Food Frankenstein

By: Jennifer D'Cruz

“We are what we eat,” is an age-old adage familiar to almost everyone, but today it is becoming increasingly more questionable with the advent of genetically modified (GM) foods. Initially, in 1940’s the Green Revolution transformed farming practice to create high-yielding crops through use of pesticides, intense breeding and better access to irrigation. However, that has shifted into the Gene Revolution which includes transgenic or GM foods. Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians argue that GM foods are a health risk and that with proper distribution of food (“sharing”), these GM foods are unnecessary. However, I disagree with these statements and instead believe that GM foods are important and necessary in our society.

All living organisms have instructions (gene) coded in DNA. GM foods contain additional genes cut and pasted from another organism to acquire a desired trait. In this way, crops can be genetically modified to be salt-tolerant, drought tolerant, pest resistant, herbicide tolerant and disease resistant. Having these characteristics are important in yielding a higher productivity of crops, especially in such a time of need. It is estimated that the world’s population will grow from the current 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) predict that such a population growth will require a boost in food production by 70%. Moreover, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) predicts that crop yields in developing countries will reduce by 50% due to climate change. Added to that is the fact that 30% of crops harvested are lost due to pests. Combined, these three metrics stress the importance of increasing crop productivity in the future. Otherwise, food prices may continue to rise, as seen in February of 2011 when the UN FAO reported a record high food price index particularly for rice and maize. By adding pesticide resistant gene to GM foods, we are also reducing our carbon footprint; in 2007 alone, GM foods saved 15.6 million tons of CO2, which is equivalent to 6.3 million cars off the road by just cutting back on herbicide and pesticide usage. 

The benefit of GM foods can also be found in its capacity to deliver essential nutrients where regular diet would not. For example, reports from the World Health Organization have warned about the harsh reality of Vitamin A deficiencies in Africa and South-east Asia. This nutritional deprivation results in 500,000 children becoming blind each year and half of them dying within the next 12 months. In 1999, the third world breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dr. Ingo Potrykus and Dr. Peter Beyer created GM Golden rice. The edible seed of this rice contains an additional gene for β-carotene that codes a precursor (inactive form) to Vitamin A, which would otherwise not be present. Research shows that every gram of Golden rice contains 35μg of β-carotene. Hence, one cup (nearly 200 grams) of rice delivers 55-70% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for men and women. According to an article published in Nature, unjustified and impractical legal requirements are delaying its entrance into markets. Had Golden rice been allowed to cultivate in 2002, when it was prepared, approximately 22 million deaths might have been prevented due to vitamin A deficiency. This is sadly equivalent to a nutritional massacre via artrition. Fortunately, in 2005 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded $450 million to this project to increase the levels and quality of pro-vitamin A, Vitamin E, iron, and zinc through biotechnology.

Back home in North America, GM foods may also play a similar role in Vitamin D supplementation. A recent survey conducted by Statistics Canada found that 70% of Canadians have inadequate levels of Vitamin D. Short summers and a tendency to stay indoors have deprived Canadians of sufficient exposure to sunlight, which is a key source of this nutrient. Studies show that Vitamin D is important in the prevention of certain cancers, multiple sclerosis, type I diabetes and heart disease. It is also needed to promote calcium absorption in the body, which is crucial to the development of strong bones and prevention of osteoporosis in adults and rickets in children. Dr. Schwalfenberg, clinical professor in department of family medicine in Alberta stated that 3000 International Units (I.U.) of Vitamin D is required to have an anti-cancer benefit. However, one glass of milk contains only 100 I.U, thus, sole dependence on this dietary source of Vitamin D would evidently not meet the RDA. As had been done with Golden Rice, perhaps Vitamin D could be the next candidate for genetic integration into another food to provide 70% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance. 

In today’s society, there is much concern targeted towards GM foods due to their novelty and possible harmful effects. For instance, prior to 17^th century, only white carrots were available in markets. However, later on Dutch growers crossbred cultivated and wild-type carrots to harvest only orange carrots since they were sweeter and bred in tribute to Prince William III of Orange. In this way, generations of white, yellow and purple carrots were wiped from history. Perhaps similarly, white rice may one day become food of the past! 

