Saturday, January 28, 2006

Truth nothing but truth

T WAS a very interesting observation by US Senator John McCain that members of the US Congress should take a page from Britain's parliamentary book to inject some life into their political system.
Most notable in McCain's comments in an interview with the Times of London on Friday was that the US Congress should consider an American version of Prime Minister's Question Time.
British democracy, the oldest in the world, is rich not only in traditions but also in checks and balances on the government. There is indeed a lot that world democracies have adopted from Britain. Living up to the norms and code of conduct practised by the British parliament has given new life to most of them. After all, it is all a question of government's accountability to the people through their elected representatives.
That is the central pillar of democracy and Britain could indeed be proud that it had spawned a system of governance and monitoring that have withstood the test of time.
That is not to say that British democracy has always lived up to the expectations attached to it by its founding principles. Many recent surveys on public opinion have come up with the finding that many Britons have lost faith in their parliament and they event want amendments to the rules of the game, particularly after the Blair government hitched itself to the American war wagon and went to Iraq.
Nonetheless, in Britain, we have seen prime ministers and ministers squirming under uncomfortable and probing questions during the PMQs. More often than not, their answers open up avenues for the media to pursue and come up with surprising revelations and tear the veil away from facts that the government might have wanted to hide from the public. It is also an opportunity for the people — wherever proceedings are televised — to get a first-hand view of how answers are offered and to make their own assessment of how their representatives and ministers handle themselves under pressure. That is only one aspect of democratic life.
The most sacred rule, as indeed is the case is with all democracies around the world, is that lying to the elected representatives of the people is unpardonable under any circumstances. The executive authority have no leeway there; it has to come clean with truth and nothing but truth under questioning in parliament.
Imagine, a US president, say like George W Bush, and top administration officials being put through a similar experience in the US Congress.
Of course, the differences in parliamentary proceedings between Britain and the US are too wide, but the concept of governments being held accountable for their actions is universal.
What would indeed be interesting to watch is whether Senator McCain would actually follow up on is observations and gather like-minded members of congress around him for a concerted campaign in Washington introduce PQs in the American legislature — President's Question Time.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The brighter side

THE FOCUS of speculation today is how Hamas, the Palestinian group which roots itself in armed resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestine, would behave once it enters the Palestinian cabinet in a coalition agreement with Fatah following the Jan.25 legislative elections.
Opinions are divided. Some believe that Hamas would never change its colours and would only work from within the government to undermine the Fatah leadership's efforts to work out a peace agreement with Israel. Others are convinced that Hamas leaders are pragmatic enough to accept realities and that there is no solution to the conflict except through negotiations with Israel.
Overlooked in the din of arguments and counter-arguments is an equally important aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For more than a decade now, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the de facto Palestinian government, has not really been able to address some of the key preoccupation of the people it governs.
Granted that the choking Israeli siege of the people living under its military occupation could be easily blamed for the daily suffering of the people of Palestine. However, the PNA also bears part of the responsibility, given the abundant evidence of corruption, nepotism and favouritism in the ranks of Fatah. The Fatah-led PNA has not been able to make a real difference to the quality of life of its people. If anything, the lot of the Palestinians under occupation in terms of daily life is worse than it was before the Oslo agreement was signed in September 1993.
That is where the strong showing of Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections comes into relevance. Its victory could only be partly attributed to the chaos that reigned in the PNA. The other part is the success with which the group had been running schools, schools and social welfare organisations in a systematic and most effective manner within the confinements attached to the situation under occupation.
It clear that Hamas wants to pursue and strengthen its approach to the Palestinian society at large. The group is among the most disciplined and organised movements in Palestine and its commitment and seriousness to addressing the problems of grassroot Palestinians could not be questioned. There is little doubt that Hamas would not only insist on taking over the health, education and social welfare portfolios in the Palestinian cabinet but would also make a success of its endeavours by shouldering the task with responsibility and dedication.
That should indeed be the brightest spot at this point in time for the Palestinian people facing the dark uncertainties of their struggle for freedom and statehood in view of the arrogant and stubborn positions adopted by Israel that holds out only the promise of on-again, off-again negotiations which could be run off the track at any point in time.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Iran on gunsights

INTERNATIONAL speculation is rife over when the US and Israel or either on its own would strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. It is no longer a question of whether such action is planned but of the right timing and conditions for the planned strikes, which could include the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
That is the net picture that emerges from behind-the-scenes in the US, Israel and Europe as well as some parts of the Middle East even as the international community is watching the diplomatic drama being played out in the name of UN Security Council action against Iran for insisting on pursuing its nuclear programme, writes PV Vivekanand.

