In the run upto to the Afghan elections and soon after the elections, there were wide-spread allegations of election fraud, of corrupt practices, and downright stealing of the election. The Afghan elections were structured that if no candidate got more than 50% of the vote, there would be a run-off to decide the final winner. Soon after the election, the current President, Hamid Karzai, declared that he was the winner by a significant margin, a claim disputed by the supporters of his challenger, the former Afghan foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah. That claim has not been settled till late, and it is of no credit to the Election Commission that it has allowed the process to continue till now. This happens at a time when the credibility of the Government is low, since it does not control an increasing larger section of the country (the resurgent Taliban is fighting in larger sections of the country), with the Government being accused of corruption and of being unable to provide effective governance, with large sections of the population claiming that they do not have basic facilities.
At such a time, the Government, and its supporters among the major powers can ill afford to have this kind of instability in the country, but the fact is that the allegations of voter fraud have served to reduce the legitimacy of Hamid Karzai, and his Government, which is also not fully supported by the United States.

continue reading "Afghan election scenario gets murkier"

When people talk about Afghanistan and its history, there is unanimity that no outside country can win inside Afghanistan. The British tried it in ‘The Great Game’s in the 19th century, and they lost troops, but never looked to be in a position where they could claim that they had repressed all discontent. The Soviets tried it in the 1980′s, but they were defeated by the terrain, by the fierce Afghans (although aided by the combined weight of Saudi Arabia, the US, and Pakistan); all together, it has always been claimed that no outside force can take control of Afghanistan, and it is predicted that the same will happen to the Americans in their effort in Afghanistan.
After the 2001 WTC attacks, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their battle against the Taleban, and literally bombed the Taliban into giving up their entire occupied territory. However, after that the Americans forgot all about history. George Bush gave up the effort in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq, and the unrest in Iraq made sure that Afghanistan did not get enough troops to protect against a resurgent Taleban, there was not enough support to ensure that development of the incredibly backward regions would happen, and the combination of a weak President Karzai supported by former warlords ensured that development and reform would not happen even though it was incredibly needed.
On the other hand, the Taleban, after taking its knocks in 2001, used a strategy of getting support and medical help for its fighters in Pakistan, and slowly started assuming enough strength to attack the US soldiers.

continue reading "What will Obama do in Afghanistan ? More troops, or … ?"

In April, there was wide-spread international condemnation when a legislation catering to the Shia sect in Afghanistan was passed. This legislation tilted the gender balance very strongly towards men, something not uncommon in Islamic countries. However, since Afghanistan was a place where troops from many nations were fighting the Taliban, and many of these troops were losing their lives, there was more outrage. How could a country have such a law if the Government of the country was dependent on foreign aid and foreign support. At that time, the President of Afghanistan, Karzai, shook off the criticism by claiming that he had not read the legislation clearly before signing it, and he would take steps to revert. However, seems like nothing really happened after that (link to article):

Afghanistan has enacted a new legislation empowering men of Shia sect of Islam to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, a media report said on Saturday. The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work, The Guardian reported.

continue reading "Law subjugates Shia women in Afghanistan"

Over a period of history, the concept of rights of a woman in marriage have been evolving; from earlier times where many cultures considered the woman to be a property of the husband in the marriage, most societies now legally consider the rights of both men and women in a marriage to be the same (of course, in realistic terms, this may not be always true, with many cultures believing men to be the superior, and having more rights). However, it is also true that many Islamic countries have a conflict between the rights of men and women in a marriage – there are a number of clerics who believe that woman do not have the same rights (with the Taliban-run Afghanistan being a society where the rights of woman were definitely much lower than that of men).
Inter-linked in all this is the concept of sexual relations in marriage, and what are the duties / obligations of each partner in a marriage. Policies have slowly evolved that the concept of force has been recognized as not valid; if a partner forces the other partner to submit to a sexual relationship by force, then it is now recognized as rape. However, recent events in Afghanistan changed this entire understanding.

continue reading "Afghan law that allowed rape in a marriage to be reviewed"