Cooking Maggies

 

inside the dorms

 

Sanawar Girls Dorm

 

Indian workers misled about jobs in the US

Indian Workers Decry Recruitment Tactics
Protesters Cite 'Lifetime Settlement' Offer
Outside the Justice Department, workers from India protest allegedly deceptive practices used to lure them to this country after Hurricane Katrina.
Outside the Justice Department, workers from India protest allegedly deceptive practices used to lure them to this country after Hurricane Katrina. (By Gerald Martineau -- The Washington Post) | Buy Photo

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A12

Vijay Kumar was working as a contract welder in the sweltering United Arab Emirates two years ago, far from his wife and family in southern India, when he spotted an advertisement offering welders and pipe fitters "permanent lifetime settlement in the USA for self and family."

Kumar answered the ad to find that workers were being recruited to rebuild oil rigs in Mississippi and Texas destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. He returned to India, signed a contract and paid a recruiter $20,000 to travel to the United States. He told his wife, who had just given birth to a son, that he would send for them as soon as he could.

"I sell my house, my wife sell her jewels, we borrow money from friends. We dream of living in America together," Kumar, 34, said yesterday. He stood outside the U.S. Justice Department during a protest with several dozen other Indian workers, all of whom have been staging a hunger strike in Washington for weeks.
ad_icon

When about 500 Indian recruits reached Mississippi in the fall of 2006, Kumar and the others said, they found that they had been deceived. Their new employer, Signal International Corp., had hired them as temporary "guest" workers with 10-month H2B visas. There was no possibility of obtaining permanent residency for themselves, let alone their families back home. Signal denies that it knew the workers had been promised U.S. residency.

With support from the AFL-CIO, law firms and advocacy groups, more than 100 of the recruited Indians have filed a federal lawsuit in Louisiana against Signal and several recruiting agents, under a federal law that prohibits "human trafficking" by fraud or force for labor or services.

The group also asked for a Justice Department investigation and for permission to remain in the United States, even though they are no longer employed here, while their court case is pending. Some of the workers, who quit Signal in March and made their way to Washington, have staged an intermittent hunger strike outside the Embassy of India to draw attention to their case. Eighteen members of Congress have signed a letter to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on their behalf.

In addition to the hiring process, the workers complained about their treatment in the United States. They said they were squeezed into crowded bunk rooms with too few toilets, given bad food and little freedom to leave the work site and had to labor in hot and dirty conditions, cleaning and repairing the damaged oil rigs.

"None of the promises were kept," said Shivan Raghavan, 45, another Indian worker at yesterday's protest, who said he paid the recruiter an additional $4,500 to send later for his wife and two children. "The work was dirty and dangerous. There was little air, and it was hard to breathe. When we complained, we were told we could be deported.

"We were cheated, and we want justice," he said.

Signal International officials said yesterday that they had been shocked to learn that recruiters had lured the foreign workers with false offers of permanent immigration, and that Signal had played no part in that process. They also said the living arrangements they offered at their U.S. operations were not only of good quality but also tailored to the needs and tastes of South Asian immigrant workers.

"The company was incredibly angry when we found the recruiters had misled people and charged them outrageous fees to come over. Signal feels betrayed by the recruiters, and to an extent betrayed by the workers for making false allegations," said Erin Casey Hangartner, counsel for Signal, in a telephone interview from Mississippi.

She said she did not know whether Signal officials knew of the deceptive advertisements, only that "we did not fully understand the green card process. We acted in good faith at every turn." She also said Signal has entered the Indians' lawsuit as a plaintiff, accusing several recruiters in India and the United States of hiring workers under fraudulent conditions.

Attempts were made to reach lawyers at an immigration law firm in New Orleans that allegedly acted as a central conduit in the recruitments. An assistant at the firm said the lawyers would have no public comment. Documents filed in the federal lawsuit show numerous large checks from recruiters in India paid to the firm, plus receipts. Some are marked, "H2B visa and employment based permanent residence visas for USA."

Hangartner defended Signal's treatment of the workers, saying the company built them living quarters with Internet access, billiard tables, laundry service, meals provided by an Indian caterer and free shuttles to the nearest towns. She said that the protesting workers received the same pay and benefits as the others and that a number of Indian immigrants are still happily employed there.

