Noting a 17 percent increase in remittances, State Bank of Pakistan Wednesday said that Non-Resident Pakistanis have send home nearly $5.7 billion between July 2009 to February 2010. During the same period in previous fiscal year, Pakistanis living abroad had sent $4.9 billion.

For economies like Pakistan, funds repatriated by non-residents to family and friends back home, provide the most tangible link between migration and development. But September 11attacks, it has become increasingly difficult for Pakistanis to get work visas which had resulted in negative growth of remittances.

Analysts believe that latest increase is due to strict regulation of foreign exchange market. Majority of the informal money transfer and forex firms have changed their business practice or disappeared.

Analysts point out that since remittances are unilateral transfers they do not create liabilities. And they usually come with advice—from migrants who have seen better—on how to best use them. Thus, remittances are not simply money, but value-added money.

NRPs sent $588.78 million in February 2009 compared to $641.32 of February 2010, reports Dollars Magazine. The inflow of remittances in July-February, 2010 period from UAE, USA, Saudi Arabia, GCC countries (including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman), UK and EU countries amounted to $1,317.17 million, $1,173.37 million, $1,148.86 million, $826.93 million, $596.26 million and $171.41 million respectively as compared to $1,035.55 million, $1,156.51 million, $962.30 million, $783.39 million, $344.08 million and $150.05 million respectively in the July-February, 2008-09 period.

Remittances received from Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan and other countries during the first eight months of the current fiscal year amounted to $550.65 million as against $486.34 million in the same period last year. The monthly average remittances for the July-February 2010 period comes out to $723.36 million as compared to $614.83 million during the same period of last fiscal year, registering an increase of 17.65 percent.

During February 2010 remittances from Saudi Arabia, UAE, USA, GCC countries (including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman), UK and EU countries amounted to $149.45 million, $136.88 million, $111.48 million, $89.21 million, $45.91 million and $13.48 million respectively as compared to $123.64 million, $166.62 million, $127.48 million, $93.09 million, $54.12 million and $18.31 million in February 2009. Remittances received from Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan and other countries during February 2010 amounted to $41.13 million compared with $58.04 million in the same month of last year.

The true size, including unrecorded formal and informal flows, is believed to be significantly larger. Remittances total at least three times official development assistance and are the largest source of external financing.

Five policemen in Chiniot, Punjab were arrested after a footage that aired on various news channels clearly showed them publicly whipping four men accused of stealing rice.

Four men were beaten-up like animals by five policemen and the footage shot by an amateur video journalist has created an uproar, like the Rodney King incident in San Francisco, California.

A case was registered against Sub-inspector Obaidullah Kaliar and constables Muhammed Afzal, Sajjad and Sarfraz for assaulting and torturing the suspects in public. These suspects were beaten brutally beaten on 1st March, in the District Chiniot of the province of Punjab.

Four men were arrested a few days earlier on suspicion of stealing rice from a truck.

These men were brought to a public place on Monday where two of them were whipped with a leather strap, locally known as ‘chitrol’ and the other two were taken next to the road and were beaten publicly.

Sub Inspector Abdul Razzaq of Bhawana police station had arrested these suspects for allegedly stealing rice from a truck but allegations against them were not proved and they were released.

A day later these men tried to register a report against the police for torture. They were again arrested and this around whipped in the public park.

This incident was filmed by one of the eye witnesses and aired on various media channels.

Immediately after the footage was shown on private channels, police officers of Bhawana police station were suspended and arrested after a case of torture and assault was registered against them.

Later Inspector General Police Punjab Tariq Saleem Dogar directed the higher police officials of the province to adopt foolproof measures to evaluate incidents of police violence and take immediate action against the officials involved.

Mr. Dogar said, “ all senior police officers have been told to warn their subordinates to ensure that there was no incident of police violence in their respective jurisdictions. If any case of police violence was reported in future, the officer of region, district and city would be held responsible .”

Human rights activists in Pakistan have condemned the incident. Asma Jahangir, an active Human Right Worker, called it “barbaric” and demanded strong punishments for those involved.