Overall, GM foods are important for increasing productivity and quality of crops amidst the growing population. The reduced usage of pesticides results in a cleaner environment with increased savings. Most importantly, GM foods permit the production of more nutritional crops which may decrease mortality. Together, these facts bring new light to the old adage, “good health comes from the farm, not from the pharmacy.”

References
1) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/41655/article_41667en.html

2) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/

3) http://www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp

4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/23/gm-foods-world-population-crisis

5) http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

6) http://knowledge.allianz.com/health/food_water/?500/gm-crops-facts-and-figures

7) http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/

8) http://goldenrice.org/

9) Tang, G., Qin J., Dolnikowski G., Russell, R., Grusak, M. (2009). Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89: pp 1776-1783. 

10) Potrykus, I., Ammann, K. (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature, 466: p561.

11) http://www.gmobelus.com/

12) http://www.grandchallenges.org/about/Newsroom/Pages/GroundbreakingProjects.aspx

13) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/statscan-finds-widespread-vitamin-d-deficiency-in-canadians/article1510334/

14) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/statscan-finds-widespread-vitamin-d-deficiency-in-

15) http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind

DDT: A Curse or Blessing In Disguise

By: Jennifer Pearson

From Bisphenol A (BPA) in plastics to the use of mercury in immunizations, the scientific community is certainly accustomed to public fear, not scientific evidence, being the primary reason for banning chemicals in various everyday products. One chemical subject to such scrutiny is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT. Today, with only China and India producing DDT and only a handful more using it, DDT acts as a symbol for the dangers that can be incurred when man attempts to alter nature. However, DDT has not always had such a reputation.

Discovered in the late 1930s, DDT was quickly acknowledged as a more or less miracle insecticide used abundantly to treat typhus and malaria. Throughout the 1940s, DDT had a profound impact on the state of public health across nations. However, many changes were made in 1962, when Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” claiming that DDT caused a plethora of adverse environmental effects that not only disrupted the health of mosquitoes or lice but also that of the entire food chain. Naturally, it would be prudent to question the credibility of Carson's claims. After years of research into DDT, it has been found that DDT can pose a danger to both our health and environment. In some research, DDT has been correlated to the pathogenesis of diabetes, cancers, and endocrine diseases that can even be passed on through breast milk, posing a particular risk for the developing world. Further confirming Carson's claims is DDT's ability to disturb entire ecosystems. Given these issues, is it justified to advocate for the increased use of a dangerous chemical in developing nations? 

I would to argue yes. First, DDT is a highly cost effective option. DDT has been noted to possess the lowest cost per person protected compared to other interventions, including Icon, Ficam and Propxur. Cheap health intervention methods are not that easy to come by and typically, effective intervention methods can have crippling logistical and distribution issues. Nonetheless, the cost should never be the sole determining factor in the approval of healthcare interventions. In the case of DDT, its potency is another, if not more important, factor that provides support for its safe use. Before DDT, pyrethrum was used in anti-malarial prevention. However, pyrethrum required multiple administrations as it only killed those mosquitoes present during the spray. Alternatively, with DDT, one spray would kill all mosquitoes in the vicinity for an entire 6 month period. For that reason, if we are able to provide an intervention method that is extremely effective without placing significant financial burden on the healthcare system, one must seriously consider the feasibility of such an option.

While such a potent substance do possess extremely adverse side effects, current proposals have made provisions in the use of DDT such as discouraging continuous spraying of the insecticide. If a country elects to use DDT as an intervention method, it is recommended that DDT is used only through indoor residual spraying (IRS). The World Health Organization also includes IRS as a component of malarial prevention strategies, alongside environmental management and improved infrastructure development. Due to the presence of pathogen resistance to DDT in various parts of Africa, monitoring such resistance has as become an essential aspect of current DDT intervention strategies. When DDT resistance is found, spraying in those regions ceases and alternative (and less effective) malarial intervention methods are implemented. Resistance monitoring, therefore, limits the use of DDT to only those regions which are non-resistant and prevents unnecessary spraying in resistant areas.

