Mr. Jinnah - a hypocrite?

Mr. Jinnah bears the responsibility for the seperation of Pakistan from India. Seventy years after the independence this is one the debated why did the seperation happen. Many Indian, Pakistan and European contemplated several theories on why and how the split happen and what are the side effects in historical and political sense.

Mr. Jinnah born on Dec 25, 1976 was a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman and the founder of Pakistan. After completing his matriculation from University of Bombay, he left for England to become a lawyer. Western influnces were great on Mr. Jinnah, uptil until eventual split of India, he only wore western clothes. It is even alleged that he never wore the same silk toe twice. He mostly spoke in Gujrati and English until the time he started demanding the partition. Later, he switched to speaking exclusively in Urdu within his congregation.

Mr. Jinnah at the age 16 married for the first time to his distant cousin, Emibai Jinnah who unfortunately died just few months into marriage. Later at the age of 42, he fell in love with Rattanbai Petit, a Parsi. This would have a norm and nothing out of extraordinary that an elites in India married on basis of love and not base it on religion. But the hypocrisy comes when Mr. Jinnah then opposes the love relationship and eventual marriage of his daughter, Dina with Parsi-born Christian businessman, Neville Wadia.The opposition not based on the character of his son-in-law, but because he belonged to Parsi religion. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah's assistant at the time, recalls: "Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina's mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, the young lady replied: 'Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?' And he replied that, 'she became a Muslim'". Dina's eventual relationship was constrained by her father who broke all relationship with her. What a wonderful father? Or, may I say does it highlight the character flaw, as in the old idiom, Do as I say, not as I do!

In 1920, Mohandas Gandhi launched unsuccessful Non-cooperation movement. Most Indian elites not directly affiliated to the crown joined in and showed their support to the cause. Few notable exceptions were Mr. Jinnah who broke with Congress because he thought that is unlawful to do so. Playing safe, ein't he?

During final years of struggle, many attempts were made by the British, Indian Congress to reconile the differences between the Muslim league. Mr. Jinnah contemplated that after the British leave India, India will be left with more than 50% Hindus and hence Hindus will have permanent majority. There are various statistics regarding the population of united India before Independence. The most common figure quoted is 60% Hindus and 35% Muslims. Mr. Jinnah forwarded a suggestion the electoral votes be used for determining majority and that 60% of Hindus would only have 50% electoral votes and 35% of Muslims should have remaining 50% electoral votes. Ofcourse, fairly balanced as he was, he completely ignored any accomodation for Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains or Bhuddhists. To a mere mortal like Nehru or Patel, this seemed highly hypocritical, one the one side, Mr. Jinnah was talking about inequity and was far more anxious of arrangement like this?

Gandhi who was trying very hard to hold India together was willing to offer to Jinnah, the Prime Ministership eventhough that he held only 16% of the votes in United India election. Thankfully Patel and Nehru wondered that Jinnah was blackmailing on the threat of partition with barely 16% of the votes, how would he behave once the British leaves. Would be consider making himself the supreme leader after the independence of India on constant threat of "Direct Action" as was illustrated by him in Calcutta in 1946. Jinnah's hardball eventually found no keepers and greater mistrust ensued between Muslim league and Congress. Hence, the idea was floated for weak center and powerful states, with states having rights to leave whenever they choose, this was vehemently opposed by Congress.

The talk of split before the formation of a country and acts of terrorism instigated by "Direct Action" and similar behaviors by agitating his followers folks of danger to the religion in united India, that in United India, Hindus will hold the gun to forcefully convert Muslims to Hindus. This is funny saying considering other than handful of Muslim rulers, most of them destroyed Hindu temples to convert them into Mosques, forcing people to additional taxes because they are not Muslims, or prosecuting them because any Kafir is unwelcome. If this is not hypocrisy what is?

