अमेरि‍का लेबलों वाले संदेश दिखाए जा रहे हैं. सभी संदेश दिखाएं
अमेरि‍का लेबलों वाले संदेश दिखाए जा रहे हैं. सभी संदेश दिखाएं

शुक्रवार, 22 अक्टूबर 2010

अमेरिका और ब्रिटेन में शिक्षकों पर बढ़ते हमले

   शिक्षकों पर विभिन्न बहानों से अमेरिका और ब्रिटेन में हमले बढ़ रहे हैं। जो लोग ओबामा के आने के बाद अमेरिका में जनतंत्र के लिए भविष्य का सपना देख रहे थे। उनके लिए बुरी खबर है कि ओबामा के राष्ट्रपति बनने के बाद शिक्षा व्यवस्था और शिक्षकों के अधिकारों पर हमले बढ़े हैं। इन हमलों के लिए तथाकथित नैतिकता के पैमानों का,खासकर फेसबुक पर अभिव्यक्ति के रूपों को बहाने के तौर पर इस्तेमाल किया गया है। यहां हम एक पूरा आलेख अंग्रेजी में दे रहे हैं । यह लेख वर्ल्ड सोशलिस्ट वेब साइट http://www.wsws.orgसे साभार लिया गया है। 
Teachers’ democratic rights under attack in US
By Isabelle Belanger
22 October 2010

The following article was written by a public school teacher in western New York.

Public school teachers are not only being scapegoated for low test scores and hit with wage and job cuts, they are also facing an increasing assault for exercising their basic democratic rights while off the job. There has been a steady and alarming rise in the number of teachers being persecuted for activities conducted during their personal time under the guise of protecting children from immoral influences.
This includes penalties and termination for consuming or purchasing alcohol while off duty, expressing frustrations over work-related issues on social networking websites, voicing or participating, outside of the work place, in political activities such as serving as an escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The victimization of teachers for such “offenses” is inseparable from the attack on public education being spearheaded by the Obama administration. Political and school authorities who have no moral qualms about stripping children of the right to decent education insist that teachers uphold arbitrary moral standards or face the loss of their jobs.
Officials are fishing for any excuse to destroy the hard-won right to tenure and job security, which opponents of public education have long denounced as the greatest obstacle to firing “bad” teachers. Secondly, the arbitrary dismissals are being used to restrict free speech and regiment teachers, and will ultimately be used to intimidate opponents of the attack on teachers and the right to public education.

There is the now famous story of Ashley Payne, the Georgia teacher who was fired from her job after she posted summer vacation photos on her Facebook page, several of which showed her sitting with beer or wine glasses nearby or in her hand, but none depicting signs of intoxication or illegal activity. In addition, an obscenity was found on her page. For these reasons alone, she was called into her principal’s office and told she had to resign immediately.
Then there is the case of the Florida teacher fired after photos of her in a bikini surfaced on a website that also revealed she worked a part time job as a “bikini girl” for a charter fishing boat outfit. She defended herself, stating that she worked the second job because her teaching job did not pay enough, but she was fired from her teaching position anyway.
Another teacher was suspended for 30 days from her job, without pay, when a photo of her surfaced on Facebook taken at a bachelorette party. What is most alarming about this incident is that the teacher did not even post the picture herself, but rather it was posted unbeknownst to her on a friend’s page. Then there is also the case of a non-Catholic teacher, hired in Catholic school in Sacramento, California. Although hiring practices maintain that teachers do not have to be Catholic to teach there, this particular teacher was fired when a parent of a student noticed the teacher serving as an escort for clientele at a Planned Parenthood clinic on a Saturday morning.
Similar attacks are occurring in other countries too, including Britain, where the General Teaching Council was ostensibly created “to contribute to improving standards of teaching and the quality of learning, and to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct among teachers, in the interests of the public.” The Council, which was immediately unpopular with teachers in the UK, was nevertheless forced upon teachers, who were required to sign up and follow its mandates. Since then, teachers have found themselves in the position of being charged with immoral conduct by members of the public, for everything from drinking in public establishments, to modeling nightwear as a second career. Like teachers in America, they are often encouraged to resign their positions immediately, to avoid a prolonged and embarrassing public trial, where their careers suffer more damage than if they had just resigned.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rules of moral conduct were imposed on American teachers that appear absurd in light of contemporary values, beliefs in the separation of church and state, and how we view ourselves as members of a democratic society. Here are a few examples taken from the Rules for Teachers published in 1872 (courtesy of the Portage County Historical Society in Wisconsin):
Each teacher will bring a bucket of water and a scuttle of coal for the day’s session.
Men teachers may take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they go to church regularly.
After 10 hours in school, the teachers may spend the remaining time reading the Bible or other good books.
Women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed.
Every teacher should lay aside from each pay a goodly sum of his earnings for his benefit during his declining years so that he will not become a burden on society.
Any teacher who smokes, uses liquor in any form, frequents pool or public halls, or gets shaved in a barbershop will give good reason to suspect his worth, intention, integrity and honesty.
The teacher who performs his labor faithfully and without fault for five years will be given an increase of 25 cents per week in his pay, providing the Board of Education approves.

Likewise, New Hampshire published its own rules for teachers in 1915, which repeat, in so many words, those listed above, but also included a few other interesting restrictions:
You are not to keep company with men.
You must be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless at a school function.
You may not loiter downtown in any of the ice cream stores.
You may not smoke cigarettes.
You may not dress in bright colors.
Your dresses may not be any shorter than 2 inches above the ankles.
Many may laugh at these restrictive and ridiculous rules, but they were only overturned through great social struggles. New Jersey became the first state to pass tenure legislation when, in 1910, it granted fair-dismissal rights to college professors. The suffrage movement of the 1920s and the mass labor struggles of the 1930s, led to the extension of such rights to elementary and high school teachers.
However, during the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s, hundreds of public school teachers were forced to resign and were blacklisted after refusing to sign “loyalty oaths,” inform on other teachers, or simply because of their political beliefs. According to FBI records, from 1951-1955, the FBI disseminated derogatory personal and political information to the employers of more than 400 public school teachers and college professors. The cost to the victims of the McCarthyism was not only economic and professional; consider the example of Minnie Gertrude, an unassuming public school teacher who took her own life in 1948, after being questioned by investigators about her politics and being threatened with insubordination when she refused to cooperate.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, teachers pushed back intrusive rules and arbitrary victimization, through job security protections gained in the course of militant trade union battles. Since the 1980s, however, the teachers unions have worked hand-in-hand with the two big business parties to undermine gains made by teachers. This has culminated in the open collaboration by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association with the Obama administration in the greatest assault on teachers and public education in history.