Despite the fact that DDT spraying is more conservative in today’s intervention methods, many environmentalists and advocates against the use of DDT actually argue that any use of DDT is greatly detrimental to both human health and the environment yet some literature suggests otherwise. Studies assessing the long term effects of DDT found “no significant excess morbidity” in spraymen who worked in previous eradication programs. If anyone is to be prone to DDT’s toxic effects, it would surely be those who work with DDT directly and whose exposure to the pesticide is the greatest. DDT has most infamously been linked to the cause of breast cancer through its weak estrogenic activity. However, recent conclusions have suggested that there is no strong evidence to support these claims nor has DDT ever been successfully linked to adverse effects on reproductive health. 

No one has to be told about the great impact malaria has had on health in Africa. If using one cost-effective chemical responsibly can provide a significant reduction in the number of deaths due to malaria, one would think that this intervention would be employed with great gusto. Those against the use of DDT must bare in mind that until a more sustainable alternative is found, DDT remains an important and highly effective component of today’s malarial prevention strategies. It is not this article’s contention that DDT is without its problems, rather when used with caution, DDT’s benefits greatly outweigh the potential threats it poses. In judgment of practices that weigh so heavily on matters of life and death, we must avoid summing the issue into a simple binary of yes or no. We must carefully weigh the risks against the benefits in order to take the most responsible and ethical route to prevent and treat such a widespread disease. 

References

(1) http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/toxic-people.html

(2) Gladwell M. The Mosquito Killer. The New Yorker 2001 July 2, 2001.

(3) Guyatt HL, Corlett SK, Robinson TP, Ochola SA, Snow RW. Malaria prevention in highland Kenya: indoor residual house-spraying vs. insecticide-treated bednets. Trop Med Int Health 2002 Apr;7(4):298-303.

(4) Sadasivaiah S, Tozan Y, Breman JG. Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for indoor residual spraying in Africa: how can it be used for malaria control? Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007 Dec;77(6 Suppl):249-263.

(5) Schapira A. DDT: a polluted debate in malaria control. Lancet 2006 Dec 16;368(9553):2111-2113.

(6) Schapira A. DDT still has a role in the fight against malaria. Nature 2004 Nov 25;432(7016):439.

(7) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944

Libya: Past and Future

By: Flora Huang and Tahrin Mahmood

The body lay lifeless on the mattress littered with blood smears and bullet wounds. Its image frozen in time with each flash of a cellphone camera. Inside a refrigerated meat shop in Misrata, Muammar Gaddafi’s body was on display. After being paraded in the street, his dead corpse was now available for a photo-op. Celebrations erupted in the room with jubilant cheers, only inches away from the gruesome reminder of Libya’s past. Indeed, this was the long-awaited moment for Libyans after six months of civil uprising and 42 years of authoritarian dictatorship. On October 20, 2011, news of Gaddafi’s death spread across the globe as the once powerful ruler fell to the ground in what was originally believed to be crossfire. Although rebels had already occupied the Libyan capital of Tripoli in August, capturing and killing Gaddafi symbolized the beginning of the country’s social and political liberation. 

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi rose to power in 1969 under a coup that overthrew the incumbent Libyan king. His subsequent rule of the North African state has been largely characterized as erratic. He promoted the ideals of a socialist democracy in Libya while building his repressive regime using the nation’s oil revenues. In 1975, Gaddafi wrote the widely-known Green Book, which espoused his own philosophy by renouncing capitalism and liberal democracy. He proposed a new system of democracy formed by committees with members elected by the people but in the absence of political parties. Inevitably, the reality of the situation was hardly a government chosen by the masses. Gaddafi appointed his loyal supporters to these cabinet positions and remained the sole commander of the country’s operations. Political dissidents were silenced by imprisonment and extrajudicial killings were common. In fact, The Green Book was mandatory reading material for Libyan students, even though the majority of the content was one man’s tangential ramblings. With citizen’s education being a low priority, Gaddafi did no better in advancing Libya’s economic frontier. The meagre wealth of Libyans paints a heavy contradiction to the nation’s oil-rich natural resources and untouched Mediterranean coastline. An estimated 30% of Libyans are unemployed, unsurprising given that most of them lack the necessary training for respectable careers given only 10 universities in the country. Gaddafi’s image is also tainted by reports suggesting he redirected Libya’s oil revenues into family investments via him and his nine children.