Chief Minister Punjab Mr. Shahbaz Sharif took notice of torture incident at Bhawana police station and has ordered suspension and arrest of policemen including Sub-Inspector, and said that such behaviors will not be accepted anymore.

The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) does not specify the word ‘torture’, but only mentions “hurt” which mainly deals with a dispute between civilians. Hence the torture by the state agents has no clause in PPC.

Therefore such brutal state agents do not fear that they will be punished for torturing someone in custody.

Police officials suspended and arrested will not be tried for assaulting the suspects as Pakistan has no such law against them, and arresting them is only an act to calm the popular sentiments.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who was suspended in July of 2009 for torturing Shfiq Dogar, was back in office within two months.

This incident is not new as police torture is a common practice and Pakistani police have a long standing reputation of brutality and violence against those they are paid to protect.

Watching spectators young and old, men and women who came to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial in New York I recognized the rapidly increasing significance of religion as a marker of identity among Muslims in the US.

Judge Richard Berman, by ordering additional security measures for this trial, underscored the ideological profiling of a religious minority that has suffered immense public devaluation and disparagement since the 9/11 attacks.

I must admit that I do not completely understand the complex and diverse reasons for the foregrounding of religion in identities of Muslims in America. But I feel that the post 9/11 policies of the US government, fear mongering by conservative media, have led to increased in-group solidarity and identification on the basis of religion.

I have always argued that identify is fluid and contextual. I am a Pakistani when someone in New York asks me ‘where are your from?’ When the same question is posed in Lahore, I am from Karachi. I am a ‘man’ when around women- I am a ‘straight man’ around gays and an ‘old man’ around young kids.

But here is the sticky point – whether I practice religion or not, I am a Muslim because of my name, place of origin, and possibly because of clothes that I wear.

Faced with ideological profiling, discrimination, devaluation,and disparagement, religious identity has become the key marker for young Muslim men and women. I met several young Pakistani women who were born and raised in New York who not only cover their faces in hijab completely but also do not show picture IDs to male security guards.

I asked a young woman behind veil where she was from – she said “Brooklyn.” No, she didn’t say Pakistan. She was born in Coney Island Hospital to parents from Pakistan. Her father who used to be a lecturer in Pakistan has driven a cab for the past twenty years on the streets of New York. She has lived on the intersection of Coney Island Avenue and Newkirk Avenue all her life. From Kindergarten to college – she attended the public education system.

Let me not exaggerate- even among Muslims in America she is an anomaly. The majority of Muslim women dress modestly, some wear scarves, and plenty dress in ways that are consistent with their American peers.

But my sweet little Pakistani-Americans with faces covered in hijab are growing in numbers. I completely respect their right to cover themselves – and also understand the anxieties of those who fear what maybe behind the veil.

I can see how religious discourse can play a vital role in negotiating and resisting parental and community restrictions. A family friend recently told me that she knows several young Pakistani girls who cover themselves so they don’t have to worry about what clothes they must wear to school – or whether they have a boy friend or not. “It simply relieves them of all sorts of peer pressure,” our friend said. And, yes it is plausible.

But I feel it is more than not having brand name jeans with matching socks and bra-straps that force these bright and immensely intelligent women to wear hijab. For many it is a sign of dissent- a sign of courage- a sign of protest and yes of course for many it is their religious duty. These young women use the discourse of religion and identity for personal empowerment.

And, of course there were some young Muslim men at the trial with beards flying all over their faces and prayer beads in hand. There was one who had a ‘miswak’ (a piece of dried stem used 1400 years ago to brush teeth). The Marshal who had searched his bag was puzzled to see this ‘miswak’ and asked what do you do with it?

And, yes this young man was born in Queens. He has lived in New York – studied in several American schools and colleges. Like thousands of other young Muslim American, he also feels his religious identity provides a positive role model, compared to his parents’ under-employment and as an alternative to the street and drug cultures in his neighborhoods.

