Gobind Thukral

FOR some famine and drought are big business as is misery. They wait for troubled times so that they can profit. Arms dealers, those who supply either to states or to groups and individuals always pray for disturbance, battles and wars. They love acrimony, feuds and discord. Similarly as India faces one of its worst droughts, these gentlemen in government agencies, traders in food grains and other essential items and all sorts of middlemen are getting ready to make money.

Prices of all essential commodities are soaring as the government seems to be a party to this endless game of profiteering. Since these days information travels fast and shortage of say pulses in India immediately pushes up the prices of pulses world over and even in countries like Burma and Vietnam. Fast transport by sea lines, roads and rails does not make even plenty of production in one country or region lower prices and a consequent relief.

Right now in India’s capital, plenty of representatives of big trading houses from many countries that deal in foodgrains, pulses and other commodities are busy striking deals. They are searching right contacts at the official and political levels and are offering big cuts. Prices would be adjusted accordingly. Recently parliament was rocked by rice export scandal worth Rs 2,500 crore. How traders’ genius works leaves everyone dumb.  The government of India had banned the export of rice as it feared drought condition will need more stocks back home.  But agents brought a proposal from some African countries that since there was food shortage, they needed rice on humanitarian grounds. India must show good gesture. But the rice that was exported partly went to other countries and through other agents who made quick money. Some in Delhi must have lined up their pockets. Food shortages, droughts or famines are a big business.

The month of June is the driest in 83 years. The monsoon -which brings rains between June and September -- has so far fallen short by more than a quarter of the usual rains.  The meteorology department says the monsoon at best would bring only 87 per cent of the usual rains this year. The monsoon is crucial for sowing summer crops like paddy, as nearly 60 per cent of farms have no access to irrigation. This is our progress after 62 years of independence.

For five years, the fact that investments in the farm sector were either ill-spent or allocated skimpily did not matter because nature bestowed the country with enough rain and the organised economy’s searing growth blinded policymakers to the fragility of the farm sector.

Both the wayward monsoons and the poor performance of the Government show the cumulative and current failure of planning and capacity-building. For decades India has been both the beneficiary and victim of rain but despite alternating droughts, good rains and accompanying floods there has been no systemic attempt at building capacities to harness the excess rain for the dry day. A nation that has both droughts and floods in equal measure, cities that suffer anxiety attacks at both scanty rain and too much of it, should have pioneered water harvesting and conservation.

The UPA Government has shown some concern and the prime minister held a meeting with the chief secretaries of all the state. Ideally he should have called a meeting of the chief ministers, as that would have provided a lead.”In no case should we allow our citizens to go hungry. Is Dr Manmohan Singh that able economist not aware of the harsh reality that at least 30 per cent of Indians are living on one meal a day? Is that not hunger or mal- nutrition that kills millions of children and mothers?

While many of the 161 districts declared drought-hit by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee are not major crop producers, his statement underscored growing concern that a weak monsoon could reduce the output of crops and dampen the recovery of the broader economy. Agriculture accounts one fifth of the GDP and over 60 per cent people live by farming and allied occupations.

There is a shortfall of nearly 6 million hectares in the sowing of paddy. The acreage under sugarcane and oilseeds is also lower than in the corresponding period last year. Experts have pointed out that the shortfall in paddy area and the harm to the standing crop will bring about a steep decline in the production of kharif crops, mainly paddy. This will fuel a further hike in the prices of essentials.

India witnessed its worst drought in 1987, when it received 29 per cent less than normal rainfall in July, resulting in a 7 per cent contraction in the kharif crop. Mukherjee said they managed quite well then -- "we transported drinking water through Railways, organized fodder" -- and would manage this time too. He said GDP growth this year would less than 6 per cent.