The intrusive attack on teachers’ private lives prompted one educator to write on a teachers’ blog: “I live far away from…friends and family and Facebook has been a great way…to share…what’s going on in our lives. But since I’m held to some imaginary higher standard, I’m not allowed to have my Facebook page? No wonder our best and brightest are going into other careers. Work incredibly hard, don’t get paid enough, be responsible for curing all of society’s ills, and be held to a standard that no one else can live up to. Yep, that’s being a teacher!”
While one naturally laughs when reading the rules imposed on teachers a century and more ago, perhaps we should think about the rules being imposed on teachers today, and how they might look to a reader 100 years from now:
Each teacher will bring school supplies, purchased with his or her own funds, to furnish students too poor to afford their own.
Each teacher will supply snacks in his or her classroom, purchased with his or her own funds, for students who are too impoverished to receive adequate sustenance at home.
While teachers are allowed to socialize during their off hours, they should be careful to do so far from their home district (50 miles away is a good recommendation), and to refrain from drinking alcohol or participating in any activity to which a parent could object, including smoking cigarettes, wearing of a bathing suit, going to adult-themed parties such as bachelor or bachelorette parties, or overtly flirting with another person. Also, do not purchase alcohol in a store, as a parent may be present, or a student with a camera phone, who could take a picture of you and distribute such evidence to friends.
Under no circumstances should you allow anyone to take a photograph of you at any public gathering in which alcohol is present or other adult activities are taking place.
Teachers shall not share political or religious views in any public setting, or participate in such, even if it is done on their own time. Even if you use a fabricated name or do so anonymously, you will be held responsible if anyone discovers and reveals your real identity.
Do not have a social networking page, even if you do so privately and do not accept or invite students or parents as friends. Do not have a page with your own identity, even if it is the only way for friends and family members to find you, as anything you share, no matter how seemingly innocent, can and will be held against you.
The teacher who performs his or her labor faithfully for three years will be given tenure, which actually does not mean anything anymore, and your wages will be frozen to help the economy. Furthermore, your retirement benefits will be slowly chipped away at until there are none, so you should expect to lay aside a goodly sum from your earnings for your benefit during your declining years so that you do not become a burden on society.
Teachers cannot hope to have their rights, nor their wages and benefits, protected by either of the two major political parties, nor by the corrupt unions, which claim to represent them. Rather, they should fight to build a political movement of the entire working class for socialism in order to restore dignity and democratic rights, and a decent living wage and benefits, to all educators.



गुरुवार, 28 जनवरी 2010

ओबामा के शासन में मुसलमानों के प्रति भेदभावपूर्ण कानून का प्रस्ताव

अमरीकी प्रशासन और राजनीति में किस तरह का मुस्लिम विरोधी जहर भरा है, इसके बारे में चौंकाने वाली खबर  अनेरिका से आयी है। पूरी खबर इस प्रकार हैः



How Members of Congress Are Advancing Anti-Muslim Hysteria to Push a Radical Legal Agenda

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on January 28, 2010, Printed on January 28, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145425/

Roughly one month after the massacre at Fort Hood and a little over a week after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber") tried to blow himself up over the city of Detroit, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Congress, South Carolina Representative Gresham Barrett, re-introduced a sweeping piece of legislation that he first rolled out in 2003 as a freshman on Capitol Hill.
The Stop Terrorists Entry Program (STEP) Act was originally introduced on September 11 (naturally), 2003 "to bar the admission of aliens from countries determined to be state sponsors of terrorism, and for other purposes." At the time, these countries included Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Cuba. The bill not only sought to bar presumed enemies of the state from entering the U.S., it also would have forced "nonimmigrant aliens" -- visitors with a temporary visa -- to leave the country, within 60 days of its passage.

In other words, they would be deported.

The STEP Act never got very far. But a few days into the new year, Rep. Barrett decided to try again. "Twice in the past two months, radical Islamic terrorists have attacked our nation and the administration has failed to adapt its national security and immigration policies to counter the renewed resolve of those who seek to harm our citizens," heannounced. "In light of these unfortunate facts, the Step Act of 2010 bars the admission of aliens from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism and Yemen."

Iranian advocacy groups were especially vocal in their alarm over the re-introduced bill. In an open letter to Barrett on January 9, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), described his bill as an attempt to "make discrimination against Iranians into United States law."

"You have said you are reintroducing the STEP Act in response to the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit," Parsi wrote. "We hope you recognize that no Iranian has been involved in any of these attacks, or the 9/11 terrorist attacks for that matter. The individuals who carried out the Fort Hood attack and the Christmas day attempt -- an American Army major and a Nigerian national -- would not have been affected in the slightest by the sweeping provisions offered in your bill."

This point was reiterated by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, who crowned Barrett one of his "Worst Persons" on his January 12 segment. Pointing out that Major Nidal Hasan was born in Arlington, VA and went to high school in Roanoke, Olbermann said, "I guess, congressman, you need to expand your STEP program to stop aliens from infiltrating our homeland from such nests of terror as Interstate 81 in Virginia."

The day before Barrett officially re-introduced the STEP Act, NIAC delivered thousands of letters to his office, urging him to reconsider. "Your bill punishes innocent Iranians and implies that 'stopping terrorists' means barring them from entering the U.S. to visit family or go to school," the letters read.
Surprisingly, hours after the letters were delivered, Rep. Barrett's office said he would get rid of the language that would lead to the deportation of immigrants from Iran and other countries. "Unfortunately, many have been misinformed on the true nature of this legislation," Barrett claimed in a statement released alongside the bill. "Contrary to some reports, the STEP Act does not contain any language that calls for deportation of citizens from countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States … Citizens from these countries who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States will not be affected by this legislation."

NIAC declared this "a major victory," but warned that the fight is not over. The revised version of the bill still basically criminalizes Iranians and others, banning them from obtaining U.S. visas.

