‘Beyond that Last Blue Mountain’ – Memoirs of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan

The memoir recounts the extraordinary journey of Harriet Sandys, who travelled alone to Pakistan to see the plight of thousands of displaced Afghan refugees.

In 1988, while wandering in the bazaars of Peshawar buying carpets and textiles for her store in London, Harriet Sandys heard about the death of Abdul Ghaffar Khan – a tireless crusader for an independent homeland for Pashtuns. The then Afghan government called for a four-day amnesty, putting a pause on military actions against the Mujahideen and called on its consulate in Peshawar to issue entry visas to those who wished to attend Khan’s funeral. Harriet applied immediately as was characteristic of an exploring traveller; and so began Beyond that Last Blue Mountain – My Silk Road Journeys.

Piecing together the patchy notes she had written during her journeys and drawing larger narratives from the letters she wrote to her family, Harriet pieced together a memoir titled Beyond that Last Blue Mountain which was published by the UK-based Medina Publishing on September 4, 2018.

Beyond the Last Blue Mountain,  Harriet Sandy Penguin Random House India, 2017

Harriet was brought up in a country home in England’s Lake District. Her first trip eastward would come about in 1977 when Mary Burkett, her childhood art teacher, invited her to join a group that was visiting bazaars, towns and archeological sites in Afghanistan. She was 23.

It was this journey – described in vivid detail – that would alter the course of her life.

Afghanistan had a raw landscape – arid deserts set against massive mountain ranges and colourful bazaars bustling with nomads and merchants selling kilim carpets. The place was everything she had thought it would be – certainly enough to chalk out further travels into eastern landscapes, leaving behind her parent-desired destiny to ‘do the season’ in London, find a kind man “preferably with a large estate and lots of money” and finally settle down.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 had led millions to flee the country throughout the 1980s and take refuge in Pakistan. Many such refugees were either widowed or disabled.

It was around this time that Harriet was in Pakistan – where her itinerary included the Katchaguri refugee camp which was situated near the entrance to the Khyber Pass and was home to 33,000 refugees, the Afghan surgical hospital whose capacity of 40 beds was fully occupied by young men and boys who were wounded in wars and an Afghan orphanage where indoctrinations spawned the Taliban movement.

She also visited the bazaars of Old City in Pakistan where she bought carpets and embroideries which she sold in London for a profit – the originate of her business, which is now called ‘Sandys Oriental Carpets‘. But money and profits aside, she was keen on helping the refugees she had just met.

With the assistance of a few acquaintances, she learnt the trade and started supporting Afghan refugee women by buying their embroideries and carpets and selling them at small exhibitions organised in her home in London. Apart from such work, she would also find herself lugging salwaar kameez, Afghan chapans and rope panniers through the streets of Peshawar as wardrobe and prop requirements for the then upcoming Bond movie The Living Daylights.

Also read: Pakistan Prime Minister Vows to Grant Citizenship to Afghan Refugees

But all of this was happening in the backdrop of a looming call to war – a war which would claims millions of lives, including those of a few journalists and photographs who Harriet had met along the way, and displace a million others. So, while it may be easy to get engulfed in the seemingly adventurous details of Harriet’s line of work, what deserves attention is the fact that the danger was real and it takes courage, a strong sense of perception and a bit of luck for such stories to end on a happy note – more so for a lone British women traversing eastern landscapes in the time of multiple armed conflicts.

In 1991, Harriet was in Kabul, Afghanistan in search of ikat silk weavers with whose help she could set up an ikat-weaving training programme. Ikat was an intricate form of resist-dyeing of yarn.

This was a time when certain districts and cities in Afghanistan had fallen under the control of the Mujahideen and on occasions, they would launch about 40 rockets into Kabul in a single day. It was a time when almost every man of fighting age could be seen walking in the streets of Kabul with a Kalashnikov rifle and buildings on blocks right next to where Harriet would be would suffer direct hits.

But despite the danger, or at times because of it, Harriet would undergo withdrawal symptoms on the occasions when she had to be back in London with its “grey skies, grey pavements and grey people” set against the memory of colour, noise and war that life in Pakistan and Afghanistan entailed. The hospitality which she received in the homes of locals she stayed or shared meals with would also leave her overwhelmed – a warmth she missed in the west.