Parents of these young men and women are ecstatic that their off-spring are following religious and cultural values and are “keeping away from danger”. But the search for identity makes these impressionable young men and women vulnerable to radicalization as well.

The search for identity is part of the process of defining one’s relationship with the world that usually takes place without necessarily leading to ‘radicalization’. One would argue that ‘radicalization’ requires an interpersonal interaction with other actors who stimulate and influence the process. And, this is where the rub lies. Devaluation, disparagement and ideological profiling, lack of equal opportunities for career advancement and integration with mainstream society are those factors that can stimulate and influence the process of radicalization.

By ordering additional security for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial Judge Richard Berman inadvertently became that external actor.

Let’s face it – Muslims today are facing a crisis that has few parallels in history. They are caught between the forces of extremism from within and the crushing onslaught of the West. Many Muslims find previous explanations of injustices (rich and poor) class based economic systems inadequate to explain their current experience. For Muslims living in the US this experience is compounded by religious discrimination, ideological profiling, and a lack of confidence in the government.

These young men and women I met during the trial simply seek to construct a sense of what it means to be Muslim in the US today. However, they are in danger of radicalization because traditional Islamic institutions are failing to connect with them to address their challenges. Many young men and women who grew up on the streets of New York and have found Islam empowering are not in a position
to objectively evaluate whether extremist interpretations represent an accurate understanding of Islam.

I found a young Pakistani-American who was born in Harlem Hospital and grew up in Bronx recently argue that Islam abolished slavery and that is why there are more blacks embracing Islam than whites. And, there was a young Pakistani girl who argued Islam emancipated women because before the advent of Islam girls were buried as soon as they were born. She got agitated when I suggested that it was1400 years ago and asked what progress has been made to further emancipate women. “Quran is final,” she said and no progress, changes can be expected in the lives of pious Muslim men and women.

I can’t blame Judge Richard Berman for a less than rational worldview of these young men and women. But more ideological profiling will create more disenfranchised, alienated, marginalized and angry individuals.

But, those of us who cherish the secular tradition of the US have a responsibility. We need to define what Islam means to our children born and raised in this society. We must define what it means to practice religion in a secular country. We must open doors for young men and women to integrate religion with local traditions. We must encourage them to allow American influences into their lives and ideology. We must encourage them to fully participate in the society and political system. We must encourage public service.

Simply put- it is our responsibility and only we can defeat Islamic extremism; not soldiers with M4 rifles, not pilotless drones and robots. And, we can do that by accepting and acknowledging the ground realities- we should be able to explain that context will not erode the core of Islam. That Islam will potentially benefit from some localization.

After the guilty verdict in the high profile trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in New York, defense attorney Elaine Sharp- the only member of the defense team that Dr. Siddiqui has any relations with said: “Dr. Siddiqui told us that she was picked-up by Pakistani men in two black cars. These were people of Pakistani intelligence. You know- she said ISI.”

Following guilty verdict several popular TV Talk Show hosts in Pakistan also questioned ISI’s role in her alleged abduction in 2003. Common sentiments were that the ‘daughter of the nation’ was arrested and handed over to the Americans.

Mention of ISI evokes several conflicting emotions – and fear for Pakistanis. Just as mentioning CIA occasionally evokes images of global conspiracy and the KGB calls gulags to mind, the ISI has come to represent political deceit in Pakistan. And, during General Pervez Musharraf’s rule as more and more Pakistanis started to disappear in thin air, ISI became more enigmatic.

But current sentiments in Pakistan are an excellent opportunity for the democratic government to restructure ISI. The turmoil in Pakistan’s past has led to censure of the ISI.

A visible feature of the ISI’s history that has done great damage to its reputation is the continual deterioration of civilian institutions due to multiple military coups. Despite some improvements in civil-military relations in recent years, the army remains a dominant actor in Pakistan’s political makeup.

Disappearance of hundreds and previous abuses of power has stigmatized ISI to point that business as usual means leading the country into absolute abyss.