August usually provides nearly 30 per cent of the monsoon rainfall. Poor rains in the opening days of this month have pushed the seasonal deficit for the country as a whole to 25 per cent. If the rains fail to pick up this month, a bad situation could become a whole lot worse. North-western India has already been badly hit, with the rainfall deficit now standing at 40 per cent. It is from this region that the monsoon starts its withdrawal, a process that often begins in early September and then extends gradually to the rest of the country. So the rains in August will have a huge impact on this region. A poor monsoon no longer brings with it the spectre of famine but droughts significantly reduce food grain production and the GDP. There has been a sharp drop in paddy cultivation this monsoon, at least 20 per cent.

Luckily for India, we have had five good years of monsoon. Stocks of wheat and rice are enough to last another two years. but the government mismanagement and corruption  first eats away stored food grains and the public distribution system in a shambles. We can look around in Punjab and Haryana to find the truth. There are godowns full of wheat and getting soaked in rains or being eaten by rodents. Who would set the system right? poverty would be no issue.

BACK

Sharm el-Sheikh and appeasement: a lesson in history

Chaitanya Kalbag

O tempora! O mores!  Were that Cicero were alive today to witness the depths India is plumbing in self-deception, we might have heard the opening words of his famous oration repeated. Leader after leader of the world’s biggest democracy is standing up to be counted with words that can only be described as desperation wrapped in dementia inside dyslexia.

“We have nothing to hide”; “We are an open book”.  And, the day after Manmohan Singh delivered a courageous defence of the joint statement that has brought him so much vexation, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee made a speech in parliament that excoriated all the doubters.

And then Mukherjee said something that would make students of history blanch:

“Everybody knew that before the Second World War when Chamberlain entered into the Munich Pact, that it is not going to succeed, but it was considered necessary because they thought that the last effort should be made to save the world from the impending Second World War. This is the lesson of diplomacy, which we should not forget. Pakistan is going to exist and our relationship with Pakistan has not been cordial from the very beginning. But keeping the communication channel open does not mean it is conceding or surrendering on any particular point. Foreign policy is the extension of the national interest in the context of the external situation and atmosphere.”

Dear, dear Pranabda. He was barely three years old when Neville Chamberlain gifted Hitler the Sudetenland, the border area in Czechoslovakia where Germans were in a majority.

Chamberlain told his people he had averted war. He was proud of his appeasement and believed he had given Hitler what seemed to be his “reasonable” demand. After all, the same year (1938) Time magazine voted Hitler the Man of the Year.

Mukherjee can be forgiven for not remembering Chamberlain’s words: “However much we may sympathise with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbour … If we have to fight, it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul; armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me... War is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear before we embark on it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake.” (Emphasis mine) 
Ringing words. And ringing words were what Prime Minister Singh delivered in parliament on July 29. “I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the best way forward,” he said. And later, “Let me say that in the affairs of two neighbours we should recall what President Reagan once said – trust but verify. There is no other way unless we go to war.”

Let us refresh our memories on what the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement said. "Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues," the communique said.  Bracketed?  All issues ... including all outstanding issues?

That bit of “bad drafting”, as Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon so helpfully put it, was followed by a wan ruling party damning the prime minister with ten days of silence and then a pallid statement earlier this week that left it to him to hoist himself out of trouble.

The opposition outcry was led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, and what a glorious example they set!  Atal Behari Vajpayee's peace-making bus trip to Lahore in early 1999 was followed by the Kargil war, which Pervez Musharraf now proudly says forced India to discuss Kashmir  (ergo, "all outstanding issues" above).

I well remember the ignominy of shepherd boys noticing that all the commanding heights along the Srinagar-Leh highway had been quietly occupied by heavily-armed Pakistani "irregulars".  (Ten years ago the Pakistanis had not learnt phrases like "non-state actors").  And Musharraf, who gave India a bloody nose, today gleefully owns up to the Northern Light Infantry, battalions of which had been set up specifically to stage the Kargil attack.  In fact, Musharraf’s smug boasts drowned out whatever few efforts were made to track down the families of the Indian soldiers who died in the Kargil war.

Anybody reporting on Kargil in 1999 knows that the Pakistanis agreed to end their "aggressive patrolling" -- another piece of doublespeak from Musharraf -- only after U.S. President Bill Clinton twisted Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's arm in Washington.