Many analysts, in the Middle East, Europe and the US, see it as a two-track process. On the first track, the US and Israel are already far ahead in planning military action against Iran and are waiting for movement on the second track, which is preparing the ground and justification for such action. The US and Israel would move in with the planned action as soon as they perceive that there are enough points to be argued against Iran and enough "evidence" is produced to insist that the Iranians pose a threat to the region and international community.
Seasoned observers are convinced that military action is coming, and they cite the Iraq example. "It would not be an exaggeration that there is little the Iranian leadership could do to avert military action just as Saddam Hussein did not have any option at all since it was decided that Iraq should be hit no matter what," asserts an Arab analyst.
Others agree with the view that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's rejection on Wednesday of suggestions about a possible resumption of negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme supports this theory.
"Of course Iran could deflate the American/Israeli war machine by meeting all demands and complying with all International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands linked to its nuclear programme through one compromise or nother," adds the analyst. "However, even that deflation — humiliating as it indeed would be for Iran — would be shortlived since there is no way that Israel and the US would trust the Iranians to give up their nuclear programme."
Therefore, the argument goes, the only solution acceptable to the US and Israel is to reshape Iran itself through destabilising the country and eventually installing an American-friendly regime in Tehran, a la Baghdad.
That means confronting Iran with demands that are designed in a way that Tehran would never be able to meet, and thus continuing the "diplomatic" build-up to military action.

Timed for March?

Certain reports have suggested that Israel — with backing from the US —  has set a March deadline for military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations as well as attacks on Iranian military facilities and equipment which could be used for retaliation against American forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American Conservative magazine reported in August last year that Vice-President Dick Cheney, the most prominent figure in the Bush administration in orchestrating the invasion and occupation of Iraq, had already ordered the US Air Force to begin preparing plans for a full-scale air war against Iran's "suspected" nuclear weapons sites.
"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-programme development sites," according to former military intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi. "Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option."
It means, according to experts, that the US would use nuclear weapons of much a smaller scale that those used in the strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The weapons would plunge themselves into the earth and explode from within, thus, hopefully, limiting the attack's impact to the target and reducing human casualties.
Military manuals certify that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. "They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed a generation of more useable nuclear weapons," says Michel Chossudovsky in an article headlined Nuclear War against Iran  and appearing on www.GlobalResearch.ca.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Missed door or new window?

The stroke that hit Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and put him out of political circulation early this month and ahead of Palestinian and Israeli elections has also spooked the wheels of regional politics in the short term. Sharon was deemed as the only Israeli leader who could adopt and push through difficult and bold decisions in order to make even an Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians based on relinquishing part of the territories occupied since 1967. However, regardless of fresh strategies and policies and whoever emerges as Sharon's successor, the core picture has not changed much and is unlikely to change either because of the uncompromising positions of the two sides, writes PV Vivekanand.

Some see Sharon's demise from the political scene as a missed opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Some interpret it as a major setback for the Bush administration's hopes of resolving the Palestinian problem and removing one of major causes of anti-US sentiments in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Others see it as blessing in disguise because Sharon's vision of peace with the Palestinians would only have aggravated the conflict and his departure from the scene clears the way for more pragmatic Israeli forces to work for a more equitable solution than Sharon envisaged. Yet some others believe that uncompromising hardliners would take over the Israeli political scene in Sharon's absence and damage all prospects for fair and just peace.
One thing is abundantly clear: Uncertainty is the only certainty in the post-Sharon political equation in the run-up to the March elections in Israel. Any meaningful movement in the so-called peace process would remain frozen, and the result of Palestinian legislative elections this month would emerge as a key factor that would influence the course of all efforts for an Israeli-Palestinian solution.
Until Tuesday, it was assumed that Sharon's health crisis could only worsen and thus threaten the chances of his new party, Kadima, securing a dominating number of seats in the March elections to the Knesset (parliament) without a charismatic leader able to keep its ranks of leftists and rightists together. However, doctors declared on Tuesday that Sharon was out of immediate danger and could improve in the weeks ahead although a physical return to active politics ahead of the elections has been ruled out. The extent of the damage his brain suffered also remains to be assessed.
The assertion that he is out of danger meant that he would remain a father figure — a newly created image following the massive stroke he suffered on Jan.4 — and his party could do well as expected in the polls.
Surveys have showed that Kadima has even boosted its public approval ratings despite Sharon's collapse.
The party leads the list of expected winners in the elections, followed by the Labour party led by trade union leader Amir Peretz, and Sharon's former right-wing Likud chaired by Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to two recent surveys, Kadima, which is free to forge an alliance with the Labour, would win 44 and 45 seats in the 120-member parliament, Labour 16 to 18, and Likud between 13 and 15.
Before Sharon collapsed, polls showed that Kadima could bag 40 seats.