According to labor and political groups helping the Indians, the case was an important example of illegal human trafficking, abetted by the complex rules governing the U.S. guest worker program and exacerbated by the urgent and chaotic conditions that characterized the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"These workers came to help rebuild the Gulf, and on arrival their nightmare began," Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ill.) said at yesterday's protest. "We recognize that modern-day slavery exists, but the U.S. Congress has passed laws that protect the victims. We have faith in the U.S. system of justice, and we believe these workers should place their faith in the U.S. system of justice, too."

Quote from the mother

We read, we try to understand, we explain, we try to know. But a single minute of true experience teaches us more than millions of words and hundreds of explanations.
So the first question is: "How to have the experience?"
To go within yourself, that is the first step.
And then, once you have succeeded in going within yourself deeply enough to feel the reality of that which is within, to widen yourself progressively, systematically, to become as vast as the universe and lose the sense of limitation.
These are the first two preparatory movements.
And these two things must be done in the greatest possible calm, peace and tranquillity. This peace, this tranquillity brings about silence in the mind and stillness in the vital.
This effort, this attempt must be renewed very regularly, persistently. And after a certain lapse of time, which may be longer or shorter, you begin to perceive a reality that is different from the reality perceived in the ordinary, external consciousness.
Naturally, by the action of Grace, the veil may suddenly be rent from within, and at once you can enter the true truth; but even when that happens, in order to obtain the full value and full effect of the experience, you must maintain yourself in a state of inner receptivity, and to do that, it is indispensable for you to go within each day.

- The Mother [CWMCE, 10:19-20]

Between the Lines

Between the lines is an intelligent documentary on the situation in Kashmir.

Thanks 3qd

Also here is Beena Sarwar on the documentary.

Re-thinking Kashmir

By Beena Sarwar

30 June, 2004
Countercurrents.org

For the last few months, we have been shown tantalising glimpses of the possibility of peacebetween Pakistan and India - with Kashmir, the'core issue' lurking contentiously in the background, bogging down both countries in their own narrow notions of nationalism and threatening whatever progress is made towards peace. To emerge from this quagmire, it is necessary to put aside prejudices, fears and positions, and engage in a genuine dialogue that breaks through these national versions of the Kashmir story that have been developed on all sides of the conflict.

This is what the documentary 'Crossing The Lines: Kashmir, Pakistan, India' (Eqbal Ahmad Foundation, 2004; 45 minutes) by the well known academics and peace activists Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian courageously attempts to do. Screened at private venues in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad over the last couple of months, the film is a straightforward narrative presented by Hoodbhoy - far more effectively than in his previous documentary, 'Pakistan and India Under the Nuclear Shadow' (2001), scripted by Mian.

"Nations and nationalism, borders and boundaries- these are ways of separating people and land. These are all old ideas, ideas that have failed us again and again," says Mian, with reference to the Kashmir film. He points out that there is a new government in India, but no one expects Indian position on Kashmir to change very much. Similarly in Pakistan, civilian or military, there is no change on Kashmir. Following up on Gen. Musharraf's admission that Pakistan cannot realistically hope for a plebiscite to end the Kashmir dispute and, therefore, is willing to explore other ways, Hoodbhoy in an article last December had argued that for Pakistan to insist on plebiscite "is the surest way of guaranteeing that a bloody stand-off continues."

The film presents the urgent need for a dialogue to discuss other options, challenging the people, and civil and military establishments on both sides to break out of their own national versions of the Kashmir story. There are many who will remain trapped in these notions, and refuse to see the film in this spirit. They will attack Hoodbhoy and Mian because they present both sides of the story in a way that the public in either country never sees.

Particularly moving and difficult to watch are the scenes of a recent bombing, that Hoodbhoy's cameraman in Kashmir caught by chance, although one would have liked to see more on struggle of Kashmiri women. Conservative Indian thought will also resent the film's presentation of the disillusionment of the Kashmirs with Indian rule, as encapsulated through a candid interview with the wild-bearded Hizb commander Syed Salahuddin.