Although reforming ISI will be difficult, the good news is that with patience, resolve, and international assistance, Pakistan’s government can indeed reassert civilian control over the intelligence community.

Luckily for Pakistan, there are predecessors to take notes from. Indonesia and Chile have both undergone transformations in the intelligence arena and have plenty to offer Pakistan by way of example.

Pakistan’s government must reinforce the separation between civilian and military intelligence agencies. The integration of former ISI agents into other civilian bodies, particularly the IB, should be limited or stopped. Cross-recruitment prevents organizations from becoming independent.

Pakistan also needs to strengthen the police force. A better-trained and better-equipped police force can do a better job of counterterrorism, which work is currently exploited by the intelligence agencies to legitimize their control over politics in Pakistan.

Ignoring the urgent need to establish supremacy over the intelligence community would be a grave mistake on the part of Pakistan’s civilian government. Reducing the role of the military in the intelligence sector will allow the government to consolidate itself domestically, so it should be a top priority.

In addition, government control over military and intelligence will cast a positive light on the state of Pakistan’s emerging democracy, and will improve international opinion of Pakistan.

If Pakistanis honestly consider Dr. Aafia Siddiqui “daughter of the nation,” they must demand structural changes in how ISI operates and demand their government to demonstrate political will to trace all the disappeared.

With an independent judiciary and a democratic government, Pakistan has opportunity that does not come too often. It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has resumed hearings of disappearance cases but the democratically elected government has the responsibility to immediately reveal details hundreds of missing people, and hold to account those responsible — including the country’s security and intelligence agencies.

According to the Defense of Human Rights, a Pakistani organization that campaigns on behalf of the relatives of the disappeared, out of 416 enforced disappearance cases filed in the Supreme Court since 2005, 195 cases remain pending since 3 November 2007.

It is not sufficient to vent anger against the United States alone- Pakistan must clean house first. All those responsible for selling men, women, and children like slaves must be exposed. Otherwise, this outburst of anger, national pride and bravado – statements like “we will go bring the daughter of nation back,” are meaningless, insincere and belong only on soap operas or lollywood movies.

And, the international community has a vital role to play here too. On one hand they blame Pakistan’s problems on the ISI, but still maintain close relations with the agency. Often, these relations undermine the democratic government and vindicate the very intelligence actors that need to be controlled.

This double standard must be avoided by direct involvement with the Pakistani government, rather than going through intelligence services.

No issue has evoked such impassioned and divergent opinions than the case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman who was found guilty on 7 counts of attempted murder and assault of U.S. Nationals by a 12 member jury in a federal court in New York City this week.

With allegations of being an Al-Qaeda operative headlining nearly every report in the American media and allegations that she was held in a secret prison and tortured for the 5 years before her capture dominating reports in the Pakistani media, the only way to get close to a “common sense” perspective is to take a look at what we actually do know and don’t know about this case.

We do know that in March of 2003 Aafia Siddiqui was a mother of 3 children who disappeared in Karachi, Pakistan as she was on her way to the airport, along with her three children.

We do know that in 2003 the children were Suleman under-6 months, Maryam-Age 3, and Ahmed-Age 7

We do know that in March 2003 she was named by the FBI as a “person of interest”.

We do know that early in March 2003 Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured by Pakistanis, turned over to Americans, and interrogated in which he named Aafia Siddiqui as an Al Qaeda “fixer”

We do know that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded almost 100 times during his interrogation.

We do know that a little later in March 2003 Aafia Siddiqui’s ex-husband, Amjad Khan, was questioned by FBI officials and released.

We do know that at the time the couple had gone through a bitter divorce.

We do know that in 2002 Aafia Siddiqui’s husband, Amjad Khan, was questioned by the FBI for purchasing “night vision goggles” and “military manuals” over the internet and that Aafia was questioned incidentally as his wife.

We do know that Amjad Khan admitted to purchasing the equipment but said that it was for big gaming hunting for a relative and was not detained by the FBI.

We do know that the couple were having marital problems at the time which included allegations of domestic abuse.