Leadership vacuum

In real terms, Sharon has left a leadership vacuum that is unlikely to be filled by any other Israeli leader with matching political acumen and strength.
Ehud Olmert, who inherited Sharon's mantle only because he happened to be deputy prime minister and thus the legal interim successor for 100 days, is not seen to possess what it takes to lead Israel. He does not have the stature and authority to make the kind of bold decisions for which Sharon acquired fame and also became notorious as "Mr Bulldozer" during his military and political careers since the 1960s.
Elderly statesman Shimon Peres of the Labour Party, who has served as prime minister in the past, has aligned himself with Kadima but he has affirmed that he has no prime ministerial ambitions. In any event, he is no longer leader of his party, which in any case is not expected to take a dominating position in the elections.
With Olmert deemed as too weak for a prime minister, and given that Israelis elect their prime minister through direct voting parallel to the parliamentary elections, the room is wider for Netanyahu, Sharon's arch-rival who quit the government in protest against the prime minister's decision to end Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip last year.
Netanyahu's departure from the cabinet was largely a political gimmick aimed at challenging Sharon in the Likud bloc, the party to which both belonged before the latter quit and set up Kadima. Sharon is also one of the founders of Likud, which was formed 30 years ago.
During the mid-90s, after Israel handed over most of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians and allowed the late Yasser Arafat to set up his base there under the interim 1993 Oslo agreements, Netanyahu had always insisted that he would have nothing to do with the Mediterranean coastal strip and would gladly give up the entire territory to the Palestinians. He pledged to retain the West Bank at whatever the cost and argued that continued occupation of the Gaza Strip was too costly and a source of continued trouble for Israel.
His opposition to Sharon's move to quit Gaza was a dramatic reversal of that position, a fact that went largely unnoticed in the media.
The switch was obviously aimed at currying political favour with Jewish settlers in the occupied territories.
Netanyahu could consolidate his position by appealing to the "security" mindset of the Israelis as well as claiming to represent Israel "nationalism" that rules out the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank.
On the other hand, analysts say that Sharon, by evacuating the Gaza Strip and making bold statements, has prepared his people to accept that it is not in the country's interest to hang on to the occupied territories and that some compromises have to be made.
According to political analyst Bary Rubin, Sharon "embodied a new national consensus, accepted by at least two-thirds of the population, that reflects deep-seated changes in the country and its situation."
"From the left comes the idea that, in return for full peace, Israel is ready to withdraw from most of the territory captured in 1967 and accept a Palestinian state. From the right, the consensus acknowledges that currently there is no Palestinian partner for real peace.
"The left's advocacy of territorial withdrawal gained currency as a result of a general recognition that holding onto land, especially Palestinian-populated areas, is not in the national interest. Israel does not intend to claim this land in the future, never derived any economic benefit from it, and now regards staying there as a security problem rather than an asset. With the cold war over, the USSR gone, and the Arab world weakened, a conventional war with the armies of Arab states is no longer likely, rendering obsolete the strategic considerations underlying Israel's occupation of this territory."
That is Sharon's legacy, Rubin argues, adding that "it was Sharon who sensed a sea change in Israeli sentiment and acted upon it. But Sharon was the messenger, not the message. The era of Israeli pragmatism that he opened will not end with his departure."
Well, not many are sure how far the perceived pragmatism would go.