Mr. Jinnah's close friends considered him to secular and having liberal views. He was considered to like the Western cultural aspects and found himself communicating even with the local folks exclusively in English. When such an individual later wants to divide the country into two based on religion, what should any one think? What else could be the reason? I often heard the most important reason that the jobs were not given to Muslims as Hindus were preferred by British. If one could bring down their shades, and wonder how come Mr. Jinnah, a Muslim was able to practice law successfully without any problem. Others would may say, he was the exception than the rule. For this my answer is pretty simple, if a job requires degree, a mere fact that someone is Muslim won't adjure them of having minimal requirements.Up untill the division of India, comparatively speaking, vast majority of Muslims did not care to learn English or get the appropriate qualifications for a job. Could it be possible this is the reason. Ofcourse, not! That seems to be too obvious! It has to be something else!

Finally, as per the desire of Mr. Jinnah, part of India was split into East and West Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah retained the complete power structure and sole power center proclaiming himself as the Governer-General. If this is not an act of power struggle, rather than selfless act for the fight for the protection of Muslim minority, then what is?

In his first speech after independence, Mr. Jinnah said "In course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims". If that is so, why then Pakistan? Also, I wondered whether he allowed for 50% electoral stake for minority Hindus that formed more than 25% of population in Pakistan. Ofcourse not, just like I would have assumed.

In the independent Pakistan, East Pakistan formed slightly more than 50% of the population, but in his cabinet recommendations, Bengalis formed the minoity partners. This form of discrimination increased further in the passing years, eventually split the country into two- namely, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

After Jinnah's death, this behavior was emulated by military generals on a pattern of continuous toppling of democratic governments in Pakistan. Can somebody blame the General for not looking upto their founder and following his path?

Are Indians generally better off with current state borders, I could easily vouch that most Indians born after two decades of Independence are quite satisfied with outcome. Part of India that split into Pakistan, eventually become the largest contributor of terrorism in the neighborhood and globe and the other part, Bangladesh, would form most distressed part of the world with constant flooding and drought sometimes happening at the same time in different parts of its country, meanwhile India is slowly moving ahead to take its place as a global player.

How Pakistan pumps in hatred through textbooks

A recent study report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has researched the Pakistani school textbooks to discover how the ruling regimes attempt to construct nationhood in the young minds and how textbooks are misused as an instrument of ruling paradigms to develop a particular anti-Hindu and anti-India mind set.

Funded by the USCIRF, the 139-page study report was prepared by the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy in partnership with a Pakistani think tank, the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

The report was released in Washington on November 9.

After poring through more than 100 textbooks from grades 1 to 10 across all four provinces; visiting 37 public schools and interviewing 277 students and teachers; visiting 19 madrassas and interviewing 226 students and teachers, the US commission members discovered that there is religious bias in Pakistani textbooks which teaches bigotry against the minority communities of the country.

The USCIRF study report shows how education can be distorted to construct a particular kind of national chauvinism and a mind set and how ruling regimes intervene in education to promote certain ideologies that suits their own interests.

Textbooks are the obvious examples of how history is manipulated, especially if it is conceived by ruling regimes and authored by people with interest in constructing a nation based on a homogeneous nationality.

The USCIRF, an independent, statutory body which advises the US government on religious freedom around the world, has called every year since 2002 for the US State Department to designate Pakistan as a "country of particular concern", but to no avail.

"The goal of the 2011 USCIRF study was to explore what linkages, if any, exist between the portrayal of religious minorities in Pakistan's public schools and madrassas, biases that exist toward these minorities, and acts of discrimination or extremism resulting from such biases," Leonard Leo has written in the preface to the study report. The results of the study, according to him, were "eye opening and concerning."

The commission members unanimously observed that teaching discrimination increases the likelihood that violent religious extremism in Pakistan will continue to grow in time to come, weakening religious freedom, national and regional stability, and global security.

"Textbooks being used in Pakistani public schools and madrassas promote intolerant views of non-Muslim minorities, extol jihad, and portray non-Muslims not at citizens with rights but as infidels, pagans, apostates or subservient dhimmis", says the study report.

Interviews with teachers and students, carried out as part of the investigation, found that negative views of non-Muslims contained in the textbooks are widely held by teachers and transmitted to children.

"The commission's study documents how Pakistan's public schools and privately-run madrassas are not teaching tolerance but are exacerbating religious differences," said the USCIRF chairman Leonard Leo while releasing the report.

The findings indicate how deeply ingrained hardline Islam is in Pakistan and help explain why militancy is often supported, tolerated or excused in the country.

