| HER
weapon was a red carnation. Her enemy was war. And
she struck a royal cheek three times to register her
protest. A 16-year-old schoolgirl momentarily brought
to the front pages of some newspapers the fact that
there are people all over the world who are against
the bombing of Afghanistan. Ms. Alina Lebedyeva is
a student in std. 11 in Riga, capital of the Baltic
state of Latvia. She said: ``I did it because I am
protesting British involvement in the bombing of Afghanistan
and Latvia's attempt to join North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation.'' And for her action of slapping Prince
Charles three times with a red carnation, she faces
a possible 15 years in jail.
Young
Alina's action has interesting symbolism. She used
a flower, which could not do the object of her attack
any harm. She is a woman. And she took a calculated
risk in doing this. What motivated a young girl like
her, one wonders? The police claim that she is a well-known
political activist. But "well-known" already
by the age of 16? Despite the culture of violence
fed to them by the media, why are young people like
Alina protesting against war and demanding peace?
You
would not think this is happening if you scan the
media, either here or in other countries. The news
continues to be dominated by talk of war even if occasional
opinion pieces reflect another point of view. But
the fact that many ordinary people, young and old,
are feeling apprehensive about the turn of events
after September 11 is not being adequately reported.
It
is true that many of the protests are relatively small.
Not all of them are as dramatic as Alina's "action".
Yet, the very fact that peace rallies
are being held suggests a process of thinking that
needs to be acknowledged. The demonstrations are a
culmination of this process, of the realisation that
a war cannot bring about peace, or end terrorism;
that the repercussions of a policy of using violence
are so grave that no country, no people, can remain
untouched by it.
Even
in the heart of American redneck country, Texas, the
home state of the current incumbent in the White House,
there are protests that are being planned. At the
end of October, Texans United Against War was formed.
They are now planning a week of protests in every
major city in the state of Texas. They are also negotiating
a "peace bridge" between the United States
and Pakistan and are considering taking a delegation
from the U.S. to Pakistan. Their three point programme
is simple: "Oppose war, defend against racism,
protect civil liberties".
The
Texans are only the latest on a long list of groups
in the U.S. who have registered their opposition to
war and urged restraint on the part of their Government.
One of the earlier statements was made by the War
Resisters' League barely a week after September 11,
when all such sentiments could easily have been misunderstood
given the charged atmosphere in the country. Since
then there have advertisements in newspapers signed
by hundreds of people, and other forms of protests
that have clearly revealed that there is no unanimity
in the U.S. about its Government's action. But once
again it is the media that is refusing to recognise
these protests and what they represent. The illusion
of widespread support for the bombing is thus being
reinforced.
All
these groups in different parts of the world, from
the U.S. to Japan, Australia, Britain, countries in
Europe and even India and Pakistan, have called for
a halt to the bombing specially during Ramzan. In
Pakistan, thousands of people travelled to Rawalpindi
at their own expense earlier this month to protest
against the war. The Alliance for Peace and Justice
called for an end to the bombing of Afghanistan. But
it also raised slogans against terrorism, against
religious fanaticism and religious terror and demanded
a crackdown on armed bands and religious fanatics.
This set them apart from the pro-Taliban groups that
have been demonstrating in Pakistan and who are constantly
in the news.
For
the media, in general, these protests have been non-events.
They are considered to be part of the same liberal-loony-left
brigade who oppose war and globalisation and who support
human rights and environmental protection. But the
media is missing out on a story, on the fact that
these protests are part of efforts by civil society
groups to underwrite peace, regardless of whether
there is war or relative peace. For instance, in the
on-going conflict between Israel and Palestine, few
people know that Women in Black, a group of women
peace activists, have been demonstrating every single
week for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Israeli
and Palestinian women hold a silent vigil each week.
But the very regularity of their protests makes them
a "non-event" for the media.
As
the weeks drag on into months, one gets an uncomfortable
feeling that just as these voices for peace are being
muffled or ignored, Afghan women will be forgotten
as political negotiations attempt to forge a settlement
in their country. Women are often used as an excuse
to wage war. But apart from constantly being shown
as victims of war, their ability to negotiate peace
is hardly ever recognised.
Instead
of discussing whether the future government in Afghanistan
- if and when this war ends - will comprise followers
of King Zahir Shah, or have representatives of the
Northern Alliance and supposedly-moderate Taliban,
Afghan women living outside the country's borders
with a strong commitment to peace, secularism and
democracy should be involved. One cannot forget the
voice of sanity that Ms. Hannan Ashrawi brought during
the Middle East negotiations. Surely there are more
than a few equivalents amongst Afghan women. Which
government will have the courage to push for their
inclusion and central role in forging a peaceful future
for Afghanistan? |