Recipe for trouble

The compromises advocated by Sharon could only lead to creating more troubles on both sides.
It was leaked out in late December that Sharon's vision of peace with the Palestinians was based on further unilateral moves: withdrawal from certain selected areas of the West Bank, and allowing for a temporary Palestinian state in part of the West Bank and in Gaza.
That was seen as a perfect recipe for trouble since evacuating parts of the West Bank without consulting the Palestinians would not address the core issues such as the status of Arab East Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and this means setting a fertile ground for not only fomenting Palestinian unrest and armed resistance but also for extremist groups like Al Qaeda and others to grow roots in Palestine.
Unilateral withdrawals would be touted by armed groups as their victory.
That is a prospect that is worrying the Americans, and that explains the intense contacts between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and this week's arrival in the Middle East of two American troubleshooters, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams.
Effectively, Sharon had engineered the US into a position where Washington relied on him to take initiatives towards a settlement with the Palestinians, and his absence from the scene has left the Bush administration wondering what direction it should take to keep the so-called peace process alive and kicking.
Sharon had skillfully nudged President George W Bush into endorsing the Israeli position that the Jewish state would retain the bulk of the illegal settlements it has built in the West Bank and that the Palestinian refugees' right of return was not an issue that would be entertained.
For most people in the Middle East, it was shocking and surprising to hear Bush describe Sharon "as a man of peace," given the Israeli prime minister's consistent record of obvious hostility towards the Palestinians and his proven role in the 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in two Beirut camps as well as his approval of heavy-handed military action against Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon also gathered notoriety by professing that Jordan was the "alternative homeland" for the Palestinians and advocated the expulsion of Arab Israelis and Palestinians across the River Jordan.
Indeed, Bush is now worried that without Sharon in the scene he may have lost the one chance he will get to realise his declared goal of seeing two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace before his term ends in 2007.
"Bush has a stance but not a strategy" for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, says William Quandt, who as a senior White House advisor during the Carter administration helped negotiate the Camp David accords. "He supported Sharon," Quandt told the Los Angeles Times recently.
Meaningful progress towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement would help Bush on several fronts: It would tone down criticism from the Europeans, a diversion from the crisis in Iraq and perhaps dilution in the enthusiasm of Arab volunteers to fight the US forces there, and strengthening his hand in dealing with Iran, whose nuclear programmes are a source of concern for Israel and thus also to the US.
The immediate American priority — as represented in the Welsh-Abrams mission — is to shore up the agreements made with Sharon linked to the withdrawal from Gaza and prevent any small incident from spinning out of control in the new climate of uncertainty and in the absence of strong leadership.

Palestinian view

The Palestinians loath Sharon for his record of actions against them.
A Palestinian group, the Popular Resistance Committees, issued a statement hailing "the downfall of Dracula."
Sharon will remain forever associated with the 1982 massacres in Beirut where he, as Israeli defence minister, invaded Lebanon to rout the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and allowed allied Lebanese militiamen to slaughter hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps of the Lebanese capital.
The Palestinian sentiment has only been intensified by his project of building a 700-kilometre "separation" wall crisscrossing the West Bank that would eventually be the "border" between Israel and Palestinian areas, but would take in large swaths of Palestinian territory in the name of "security" for Israelis — Jewish settlers living in the illegal colonies built on occupied territory.
Abbas, the Palestinian president who is maintaining a platform of non-violence as the ground for a negotiated settlement with Israel, has expressed his concerns over Sharon's status to Israeli leaders. Some of his associates, including Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Shaath and Saeb Erakat, a negotiator, fear that the vacuum left behind by Sharon would only spell trouble for the Palestinians.
"Sharon's absence could turn things upside down," according to Erekat, who is fearful that as Israeli political factions competed to fill the void, the Israeli military might step up its offensive against Palestinian resistance groups.
"There is a lot of uncertainty about how and where the Israelis will go with the end of the Sharon era," says Shaath.
Palestinians acknowledge that Sharon had the ability to take and implement bold decisions that no other Israeli leader would dare to take let alone implement, but that is no consolation for them.
According to Hani Al Masri, a Palestinian political analyst, Sharon had already done massive damage to the Palestinian cause by erasing the issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees from the centrestage with Washington's support and his departure from active politics would be no loss for the Palestinians.
"In the short term, the situation will be worse for the Palestinians because of the confusion and power vacuum that Sharon's absence will leave, just like what happened when Arafat died" in 2004, said Masri. "But in the long term, it will be better for the Palestinians because Israel will not have the strong leader it just lost."
Masri also feels that Israeli power politics dictate that Sharon's successor might be tempted to take an even harder line against the Palestinians in order to consolidate domestic support.
Helping any Sharon successor would be the financial straits of the PNA, which is struggling with a cash crunch to pay staff salaries. Donor countries are applying pressure for more transparency and accountability, but the changes are too slow if only because of the perceived need to keep fractional leaders satisfied. The PNA has been accused of rampant corruption, and the donors are firm that Abbas remove graft from the authority's corridors.
The net sum of the situation is that the PNA could not afford to hang on to "hardline" demands and would come under intense pressure make Israeli-dictated compromises sooner or later on the fundamental issues. It would then depend on Sharon's successor to make the best of the situation and seek to impose an Israeli-tailored version of peace on the Palestinians.