Fast forward to 2011, after a slew of successful internal revolutions against some of North Africa’s long-standing tyrannical leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, mounting frustration from Libyans resulted in demonstrations across the country in February. In response to the protests, Gaddafi forces turned violent, characteristic of his history of ruling Libya with an iron fist. The rebels soon joined forces to form the National Transitional Council, which consisted of mostly untrained civilians who collectively paled in comparison to the strong paramilitary team recruited by Gaddafi. When Gaddafi forces approached the city of Benghazi, the United Nations Security Council authorized international intervention against the Gaddafi regime to prevent potential mass brutality. NATO air strikes and bombing began and a no fly-zone was imposed over Libya. With the aid of Western involvement, the capital city of Tripoli was successfully taken by rebels in August. Gaddafi was finally killed by gunshot wounds at close-range in October in his hometown. 

As the confetti settles to the ground, the decades of struggle for Libyans is unfortunately far from over. No doubt, freedom comes at a cost. The challenge of rebuilding a government that will democratically represent a diverse population is enormous. How will the new laws of the nation be inclusive to all Islamists, moderates and secularists? Most Libyans do not share a common vision for the country’s future and there is even a chance that Libya might split into two due to the strong divisions between the two predominant groups. Suspicions also arise over whether the current transitional government can be trusted to put the guns down and promote a new Libya that will solve its problems judicially with an emphasis on human rights preservation. The issue surrounding the events of Gaddafi’s death, which many have likened to an execution, is concerning for many Libyans. Killing without being tried in a court of law alludes to the old Libya that could not escape the ruthless grasp of violence. Furthermore, this political and economic instability makes Libya vulnerable to exploitations from other countries. 


Many people are questioning whether it is Libya or its oil reserve that is liberated. Before this revolution, the oil revenues had been returned to Libya’s people but now that Libya’s political isolation is eliminated, the inflation in oil prices will be imported to Libya as well. For a country that is already suffering from political unrest, adding economic turmoil would be like fuel to a blazing fire. 

There is no denying that Libya has indeed made a right step in terms of gaining human rights, but whether and how this nation will stand up on its own in this phase of recovery remains unclear.

Sources:

Nimmo, K. (n.d.). Prison Planet.com » In 2009 Gaddafi Proposed Nationalizing Libya’s Oil. Prison Planet.com . Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://www.prisonplanet.com/in-2009-gaddafi-proposed-nationalizing-libya%E2%80%99s-oil.html

Spencer, R. (n.d.). Libya: 'civil war not over' - Telegraph.Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8750961/Libya-civil-war-not-over.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14612570

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/09/20119141151017195.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/gaddafi-libya-oil-wealth-portfolio

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/muammar-gaddafi-body-misrata-meat-store

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13235981

Where does power rest? In the hands of the sell-outs.

Craig Draeger

In the last edition of Inquire, I wrote about how social movements like the TEA Party and the Black Bloc represent a shift in the countercultural ethos. The emergence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) late last year has changed the equation, so this time I'd like to factor OWS into an examination of social movements generally, with the aim of identifying what makes some successful while others fail. 

In preparation for this article, I did everything I could to try to understand the Occupy movement better. “OCCUPY EVERYTHING” screamed the headline of The Socialist Worker that I picked up in an independent book store. The lead article beams with pride about the “young campaigners, artists and students” who first congregated on September 17 of last year in Zucotti park to demonstrate. 

The writer went to great lengths to compare Occupy to the Egyptian revolution, as well as the 1999 anti-globalization protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organization (WTO). He also laid out an ambitious list of demands, to say the least.

“The initial declaration coming out of the OWS is promising as it challenges the racism and colonialism at home and abroad, criticizes the continued foreclosures, the ridiculous profit of executives and downloading of the crisis onto ordinary people, the declaration calls for renewable energy and collective bargaining rights and so forth (emphasis mine).” 

A lot has been said about how the movement prides itself on the plurality of viewpoints it contains, and the inability of passive observers to pin down a particular ideology or agenda. While this pluralism is commendable in its own right, it also renders their movement impotent. 

The aim of any social movement is to affect some form of institutional or cultural change, specifically regarding an aspect of our political, social or economic structure that the movement sees as unfair or unearned. In Occupy’s case, the unifying raison d’etre is anger over economic inequality.

Regrettably, they’ve failed to get their message across and affect real change. Their voices were drowned out, not just by the natural cacophony of so many disparate viewpoints, but by their inability to organize into a vehicle for influence.  

True power only exists in relationships between individuals, but institutions (like the media or the government) allow for the projection of power over a greater distance and number of people. 