The sub-text in 1999 was the West’s fear that India and Pakistan would unleash their newly-acquired nuclear weapons on one another.  The spectre of a subcontinental Armageddon has only grown over the past decade. “There are uncertainties on the horizon, and I cannot predict the future in dealing with neighbours, two nuclear powers,” Manmohan Singh told parliament, referring to Pakistan and China.

Five months after Kargil, Pakistan-nurtured “freedom fighters” again put India’s broken nose into splints with the hijack of Indian Airlines Flight 814 to Kandahar.  We watched the humiliating spectacle of our foreign minister escorting terrorist leaders to the Afghan city to be swapped with the Indian hostages.

Nothing daunted, Vajpayee invited Musharraf to the Agra summit in July 2001 – an event that the Pakistanis turned to their own advantage with what can only be described as “muscular diplomacy”.  Five months later, terrorists staged the attack on India’s parliament.

Again and again, Pakistan has extended its fist to India’s palm.  And Musharraf, the man who taught his Indian interlocutors the fencer’s art of feint and thrust and parry and lunge, is now feted and wooed by Indian talk-show hosts and conference organisers who proclaim him the only man who cracked down on terrorism and wished for peace with his “big and powerful neighbour” (see Chamberlain above).

The travesty is that Musharraf did underwrite secret talks between his emissaries and Indian envoys that brought the neighbours within sight of a tantalising Kashmir solution, a formula that would render the 740-kilometre Line of Control redundant.  But Musharraf’s own overweening ego brought about his downfall, and the secret talks now hang like a chimera over the blood and smoke of the Mumbai attacks.

Manmohan Singh made an admirable speech on Wednesday.  It was a good speech from a man of peace.  But the genteel negotiators of Delhi’s South Block must contend with the stomp and swagger of the denizens of Rawalpindi’s Army HQ.  And the ever-hopeful Indians need to remember what Canada’s Lester Pearson said a long time ago: “Diplomacy is letting someone else have your way.”  Not the other way round.

[The writer is former editor in chief of the Hindustan Times and former head of Reuters Asia bureau in Singapore. He as says “has spent Thirty-five years of writing, editing and living in seven countries. Trying to make sense of what is going on around me.”]

BACK

India's Muslim Question

Bal Anand

MY search for answers & explanations to, 'India's Muslim Questions' had, as if, begun very early in life. I can recall, with all the profound innocence of a four years old, the strange atmosphere of the summer of 1947. The red covered 'Vahi', also called 'Chaupatta', i.e. the double-folded long-paper-sheets, family-record-book, confirms, "July 26: Rs 7/- spent on the materials for 'Amrit-paan', i.e. the Sikh Baptism ceremony". The partaker was my father who had added, 'Singh' to the given family name and also started sporting the Sikh 'Kachhehra', i.e.  long pair of breeches extending up to knees instead of Dhoti. He also gave up sharing the 'Hookah', i.e. the traditional 'hubble bubble' with his grand father. He was exactly 27 year old at that time, well read and well travelled, his spiritual journey from from a 'Sahajdhari' to 'Amritdhari', I may now say, reflected the spirit - 'Garam Hawa' - of the fast changing Time! The 'Vahi' has also on record that my great grandfather, a renowned physician-scholar and Guru of my father, passed away on 19th October - a day after the death of long ruling popular Nawab Ahmed Ali of Maler Kotla, the only Muslim state in the east of Sutluj.
         
It was on 29th October 1947, at the Bhog Ceremony, i.e. the last prayer for my departed  great-grandfather after the complete recital of the Sikh scripture, Shri Guru Granth Sahib, that I overheard - and half understood - Pandit Barkha Ram, a learned Brahmin and close friend of the departed, saying "Ghor Kali Yug -the worst of the epochal ages - has indeed arrived; the noble people can no longer endure witnessing the brutal killings and the grossest injustice being heaped on humanity...". The first 100 days of the long awaited freedom of ancient Hindustan and birth of a brand new nation, Pakistan - the land of the Pure - had indeed witnessed the worst kind of violence against innocent people, in the name of religions!