The STEP Act may be a uniquely bad -- not to mention far-fetched -- example of legislative efforts to install blatantly discriminatory policy into American law books in the name of national security. But the danger it represents, even in its softened version, is hard to overstate. "That people even consider dropping those pieces of legislation is pretty troubling," Corey Saylor, legislative director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), told AlterNet. At a time when blatant and far-reaching anti-Muslim measures are being enacted in other parts of the world -- such as the Swiss ban on minarets or the campaign to ban the hijab in France -- new attempts to target Muslims in this country are cause for concern. "I think we're headed in a very disturbing direction, in which anti-Muslim hysteria is growing, and I think it's something that we all need to address," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet.

The issue should be addressed sooner rather than later. Within days of Abdulmutallab's foiled bomb attempt, the White House announced that citizens of 14 predominantly Muslim countries -- Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Somalia and Cuba -- would now be subject to additional screenings at airport security, a policy that will remain in place "indefinitely." As with the STEP Act, this effectively criminalizes whole global populations, feeding into the "clash of civilizations" narrative that has fueled so many destructive post-9/11 misadventures. Nawar Shora, the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the 14-country directive "extreme and very dangerous."
"All of a sudden people are labeled as being related to terrorism just because of the nation they are from," he told the New York Times.

In a statement released by CAIR, executive director Nihad Awad argued that the policy amounts to racial profiling (a practice candidate Obama vowed to abolish as president). "Under these new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling."

Is 'Homegrown Terrorism' on the Rise?

Soon after the shooting at Fort Hood, Sen. Joseph Lieberman's Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing titled "The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment." Lieberman has been one of the most vocal members of Congress stressing the threat of "homegrown terrorism," which, by his definition, takes the form of radicalized Muslims within the U.S.

Lieberman was one of the first to call the shooting at Fort Hood an act of terrorism. "We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Lieberman said in an interview on Fox News on November 11.

Whether to label Hasan a "terrorist" versus a violent criminal may sound like a semantic debate, but the policy implications are very real. As with the recent heated debate over the fate of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab -- conservative commentators insist he deserves no right to due process, and a group of U.S. Senators are peddling a bill that would require civilian officials to consult with intelligence authorities when taking an alleged terrorist into custody -- what is at stake is the question of whether, ultimately, we could see a different, undemocratic set of legal standards for Muslims who commit violent crimes. By the logic of today's right-wingers, the Beltway snipers could potentially have been labeled terrorists and tried before a military commission rather than the ordinary criminal justice system. (Although, given that John Allen Muhammad was executed late last year, it's hard to imagine that a military trial would have led to a tougher sentence.)

Of course, there is some truth to the "homegrown terrorist" meme. Lieberman's hearing took place just before news broke that five young men from Northern Virginia, ages 18 to 24, had been arrested as part of a terrorist probe in Pakistan, allegedly attempting to help plan jihadist attacks against their own country. Earlier last year came the news that young Muslim American men from Minnesota have been radicalized into traveling to Somalia to join the Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group Al Shabab. These stories have led to numerous media reports with headlines like "Homegrown Terror on the Rise."

Meanwhile, on the home front, the case of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam who shot and killed two military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas last year, took a turn for the bizarre when the 24-year-old changed his plea from "not guilty"to "guilty" in a letter to his presiding judge in which he claimed to have connections to al-Qaeda. According to MSNBC, "Muhammad also called himself in the letter a member of Abu Basir's Army," a reference to the alias of Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, the Yemeni group's leader.
"This was a jihad: attack on infidel forces," Muhammed wrote. His lawyer was skeptical. "He's said lots of things. None of them seem to be real consistent with each other."

Nonetheless, these cases have lent themselves to an easily woven narrative, in which terror cells are being planted all over the country, with dastardly plots in the works.

"There's definitely a rise in jihad recruits and volunteers in the United States, whether they're concerning plots here in the U.S. or whether they involve material support to terror plots overseas," Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, told Fox News in December.

At least one recent study suggests that the homegrown Islamic terrorist narrative is overblown. In a report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and published this month, North Carolina-based researchers David Schanzer, Charles Kurzman and Ebrahim Moosa write: "In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere around the world, a key counterterrorism concern is the possible radicalization of Muslims living in the United States. Yet, the record over the past eight years contains relatively few examples of Muslim-Americans that have radicalized and turned toward violent extremism."

While the report found relatively low numbers of radicalized Muslim-Americans, it discovered an "increased Anti-Muslim bias."

"Muslim-Americans perceive a stronger anti-Muslim bias from both their day-to-day interactions and the media, a bias that is confirmed in public opinion polling. While Muslim-Americans understand and support the need for enhanced security and counterterrorism initiatives, they believe that some of these efforts are discriminatory, and they are angered that innocent Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of the impact of these policies."
"Muslim-American communities and law enforcement agencies,” the authors concluded, "must make efforts to cooperate more closely to overcome mutual suspicions and achieve common goals.”

Unfortunately, hearings like Lieberman's in n
This bias is itself dangerous and bolstered by the kind of political theater that Lieberman's Senate committee has gained a reputation for.

Writing about Lieberman's November hearing, author Chip Berlet called it "an example of flawed, biased, or discredited scholarship being used in a zealous propaganda campaign that will do little to enhance public safety and much to expand bigotry against Muslims in the United States." Berlet continued:
The main thesis of Lieberman's renegade Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is that there is a looming threat of "homegrown terrorism" by domestic "Jihadists." To use the tragic shootings at Fort Hood to further promote this biased propaganda as part of an ongoing political campaign is grotesque.
At issue is the validity of the concept of "Leaderless Jihad" and the idea that "extremist ideology" somehow has created squads of anti-American terrorists lurking in domestic Muslim communities where "Leaderless Resistance" cells and "lone wolfs" are even now plotting acts of "Jihadist" violence -- just like the right-wing domestic terrorists in the 1980s and 1990's which culminated in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995.
Sounds scary.
The Oklahoma City bombing, however, was not the act of a "lone wolf," and while it involved a clandestine terror cell, it was not an example of "Leaderless Resistance." In fact, there is no evidence that "Leaderless Resistance" was adopted as a successful terror strategy by the ultra-right in the 1980s and 1990's, which undermines the whole concept of "Leaderless Jihad" being peddled by Lieberman.
Nevertheless, Lieberman and committee ranking minority leader Susan Collins have long been pushing this theme. In May 2008 they released a controversial report titled "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat" warning that "the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise, aided by the Internet's capacity to spread the core recruitment and training message of violent Islamist terrorist groups." Lieberman subsequently went after YouTube in an attempt to get videos taken down that he considered to be spreading a dangerous message. Some 80 videos were removed from the site.
Among the critics of Lieberman's targeting of YouTube was the New York Times editorial page:
While it is fortunate that Mr. Lieberman does not have the power to tell YouTube that it must remove videos, it is profoundly disturbing that an influential senator would even consider telling a media company to shut down constitutionally protected speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the "Homegrown Terrorism" bill and related efforts "could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet."
Bigots On Capitol Hill
Beyond Congressional hearings that push the "homegrown Islamic terrorist" narrative -- or even repressive pieces of legislation like the STEP Act -- CAIR's Corey Saylor says the alliances formed by members of Congress like Barrett with members of the anti-Muslim right are far more dangerous.