Pakistan was created in 1947 as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia and was initially envisaged as a moderate state where minorities would have full rights.

But three wars with mostly 'Hindu' India; support for militants fighting Soviet-rule in Afghanistan in the 1980s; and the appeasement of hard-line clerics by weak governments seeking legitimacy have led to a steady radicalisation of society.

Religious minorities and those brave enough to speak out against intolerance have often been killed, seemingly with impunity, by militant sympathisers.

According to the findings of the commission, despite efforts by Pakistani authorities to reform the education system over the past six years, including revisions to the national curricula, the problematic content remains in textbooks, including those that have been reprinted since the revisions were introduced.

Even ostensibly non-religious textbooks contain significant Islamic content, and they are used by Muslim and non-Muslim children alike.

For example, in grade 3, 4, 5 and 6, Urdu-language social studies textbooks used in all the four provinces, lessons with Islamic content comprise about one-quarter of the total.

The study found that in the textbooks, the defence of Pakistan is equated with the defence of Islam. "The anti-Islamic forces are always trying to finish the Islamic domination of the world," reads an excerpt from a social studies textbook of grade 5.

"This can cause danger for the very existence of Islam. Today, the defence of Pakistan and Islam is very much in need. Where references to non-Muslims or non-Islamic beliefs do appear, they are often derogatory," the report states.

"Religious minorities are often portrayed as inferior or second-class citizens who have been granted limited rights and privileges by generous Pakistani Muslims, for which they should be grateful, and to whom religious minorities should be subservient," the report states.

"The contributions of religious minorities towards the formation, development, and protection of Pakistan are largely absent."

Hindus are often singled out, as are Ahmadis, adherents of an Islamic sect considered heretical by mainstream Muslims.

"Although an unbiased review of history would show that Hindus and Muslims enjoyed centuries of harmonious co-existence, Hindus are repeatedly described as extremists and eternal enemies of Islam. Hindu culture and society are portrayed as unjust and cruel, while Islam is portrayed as just and peaceful."

The few references to Christians "seem generally negative, painting an incomplete picture of the largest religious minority in Pakistan," while Jews are depicted as predatory moneylenders.

The USCIRF report acknowledged that many public school teachers and students do "advocate respect for religious minorities, but a large portion does not understand minority citizenship rights and are wary about them ever holding public office."

Books used in madrassas, privately-run religious institutions, were especially worrying. The study report observed: "In every madrassa textbook reviewed, the concept of jihad has been reduced from its wider meaning of personal development to violent conflict in the name of Islam, considered to be the duty of every Muslim. The Quranic verse commanding the believer to 'kill the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them' is often cited with no context."

"At no time is it suggested that decisions regarding warfare should be left to the state, creating the possibility that the reader could consider it his or her individual responsibility to fight," the report adds.

A previous study into the Pakistani school textbooks, which was conducted by the Brookings Institute in June 2010, had concluded that the real cause of militancy in Pakistan is the public education system and not madrassas or religious schools because the majority of Pakistani students attend public school whereas only ten per cent attend madrassas.

The report observed that the textbooks being taught at Pakistani public schools disseminate militancy, hatred and jihad and distort history.

Pakistan's ambassador to the United States Hussain Haqqani has expressed similar views in his book "Pakistan: between mosque and the military" (published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):

"Only officially published textbooks are used in Pakistani schools and colleges since the era of General Ayub Khan. This is used by the Pakistani government to create a standard narrative of Pakistan's history. During the rule of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq a program of Islamization of the country including the textbooks was started."

"General Zia's 1979 education policy stated that the highest priority would be given to the revision of the curricula with a view to reorganising the entire content around Islamic thought and giving education an ideological orientation so that Islamic ideology permeates the thinking of the younger generation and helps them with the necessary conviction and ability to refashion society according to Islamic tenets," Haqqani wrote.

In a 1995 paper published in International Journal of Middle East Studies historian Ayesha Jalal stated: "Pakistan's history textbooks are amongst the best available sources for assessing the nexus between power and bigotry in creative imaginings of a national past."

She pointed out authors whose expansive pan-Islamic imaginings detect the beginnings of Pakistan in the birth of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula.