American concern

The US is anxious to ensure that the Palestinians do indeed vote on Jan.25 as scheduled because Washington knows that delays would only mean strengthening of groups like Hamas as opposed to Abbas's mainstream Fatah.
Rice said last week that there was no reason to delay the elections as Palestinian leaders have threatened.
"It's our view that they ought to be held and that people ought to campaign and put themselves on the line and try to convince the population that they will do better," Rice said. At the same time, the US also wants to make sure that the elections do not produce Hamas as the winner.
A Hamas victory of a sizable number of seats — around 40 per cent according to opinion poll predictions  —  in the Palestinian legislative assembly is enough to sound the death bell for the all-too-important "road map for peace" — a proposal drafted and endorsed by the US, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The Palestinians have also accepted it, and Israel says that it also accepts it but with reservations, and hence the only blueprint on the table.
The proposal demands that the Palestinian National Authority disarm all militants, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is affiliated with Abbas's Fatah itself.
The three groups are not ready to disarm and this in itself is a non-starter for any movement on the road map.
The Palestinians seem to be unsure of how to take Sharon's indisposition, but they know that they could not expect some of their key demands to be met in a potential agreement if it were to be negotiated with him.
On the two key issues, Jerusalem and refugees' right of return, Sharon is known to be adamant that he would not accept the Palestinian demands.
Kadima's platform calls for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but it is the perceived shape of the new state that is worrisome.
It has been reported that Sharon was pushing the US to pressure the Palestinians into accepting more West Bank territory instead of Arab East Jerusalem. However, no Palestinian leader would be able to accept such a proposal, just as no Israeli leader would be ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. Again, a non-starter.
Predictably, hardline groups such as Hamas and others see Sharon's political demise as inconsequential since they believe that no Israeli leader would ever make a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. Indeed, Hamas's platform is based on a call that the state of Israel be dismantled, with all Jews who migrated there return to their places of origin, leaving pre-1948 Palestine where an Islamic state should be created.
So, where is the "missed opportunity"?

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Malayalees in the Gulf - life has to go on