Also read: Forced Into Leaving Pakistan, Afghan Refugees Struggle To Start Afresh

Soon, she would also travel to Bosnia-Herzegovina on aid-delivery missions which aimed to help the region’s Slavic Muslim community that was the victim of ethic cleansing, caught between Serbia and Croatia. And then came a trip to Syria, which was then under the rule of president Hafez al-Assad, the current President’s father.

In all, the line of work she chose required her to frequently travel to places which had already or would eventually fall into the hands of the Taliban, the Al-Qaeda, the Mujahideen or ISIS. Her narrations of Pakistan and Afghanistan’s colourful bazaars and city streets bustling with central asian goods and the warm welcome of the nomads and tribesmen or Syria’s architectural richness alone merit a thorough reminiscent read. Her stories add a personal spark because they’re from the perspective of a women who led a privileged life in the UK but chose to travel, at times alone, into conflict-ridden war zones in search of adventure and a sense of purpose.

Rishika Pardikar is a freelance journalist in Bengaluru.

After #MeToo, India Needs to Think Seriously About Its ‘Missing Women’

The role NGOs played in promoting gender equality in Bangladesh has lessons for India.

While the #MeToo movement has raised awareness about the harassment women face every day, it relates only to women who were allowed to be born – not aborted before birth or allowed to die soon after. We cannot lose sight of the ‘missing women’, whom Amartya Sen first drew our attention to in 1990.

The evidence on ‘missing women’

Sen’s argument is quite simple: Girls tend to have a higher survival rate than boys, since they are hardier and more resistant to disease. Given the same care, the women to men ratio should be higher than 1, as one observes in Europe, the US and Japan.

In those countries, Sen argues, “despite the persistence of various types of bias against women … women suffer little discrimination in basic nutrition and health care”. This is not the case elsewhere, especially in North Africa and the most populated regions in Asia.

Sen’s estimate of ‘missing women’ is based on the deviation of the benchmark girl-boy ratio (1.05) in Europe from the corresponding ratio (0.94) in India and China at the time. In the 30 or so years since Sen’s piece appeared, the situation has worsened.

According to estimates provided by John Bongaarts, in 2010 the sex ratio at birth (SRB), defined as boy-girl ratio, was 1.19 in China and 1.08 in India. These were not only ahead of parity, but ahead of the figure of 1.05 that is considered reasonable.

Any figure above that is considered ‘elevated’, and the higher the elevation, the stronger the evidence of sex-selective abortion and son preference. China and India account for nearly 90 % of the world’s ‘missing women’. For every missing girl in India, there are five missing girls in China.

The dismal picture portrayed by the SRB is an understatement of the true extent of son preference in such countries. Based on questions in the Demographic Health Surveys, the ‘desired sex ratio at birth’ (DSRB) in India is consistently higher than the actual SRB. The difference is largely attributed to lack of easy access to sex-selective abortion, mainly in the rural areas.

Also read: Why the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Scheme Has Failed on Several Counts

Ironically, with the passage of time and spread of education, the situation has worsened. The SRB has moved higher and closer to the DSRB, due to easier access to ultrasound screening and abortion facilities.

India does not present a uniform picture, however. There is a sharp north-south divide: Kerala and Tamil Nadu record some of the lowest DSRBs, while the regions with highly elevated DSRBs include the affluent states of Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana.  

The paradox of economic progress

Contributing to this paradox is the fact that, along with social progress and rising living standards, there has been a sharp decline in fertility rates, mainly due to increased education and employment opportunities for women.

One would expect that this would lead to a re-evaluation of the role of women and their ability to contribute to their family. But the reverse has happened in both China and India – the decline in fertility has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the SRB.

Also read: Sex Ratio at Birth Dips in 17 Out of 21 States, Gujarat Records Fall of 53 Points

The one-child policy in China has contributed to the decline in fertility, intensified son preference and accelerated the increase in the SRB. Seema Jayachandran has argued that “families that strongly want at least one son are less likely to obtain him by chance at low fertility which could increase their use of sex selective abortion”.