"It's less the legislation and more the legitimacy that's offered to some of the anti-Muslim bigots by members of Congress," he says.

One example Saylor cites is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican member of the House from Georgia. Broun recently invited a man named David Yerushalmi to testify at a hearing on Capitol Hill. "Yerushalmi belongs to an organization that once called for adherence to Islam to be punishable by 20 years in prison," says Saylor.

Yerushalmi is the president and founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which, in addition to seeking to criminalize Islam, has statements on its Web site such as: "There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote."

"This man has the right to free speech, he has the right to believe what he believes," says Saylor. "But he gets legitimized because someone like Paul Broun invites him to Capitol Hill and gives him a platform … That allows him to go out and push his hate speech."

Two days before Christmas, CAIR sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to address what it described as a "rise in Anti-Islam hate, Islamophobic incidents, and rhetoric targeting ordinary American Muslims." Among these incidents was "an attack on a Sikh youth in Texas who was mistaken for a Muslim," "a Colorado sheriff who called the U.S. Marines 'Travel agents to Allah,'" and "a spate of vandalism incidents at mosques nationwide." It also listed a disturbing number of anti-Muslim incidents among supporters of and aspiring elected officials, as well as elected officials themselves.

Most memorable, perhaps, was the attempt last year by right-wing members of Congress to convince the public that CAIR itself was engaged in a sinister conspiracy to infiltrate and take over Congress, by dispatching interns to Capitol Hill. Last October, U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina, was joined by Rep. Broun as well as Arizona Republicans John Shadegg and Trent Franks in issuing a call for a federal investigation into CAIR's attempts to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security. The accusation was inspired by a book titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America, written by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist who posed as an intern for CAIR in an attempt to prove that the group is trying to infiltrate Congress. (Rep. Myrick wrote the introduction to the book.)

The backlash against Myrick and her co-conspirators was swift. "These charges smack of an America of sixty years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified,"wroteReps. Michael Honda, D-CA, Barbara Lee, D-CA and Nydia Velazquez, D-NY in a letter on behalf of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and signed by 87 members of Congress.

"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America."

The Obama administration didn't have much to say about the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory, perhaps making the strategic decision to simply let the rumor die. But the White House did not respond, either, to CAIR's December letter asking Obama to address the trend toward anti-Muslim sentiment.

"I don't know why they don't respond," CAIR executive director Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet, "but all we can do is ask."

While Myrick and her supporters -- whom Hooper refers to as "the usual suspects" peddling anti-Muslim bigotry -- have not really been taken seriously outside the right-wing blogosphere, they have had some effect. "I think they've made the whole administration rather skittish about associating in any way with Muslims or Islam," Hooper says. (Certainly, the ugly fear-mongering and lies that sought to portray Obama as a "secret Muslim" were on full display even before his election.)

Corey Saylor says that although the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory pushed by Myrick has mostly gone away, it's not dead. "They've been working on sort of retooling their message and it's slowly starting to crop back up again," he says. In Myrick's case, this means repositioning herself as an ally of moderate Muslims.

"We're trying to work with mainstream Muslims and help give them a voice and hear where people stand and help them think about the issues," she recently told the Charlotte Observer.

Saylor says Myrick is simply trying to insulate herself from further accusations that she is prejudiced against Muslims. "Keep in mind," he says, "she's the one whose on the record as saying [after 9/11] that we need to take a look at who's running our convenience stores."

According to the Observer, "Myrick met with Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, shortly after the Fort Hood shooting to address what Hough said were inflammatory remarks by Myrick to local media about Islam."

"A part of me thinks that she means well, but that doesn't mean her message is well-meaning," Hough told the Observer, noting that she has softened her rhetoric. "She's being more careful."

Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and WorldSpecial Coverage. Follow her on Twitter.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145425/

रविवार, 29 नवंबर 2009

अमेरि‍की हवाई अड़डों पर भाव-भंगि‍मा पुलि‍स

            