We do know that the Siddiqui’s familiy’s claims that Aafia was a victim of domestic abuse was corroborated by friends and colleagues of Siddiqui from Brandeis

We do know that in April and May 2003 there were reports in the American media that Dr. Siddiqui was being “detained” for questioning by Pakistani authorities regarding her alleged ties to Al-Qaeda. “U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly interrogating a Pakistani woman alleged to have moved funds and assisted with logistics planning for al-Qaeda.” The NBC report makes clear that she is “not considered a member of Al-Qaeda” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xwCHha5ITM

http://web.archive.org/web/20070416115222/http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/04/03/19137-1.html

We do know that she was considered a “person of interest” by the FBI in 2003 and wanted for questioning.

We do know that there were reports in 2003 in some Pakistani newspapers as well, that Siddiqui and her children were picked up by both Pakistani and American intelligence.

We do know that in 2004 the FBI gave a press conference in which they labeled her as one of seven most wanted “terrorist”. At that time they denied having her in their custody.

We do know that shortly after that press conference in 2004 numerous media reports accused Siddiqui of transferring diamonds to Liberia for Al Qaeda in mid June 2001, 3 months before 9/11

We do know, however, that in mid-June 2001 Aafia Siddiqui was with her husband and kids in Boston running a play group.

We do know that in 2005 former detainees at Bagram began alleging that there was a female prisoner being held at the prison who was from Pakistan.

We do know that the U.S. Government at the time denied having any women at Bagram.

We do know that in 2006 Amnesty International Reported Aafia Siddiqui as a “missing person” believed to be in U.S. Custody.

We do know that in 2007 Human Rights Watch named Aafia Siddiqui as a “missing person” possibly held in U.S. custody.

We do know that in June 2008 journalist, Yvonne Ridley, alleged that Aafia Siddiqui was prisoner 650 held for the past 5 years at a Secret Prison in Bagram

We do know that shortly after Ridley’s report in June 2008 Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the ICRC began demanding the U.S. for access to prisoner 650.

We do know that the following month in July 2008, 5 years after her initial disappearance, Aafia Siddiqui was seen on TV at a press conference in Ghazni Afghanistan with only her oldest son, in which it was reported that she was found with a terrorist’s handbag.

We do know that the handbag she was found with contained fantastically incriminating evidence including plans for “mass casualty” attacks and “how to make a dirty bomb”, along with pictures of New York Landmarks.

We do know that the next day she was shot in the abdomen by U.S. Soldiers.

We do know that when she disappeared she was a slightly heavy woman.

We do know that when she was shown in the press conference she was substantially thinner than when she disappeared.

We do know that in her arrest photograph taken by the Afghan National Police she looked beaten. Her nose was altered and her teeth were missing.

We do not know why she was considered a “person of interest” by the FBI; why she was labeled a “wanted terrorist”; or why she was alleged to be a “Al Qaeda facilitator”, by the FBI

We do know that the U.S. Government did not prosecute her with attempting to commit acts of terrorism or any connections to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

We do know that the U.S. government has chosen to keep crucial information about her case classified.

We do not know where the two younger missing children are.

We do know that during the trial all the New York newspapers had nearly daily headlines labeling Siddiqui a member of Al-Qaeda.

We do know that FBI officials and ISI officials had been meeting with reporters privately to allege that she was an a member of Al-Qaeda but they could charge her without “compromising their sources”.

We do know that this jury was not sequestered.

We do know that airport style security was ordered outside the courtroom because of possible threats from the gallery.

We do know that this was unprecedented in judicial proceedings

This is a work in progress. I will be updating.

“Orientalism was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (West, “us”) and the strange (the East, “them”),” wrote one of the finest scholars of our time, Edward Said.

Covering Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial for past two weeks I realized there is a problem with this statement.

It was abundantly clear that the “us” and “them” categories were not structures of the past but realities of my surroundings. And, I can’t believe I say this: for Muslims these categories are much clearer and sharper than they have ever been.