A textbook of Pakistan Studies claims that Pakistan "came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan'; by the thirteenth century 'Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal' and then under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan'. The spirit of Pakistan asserted itself', and under Aurangzeb Alamgir, the 'Pakistan spirit gathered in strength'; his death 'weakened the Pakistan spirit'."

To tell the truth, the systematic slanting of the state prescribed curricula for all levels of the public education system in Pakistan was exposed in great detail by a comprehensive study report published by the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development Policy Institute way back in 2002.

Titled "The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan" and jointly written by A H Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, the report concluded that the Pakistani textbooks that form part of the present public school curriculum are lessons in bigotry, hate and a gross misrepresentation of history.

It added that the curriculum wing of the Pakistani federal ministry of education has somehow become the principal source of what can only be termed as 'hate literature'.

Giving instances, the SDPI report mentioned a 2002 directive from the Education Ministry's Curriculum Wing for the subject of Pakistan Studies, defining the following learning objectives: "Develop understanding of Hindu-Muslim differences and need for Pakistan (Class IV); Hindu-Muslim differences in culture, India's evil designs against Pakistan; identify the events in relation to Hindu-Muslim differences.

The study report, which was a close analysis of national curricula and textbooks by a group of independent Pakistani scholars, showed that for over two decades the national curricula and the officially mandated textbooks in the subjects of Social Studies, English, Urdu and Civics from Class I to Class XII have contained material that is directly contrary to the goals and values of a progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan and encourage students to take part in jihad and martyrdom.

The report was abundantly clear on where the responsibility for these persistent distortions lies: "Over the years, it became apparent that it was in the interest of both the military and the theocrat to promote militarism in the Pakistani society. This confluence of interests now gets reflected in the educational material," the report added.

The SDPI study made it clear that that it is not just some deeni madrassas or religious seminaries that are spreading hatred, sectarianism and religious bigotry, but also the prescribed textbooks of the government-run schools.

As a matter of fact, the concepts of jihad and martyrdom were incorporated into the Pakistani curriculum after the start of the so-called Afghan jihad against the Soviet occupation troops.

At that point, it suited Washington and its most allied of allies, Pakistan, to encourage and glorify the so-called mujahideen, or holy warriors, in the war against the Russians -- and an American institution of higher education was asked to formulate textbooks for Pakistani schools accordingly.

The University of Nebraska at Omaha, which has a centre for Afghan Studies, was subsequently tasked by the US Central Intelligence Agency in the early eighties to rewrite textbooks for Afghan refugee children.

The new textbooks included hate material even in arithmetic. For example, if a man has five bullets and two go into the heads of Russian soldiers, how many are left, kind of stuff.

This was exposed in a research thesis from the New School, New York in 2002. Since the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, the mujahideen not only mutated into Taliban but also outlived their usefulness; the same American University of Nebraska at Omaha was given an additional grant by the Bush administration in 2003 to re-write textbooks, taking out material on jihad, etc.

Pakistan is doing its utmost to meet the needs of changing times and to become a state geared up to cope with internal and external challenges and the most vital sector that can help achieve this goal is none other than education.

For most of the stuff that is now being taught in our educational institutions has long become outdated and outmoded, and this makes the need all the more urgent for new textbooks and other educational material, in line with the requirements of the modern world.

Therefore, a massive revision of the school and college syllabi is a must. All textbooks being taught in our schools should be burnt and objective scholars with a well-rounded worldview assigned to rewrite and recast the entire educational curriculum in both schools and colleges, mainly because Pakistani children need to learn about their society in the larger context of other societies of the world in an age of globalization.

Source: rediff.com

Negotiating With Pakistan

When the Taliban dishonored their word and exploited the trust of the Afghan government by assassinating Afghanistan’s High Peace Council Chair and its former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai was left with no choice but to approach the peace process with a pragmatic view. Mr. Karzai stated that Afghanistan will no longer enter into peace negotiations with the Taliban; instead it will hold direct talks with Taliban’s mentor, Pakistan.

Perhaps, this is one of the most realistic policies that has ever emerged from Afghanistan’s current presidency; however, based on historical facts, negotiating with Pakistan in hopes of bringing a long lasting peace to Afghanistan requires more than superior diplomatic skills. Here is why?