The emergence of Pakistan had been considered an inevitable historical and political necessity by the retreating British empire; hailed as the ultimate solution to the Muslim 'Question/Problem' of Hindustan by the separatist Muslim League led by a determined lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and an avoidable most tragic blunder by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad & the Indian National Congress. The unprecedented situation was seen by many as the culmination of a process of churning, for centuries, of the waters of the civilization of the great Indo-Gangetic plains - containing both the Amrit, the heavenly liquid & also the worst poison. The Shiva like figure, Mahatma Gandhi, who could have swallowed the 'poison of raging communal hatred' was soon eliminated from the scene by elements interested in only the relentless pursuit of Power.

The majority of my school teachers were 'the refugees' from the other side of the Radcliffe Line. One of them, the erudite Ashni Kumar, remained my, 'friend, philosopher, guide & Guru Extraordinaire' till he breathed his last in 1991. He belonged to the town of Gujarat, the home of legendary folk heroine, Sohni. He had studied in Lahore in the early thirties and used to tell me  proudly that he was taught English by Prof. Madan Gopal Singh who was killed in the communal riots (like another brilliant Prof. Brij Narain of Economics) and great Sanskrit scholar Dr. Raghuvira who had later become President of then Bhartiya Jan Sangh. We exchanged regular correspondence often dealing at length on issues relating to religion, politics education, literature, particularly in Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi etc. He was, with his clearly progressive leanings, always so eloquent on themes of communal harmony referring to the deepest reservoirs of  goodwill in all religious texts-and the ghashtly gaps in practice by the followers! When I had joined the college in Maler Kotla, he would ask me about the atmosphere of studies and the attitudes of Muslim Students. He would tell me that majority of his friends in college in Lahore were Muslims who used to tease him saying 'the real communalist is your Gandhi who is always indulging in strange religious practices in public; our Jinnah never goes to any mosque, nor does he observe any other Islamic rituals ... loves 'good' things of life!'. They would add that Jinnah mostly talked of the economic backwardness of Muslims and their lesser than legitimate share in the structure & system of the prevailing, and would be, governance of the nation.

It was in the above background that the title, 'Muslims in Indian Economy' First Edition, September 2006, caught my attention at the book sale counter on 1st January 2009 at the annual day long cultural congregation organised in memory of playwright political activist Safdar Hashmi 'martyred by hooligans of Congress Party in 1989'. The book has been published by Three Essays Collective in its series focusing on 'issues of contemporary concern ... to familiarise readers with current debates ... '. The reference to the similar questions  above by my school teacher - debated during the decade following the adoption of the Resolution of 'Sampooran Swaraj' i.e. Complete Independence on 26th January 1929 and preceding 'The Resolution of Pakistan' on 21st March 1940 in the same city on the Banks of river Ravi. This comparatively slimmer paperback - 240 pages, Rs 275 (India) elsewhere $15 - volume by Omar Khalidi, 'an independent scholar and a staff member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology' poses all the relevant questions in the Introduction of the book, "What is the economic condition of the Indian Muslims at the dawn of the twenty first century? ... How does the economic profile of the Muslims compare with the majority Hindus, Dalits, and minorities like Christians, Sikhs & Parsis? ... Does Islam, or Islam as interpreted or lived, have anything to do with it? ... What is the record of the post-independence central and state governments? ...". Prof. Khalidi rightly points out that 'answers to these questions require a dispassionate reading of contemporary history ... it is also necessary for the appropriate corrective measure that need to be taken, both by the community leadership and by the state'.