Education is also contributing indirectly to the worsening of sex ratio – the greater the increase in female education, the larger the decline in the fertility rate, and so, the larger the increase in the boy-girl sex ratio (both desired and actual).

In Sen’s words, more and more women go ‘missing’ as India experiences social and economic progress.

The experience of Bangladesh

In work with my co-authors Salma Ahmed and Aparajita Dasgupta, we have compared the experiences of India and Bangladesh on a range of demographic indicators including fertility rates and SRBs. In the latest statistics, the boy-girl SRB of 1.05 in Bangladesh in 2015 is around the estimate of SRB for much of Africa and Latin America, and comfortably below that in India (which is around 1.12).

Our key findings were two-fold: Bangladesh performed better on infant mortality rate, with a lower boy-girl sex ratio at birth than India. And while both countries record an impressive decline in fertility rates, this was accompanied by a worsening of the sex ratio in India, but not in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh example shows that one can delink fertility rates from SRB.

How did Bangladesh manage this, when India and China couldn’t? One may be tempted to attribute its superior performance to Islamic culture. There is, however, no evidence that in countries with strong son preference, there is a difference in attitudes between the Muslims and non-Muslims.

Also read: The Unfinished Poem: Memories of a Child Bride

The real answer lies in the role played by the NGOs in Bangladesh in partnership with government in promoting gender equality. This has led to societal change towards valuing daughters as highly as sons. A key role was played by the largest NGO anywhere, BRAC, and the largest microfinance institution in Bangladesh, the Grameen Bank.

Bangladesh’s superior performance is reinforced by a comparison of its total fertility rate (TFR) and infant mortality rate (IMR) with India over the past 25 years, 1990-2015. During the last decade (2005-2015), Bangladesh moved ahead of India on both indicators. Yet its SRB has remained largely unchanged, and well below that of India. The overall message is that a policy based on public-private partnership can achieve social and economic progress, without worsening the sex ratio or intensifying son preference.

The Bangladesh experience shows that the Indian government needs to involve NGOs in the ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ programme. There is a resistance to purely public initiatives, and this can be tackled by involving players who are working on the ground.

Ranjan Ray is professor of economics at Monash University.

Easter Island Statues: International Law Is Shifting Against the British Museum

The Rapa Nui consider Hoa Hakananai’a to be one of the most spiritually important Moai of all and are now lobbying the British Museumto bring him back.

Standing tall at the entrance of the British Museum is the statue known as Hoa Hakananai’a. To the Rapa Nui, the indigenous people of Easter Island, it means stolen or hidden friend. He is one of the iconic Moai head carvings that made the south Pacific island famous. The Rapa Nui see the Moia not as mere carved basalt rocks but as brothers and sisters. They believe that the eyes in the statues carry the spirits of their ancestors, and provide protection to the people.

They consider Hoa Hakananai’a to be one of the most spiritually important Moai of all. He left Easter Island in 1868 when Captain Richard Powell, commander of the British frigate HMS Topaze, took him without permission. Powell gave the statue to Queen Victoria, who donated him to the British Museum. It has resided there ever since.

The Rapa Nui are now lobbying the museum to bring him back, having gained self-administration over their ancestral lands from Chile in 2017. But while the museum has said it would consider a loan request for the statue, it does not seem prepared to go further.

Both the British Museum and counterparts in continental Europe are increasingly under pressure to return thousands of artefacts taken during colonial times. Many museums seem sympathetic to returning human remains – the British Museum recently announced it was returning Aboriginal ash bundles to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, for example. But when it comes to giving back heritage objects, long-term loans are the usual offer.

Also read: Returning Looted Artefacts Will Restore Heritage to the Brilliant Cultures That Made Them

Most museums hide behind their own conservation policies, arguing that “deaccession” – permanently removing an item – is prohibited. In the past, it was often difficult to mount a legal challenge against this position. Yet there are signs that international law may finally be moving in favour of the Rapa Nui and the many other indigenous peoples affected.

Existing law

There is not yet any binding international law on this subject, so indigenous peoples have mainly had to rely on the various non-binding multilateral treaties and declarations dealing with the illegal trafficking of cultural objects. The UN’s Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous People, adopted in 1995, request that governments and international organisations help indigenous peoples to recover such objects. They should be returned “wherever possible”, particularly if they have “significant cultural, religious or historical value”.