Contrary to the views of many external observers who evaluate Pakistan’s behavior on the basis of their own expectations, Pakistan government’s support for terrorism is not characterized by “irrationality” or craziness but rather it is highly regularized and internally consistent.

Historically, after World War II, when Britain decided to downsize its colonial stake in South Asia, the Congress Party of India and the British viceroy had, at last, agreed with the Muslim League that independence would be granted to India on the basis of partition of the subcontinent, guaranteeing the Muslim of India their own separate state through the establishment of Pakistan. The British government, however, did not give due consideration to the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), situated west of the Indus River and part of the Frontier, was mostly composed of lands formerly belonging to Afghanistan and was essentially inhabited by Pashtuns.

This Pashtun dilemma is the essential cause of more than a half-century long animosity between Afghanistan and Pakistan. While, undeniably, it would have been responsible for Britain to streamline Pakistan’s entry into statehood by removing the Pashtun problem from Afghan-Pakistan relations beforehand, the evolution of geopolitics dictates otherwise.

Pakistan has, since its establishment, attempted to employ brinkmanship and unconventional crisis-oriented “guerrilla” tactics to foster an atmospheres designed to weaken Afghanistan’s position & extract concession. Pakistani negotiators – whether the military, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or the foreign office – have shown remarkably consistent style, behavior, and objective in their interactions with Afghan and American officials. While senior Pakistani officials have constantly promised at the negotiating table, that includes former Pakistani Dictator Pervis Musharaf, to eradicate terrorist sanctuaries within Pakistan territory, their actions or lack of, speak otherwise.

Today, the government of Pakistan overtly uses NWFP also known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) to recruit, nurture, congregate, & train Taliban terrorists to stage attacks on Afghan civilians, the United States Armed Forces & our NATO allies.

Given the nature of Pakistan’s military leadership, which converges in all its aspects and elements with a Jihadi complex, it would be difficult for Afghanistan and its partner, the United States, to achieve a significant settlement with tactics that employ mild diplomatic language.

Even Pakistan’s advocate Anatol Lieven, a professor at King’s College London, who had spent more than four years living in Pakistan and researching its government’s behavior concluded that: “If Washington wishes to improve relations with Pakistan, it needs to stop regarding Pakistan as an ally, and to start regarding it as an enemy — at least as far as the Afghan War is concerned.”

Lieven’s idea to change our rhetoric vis-à-vis Pakistan might help the Obama administration to depart from unrealistic sets of expectations and it, perhaps, invalidates the US State Department’s cosmetic phrase, “rogue elements within Pakistan Military and the ISI,” while for fact we know that Pakistan military and the ISI espouse terrorism & violence to express Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Although Lieven’s view is useful, it’s still unclear whether the National Security Council (NSC) at the White House views Pakistan as an enemy or as a failed State. Either way, the NSC is in an awkward position as the erosion of Pakistan’s reputation, among the American people, & our international allies, undermines any policy that tries to conjure up Pakistan as an ally.

Meanwhile, despite many Pakistani experts claim, the United States has rarely exhorted Pakistan to behave in accordance with US policies based on the generosity of US aid. For example: the US has never given Pakistan an ultimatum to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), however, the US has simply asked Pakistani government to not support, train, & protect terrorists in its citadels and allow its territory to be used as a staging ground against American interests – this is not an unrealistic demand but a minimum respect to diplomatic reciprocity – yet, it is worth noting that Pakistan has demonstrated a lack of concern with the United States & Afghanistan’s appeal or with harmful situation created by its overt support of the Haqqani Taliban & many other terrorist groups.

Afghanistan’s leaders must also realize that the process of negotiating with Pakistan itself has developed its own style and ritual, characterized by seemingly contradictory techniques at different stages. It’s fundamentally acceptable for the Afghan government to call Pakistan its enemy, yet enter into negotiations rather than calling Pakistan a “brother” and exude weakness in the negotiating process. Historically, many enemies have reached armistice through negotiations without ever calling each other brothers.

