tribune stated that

the MQM is hundred per cent sure that Shahi Sayed and the ANP are behind the ongoing target killing incidents and killing of Raza Haider.

With the MQM in full vengeance mode, who need a judicial inquiry?

God is giving terrorists a tough competition (Update)

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:43:00 +0000

(Image Credit: A.Majeed, Associated Free Press)

Reading Pakistani newspapers is being awash in tragedy on an almost daily basis. Everyday someone dies, in freak road accidents, suicides, plane crashes, robberies gone wrong, political violence, gang warfare, terrorist attacks, stampedes, flooding....and the list goes on. As Ahsan points out, there is scarcely enough time to for the media and the blogosphere to catch a break. We don't have the luxury to digest tragedies and make sense of them.

Over the past four years, news reports have been inundated with reports of militant violence, first on military and police personnel and then on civilians. Rarely a day went by without bombs going off in crowded marketplaces, mosques full of worshippers and residential areas. Overtime we figured out a way to cope with this. We cursed the organizations that participated in these mass murders, blamed the government for its inaction, remained glued to our TV sets and prayed like hell. Somehow we got on with our lives.

This week however, we are facing tragedies of a different nature. The first is the crash of Airblue Jet ED202 in the Margalla Hills of Islamabad which killed all 152 passengers. The second is the flooding in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa region and Norther Balochistan which has killed 430 people and affected more than a million. And the worst is yet to be over.

The situation surrounding these two incidents is full of unknowns. We don't know what caused the crash in the first place, was it the weather, pilot error or engine/mechanical failure? We don't know who to blame for the floods; the central government for not investing more in rural infrastructure, the corrupt politicians who use public money to line their own pockets, the majority of Pakistanis who don't pay the taxes needed to provide important services which could have prevented this disaster/saved more lives or God, who decided to make it rain so much in the first place. (I'm gonna go with God, this way I won't have to take any responsibility). We don't have any idea of the damage done or how long it will take. And the biggest of all: We just don't know how to deal with this.

P.S. The title is shamelessly plagiarised from Fahad Desmukh's tweet. All the credit goes to him

Update I: (11:56AM Eastern Standard Time), as of now more than 2.5 million people are affected by the flooding of the Swat and Kabul rivers. The death toll has risen to 1,100 with reports of cholera outbreaks. There have been a few videos released showing the rescue efforts and the extent of the flooding

Islamic Relief UK has posted a series of videos from Nowshera which has become a refuge for flooding victims

Here is a Guardian interview with an aid worker in swat who did not wished to be identified for security reasons:

Listen!

There have also been reports of hoarders and profiteers charging exorbitant prices for essential goods. There are also fears of more flooding as the levels of the Indus river at Guddu and Sukkur barrages are rising significantly.

The Guardian is providing important minute to minute update on the situation here.

Human life is cheap (Update)

noreply@blogger.com (roti fan) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:07:00 +0000

It's ironic that just after the leak of Afghan war logs showing the United States and NATO's utter disregard for the lives of Afghan civlians, 152 people were killed today when an Airblue Airbus crashed today in the Margalla Hills of Islamabad. Six members of the Youth Parliament Pakistan and two U.S. Embassy personnel have been reported to be among the dead. Dawn News has posted the full passenger list on its website including the number for Crisis Management Cell (051-9211223-4) which provides more information about the passengers on board.

According to reports, bad weather is listed as the main cause of the crash but the details remain unclear. An official investigation is curently underway to determine the exact nature of the incident. The black box has also been retrieved although as Geo news is currently reporting Pakistan lacks the capability to analyse it.

The most disgusting thing about this incident was the behaviour of the Pakistani media. As both Ahsan and XYZ have pointed out, reporters from all of Pakistan's broadcast news organization showed an extreme lack of tact and sympathy for the victims and their families. The worst in my opinion, however was an asinine blogger claiming that the plane crash was a conspiracy to divert public attention from the fake degrees scandal rocking Pakistan's political elite.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the federal cabinet have declared today as a "national day of mourning" for the victims of this tragedy. United States President Barack Obama also offered his condolences to the friends and relatives of those killed adding that the “The American people stand with the people of Pakistan in this moment of tragedy.”

I am counting my blessings right now. No one I know has been affected by this tragedy. But there are at least 152 families that have not been so lucky. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.

Update I: Another day, another tragedy. Dawn News has just reported that an additional 150 people have died in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and Northern Baluchistan due to flash floods caused by torrential rains.