The writer refers in the Preface and Acknowledgement that the Indian Muslim Council USA has funded the research for this book. The readership targeted - 'audiences' according to him - is "India's movers & shakers: legislators, administrators, politicians, leaders in business & industry, and the like". The theme of the book, stated in the introduction by the author, demanded treatment in manageable components in terms of regions or sectors of 'the 130 million Muslims in India ... the second largest Muslim population in the world'. The chapter titled 'Medieval and Colonial India' hurriedly traces the contours of the Muslim society as it evolved c.1200-1800 with three broad categories: the aristocracy and nobility, both secular & religious, the artisans and the cultivators. The Muslim peasants and cultivators, like their counterparts in other religions, remained economically active in agricultural production, fishing, herding and other manual work. Independent professionals among Muslims were few, except the traditional doctors or Hakims. The pattern of Muslim economic life did not change radically during the Mughal period of northern India (1520s-1720s) .The steady growth of the authority of East India company eroded the position of Muslims in law courts and in 1835, the introduction of English as the language for official governmental and legal business further marginalised the Muslims. The disaster, according to author, was "the Mutiny of 1857, which though commenced on caste grounds by Hindus, was blamed on the Muslim community as an anti-British revolt"

The Muslim exclusion from from the British dispensations took time to be rectified and the process was greatly facilitated by Sayyid Ahmed Khan of Delhi & Aligarh and Qazi Shahabuddin of Bombay.The book is replete with figures from the Colonial records to highlight how Muslims had regained their share in the rank and file of bureaucracy when the movement for Independence from the British rule under Mahatama gained full momentum. The Chapters titled, Independent India; Delhi., Uttar Pradesh (78-120), Bihar, Deccan & Andhra Pradesh (139-177), Karnataka, Maharashtra provide richly analytical information on the profiles of the Muslim communities in these regions. The Indian Muslims - in practice, the educated - had the option of  migration to Pakistan till 1971. The opportunities in the oil rich Gulf countries during the last three decades have played a significant role in the evolution of the community. The ever strained Indo-Pak relations have continued to cast shadow on the morale and psyche of the community.

In Summary and Conclusions, the author has referred to the progress of the community in the southern states and how lack of education and training in professional fields has continued to negatively impact the Muslims of India. The author has tried to steer clear of politico-religious controversies stating, "the improvement of (Indian) Muslims' economic condition can only be a part of the general programme of poverty alleviation of all (the people of India)".

Syed Shahabuddin, formerly of Indian Foreign Service, an ex-MP & Editor 'Muslim India' observes in Editorial of June, "in 2004, 38 Muslims were elected to Lok Sabha; in 2009 the number has gone down to 30 ... on the basis 2001 census Muslim representation should be 72 ... in the 15th Lok Sabha, the Muslims will largely be voiceless: questions will not be asked...". We may, however, like to listen more attentively to Today's Akbar (M.J.), "Pakistan was only ever a very partial answer to what the British called the 'Muslim Question' ... they (Indian Muslims) are convinced now that 1947 was a mirage; but there is too much fog between them and the next horizon ... Economics has flattened the world into a race track, and not every community is in the race ..."

The most crucial  question is: should only the Indian Muslims be feeling concerned over the issues pertaining to them? Should not the Indian Muslims also be deeply involved in the matters pertaining to the Majority Hindus & other minorities in the secular Republic of India and vice versa? I would strongly recommend Omar Khalidi's book to all who think themselves that they are 'Indians First' and also to those who prefer to prefix their religious identity to being Indian.

[The writer is former Sr. Officer in Indian Foreign Service]

BACK

 
Pakistanis see U.S. as biggest threat

Owen Fay

A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States for interfering with what most people consider internal Pakistani affairs. The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate of the Gallup International polling group, and more than 2,600 people took part.

Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and women of every economic and ethnic background.

When respondents were asked what they consider to be the biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 percent of the population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country in recent years.

Another 18 percent said that they believe that the greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.

But an overwhelming number, 59 percent of respondents, said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, the U.S., a donor of considerable amounts of military and development aid.

Tackling the Taliban

The resentment was made clearer when residents were asked about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.

Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 41 percent, supported the campaign.

About 24 percent of people remained opposed, while another 22 percent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question.

