The cyclone that broke Pakistan’s back

It wiped out villages. Destroyed crops. Over 3.6 million people were directly affected. Most estimates suggest that half a million died; some suggest as many as one million perished. Nearly 85 per cent of the area was destroyed. Three months after the catastrophe some 75 per cent of the population was receiving food from relief workers.

It happened in Pakistan. Yet few Pakistanis even know of it by name. Fewer still remember that it eventually contributed to Pakistan’s break-up. The 1970 Cyclone Bhola hit then East Pakistan on November 12, 1970.

Historians tend to agree that although there were many other forces at work, the devastation caused by the cyclone and the widespread view that the government had mismanaged the relief efforts and West Pakistan had generally shown an attitude of neglect, contributed to high levels of anti-West Pakistan feeling, a sweeping victory for the Awami League, and eventually the breakup of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.

Such, then, are the forces of nature. And such are the forces of history.

As we hear newspaper headlines proclaiming the historic magnitude and devastation wrought by the floods on our plains, it is worth remembering that 40 years ago The New York Times was describing another calamity in Pakistan as the “worst catastrophe of the century”. Much more importantly, we should pay close attention to the lessons of history, and the lessons of nature.

The lesson of how policy mismanagement led to public dissatisfaction and eventually contributed to national dismemberment. Of course, this is not an entirely parallel situation since so much more had already gone wrong in the East Pakistan case — and the cyclone was a contributor to, not the cause, of how history unfolded — but Bhola’s lessons should not be lost on the politicians, policy-makers and people of Pakistan.

Jane Austen’s influence lives on

The author of novels such as Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Emma, Austen’s influence lives on till this day, given the number of adaptations that keep popping up.

The adaptations have become a part of popular culture, most notably, the Colin Firth ‘wet shirt’ scene from the BBC’s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that has made millions swoon since it was first aired in 1995. The Guardian called the scene ‘one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history’. Colin Firth’s wet shirt and the BBC adaptation, even features in Helen Fielding’s books Bridget Jones’ Diary and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, as Bridget Jones and her friends are obsessed with the plotline and Firth’s role as Darcy.

Other prominent adaptations include Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, which had Emma Thompson, Rupert Everett, Kate Winslet and Hugh Grant in the cast.

Bollywood hasn’t been immune from Austen’s influence either. A heavily critiqued desi adaptation of her work was Gurinder Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice which starred Aishwarya Rai. The other major adaptation releases this August, called Aisha, which stars Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol. The film is an adaptation of Emma and is based on the lives of the upper crust in Delhi.

Where is our sovereignty?

By Marvi Memon
July 22, 2010

This past week was a busy one with important dignitaries visiting Pakistan. The question to ask is whether or not the ministry of foreign affairs made the best of these opportunities. Let’s examine the Indian visit. No sane foreign policy analyst was expecting a breakthrough but certainly after many Track II visits and prior meetings between the foreign secretaries, it was not an unnatural expectation that some level of understanding would be achieved by this high-profile visit.

It is unreasonable to suggest that the media always blows such matters out of proportion. It only reflects national expectations. After so many preparatory meetings some forward movement, however small, was a reasonable expectation.

So our foreign minister failed us. His undiplomatic banter the following day helped divert attention from Kashmir to how many phone calls the Indian foreign minister made or not made to New Delhi. Similarly, the Indian delegation failed its people as well. And I say this because there is no doubt that the people of both countries wish to resolve their outstanding issues and live peacefully. Having said that, talks minus a composite dialogue framework are not going to produce any real forward movement.

Who will cast the first stone?

First, the good news: the Bangladesh High Court has abolished all physical punishments based on the scriptures. Thus, people will no longer be sentenced to lashing, chopping off their hands, or stoning to death.Unfortunately, Mrs Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is an Iranian widow, and was sentenced to be stoned to death in her country for alleged adultery before her husband was murdered. She has already been lashed 99 times in 2006 for “illicit sex”. The Iranian penal code is very explicit about how the sentence is to be carried out: the stones should not be so large as to kill the victim immediately, and yet large enough to fit the definition of a stone.

While an international outcry has prevented this barbaric punishment from being carried out, Mrs Ashtiani might yet be hanged for the alleged offence. Although Islamic law requires four witnesses to establish that adultery has taken place, in this case the judge has based his sentence on ‘personal knowledge’. Currently, 15 more suspects are under the same sentence in East Azerbaijan alone. It seems these punishments have been revived under Ahmednijad’s presidency after lying dormant during his predecessor’s less benighted term.

From Pakistan, a human rights activist has sent me a sickening account of a Christian whose wife and four children were killed last month in Jhelum. Apparently, Jamshed Masih, a Christian policeman, was told to move from the predominantly Muslim colony where he and his family lived.