Finally, simply calling Pakistan an enemy is insufficient. We need a policy that addresses our Pakistan problem appropriately. A comprehensive policy that supports the US & Afghanistan interests effectively. If we have decided to treat Pakistan as an enemy, what action does it imply? Land invasion, increased drones attacks, denuclearizing Pakistan through clandestine operation or an International isolation through a United Nations Security Council resolution? Will it achieve our long term benefits or objectives?

Source: http://pubrecord.org/commentary/9867/negotiating-with-pakistan/

Pakistan Secrets : Backlash - a BBC documentary

Pakistan among bottom 5 on income, wellbeing ranking

KARACHI: An index that measures prosperity as a function of both income and wellbeing for 110 countries around the world has placed Pakistan fourth from the bottom, below Sudan and Yemen.

At 107, Pakistan is ahead of only Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is ranked last out of 22 nations.

London-based research organisation Legatum Institute released on Tuesday the 2011 Legatum Prosperity Index, in which countries are ranked in eight areas before being given an overall prosperity rank.

Nordic countries dominate the overall rankings, with Norway and Denmark bagging the top two spots and Sweden and Finland also appearing in the top 10. Others in that group include Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands and, lastly, the United States

Pakistan is listed at 86 for Entrepreneurship & Opportunity, 96 for both Economy and Health, 98 for Governance, 100 for Social Capital, 104 for Personal Freedom, 105 for Education and 109 for Safety & Security. In this last category it is preceded by Colombia and followed only by Sudan.

The numbers for Social Capital and Personal Freedom may provide some cause for scepticism. As the report itself admits, Pakistan has relatively strong social networks, and at times these have functioned as private social welfare nets. And the Personal Freedom score seems low compared to some other countries listed above Pakistan, such as Saudi Arabia, China and Syria.

Some of the reasons listed for Pakistan’s poor performance include an unstable economy with uncertain growth prospects, limited access to technology, income inequality, lack of competition and accountability in the political system, limited spending on public health, low school enrolment rates and poor quality of education, political violence, demographic pressures, and limitations on civil liberties.

There are few bright spots in the Pakistan analysis, but the report does claim that start-up costs for new businesses are moderate in the global context, that Pakistan has relatively strong family and religious networks and a moderate level of social cohesion, and that despite poor social and economic indicators, two-thirds of Pakistanis, or about the global average, say they are satisfied with their standard of living. The statistics used to arrive at these rankings include both objective data such as inflation, life expectancy, pupil-to-teacher ratios, and crime, marriage and emigration rates, and subjective input such as opinion surveys, particularly the Gallup World Poll, and expert evaluations.

Pakistan’s performance on many of these statistics paints a bleak picture. The country ranks 85th for citizens’ ability to afford food and shelter, 105th for political stability and 103rd for infant mortality (7 per cent). Per-capita spending on healthcare is the 10th lowest in the world and Pakistan has the 11th highest rate of emigration of intellectuals, professionals, political dissidents and members of the middle class.

But Social Capital measures are positive; about half of Pakistanis surveyed had donated to charity, for example, and the country is ranked 24th in terms of people volunteering their time for an organisation.

On the composite rankings, however, Pakistan’s performance is considerably worse than on others that have a narrower focus, including GDP per capita, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index and the United Nations Development Programmes’ Human Development Index.

India dropped 13 places to number 91, more than any other country except for Nicaragua. Its ranking was affected by such factors as high business start-up costs, income inequality, low school enrolment, poor healthcare, and political violence, displacement and crime.

China beat the US economically but has an overall rank of 52, dragged down by low performance on Personal Freedom and on Safety & Security, including state-sponsored violence and repression against specific groups.

The report also offers a number of international comparisons: sub-Saharan Africans are relatively optimistic about entrepreneurial opportunities but are held back by poor infrastructure; Turkey may look like a role model for Arab Spring countries but Indonesia and Malaysia provide better models of economic growth; a comparison of EU member states reveals vast gaps between richer and poorer states on a number of economic and social dimensions and thus points to the failures of European integration; and countries in the Americans perform better on income than on life satisfaction, while in Asia Pacific the reverse is true.

