DT e-Paper, Friday, Decdember 2, 2016

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2016 DT Opinion Hunted in their own land Myanmar is systematically wiping out the Rohingya population Destroyed homes, destroyed lives The torture perpetrated on the ethnic Muslim minority in Myanmar has been quite unparalleled in modern history • Sadat Zaman Khan Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness expresses the account of Kurtz, a manager of the station in the depth of Congo, while he was carrying a colonial mission into the “dark continent,” Africa. The hatred for the native Africans and the exploitation of black lives show a darker side of human barbarity. The tyranny was merely a part of the cleansing operation of an entire community of people living in that part of the world for thousands of years. Let me introduce, quite analogically, the recent story of Myanmar, who are also exterminating helpless Rohingyas from Arakan state with brutal force. It now seems the “clearing” operation of Myanmar’s armed forces is an all-out razing effort -- a meticulously planned effort of the extermination of a race. This is just as odious as the Nazis’ venture of eliminating Jews from Europe. In Azeem Ibrahim’s The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Hidden Genocide, the author wonderfully details how a historical canard is used as a pretext to completely erase them from Myanmar. The book also explores the fact that among 135 ethnic minorities, Rohingyas are the worst treated, stripped of all rights as citizens, depleted of wealth and property, pushed to the edge, and systematically exterminated. The Rohingyas are considered to be originated from the Indo- Aryan ethnic group from Arakan. The origin of the word Rohingya has always been a controversial subject. Many historians believe that the name was derived from the word “Rahaam,” meaning sympathy, used by the Arabian businessmen, as they were rescued from drowning by the small community of people living in that Rakhine state. This story dates back to 8th century, hundreds of years before British Colonial rule. The popular narrative used as a basis for effacing the Rohingyas is that, during colonial British rule, migration had been encouraged to Myanmar from India and Bangladesh. This historical migration event REUTERS takes place in the first quarter of the 19th century. The word Rohingya is a recent invention, and they are identified as the descendents of the colonialera immigrants in Bangladesh. In the controversial 1982 Citizenship Law, drafted by the military, the name Rohingya is crafted out so as to legitimise their systematic expulsion from the land. It is such drafted: “Nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah, Chin, Mon, Rakhine, or Shan who have settled in any of the territories included within the state as their permanent home anterior to 1823AD are Burma citizens.” Thus, the rights of an ethnic community living in the land for hundreds of years have been denied legislatively. More controversial is the clause that says “The Council of State may decide whether any ethnic group is national or not” (clause 4, chapter II). Even according to that controversial citizenship law, some recorded historical facts can give Rohingyas the scope to become naturalised citizens of the country. An article published in the UNHCR website mentions how in 1799, Francis Buchanan, a surgeon with the British East India Company, travelled to Myanmar and met members of a Muslim ethnic group “who have long settled in Arakan [Rakhine], and who call themselves ‘Rooinga’ or natives of Arakan.” That would indicate they were self-identified as Rohingya living in Rakhine at least 25 years before the 1823 cut-off for citizenship. A good number of Muslim people lived in Arakan even before the timeline of eligibility was set by the military for citizenship. When Arakan was an independent state and was ruled by Mrauk U from the mid-15th to late 18th century, many rulers of the same dynasty are known to have had Muslim titles in their names. The later annexation of Arakan within Burmese territory (1785), therefore, has a historical record of the existence of a Muslim population. Long before the set timeline, Muslim history thrived in Arakan state. So, disowning them and forcing them into exile is merely an orchestrated event. The torture perpetrated on the ethnic Muslim minority in Myanmar has been quite unparalleled in modern history. The history of disowning a people is a long-planned extermination formula. Razing 1,200 homes, as can by Human Rights Watch through satellite images, is a step to drive people off their land. Capsizing the boats, raping indiscriminately, mutilating people, blocking the media and international bodies would possibly give the victims a feeling similar to that as stated in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels: “I cannot but conclude that the Bulk of your Natives, to be the most pernicious Race of little odious Vermin that Nature ever suffered to crawl upon the Surface of the Earth.” I am afraid people will lose faith in humanity if the international community plays the role of mere bystanders. Like the fictional account of the historical brutality demonstrated in the African Congo by the coloniser in Conrad’s text, another account of suffering, deportation, and torture is surfacing in Myanmar today. • Sadat Zaman Khan is Assistant Professor and Chairman, Department of English, Premier University.