The film traces the background of the conflict, using interviews of key figures and ordinary people from all sides, rare archival footage and excellent computer animation. Neither Hoodbhoy nor Mian have ever been afraid of controversy, or of tackling contentious issues head on, whether
it is to demand equal rights for religious minorities or contest distorted facts in our history textbooks. Their respective stands on peace with India and the nuclear issue are well known. In taking on Kashmir, they continue this tradition, of asking awkward questions that force people to think about issues that it is more comfortable to ignore.

These issues include the building of national identity through cultivating prejudice and hatred towards the other - by both India and Pakistan. The result is views from both sides that mirror each other. This in fact, is one of the strong points of the film - its inclusion of footage and interviews from India and Kashmir. Since the end of the Afghan war, Pakistan's continued patronage of religious militants has strengthened local and foreign militants who not only threaten the social fabric in Pakistan but have also upped the ante in Kashmir. Their conviction that Kashmir is part of a greater struggle, is reflected by radical Hindu leaders in India - a side that we in Pakistan don't hear about very often.

Also clear is Hoodbhoy and Mian's stand on the nuclear issue, as the film shows how the nuclear tests only served to intensify tensions between both countries. In the end, one is left with more questions than answers - but perhaps that is the intention of the filmmakers.

"The past almost sixty years have brought war and hate, big armies, nuclear weapons and mass poverty. The past can be no guide to show us the way to the future," says Mian. "It's time to make a break with the old ways and the old dreams. We need to search for new ideas, and find the courage to take a step forward."

This can happen if a genuine, open-minded dialogue is initiated, possibly catalysed by this film through screenings at joint meetings of parliamentarians, foreign offices and military establishments. Most importantly it needs to be brought out of private halls, and onto television in both countries as well as in Kashmir.

Sexism Sells

Sexism sells, watch this scathing video on how Hillary was mocked by the media, especially Fox News.

Judith Warner analyzes the media frenzy here.



Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of “Sex and the City,” the movie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy imploded?

Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I’m not so sure.

And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deserved to lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about the outcome of her candidacy – mistakes were made, and she faced a formidable opponent in Barack Obama – but rather about the climate in which her campaign was conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and “Sex” is now flourishing.

It’s a cultural moment that Andrew Stephen, writing with an outsider’s eye for the British magazine the New Statesman last month, characterized as a time of “gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind.” A moment in which things like the formation of a Hillary-bashing political action group, “Citizens United Not Timid,” a “South Park” episode featuring a nuclear weapon hidden in Clinton’s vagina, and Internet sales of a Hillary Clinton nutcracker with shark-like teeth between her legs, passed largely without mainstream media notice, largely, perhaps, because some of the key gatekeepers of mainstream opinion were so busy coming up with various iterations of the nutcracker theme themselves. (Tucker Carlson on Hillary: “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” For a good cry, watch this incredible montage from the Women’s Media Center.)

Stephen is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so.

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime.

In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.

Which brings me back to “Sex and the City.”

How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole being is to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves, a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree I haven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the first incarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how baby boomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does “Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coating it all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, and squeakingly desperate girl cheer.

Take Miranda: a working mother archetype for an anti-woman age. She’s so callous now that she won’t let her nanny eat a decent meal, and so defiantly sexless that she’s let her pubic hair grow in. Take Charlotte: the Good Mommy, with an angel’s face and no employment, a seemingly limitless credit line and an adoring troglodyte of a husband (so short, so bald, and yet so good with the gelt). And then – please – take Samantha. At 50, she’s the one girlfriend aged enough to bear the baggage of old-time, Clinton-era feminist sentiment. She’s a self-centered heart-breaker, a real man-eater — you should see how she rejects a drooping roll of sushi — her corruption made manifest by the fact that, at film’s end, she develops (gasp!) a gut.

Yes, a gut, girls, like yours and mine and that of virtually any real woman who’s over 35, or has had children, or has something more important to do than full-time Pilates.

“Sex and the City” is the perfect movie for our allegedly ever-so-promising post-feminist era, when “angry” is out and Restalyne is in, and virtually all our country’s most powerful women look younger now than they did 20 years ago.

Oh, lighten up, I can hear you say. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.

Earnestness is so unattractive (in a woman).