The richest countries are not necessarily the happiest, with Norway outranking Germany, Canada outranking the US and China lagging far behind Singapore. And according to this broader measure, despite the 2008 financial crisis, the majority of countries in the world have become more prosperous rather than less over the last two years.

Pakistani Cricket Idols, yet again convicted of match fixing

Two Pakistan cricket players were found guilty of conspiring to take bribes and cheating in a match against England last year at Lord's cricket ground in London.

Former captain Salman Butt, 27, conspired with fast bowler Mohammad Asif, 29, and another teammate to bowl poorly three times in the match to affect gambling outcomes, the jury decided today after a three-week trial in London. The third player, fast bowler Mohammad Amir, 19, pleaded guilty before the trial.

The crime was uncovered in a secret recording by a journalist at the now-defunct News of the World tabloid, who offered Butt's agent, Mazhar Majeed, a 140,000-pound ($223,000) bribe. Majeed accepted the money so Butt would arrange for Asif and Amir to bowl "no balls" on Aug. 26 and 27 last year during the fourth Test, prosecutors alleged.

Amir bowled two no balls and Asif bowled one at exactly the moments specified in the recording, taped by the tabloid journalist who posed as a wealthy Indian businessman interested in fixing cricket matches.

"It's fair to say we wouldn't be here today without investigative journalism," Matthew Horne, detective chief superintendent for the Metropolitan Police, said after the verdict.

Butt's lawyer, Ali Bajwa, and Asif's lawyer, Robert Brown, declined to comment following the verdicts.

Videotaped Conversations

The prosecution's evidence included videotaped conversations between the journalist and Majeed, transcripts of text messages between the players and Majeed recovered by Canada's Mounted Police and guidance provided by statisticians.

Police found 2,500 pounds in cash that matched the serial numbers of the money paid to Majeed by the reporter when they searched Butt's hotel room on Aug. 28. The former team captain said he'd been given the money as part payment of a 5,000 pound fee for appearing at the opening of a South London ice cream parlor for Majeed.

The three players "deliberately and knowingly perverted the course of a cricket match for financial gain," said Sally Walsh, a lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service. "Match- fixing is not just unsportsmanlike but is a serious criminal act."

The players face as much as seven years in prison under U.K. sentencing guidelines. Justice Jeremy Cooke will hear legal arguments starting tomorrow regarding sentencing.

'Freakish Occurrences'

After his arrest, Butt said that three no-balls were bowled at the same time his agent told the journalist that they would be, was a series of "freakish occurrences," Aftab Jafferjee, a lawyer for the prosecution, told the jury during the trial. Asif said the fact that he bowled no balls was chance and unrelated to the bribe, according to prosecutors.

Butt testified that playing for Pakistan was "the greatest honor of my life." He said he earned a total of around 800,000 pounds in sponsorship and match fees between 2007 and 2010.

In February, Butt, Asif and Amir were suspended from the game for violating the sport's anti-corruption code by the International Cricket Council said.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/01/bloomberg_articlesLTZSFQ0D9L35.DTL

Pakistan - a Nuclear Walmart

IAEA identifies uranium enrichment plant design at Hasakah, Syria and finds correspondence with Pakistan atomic expert, sources claim

UN investigators have identified a previously unknown complex in Syriathat bolsters suspicions the government in Damascus worked with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to acquire nuclear weapons technology.

The buildings in north-west Syria closely match the design of a uranium enrichment plant provided to Libya when Muammar Gaddafi was trying to build nuclear weapons under Khan's guidance, officials said.

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also obtained correspondence between Khan and a Syrian government official, Muhidin Issa, who proposed scientific co-operation and a visit to Khan's laboratories after a successful nuclear test by Pakistan in 1998.

The complex, in the city of Hasakah, now appears to be a cotton-spinning plant, and investigators have found no sign it was ever used for nuclear production. Given that Israeli warplanes destroyed a suspected plutonium production reactor in Syria in 2007, the unlikely coincidence in design suggests Syria may have been pursuing two routes to an atomic bomb: uranium as well as plutonium.

Details of the Syria-Khan connection were provided to Associated Press by a senior diplomat with knowledge of IAEA investigations and a former UN investigator. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The Syrian government did not respond to a request for comment. It has repeatedly denied pursuing nuclear weapons but also has stymied an investigation into the site bombed by Israel. It has not responded to an IAEA request to visit the Hasakah complex, the officials said.