January 2006

Malayalees in the Gulf - life has to go on


AS the old joke goes, the first astronaut to land on the moon found a Malayalee thattukada there. The joke symbolises the adventerous spirit of the Malayalees in going places in search of a livelihood. In real life, it is nowhere truly visible as it is in the oil-rich Gulf area, where more than two million Keralites live today. For them, the Gulf once represented the land of dreams where they could make their fortunes. Today, the dreams remain dreams for an overwhelming majority of them, making just enough to lead a moderate life. Many simply scrape through and have to keep tight reins on themselves in order to make sure his or her family gets the monthy cheque of a few thousand rupees.
For many, dreams have turned to nightmares if only for the smallest miscalculation and in other cases for no fault of their own.
Indeed, a small percentage of them have made it big in business, beginning with traditional trading, clothing, gold and food. A slightly larger number are running groceries, thattukads and service agencies (tailoring, hairdressing etc). The majority are employed, and they are the one who represent the overall picture of an average Gulf Malayalee.
Gulf Malayalees are generally respected for their commitment to work and general principles in life. That is something they have retained throughout the decades despite the off-and-on cases involving illegal activities such as sale of liquor and prostitution as well as cheating.
Oldtimers who landed in the Gulf shores during the early part of the "migration wave" in the early 70s — many of them smuggled themselves aboard motor launches which disgorged them off the coast under the cover of darkness — say they were lucky. At that time, the local residents welcomed them with open hands and employed them, and they managed to legalise their status as years went by.
It was then normal for the employers — who were beginning to experience the oil wealth that poured dollars into their coffers — to plan expanding their business and activities. Again, naturally, they sought help from their employees to recruit more staff. And this led to a swelling of the ranks of Malayalees (and indeed other Indians and non-Indians) in the Gulf countries. And the multiplication continued for many years, and is still continuing. But there is a marked difference.
During the first few years of the oil boom, an employee was trusted so much to the extent that the employer, or "sponsor," would sign on any paper presented to him. No one would think twice before securing hundreds of employment visas and entrusting their Malayalee employees to get the new employees.
But then, many Malayalee employees — and of course others too — abused the privilege and made money out of the so-called "visa business." And they taught the "locals" that there was money to be made from selling visas.
Soon, the scene became so corrupt that many Arab employers themselves were corrupted into making money from offering employment, today many of them ask how much they could get in return for using their status as a "local" to "sponsor" businesses or secure "job visas" for sale.
In the Gulf scene today, hundreds of Malayalees are paying and are ready to pay tens of thousands of rupees — the last I heard was that it cost Rs150,000 in India for a "job visa" in the UAE — in return for employment in the Gulf. For them, the Gulf still remains the "land of gold, milk and honey." They don't realise that they are walking to a life of misery because of diminishing salaries and rising cost of living and bitter competition in the employment market.
It does not need an empirical survey to determine that more than half of Keralites living in the Gulf make less than Rs12,000 per month. The lucky among them have company "accommodation" — like six or eight to a room and one toilet for 40 or 50 people — and the luckier minority would even have "company food."
The unanswered question is: How and when would they be able to make up for the Rs150,000 they paid their "agents."
With the real estate boom shooting up, there is a high demand for skilled and unskilled construction workers, but not many Malayalees are among the unskilled; that is a sector dominated by people from other states of India like Andhra Pradesh and northern areas.
In the UAE, rents have shot up and cost of living has also skyrockets as a result of a nearly 40 per cent increase in the prices fuel in the last two years. This mostly affects the average Malayalee family, whose combined income (husband and wife) is, say, less than 4,000 dirhams (around Rs50,000). They would be lucky to set aside 500 dirhams as saving or to be sent home to the family every month. And if they have schoolgoing children, then there is nothing left to save at the end of the month.
There is no way out for many of them except to continue to live here, hoping a miracle would happen and save them from their life of misery.
Then there is the ever-present trap of debts — bank loans and credit cards. There are thousands of Malayalees in the Gulf who are paying a good part of their income to settle their bank loans and credit cards. It is a never-ending process and most of them could not even think of ever returning home for good because of their liabilities in the Gulf.
There are of course Malayalees who occupy key positions in major business corporations, banks, insurance companies and other commercial entities. It is no exaggeration that they represent the backbone of the companies they work for. Their employers would find it difficult to replace them. They are also "active members" of the community, and, they, supported by family members, cousins and relatives as well as friends, are the ones who take the lead in organising "Onam" festivals in the Gulf.
In fact, occasions like Onam, Vishu and Christmans, and the daily Iftar meals during the holy month of Ramadan and of course the Eid festivals represent a forum and platform for Keralites from all walks of life to get together, to get to know each other and interact with each other. And hence the relevance of those "exciting" occasions and festivities in the Gulf.
Then there is the rising number of Malayalee women who are lured into the Gulf with employment promises only to be forced into the flesh trade. Dozens of cases are reported every month in the UAE alone, with some of them involving torture and brutality of a level that surpasses the worst place for it all — Mumbai. And who are behind the racket? None other than Malayalees themselves.
They are the rotten eggs in the basket, but their stink has not really affected the majority of Malayalees in the Gulf.
Despite the downturn in the attractions of life in the Gulf, not many Malayalees are ready to pack up and go home if only because they face a bleak future there in terms of employment. They have no option but to continue to live here with hopes that something would happen to turn their life around and set it on the "right track."
Life has to continue, no matter what. Isn't it?