  
अमेरि‍की हवाई अड़डों पर इन दि‍नों एक वि‍लक्षण कि‍स्‍म की पुलि‍स पहरा दे रही है,यह ऐसी पुलि‍स है जो आने -जाने वाले लोगों पर नजर रखती है, यह नजरदारी भी वि‍लक्षण है। ये पुलि‍स वाले यात्री के व्‍यवहार को देखकर ठीक करते हैं कि‍ वह आदमी कैसा है, आतंकवादी है या नहीं। इस पुलि‍स का नाम है 'ट्रांसपोर्टेशन सि‍क्‍योरि‍टी एडमि‍नि‍स्‍ट्रेशन' । अभी ये अमेरि‍का में हैं कल यहां भी होंगे।
     इस पुलि‍स दल में व्‍यवहार वि‍शेषज्ञ शामि‍ल कि‍ए गए हैं। ये लोग यात्री के व्‍यवहार को गंभीरता के साथ देखते हैं । उसके बाद पता करते हैं कि‍ आप क्‍या हैं। मसलन् आपके चेहरे की भंगि‍माएं क्‍या हैं, कैसे मुँह बनाते हैं, कैसे बातें करते हैं, कैसे आंखें चलती हैं, कैसे भ्रू चलती है। यानी शारीरि‍क भाव भंगि‍मा को देखकर ठीक करते हैं कि‍ आखि‍रकार यह व्‍यक्‍ति‍ कैसा है। यह सारा पुलि‍सि‍या खेल आतंकवाद वि‍रोध मुहि‍म के रूप में चलाया जा रहा है। इसे ' यात्री व्‍यवहार जांच तकनीक ' का नाम दि‍या गया है। पूरे अमेरि‍का में ऐसे 3000 हजार व्‍यवहार वि‍शेषज्ञ तैनात कि‍ए गए हैं। ये वि‍शेषज्ञ 161 हावई अड्डों पर प्रत्‍येक यात्री के चाल-ढ़ाल,हाव-भाव आदि‍ पर गहरी नजर रखते हैं और चैकिंग करते हैं। अमेरि‍का में यह प्रयोग यदि‍ सफल होता है तो इसी तरह की चैकिंग पद्धति‍ वि‍श्‍वभर के हवाई अड्डों पर शुरू की जाएगी। अभी तक इस तरह की जांच प्रणाली के तहत समूचे अमेरि‍का में 98,805 लोगों से पूछताछ की गई है। इसमें से 9,854 से लंबी पूछताछ की गई और उसमें से 813 लोगों को गि‍रफ्तार कि‍या गया है। इस कार्यक्रम पर 3.1मि‍लि‍यन डालर का खर्चा आया है। जो लोग पकड़े गए हैं उनमें कि‍तनों को सजा मि‍ली, कि‍तने आतंकी थे, इन सबके बारे में कोई जानकारी अभी उपलब्‍ध नहीं है। इस तरह की जांच पड़ताल की मानवाधि‍कार संगठनों ने तीखी आलोचना की है।
      मजेदार बात यह है कि‍ भाव-भंगि‍मा के आधार पर यदि‍ कि‍सी व्‍यक्‍ति‍ को पकड़ा जाएगा तो इसमें ज्‍यादातर मामलों में गलत परि‍णाम आने की संभावननाएं ज्‍यादा हैं। खतरनाक और कानूनभंजक लोग आसानी से अपनी भाव-भंगि‍मा पर नि‍यंत्रण रखकर या छि‍पाकर आसानी से पुलि‍स की आंखों में धूल झोंकने में सफल हो सकते हैं और नि‍र्दौष व्‍यक्‍ति‍ पुलि‍स की बेवकूफि‍‍यों के कारण सींखचों में अंदर जा सकता है। असल में यह कार्यक्रम इस्रायल की नकल पर तैयार कि‍या गया है। वहां पर ऐसा कार्यक्रम व्‍यवहार में है। यह कार्यक्रम मूलत: नस्‍लवादी आधारों पर ही तैयार कि‍या गया है। इस्रायल छोटा मुल्‍क है लेकि‍न इसे अमेरि‍का जैसे 30 करोड़ की आबादी के मुल्‍क और सारी दुनि‍या में लागू करने के कारण भयानक असुवि‍धाएं के पैदा होने की संभावनाएं हैं।


                        

मंगलवार, 24 नवंबर 2009

अमेरि‍का में उम्‍मीदों का चि‍राग






प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह अमेरि‍का की महत्‍चपूर्ण यात्रा पर हैं। यह यात्रा अनेक मायनों में महत्‍वपूर्ण है। देश की भावी संभावनाओं और नीति‍गत दि‍शा में होने वाले बुनि‍यादी परि‍वर्तनों की आधारशि‍ला इस यात्रा में रखी जानी है। यह सामान्‍य यात्रा नहीं है। इस यात्रा में तय होना है कि‍ अमेरि‍का और भारत के बीच जो परमाणु ऊर्जा समझौता हुआ है उसकी अंति‍म शक्‍ल क्‍या होगी। यह समझौता अभी भी अनेक मामलों में अधर में लटका हुआ है, देखते हैं हमारे प्रधानमंत्री क्‍या नि‍र्णय लेकर आते हैं। इसके अलावा बीमा क्षेत्र और सैन्‍य अस्‍त्र-शस्‍त्र उत्‍पादन के क्षेत्र में नि‍जी कंपनि‍यों के प्रवेश के बारे में भी इस दौरे में महत्‍वपूर्ण फैसले होने की संभावना है।
   प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह ने अपनी अमेरि‍का यात्रा के दौरान एक बड़ी ही महत्‍वपूर्ण बात कही है। उनका कहना है‍ अमेरि‍की डॉलर का भवि‍ष्‍य उज्‍ज्‍वल है। यह बात उन्‍होंने कल वाशिंगटन में अमेरि‍की व्‍यापारि‍यों को सम्‍बोधि‍त करते हुए कही।  यह भी कहा  आर्थिक मंदी का डॉलर की स्‍थि‍ति‍ पर अस्‍थायी असर हुआ है। डॉलर का कोई वि‍कल्‍प नहीं है। मनमोहन सिंह जब यह कह रहे थे जो अप्रत्‍यक्ष तौर पर रूस और चीन को भी संदेश दे रहे थे कि‍ अब भईया तुम लोगों को वि‍श्‍व मुद्रा चलाने के ख्‍बाब देखने बंद कर देने चाहि‍ए। उल्‍लेखनीय है कि‍ वि‍गत जी 20 देशों एक बैठक में रूस ने वैकल्‍पि‍क मुद्रा का प्रस्‍ताव रखा था, उसे चीन ने भी समर्थन दि‍या था।
प्रधानमंत्री ने कहा अमेरि‍की व्‍यापार व्‍यवस्‍था की धुरी है यहां की व्‍यापार स्‍प्रि‍ट। पावर से मुद्रा पैदा होती है और पावर का पैमाना है धैर्य। सच यह है कि‍ चीन के पास आज 2.5 ट्रि‍लि‍यन डॉलर का अतिरि‍क्‍त रिजर्व है, इसके बावजूद उन्‍होंने इसका एक अंश भी खर्च नहीं कि‍या, इस अवस्‍था के बावजूद सारी दुनि‍या की डॉलर के प्रति‍ आस्‍था कम नहीं हुई। चीन के आर्थिक वि‍कास ने वि‍श्‍व अर्थव्‍यवस्‍था को टि‍काऊ बनाने में महत्‍वपूर्ण भूमि‍का अदा की है। प्रधानमंत्री ने चीन और भारत के बीच में प्रति‍स्‍पर्धा की तमाम अटकलों को वि‍राम देते हुए कहा कि‍ दुनि‍या में दोनों के लि‍ए आर्थि‍क वि‍कास के लि‍ए पर्याप्‍त स्‍थान है।
एक अन्‍य जलसे में प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह ने आज कहा कि‍ चीन और भारत के वि‍कास की तुलना नहीं की जा सकती। चीन ने नि‍श्‍चि‍त रूप से वि‍कास कि‍या है। भारत उनकी तुलना में भी पीछे है। लेकि‍न एक चीज महत्‍वपूर्ण है भारत ने वि‍कास और मूल्‍यों को साथ रखकर वि‍कास कि‍या है। चीन ने खाली वि‍कास कि‍या है। भारत में भारत में मानवाधि‍कारों का सम्‍मान कि‍या जाता है,कानून का शासन है। बहुभाषी,बहुजातीय और बहुधार्मि‍क समुदायों के अधि‍कारों को सम्‍मान दि‍या जाता है। ये सारे वे मूल्‍य हैं जो सकल घरेलू उत्‍पाद से  भी  ज्‍यादा महत्‍वपूर्ण हैं।   