Two aspects of America that I have always admired are the justice system and the abundance of ‘trust’ in the marketplace. I continue to admire the justice system- the fact that 12 ordinary men and women from New York City could hold the power to ajudicate is something to be respected. I may disagree with the verdict – as we often do, but the jury system is absolutely the best mechanism to dispense justice.

The fact that these twelve men and women – a black woman, a dark color Hispanic woman, a fair color Hispanic woman and nine Caucasian men and women handed down this verdict in New York City speaks volume to the Orientalist categories Edward Said taught us about. My point of departure, however, is that Prof. Said considered this to be part of history and I experience it today in the worlds most cosmopolitan city – the most diverse city, and my favorite, New York City.

No physical evidence whatsoever – but how can they not trust American soldiers – even when there were glaring inconsistencies in what they said. Even when there was no proof that an M4 rifle was ever fired a Pakistani woman was convicted because she was the crazy “other.”

“Us” and “them” was also abundantly clear in the press gallery where white journalists failed to restrain their glee. With their faces beaming with happiness – as if a spirited game of Yankees vs Red Sox had just finished they were bumbling around in front of the Federal Court of Southern District of New York.

The New York Post and Daily News reporters sat through the entire proceedings but only reported her outbursts. Despite categorical statements by the government that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was not on trial for allegations of terrorism, the New York Post regularly referred to her as “Terror Ma”; and Daily News in every story called her “al-Qaeda lady”.

These are both tabloids of New York from which I expect a certain level of sensationalism and yellow journalism.

But, I was surprised how a Boston Globe reporter who had spent time in Pakistan and Afghanistan had come with her story already written. “I have my story already typed,” she told other women (a writer who had traveled from Cape Cod to cover this trial) saying if the jury doesn’t return a verdict she may need a stringer.

The Boston Globe goes to cover a trial with stories already typed? This is not surprising. Because the subject of this narrative is a woman from a subjugated part of the world (other) and the American media had already presumed her guilt.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui comes from a part of the world that is “despotic and clannish.” The subtext of these conversations does not need much digging. When I talked about democracy in Pakistan, I was reminded of corruption and when I mentioned how Pakistan has been aligned with American policy for past 60 years I was told how ISI played a double game.

In simple words: Pakistanis are despotic when placed in positions of power, and sly and obsequious when in subservient positions.

These American reporters who acted like cheerleaders for the government when reporting WMDs in Iraq still blindly trust their establishment.

But not always – when reporting on issues that impact their own lives, healthcare, the financial debacle, stimulus packages, gay marriages these reporters leave no stone un-turned and they don’t take the establishment’s word as a gospel.

When a Pakistani is on trial – her statements to FBI when she was tied to a gurney, drugged and had bullet wounds in her belly – they believe those statements should be sufficient to impeach her.

Talking to the media one of he defense attorneys – someone Dr. Aafia Siddiqui seems to trust and has had most candid conversations with – Ms. Elaine Sharp pleaded to the American reporters “what crimes have her children committed.”

She was of course talking about abduction of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her three kids from the streets of Karachi in 2003. They were kidnapped by the ‘sly and obsequious’ Pakistani ISI under the leadership of a dictator General Pervez Musharaff. I was shocked to see the expressions on the faces of American reporters as if these kids have no ‘value’ whatsoever.

As Pramilla Srivastava has written in her piece: “Shortly after the trial began as a government eyewitness described the documents that were allegedly found in her possession, including hand written notes on how to make a dirty bomb, she shouted out “it’s a lie…I was told to copy from a magazine…if you were held in a secret prison and your children were tortured”; at which point she was whisked away by U.S. Marshalls.”

But American journalists who roam around the world teaching the subjugated how to report- how they must not be emotionally attached to the story – how they must remain unbiased can’t follow what they preach. When it comes to reporting events that surround lives of weird looking men with prayer beads, and women covered in veils our good old white reporters can’t keep emotions behind their poker faces.

And, of course this column – part one of many to come may sound like a rant to my good American friends – and they may be thinking these people even after living in this country for such a long time are “impossible to trust.”