Opinion 23 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2016 DT How to lead in intolerant times Ignore trolls, embrace constructive conflict We need our discourse to rise above petty conflict BIGSTOCK • Lutfey Siddiqi What lies beyond tolerance? What is the space on the other side of tolerance? Is it a breaking point, or a bursting of the dam, when you think: “I can’t put up this pretense anymore. I’m tired of being politically correct, tired of having to pretend that I don’t have concerns or fears in case I get branded a racist, xenophobic, or some other kind of phobic? Can I not just curl up in my post-truth blanket and enjoy my dislike for experts?” Or is the space beyond tolerance filled with mutual understanding, empathy, the suspension of judgment, and a meaningful search for diversity? The forces of polarisation are tearing at our social fabric. Sure, some of the sources of stress are real. There are serious economic, demographic, and technological challenges to address. It’s the allencompassing Fourth Industrial Revolution. But at least some of the tensions are man-made. And I’m afraid to say, you and I are suckers for them. We all have our biases, prejudices, fears, and grievances that are sometimes legitimate. But then, we let all of these get hijacked and whipped up from frustration to rage, from rage to hate and at times, from hate to violence. We’ve become rusty at constructive conflict. Here’s what I mean: If you disagree with me, it must mean that I hate you. I will immediately question your integrity and motivation. I will not isolate the person from the issue of disagreement. I also cannot separate or compartmentalise areas of disagreement. If you disagree with me on one topic, I will have to disagree with you on the next topic -- whatever that topic is -- just to retaliate. We’ve seen this in parts of the Brexit debate, with fears around migration, the lampooning of judges who you don’t agree with, or even the generalised bashing of certain professions and apparently-evil-but-unnamed big businesses. This is not responsible leadership. The license for all forms of generalised hate comes from the same place. This is true in all echochambers -- whether religious, secular, right-wing, or left-wing. What do I wish to see beyond mere tolerance? I’d like to know if we can stop ourselves, as individuals, from succumbing to some of the emotional triggers of polarisation. Furthermore, I’d like us, as a community, to become immunised against exploitative polarisation. Next time, when someone comes to me with the language of “us and them,” I want to be able to say: “No we’re cool. We have problems, but we’re dealing with them constructively.” Or, the next time someone says to me, “you’re excluded, you don’t belong here,” I can point to areas where I’ve been pro-actively included and say: “What are you talking about?” Or, the next time I read a headline in the media that is deliberately designed to get my goat, I don’t give them my custom. Is all of this a bit too idealistic? Possibly. But I clearly don’t believe so. Smoking was cool in my father’s generation. It isn’t so anymore. Our attitudes to climate change or towards LGBT communities are different from what it was two decades ago. All over the world, there are inspiring stories of real positive change that we need to magnify and replicate. So, what lies beyond tolerance? We’ve become rusty at constructive conflict. Here’s what I mean: If you disagree with me, it must mean that I hate you. I will immediately question your integrity and motivation. I will not isolate the person from the issue of disagreement I hope it’s constructive conflict and pro-active diversity. Constructive conflict is about rising above false binaries. It is about transcending the labels of socialism, capitalism, globalism, nationalism, or any of the “isms” that strip serious issues from their nuances. I can be a Euro-sceptic and a Remain voter. I can be a feminist and not vote for Hillary Clinton. I can dislike the hijab in some contexts and oppose the ban on hijabs. I can be a proponent of multi-cultural diversity and still have concerns about the pace of migration. I can believe in greater liberalisation of labour markets and a greater role of government in transitional welfare. Constructive conflict is also about how we engage in debate. It’s about moving away from the Westminster-style of engagement where one side pretends that nothing is wrong while the other side argues that everything is wrong. This style of offencedefense generates heat but very little light and creates a façade of accountability. Other suggestions include deliberate processes that focus on bringing out blind spots or highlighting each dimension of a debate (factual, emotional, positive, negative) separately. Many of these processes are practiced in corporations and in professional risk-management settings. Somehow, we allow for standards to drop when it comes to public and political discourse. Not anymore. This will be the new test of responsible and responsive leadership. Whatever your views and whatever your cause, you are not a leader if you don’t practice constructive conflict. Let the counter-insurgency begin. • This article is based on the author’s opening speech at The London School of Economics. Lutfey Siddiqi is Visiting Professor, London School of Economics. This article previously appeared in weforum. org.
Page 1 and 2: SECOND EDITION FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2,
Page 3 and 4: News 3 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2016 DT
Page 5 and 6: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Mindset need
Page 7 and 8: WORLD AIDS DAY OBSERVED News 7 FRID
Page 9 and 10: World Blasphemy case ignites Indone
Page 11 and 12: Advertisement 11 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2
Page 13 and 14: DT 12 Business FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2,
Page 15 and 16: Business 15 DT FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2,
Page 17 and 18: FULL PAGE GOVERNMENT AD
Page 19 and 20: Biz Info 19 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 201
Page 21: Opinion 21 DT FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2
Page 25 and 26: Sport 25 DT FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 201
Page 27 and 28: QUICK BYTES Zamal 30th after openin
Page 29 and 30: Downtime 29 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 201
Page 31 and 32: Showtime 17th Asian Art Biennale in

DT e-Paper, Friday, Decdember 2, 2016

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?