उल्‍लेखनीय है प्रधानमंत्री ने डॉलर के उज्‍ज्‍वल भवि‍ष्‍य के बारे में घोषणा ऐसे दौर में की है जि‍स समय अमेरि‍का अपने सबसे भयावह आर्थिक संकट से गुजर रहा है। समूची अमेरि‍की अर्थव्‍यवस्‍था चरमरा गयी है। अमेरि‍का पर वि‍श्‍वकर्जा और बजट घाटे का बोझ अकल्‍पनीय स्‍तर को पार कर गया है। 10 प्रति‍शत से ज्‍यादा बेकारी है। अमेरि‍की आबादी में एक अच्‍छा खासा तबका है जि‍सके पास सामान्‍य तौर पर जीने का कोई सहारा नहीं है। इस बीच अमेरि‍का में गरीबों की तादाद बढ़ी है। असुरक्षा बढ़ी है। इसके बावजूद प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह का यह कहना कि‍ डॉलर का भवि‍ष्‍य उज्‍ज्‍वल है नि‍श्‍चि‍त रूप से मायने रखता है। इससे यह भी पता चलता है कि‍ मनमोहन सिंह जि‍स जगह से मंदी के संकट से उबरते अमेरि‍का को देख रहे हैं उस जगह से अनेक अमेरि‍की वाम बुद्धि‍जीवी नहीं देख पा रहे हैं। असल में वि‍चारधारात्‍मक कैद के कारण बहुत सारे बुद्धि‍जीवी देख ही नहीं पा रहे हैं कि‍ कि‍स तरह प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह नव्‍य उदारनीति‍यों के चि‍राग हैं।    ‍  ‍