All through history, successful movements have channelled public sentiment into something more concrete: engagement with these institutions. Indeed, the success of a social movement is directly proportionate to its ability and willingness to engage with power-intensive institutions.

It’s appropriate that OWS was compared to the WTO protesters, another group who distain so-called “co-optation” by the tainted system and cast shame on those who would “sell-out” their principles by working within it. The Egyptian uprising is a different creature altogether. 

The fundamental failure of the Occupy movement is the mistaken conviction that social pressure alone can influence the realm of public policy. It cannot. Significant social pressure can topple a government or a ruler, but it can’t change something as abstract as our economic interrelations. Those can only be changed through the institutions of power.

To see this in practice, recall again the TEA Party. Their success has not been the result of big, noisy rallies. Those only serve to reinforce their other efforts by demonstrating their organizational capacities to the government and media. 

The success of the TEA Party has been in influencing institutions. They influence the government by affecting the outcomes of Republican primary races, and influence the public sentiment through favourable media coverage. This is how a successful social movement operates. 

Moreover, these aren’t the only ways to broadcast power. Interest groups exist for the express purpose of influencing the government between elections (on behalf of the issues of the elderly, of gun owners, and so on). And there are influential workers’ unions, of course.

So it shouldn't surprise at all that Occupy didn’t force a restructuring of our base and superstructure, because the entire OWS contingent refused to follow the proven formula for successful social movements. 

If the government is corrupt, vote them out of office. If they are despotic, take to the streets. But if our economic and social relations are perverted, start working toward their betterment rather than rejecting them outright. 

All the successful social movements in history morphed into something different for the sake of accomplishing at least some of their goals. If this is selling out, so be it. Whether Occupy will learn this lesson and change course is yet to be seen, but it didn't look very likely at the time of this writing. 

---

The Mexican Drug War: An American Problem

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Isabel Barrera

The escalation of drug-related violence in Mexico has recently brought to light the severity of the problem rooted in the illegal drug trade. Violence stemming from fierce competition between drug cartels has caused significant damage to the people of Mexico; it has resulted in the deaths of over 5000 people in 2008 as reported by the U.S State Department. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has vowed to crack down on the drug cartels, prompting the initialization of an increased military presence. But the Calderon’s efforts have had little effect on decreasing drug-related violence in Mexico’s most troubled states.  Recently, concern in the U.S over Mexico’s drug problems have become heightened as violence has begun to seep across the border, primarily in “gateway” cities such as Phenoix where illegal drugs are known to enter the U.S. The problem that has existed in Mexico for decades has finally become a concern for the American government, as they now have a vested interest in reducing drug-related violence which has begun to take its toll on American citizens.

The complex nature of the drug-trade in Latin American countries makes it highly difficult to for the Mexican government to effectively address. The global drug trade has an estimated value of over $400 billion dollars, which helps fuel the rampant corruption that hinders efforts to impede the illegal drug trade. Corruption penetrates almost every facet of the Mexican justice system, such that authorities are often unable to hold drug dealers accountable even after they are apprehended. Further complicating the issue, Mexico’s strict gun laws have done little to prevent members of drug cartels from being extremely well armed; it has been estimated that 95 percent of weapons acquired by cartels members are smuggled into Mexico from the U.S, where it is possible to purchase weapons from an unlicensed dealer with no questions asked. It is clear that the Mexican government is faced with limited resources and limited capacity to effectively address the drug problem in its country. 

Mexico is the largest foreign source of marijuana in the U.S, with the International Narcotics Strategy Control Report estimating that approximately 15 800 metric tons of marijuana were produced in Mexico in 2007, most of which was bound for U.S markets. The high demand for drugs in the U.S exemplifies the intimate relationship that exists between the drug-related problems in Mexico and U.S policy. It is difficult to image how the issue of supply in Mexico can be addressed without first addressing the demand which fuels the production and transport of these illegal substances.