A recent offensive against Taliban fighters in the Swat, Lower Dir and Buner districts of North West Frontier Province killed at least 1,400 fighters, according to the military, but also devastated the area and forced two million to leave their homes. The military has declared the operation a success, however, some analysts have suggested that many Taliban fighters simply slipped away to other areas, surviving to fight another day.

When people were asked if they would support government-sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable option the numbers change significantly.

Although the same 41 percent said they would still support the military offensive, the number of those supporting dialogue leaps up to 43 percent.

So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split on how to deal with the Taliban threat.

Drone anger

However, when asked if they support or oppose the U.S. military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine percent of respondents reacted favourably.

A massive 67 percent say they oppose U.S. military operations on Pakistani soil.

Forty-one percent of Pakistanis say they support the offensive against the Taliban "This is a fact that the hatred against the U.S. is growing very quickly, mainly because of these drone attacks," Makhdoom Babar, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's The Daily Mail newspaper, said.

"Maybe the intelligence channels, the military channels consider it productive, but for the general public it is controversial... the drone attacks are causing collateral damage," he told Al Jazeera.

A senior U.S. official told Al Jazeera he was not surprised by the poll's findings.

The U.S. has a considerable amount of work to do to make itself better understood to the Muslim world, he said.

And it would take not only educational and economic work to win over the Pakistani people but also a concerted effort to help the Pakistani government deal with "extremist elements" that are trying to disrupt security within Pakistan, he added.

Nearly 500 people, mostly suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, are believed to have been killed in about 50 U.S. drone attacks since August last year, according to intelligence agents, local government officials and witnesses.

Washington refuses to confirm the raids, but the U.S. military in neighbouring Afghanistan and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are the only forces operating in the area that are known to have the technology.

The government in Islamabad formally opposes the attacks saying that they violate Pakistani sovereignty and cause civilian casualties which turn public opinion against efforts to battle the Taliban.

Lieutenant-General Hamid Nawaz Khan, a former caretaker interior minister of Pakistan, told Al Jazeera that U.S. pressure on Pakistan to take on the Taliban was one reason for the backlash.

"Americans have forced us to fight this 'war on terror'... whatever Americans wanted they have been able to get because this government was too weak to resist any of the American vultures and they have been actually committing themselves on the side of America much more than what even [former president] Pervez Musharraf did," he said.

Pakistani leadership

The consensus of opinion in opposition to U.S. military involvement in Pakistan is notable given the fact that on a raft of internal issues there is a clear level of disagreement, something which would be expected in a country of this size.

When asked for their opinions on Asif Ali Zardari, the current Pakistani president, 42 percent of respondents said they believed he was doing a bad job. Around 11 percent approved of his leadership, and another 34 percent had no strong opinion either way.

That pattern was reflected in a question about Zardari's Pakistan People's party (PPP).

Respondents were asked if they thought the PPP was good or bad for the country.

About 38 percent said the PPP was bad for the country, 20 percent believed it was good for the country and another 30 percent said they had no strong opinion.

Respondents were even more fractured when asked for their views on how the country should be led.

By far, the largest percentage would opt for Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) party, as leader. At least 38 percent backed him to run Pakistan.

Last month, the Pakistani supreme court quashed Sharif's conviction on charges of hijacking, opening the way for him to run for political office again.

Zardari 'unpopular'

Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, received only nine percent support, while Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, had the backing of 13 percent.

The survey suggests Sharif is Pakistan's most popular politician by some distance [AFP] But from there, opinions vary greatly. Eight percent of the population would support a military government, 11 percent back a political coalition of the PPP and the PML-N party.

Another six percent would throw their support behind religious parties and the remaining 15 per cent would either back smaller groups or simply do not have an opinion.

Babar told Al Jazeera that Zardari's unpopularity was understandable given the challenges that the country had faced since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S.

"Any president in Pakistan would be having the same popularity that President Zardari is having, because under this situation the president of Pakistan has to take a lot of unpopular decisions," he said.

"He is in no position to not take unpopular decisions that are actually in the wider interests of the country, but for common people these are very unpopular decisions."

*Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera. [Courtesy Inter Press Service]

BACK