सोमवार, 26 अक्टूबर 2009

नॉम चोमस्‍की को पेंटागन का सम्‍मान शांति‍ का अपमान है

यह दुनि‍या की वि‍लक्षण सामयि‍क घटना है कि‍ अमेरि‍की सैन्‍य संस्‍थान पेंटागन ने शांति‍ पुरूष नॉम चोमस्‍की को अपने सर्वोच्‍च सम्‍मान से नवाजा है। देखना है वह यह सम्‍मान लेते हैं या ठुकराते हैं। भारत में नागार्जुन के साथ ऐसी ही घटना हो चुकी है जब स्‍व.श्रीमतर इंदि‍रा गांधी ने नागार्जुन को पुरस्‍कार दि‍या था। नागार्जुन ने अपनी सारी जिंदगी श्रीमती गांधी के खि‍लाफ जमकर लि‍खा,जेपी आंदोलन में भी भाग लि‍या। इसके बावजूद उन्‍हें पुरस्‍कृत कि‍या गया। ठीक वैसा ही चोमस्‍की के साथ हुआ है। अमरीकी प्रशासन की वि‍देश नीति‍,घरेलू नीति‍यों और खासकर युद्धपंथी नीति‍यों के खि‍लाफ सारी दुनि‍या में शांति‍ का बि‍गुल बजाने वाले चोम्‍सकी को दुनि‍या के सबसे बर्बर सैन्‍य संस्‍थान पेंटागन ने सम्‍मान के लि‍ए आखि‍र क्‍यों चुना ? इसका अभी तक सटीक उत्‍तर नहीं मि‍ला है। स्‍वयं चोमस्‍की भी इस खबर को सुनकर गुस्‍से में बोल पडे कि‍ सर्वसत्‍तावादी सरकारें कई बार ऐसा करती हैं।
चोमस्‍की के अनुसार अमरीका आज जिस अवस्था में पहुँच चुका है उसमें जनतंत्र के साथ उसके अन्तर्विरोध पहले की तुलना में ज्यादा गहरे हुए हैं। पहले अमरीका में जनतंत्र की कम से कम शासकवर्ग के दोनों प्रधानदल वकालत किया करते थे, किंतु प्रथम मध्यपूर्व युध्द (1992-93)के बाद से  घरेलू स्तर पर इस प्रसंग में गिरावट आयी है। अमरीकी प्रशासन का नागरिकों के निजी जीवन में हस्तक्षेप बढ़ा है। प्रोपेगैण्डा के स्तर पर अमरीका के द्वारा जनतंत्र और जनतांत्रिक मूल्यों और संरचनाओं का अहर्निश प्रचार होता रहता है। जिन अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संस्थाओं और मंचों में अमरीका का प्रभुत्व है वहां पर भी इनका भोंपू की तरह प्रचार करता है और जनतंत्र के वाचिक शेर की तरह दहाड़ता है। किंतु व्यवहार में जब कोई देश अपने यहां जनतंत्र स्थापित करने की कोशिश करता है तो उसमें अमरीकी प्रशासन अडंगे लगाता है उन ताकतों को समर्थन देता है जो जनतंत्र और सुधारों के विरोधी हैं। अतिराष्ट्रवादी ,प्रतिक्रियावादी,सैन्यवादी,फासिस्ट और पृथकतावादी तत्वों को राजनीतिक समर्थन देता रहा है। जनतांत्रिक तरीके से चुनी गई सरकारों को गिराने के लिए राजनीतिक और सैन्य हस्तक्षेप करता रहा है।
           चोम्स्की के अनुसार अमरीकी प्रशासन की ऐसी सरकार बनाने में दिलचस्पी है जिसकी घरेलू और विदेशी पूंजी निवेश के प्रति वचनबध्दता हो। एक्सपोर्ट के लिए उत्पादन करने में ध्यान दे और मुनाफा कमाकर देश के बाहर ले जाने में मदद करे। चोम्स्की के अनुसार अमरीका के इस लक्ष्य को कभी चुनौती नहीं दी गयी। उल्‍लेखनीय है यह नीति अमरीका के गुप्त सरकारी दस्तावेजों में मौजूद है, जिसका पहलीबार चोम्स्की ने ही रहस्योद्धाटन किया था। अमरीकी नीतिनिर्धारक इन्हीं लक्ष्यों के आधार पर सारी दुनिया को सोचने और आचरण करने के लिए बाध्य करते हैं।
अमरीकी नीति का लक्ष्य है जनतंत्र और सामाजिक सुधारों का विरोध करना। अमरीकी प्रशासन के अनुसार उत्पीडित देशों में जनतंत्र और सामाजिक सामाजिक सुधार कभी भी जनप्रिय नहीं रहे हैं। उत्पीड़ित देशों में जनतंत्र और सामाजिक सुधारों के पक्ष में बोलने और आन्दोलन करने वाले ज्यादा लोग नजर ही नहीं आएंगे। आमतौर पर बहुत छोटा सामाजिक तबका ही इनके पक्ष में दिखाई देगा। अमरीकी नीति की सम्पूर्ण निर्भरता सेना पर है। वह ऐसे संगठनों के साथ मोर्चा बनाना पसंद करता रहा है जो सैन्यवादी हों, फौजी हों। अमरीकी प्रशासन ऐसे सभी किस्म के गुटों के सफाए के लिए काम करता रहा है जो अमरीका विरोधी प्रचार अभियान में संलग्न रहते हैं। वे ऐसे किसी भी स्थानीय अथवा जातीय प्रतिरोधी ग्रुप को उभरने नहीं देते जो अमरीकी प्रशासन के हाथ के बाहर चला जाए। यदि ऐसा होता है तो उसका सफाया कर दिया जाता है अथवा हाशिए पर पहुँचा दिया जाता है।
    चोमस्‍की के अनुसार अमरीकी प्रशासन की नीति‍ है  जनतांत्रिक ढंग़ से चुनी गई सरकारों को गिराना, इसके लिए जरूरी हो तो खून-खराबा भी करना। खून-खराबे में मारे गए अथवा उत्पीड़ित गरीबों के लिए आर्थिक और अन्य किस्म की मदद पहुँचाना। आर्थिक मदद के काम में अमूमन बहुराष्ट्रीय  कंपनियों की मदद ली जाती है। तीसरी दुनिया के देशों में चोम्स्की के अनुसार अमरीकी नीति है '' थोड़ा पालन और नकली प्रेम का प्रदर्शन।''  अमरीका ने लगातार ऐसे जनतंत्र का विरोध किया है जिसके परिणामों पर उसका नियंत्रण न हो। जनतंत्र की बिडम्बना यह है कि उसके जरिए आने वाली सरकार अमरीकी निवेशकों की बनिस्पत अपने देश की जनता की जरूरतों के प्रति जबावदेह होती है, जनता की जरूरतों के प्रति राय जाहिर करती है। चोम्स्की ने लंदन स्थित रॉयल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ इंटरनेशनल अफेयर्स के एक अनुसंधान का जिक्र किया है। जिसके अनुसार अमरीका जनतंत्र के प्रति रश्म-अदायगी करता रहा है।
चोम्स्की ने अमरीकी हस्तक्षेप की पध्दति के बारे में लिखा अमरीकी उत्पीडन की सामान्य पध्दति वही है जिसे कोंट्रा विद्रोहियों ने निकारागुआ में लागू किया था। अथवा अलसल्वाडोर या ग्वाटेमाला में अप्रत्यक्ष ढंग से आतंकी गिरोहों की मदद के जरिए लागू किया गया, इन ग्रुपों के हिंसाचार का लक्ष्य होता है साधारण लोगों की हत्या करना, बर्बर हिंसाचार, परपीडक आनंददायी पिटायी, पहाडों से बच्चों को फेंक देना, औरतों को फांसी लगाकर मार देना, उनके स्तन काट लेना, उनकी चमड़ी उधेड़ देना, चेहरे की चमड़ी को नष्ट कर देना जिससे होने वाले खूनी रिसाव के कारण उनका मौत हो जाती थी, साधारण लोगों के हाथ,पैर अथवा सिर अलग कर देना। अमरीका नीति का लक्ष्य है स्वतंत्र राष्ट्रवाद की हत्या करना और इसके लिए संघर्षरत ताकतों को कुचलना।
  हमें सोचना चाहि‍ए क्‍या अमरीकी प्रशासन के बारे में इतनी कटु राय रखने पर भी चोमस्‍की को यह सम्‍मान लेना चाहि‍ए ?
     