The relevant treaties include the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970, and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects adopted in 1995. The UNIDROIT convention specifies that the relevant court in the state with the object should order it to be returned if the requesting state either establishes that its removal significantly impaired the “traditional or ritual use of the object by a tribal or indigenous community”, or that “the object is of significant cultural importance”.

There are countless examples of these conventions producing results – either through museums such as the American Getty voluntarily following their requirements; through domestic challenges such as the case that China won in Denmark in 2008 to repatriate over 150 smuggled relics; or on the back of UN recommendations such as those that saw Germany return the Boğazköy Sphinx to Turkey in 2011.

The conventions have crucial legal weaknesses, however. Under UNIDROIT, for example, the time limits for recovering stolen indigenous cultural property are flexible, while the rules only apply to items stolen after the treaty came into force. UNIDROIT has also only been signed or ratified by a limited number of countries, including New Zealand, Italy and Spain – but not the UK. Also, only states can participate, making it harder for indigenous peoples to bring actions.

Two later UNESCO conventions from 2003 and 2005 remedy this latter issue by recognising and encouraging the active participation of indigenous peoples in safeguarding cultural heritage. Yet neither convention covers past appropriations. Meanwhile, the UK is not a party to the 2003 treaty and is party to the 2005 treaty only through EU membership, which is due to end in March 2019.

New avenues

Human rights law is playing an increasingly promising role in this area. The most comprehensive relevant instrument is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007. Article 11, for example, recognises such peoples’ rights “to practice and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs”. This includes an accompanied duty for states to “provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution” (meaning they would return the object).

Putting cultural heritage on the human rights agenda has been a welcome addition to the legal toolbox around indigenous cultural objects, but as with most international legal instruments, implementation remains a thorny issue. The case is getting stronger, however. In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council issued a resolution recognising the importance of preserving and protecting cultural heritage as an “indispensable element of human flourishing”.

More recently, France appears to be spearheading change. A recent report by two specialist scholars, commissioned by President Emmanuel Macron, urged changing French heritage laws to support the permanent return of African art taken without consent. It talks in terms of “colonial restitution” as a remedy for an infringement of the human rights of people whose cultural artefacts were taken away. If the French government follows up by overhauling its cultural heritage laws, it will be a major step forward.

Also read: Heritage Monuments Need Preservation and Management Policies Before Adoption

International environmental law is also seeking to endorse the repatriation of indigenous cultural heritage. The UN Biodiversity Conference 2018, taking place in Egypt, has been considering adopting the draft Rutzolijirisaxik Voluntary Guidelines for the Repatriation of Traditional Knowledge Relevant for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. These deal with the repatriation of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities held by museums, botanical gardens and other facilities.

All this progress makes me cautiously optimistic about the legal basis for future claims in this area. It is still a long road ahead, but with the right endorsement and cooperation from national governments and some goodwill from museums, the process of repatriation can gain further momentum.

This is a question of moral decency, and it is not just about cultural attachés: we can all become ambassadors lobbying for the restitution of looted cultural objects. As the historian David Olusoga aptly argues, in post-Brexit times, making friends to repatriate stolen objects is a matter of self-interest. The likes of the Rapa Nui are owed an apology. Returning Hoa Hakananai’a would be the first step in a long process of peacemaking and healing.

Saskia Vermeylen, Strathclyde Chancellor’s Fellow, Law, Strathclyde University

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Invisible No More: This Artist is Busting Gender Stereotypes With Portraits of Women Farmers

We often imagine “the Indian farmer” as a man, forgetting that women form a significant part of the agrarian economy.

We often imagine “the Indian farmer” as a man, forgetting that women form a significant part of the agrarian economy. Yesterday, thousands of Indian farmers, from all over India, marched on parliament to demand the government’s attention and action. Delhi-based artist Pariplab Chakraborty managed to capture some faces for these watercolour portraits.

Pariplab Chakraborty is a 22-year-old artist and documentary filmmaker based in New Delhi. Find him on Twitter @pariplabv, Instagram @pariplab_chakraborty and Facebook.