As Hilary Clinton stated at a 2009 press conference in Mexico City, “our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade, and our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” 

 The striking correlation between the demand in the U.S for drugs and the push to meet this demand in Latin American countries makes it clear that any viable solution must involve active cooperation between the Mexican and U.S governments. The demand for marijuana in the U.S is an issue that has garnered a high degree of media attention; the legalization of marijuana has been heavily debated as an action that has the potential to radically influence the outcome of the drug war in Mexico. In addition to its effects on the drug trade, it has been estimated that the legalization of marijuana would save $13.7 billion dollars in government expenditures for the enforcement of marijuana laws

. With the majority of profits on the illegal sale of marijuana being garnered by Mexican drug cartels, its legalization could remove a significant portion of the revenue collected; revenue that is currently put towards fostering corruption and purchasing weapons, among other things. The power of the drug cartels is founded on the demand for the products they produce, great quantities of which can be sourced back the United States. Consequently, a large part of the burden and responsibility to deal with the root of the problem should be shifted to the U.S government; a government that is politically and structurally better equipped to target the issue than its Mexican counterpart.

Only through a combination of U.S policy changes and increased transparency within the Mexican system can the violence caused by the illegal drug trade be effectively stopped. Until carefully addressed, widespread corruption within many facets of the Mexican government will continue to hinder any efforts to stem the influence of the powerful drug cartels. The vicious circle of corruption and violence that has plagued the Mexican people with terror and economic hardship cannot be stopped without decisive and targeted U.S policy intervention. Whether it be tighter gun regulations, the legalization of marijuana, or stricter border policies, the U.S government will likely continue to see an increase in drug-related violence migrating to American cities, unless it takes an active and mutually cooperative approach to tackling the increasingly serious problem at hand.

A Forgotten Minority

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Adil Ali


On August 11, 1947, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan following his election as the first President, Muhammad Ali Jinnah proclaimed: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the current state of minorities in Pakistan. 

Parts of Jinnah’s speech have been downplayed, altered or omitted altogether by the Government of Pakistan to appease religious groups within the country, such acts are demonstrative of the power wielded by clerics in Pakistan. Their influence has grown exponentially in the past few decades and the brunt of this power shift has been mainly felt by the fledgling minorities of the country. 

Ahmadis, a religious minority, have been on the receiving end of systematic and particularly severe persecution from their fellow countrymen as well as the Pakistani State. Soon after the partition of India, clerics belonging to the Sunni majority began engaging in anti-Ahmadi agitation. On May 1, 1949, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a Muslim separatist movement, made its first public demand that Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority. It used outlandish conspiracy theories accusing the Ahmadis of conspiring with India against Pakistan’s Sunni population. This was after all, and still is, the oldest trick in the book to malign an individual or an entity in Pakistan. 

Even though the attacks against the Ahmadis continued for the next two decades, it wasn’t until 1974 that the Government of Pakistan decided to engage in state-sponsored religious discrimination against the community. In 1974, the Sunni clerics saw a new spate of violence against the Ahmadis as an opportunity to pressure the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. As a result, the Pakistani parliament introduced Articles 260(3)(a) and (b), which defined the meaning of the term “Muslim” in the Pakistani context and listed religious groups that were declared non-Muslims. Put into effect on September 6, 1974, the amendment deprived Ahmadis of their identity as Muslims and consequently curtails their religious freedoms. 

For fear of being charged, Ahmadis could no longer profess their faith, either verbally or in writing. Law enforcement agencies destroyed Ahmadi translations of the Quran and banned Ahmadi publications. Furthermore, Ordinance XX prohibited Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, building mosques, or making the call for Muslim prayers. This amounts to a de facto criminalization of any public act of worship for Ahmadis. Over the last three decades, the clerics’ propaganda has influenced the masses and that has led to widespread hatred against the Ahmadis. The hatred has been woven so deep into the fabric of Pakistani society that the country refuses to acknowledge the only Nobel laureate it has ever produced— Dr. Abdus Salam Khan won the Nobel Prize for physics but because he belonged to the Ahmadiyya Community, there is no monument to celebrate him and no universities named after him. The hatred was such that the word "Muslim" on his gravestone was also erased. 