The IAEA declined to comment. Its examination of Syria's programmes has slowed as world powers have focused on the popular uprising in the country and the government's violent crackdown.

Syria has never been regarded as being close to having developed a nuclear bomb. There also is no indication that Damascus continues to work on a nuclear programme. If the facility in Hasakah was intended for uranium production, those plans appear to have been abandoned with the Israeli bombing.

Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington who has spoken to IAEA officials about the Hasakah complex, said it is important to learn more details about the buildings.

"What is at stake here is the nuclear history of that facility," Hibbs said. "People want to know what did they intend to do there, and Syria has provided no information."

Syria has strategic reasons to seek a nuclear weapon, having been in a cold war for decades with Israel, a country believed to have a significant nuclear arsenal.

"A nuclear weapon would give Syria at least a kind of parity with Israel and some status within the region," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

There has been speculation about ties between the Syrian government and Khan for years. A hero to many in Pakistan for developing the country's nuclear bomb, Khan is considered the world's most prolific nuclear merchant. He supplied Iran with the basics of what is now an established uranium enrichment program that has churned out enough material to make several nuclear weapons, although Iran denies it intends to produce any. Libya also bought equipment and a warhead design from Khan for a secret nuclear program that it renounced in 2003.

In 2004, Khan confessed on TV to selling nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, but he has never spoken of Syria. Khan later said Pakistani authorities forced him to make the confession.

The former investigator said Syria acknowledged to the IAEA that Khan made at least one trip to Syria to deliver scientific lectures, as the Los Angeles Times reported in 2004.

The former official said he has seen letters from Issa, then a deputy minister of education, written on official letterhead shortly after the 1998 nuclear test congratulating Pakistan for Khan's achievement. In subsequent correspondence, Issa suggested cooperation with Khan and requested a visit by Syrian officials to Khan's laboratory.

Issa, who later served as the dean of the faculty of sciences at Arab International University in Daraa, Syria, could not be reached for comment.

In a 2007 interview with an Austrian newspaper, the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, acknowledged having received a letter that appeared to have been from Khan, but said his government had not responded and did not meet Khan.

IAEA investigators homed in on the Hasakah facility after analysis of satellite imagery in the Middle East, sparked by a belief that Khan had an additional government customer that had not yet come to light. They identified the site, the largest industrial complex in Hasakah, after a 2006 report in a Kuwaiti newspaper claimed Syria had a secret nuclear programme in the city.

Satellite imagery of Hasakah revealed striking similarities to plans for a uranium enrichment facility seized during a Swiss investigation related to Khan. Another set of the same plans was turned over to the IAEA after Libya abandoned its nuclear programme. Libya told the IAEA it had ordered 10,000 gas centrifuges from Khan, most of which it intended for a facility that was to be built according to the plans. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium in the weapons making process.

The investigator said the layout at Hasakah matches the plans used in Libya almost exactly, with a large building surrounded by three smaller workshops in the same configurations. Investigators were struck that even the parking lots had similarities, with a covered area to shield cars from the sun.

But the investigator said he had seen no evidence that centrifuges were ever installed there. The Hasakah Spinning Company has a website that shows photos of manufacturing equipment inside the facility and brags about its prices.

IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the bombed reactor site once, but have not been allowed back for nearly three years. The IAEA asked to visit the site more than two years ago. But it has not pressed the issue, focusing its efforts on the bombed site.

Nor has the agency ever cited the Hasakah facility in its reports. Three other sites have been mentioned, but they are believed to have been related to the bombed reactor, not the Hasakah plant.

The IAEA issued a strongly worded assessment in May that said the targeted site was in fact a nearly built nuclear reactor. The agency's board subsequently referred the issue to the UN security council, effectively dismissing Syrian denials as untrue.

Syrian officials again refused new inspections after talks with the IAEA in Damascus last week, diplomats have said. The officials said they would provide new evidence that the bombed site was non-nuclear. Agency officials remain skeptical because Syria did not describe the new information or say when it would be provided.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/syria-nuclear-arms-site-revealed