सोमवार, 17 अगस्त 2009

'अशि‍क्षि‍त मूर्ख' बनाम मुसलमान और शाहरूख

शाहरूख खान के साथ अमेरि‍का में एयरपोर्ट के अधि‍कारि‍यों ने जो दुर्व्‍यवहार कि‍या था उस पर जब मैंने लि‍खा तो प्रति‍क्रि‍या में अमेरि‍का से 'नि‍धि‍' ने काफी अच्‍छी जबावी दस्‍तक दी, लि‍खा मैं नहीं जानता कि‍ अमेरि‍का की कि‍तनी अच्‍छी व्‍यवस्‍था है। यह सच है मैं कभी अमेरि‍का नहीं गया और भवि‍ष्‍य में शायद कभी जा भी न पाऊँ ? हो सकता है मेरा लि‍खा 'नि‍धि‍' को सही न लगा हो लेकि‍न आज जब मैं 'टाइम्‍स ऑफ इण्‍डि‍या' पढ़ रहा था तो उसमें प्रसि‍द्ध सि‍तार वादक उस्‍ताद सुजात हुसैन खान का एक साक्षात्‍कार पढ़ने को मि‍ला, यह साक्षात्‍कार काफी कुछ नई चीजों पर रोशनी डालता है।
सुजात हुसैन साहब ने स्‍वीकार कि‍या है , उन्‍हें मुस्‍लि‍म होने के नाते अनेक बार जांच अधि‍कारि‍यों का सामना करना पड़ा है,उन्‍होंने यह भी कहा कि‍ वे अनेकबार अमेरि‍का जा चुके हैं। लेकि‍न उन्‍होने भी इस बात को रेखांकि‍त कि‍या है कि‍ एयरपोर्ट के कर्मचारी अच्‍छा व्‍यवहार करते हैं। उन्‍होंने लि‍खा है वे एकबार लॉस एंजि‍ल्‍स से न्‍यूयार्क की यात्रा कर रहे थे उनके पास बि‍जनेस क्‍लास का टि‍कट था,यह घटना नाइन इलेवन की घटना के एक सप्‍ताह बाद की है, उनके पास बैठे यात्रि‍यों ने शि‍कायत की कि‍ वे सुजात साहब के साथ बैठने में असुवि‍धा महसूस कर रहे हैं। इसके बाद कैप्‍टन ने उनका प्रोफाइल जांच के लि‍ए वाशिंगटन स्‍वीकृति‍ हेतु भेजा,यह भी कहा कि‍ सारी प्रक्रि‍या में मात्र 20 मि‍नट लगेंगे। ज्‍योंही प्रक्रि‍या खत्‍म हुई कैप्‍टन ने आकर कहा कि‍ आप बैठे रहें। इसके बावजूद मेरे पास बैठे यात्रि‍यों ने मेरे पास बैठने पर आपत्‍ति‍ प्रकट की और यह मुझे बेहद अपमानजनक लगा।
सुजात साहब ने कैप्‍टन को बुलाकर कहा तब भी वो लोग नहीं माने तो कैप्‍टन ने उन लोगों को उतरकर दूसरी हवाईसेवा लेने के लि‍ए कहा। साथ ही कहा कि‍ सुजात साहब को कि‍सी भी तरह वे नहीं उतारेंगे। सुजात साहब ने कहा अमेरि‍का में कि‍सी भी व्‍यक्‍ि‍त को वि‍शि‍ष्‍ट दर्जा नहीं दि‍या जाता,सबको समान भाव से देखा जाता है। इसके बावजूद सुजात साहब ने माना है कि‍ उन्‍हें मुसलमान होने के कारण काफी मर्तबा परेशान होना पड़ा है। इसी क्रम में उन्‍होंने यह भी कहा कि‍ उनके बेटे को चेन्‍नई में पांच लोगों ने घर देने से इसलि‍ए मना कि‍या क्‍योंकि‍ वह मुसलमान था अंत में एक हि‍न्‍दू महि‍ला ने उसे कि‍राए पर घर दि‍या और जब यह लड़का बीमार पड़ा तो उसकी देखभाल,सेवा बगैरह भी की।
सुजात साहब का मानना है कि‍ असहि‍ष्‍णुओं की दुनि‍या में मुसलमान का जीना बेहद कठि‍न है। यह वैसे ही है जैसे कि‍सी दलि‍त को ब्राह्मणों के इलाके में भारत में आज भी घर नहीं मि‍लता। भारत में भी ऐसे लोग हैं जो मुसलमानों को आए दि‍न देश छोड़ने की धमकी देते रहते हैं। सुजात साहब ने कहा है यह सच है कि‍ इस्‍लाम धर्म में कुछ लोग हैं जो अपने को आतंकवादी कहते हैं ,आतंक के जरि‍ए ही सब कुछ तय करना चाहते हैं ।
किंतु मुसलमानों को इनके आधार पर नहीं देखा जाना चाहि‍ए। सुजात साहब ने बहुत सुंदर ढ़ंग से कहा है कि‍ जि‍न पांच 'अशि‍क्षि‍त मूर्खों ' ने मेरे बेटे को चेन्‍नई में घर देने से मना कि‍या उसके आधार पर हि‍न्‍दुओं को नहीं देखा जाना चाहि‍ए।
अंत में,शाहरूख खान के मसले पर यही कहना है कि‍ अमेरि‍की अधि‍कारि‍यों ने आज जो बयान दि‍या है यदि‍ उसमें दि‍ए गए तथ्‍य सही हैं और शाहरूख उनका खंडन नहीं करते तो यही माना जाएगा कि‍ शाहरूख के साथ कोई बदसलूकी नहीं हुई थी। कम से कम दो बातों के बारे में शाहरूख को अपना नजरि‍या बताना होगा,पहला जहां जांच के लि‍ए ले जाया गया था वहां पहले से ही भीड़ थी या और भी लोग लाइन में खड़े थे ? दूसरा ,क्‍या उनका सामान कि‍सी दूसरे हवाई जहाज से आया था ? यदि‍ इस संबंध में उनके वि‍चार अमरीकी अधि‍कारि‍यों से मेल खाते हैं तो उन्‍हें यह सोचना चाहि‍ए कि‍ उन्‍हें बयान देने की मूर्खता नहीं करनी चाहि‍ए थी,सदि‍ शाहरूख ने अपनी असहमति‍ व्‍यक्‍त की तो मामला कुछ और ही शक्‍ल लेगा, लेकि‍न जि‍स तरह के व्‍यवसायि‍क दांव लगे हैं उसे देखते हुए कोई भी फि‍ल्‍म अभि‍नेता अमेरि‍का के खि‍लाफ बोलने का साहस नहीं दि‍खाएगा। इस सबके बावजूद यह सच है कि‍ अमेरि‍का मेंअश्‍वेतों, मुसलमानों और तीसरी दुनि‍या के देशों के नागरि‍कों के प्रति‍ समान व्‍यवहार नहीं कि‍या जाता ,इस बात को अनेक सरकारी जांच दस्‍तावेजों में स्‍वीकार कि‍या गया है।

विशिष्ट पोस्ट

मेरा बचपन- माँ के दुख और हम

         माँ के सुख से ज्यादा मूल्यवान हैं माँ के दुख।मैंने अपनी आँखों से उन दुखों को देखा है,दुखों में उसे तिल-तिलकर गलते हुए देखा है।वे क...