There has been no let-up in violence against the community in recent times. On May 28, 2010, two teams of attackers stormed Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore during the Friday prayers and slaughtered 94 members of the community. The violence, as gruesome as it was, wasn’t the most disturbing aspect. It was the reaction of the Pakistani society that was most abhorrent. The Pakistani media, which is normally quite vociferous, remained uncharacteristically restrained. The media did not even consider the victims worthy enough to be characterized as “martyrs”, a title usually conferred upon any victims of terrorist attacks. Even the elected representatives in the parliament chose to remain mute on the issue rather than voicing their support for the Ahmadiyya community. It wasn’t until three brave female MPs crossed party lines to propose a resolution condemning the attacks that the parliament even acknowledged the violence against the persecuted community. When Pakistan's main opposition leader and former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, used the phrase "our brothers" for the murdered Ahmadis, leaders from 11 religious political parties came together to condemn him and threatened to issue a fatwa declaring him a heretic. This is a stark demonstration of how the clerics have maintained a tight grip on the politicians in Pakistan and how their influence extends into the public sphere. 

Apart from being victimized by extremist militant groups, the Ahmadis have often found themselves to be targets of blasphemy allegations and open discrimination in their daily lives. In October this year, 10 students, including seven girls, and a female teacher were expelled from Chenab Public School and Muslim Public School, in the Punjab province, for being Ahmadis. According to Saleemuddin, the spokesperson of the Ahmadiyya community, the expulsion came in the aftermath of a public meeting held in the city where religious preachers openly indulged in hate speeches against the community. Muslim Public School Principal, Yasir Abbas admitted to caving under pressure from the clerics who demanded the expulsion of Ahmadi students from his school. Khalil Ahmed, whose three daughters were expelled, told The Express Tribune: “It is extremely unfortunate that my daughters are being deprived of the most basic and fundamental human right such as education all because of religious intolerance.” “I have no alternative to ensure that their education continues,” he added.

As a Pakistani myself, it wasn’t until I read an article about Ahmadi persecution that I realized that over the years I have personally witnessed and to a certain extent, contributed towards this blatant oppression. While applying for a passport or national ID card, I never cared to read the oath that I was signing. An oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign goes like this: “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims.”

 This reference to the Ahmadiyya community is a requirement for all Muslims to sign when applying for a new passport in Pakistan, which by the way is the only country to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.

As I delve into the path that my country has taken throughout history, it leaves me with a sense of sadness knowing that Pakistan, at the time of its independence, guaranteed more rights and freedoms to its minorities than even the United States of America. While the US transformed itself from being a segregated society to a nation that championed equality and fairness throughout the rest of the world, Pakistan has chosen to distance itself from the vision of its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and as a result, become a hotbed for discrimination and religious bigotry that has been suffocating its citizens for years. Belonging to the majority Sunni sect, I can choose to ignore the persecution of Ahmadis in my country and go on living my life espousing sheer indifference, but my conscience tells me otherwise. I believe that Martin Niemöller’s famous quote “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me” perfectly sums up my feelings towards this issue and injects some much needed urgency to the state of minorities in Pakistan and Ahmadis in particular, which has now reached a crisis point. 

Emerging Face of a Nationless World

The blog post this week comes from Ruyi Wang (Bachelors of Arts and Science Candidate, 2014) Inquire's very own Co-VIce-President of Initiatives. We're glad she stumbled across this treasure as it deserves to be shared. The campaign encompasses not only an artist's musical skill and talent, but the cultural influences behind it. With a medium as ubiquitous as music we hope that this campaign will spread insight into the parallels between all communities.

Emerging Face of a Nationless World is a campaign begun by the New York based artist Jie-Song Zhang, under the not-for-profit company, Stone Forest New York, which promotes international cultural exchange projects. The campaign is being supported by National Geographic for its artistic and cultural value. The first promotional video speaks volumes about the change in global cultures in its short six minutes.

“The distances that once existed between continents, countries, and cultures, is disappearing.” With the increase of globalization in recent years, the freedom of the migration of people, and the lifestyles which they choose to live has increased immensely. In large “melting pot” cities with a dynamic mix of people from various cultures, the emergence of a nationless world is especially prominent. The city is a collective home to those who come from different homelands, creating its own unique blend as a result of the exchange that takes place. The Internet also plays a large role in the exchange of ideas and cultures. Though it seems that the infusion of technology into modern society has driven people farther apart, it has also brought people closer together. The idea of a nationless world is truly inspiring. Perhaps one day, we can cast aside the borders of nations, cultures, and continents, and defined ourselves under the common identity of the human race.

If you're interested in the project, more of Jie-Song Zhang and his Emerging Face of a Nationless World campaign can be found here.