A Nation Derailed

[The inside of a destroyed train car following its derailing at Badrashin. Photo by Jonathan Rashad] [The inside of a destroyed train car following its derailing at Badrashin. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

A Nation Derailed

By : Adel Iskandar

Just ten days before the second anniversary of the 25 January revolution, Egyptians awoke to another railway tragedy. A train loaded beyond its capacity with security forces recruits heading from Sohag to Cairo derailed in the Badrashin area of Giza leaving nineteen dead and over 120 injured, adding to the toll of deaths on train tracks in Egypt. It was only a month earlier that a rushing train in Asyut obliterated a bus full of children, killing fifty of them.

In the late night hours of 14 January, Badrashin was awoken by the news of the tragedy. Those who had arose to attend to their morning prayers were called upon to act as rescue workers to save the many who were trapped under the train. In a span of minutes, residents of the nearby areas began to stream out of their homes to help at the site of the incident. Under the cover of darkness, with makeshift lighting, the people of Badrashin performed heroics in the absence of any state intervention. They were picking up the bodies of the deceased, collecting their belongings, attending to the injured, and collectively attempting to lift tons of twisted metal with their bare hands to save those trapped underneath the body of the train. The absence of the state`s emergency and transportation service was ominously eery. 

\"\"
[The young police recruits were crammed in like sardines, approximately 200 per car, when the train derailed. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

\"\"
[Due to the delayed response of rescue officials and workers, the people of Badrashin rushed
the injured to the hospitals themselves. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

In Egypt, like anywhere else, accidents happen. But in Egypt, they happen again, and again, and again, and yet again. The Badrashin incident will likely not be the last of the train tragedies in a country where the national average has become one railroad catastrophe per month. What is even more worrisome than the knowledge of impending disaster is the inanities of those who either do not know of it or actively conceal it. A newly-minted Minister of Transportation took a call from a television station on the morning of the Badrashin bloodshed where he mumbled through the answers, said nothing about rescue teams being available on site, and lazily ignored the calls for heavy vehicles to lift the body of the train to rescue survivors relayed to him by the anchor. Lacking in any sympathy, or even tokenistic commiseration, the Minister’s tone spoke to the obliviousness of those in power today in Egypt.

The nearby Hawamdiya Hospital was the recipient of the injured soldiers. Understaffed, underserviced, unsanitary, and woefully ill-equipped to handle such an influx of emergency cases, the hospital staff left the young soldiers strewn throughout the rooms, sometimes two to a bed. The images circulating online and in the news of their pain and misery at the hospital shined some light on a facility that would have otherwise never been given any distinct attention. Not only was the country’s ailing railway system on display, its healthcare institutions, laid to waste by the double-punch of decade of systematic neglect and worsening mismanagement under the Morsi government, were in full view.

\"\"
[Images from Hawamdiya Hospital where the injured had been rushed showcased
shocking conditions of healthcare facilities. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

\"\"
[In the absence of even a pillow, this injured soldier had to roll up items of clothing to rest
his head at Hawamdiya Hospital. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

\"\"
[Injured soldier from Badrashin accident receiving treatment and Hawamdiya Hospital. Photo by Jonathan Rashad]

So cataclysmically destructive was this incident for the government’s public image that they moved swiftly to try and counter the barrage of negative media coverage. President Morsi was rushed to Maadi Military Hospital in Cairo, where some of the injured had allegedly been transferred. He posed for photos with the injured in the comparatively advanced, clean, and presentable medical facility so as to showcase the exceptional treatment being doled out to the recruits. The Presidency subsequently distributed these photos to the press corps for wide distribution. Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, also on site, had his photo taken while donating blood. This too was distributed by the PM’s office to the media. The benevolent charity of the state and its leadership was in full gear to counter what was otherwise a public relations disaster for the government. Yet the damage had already been done. The public had heard the cries live from Badrashin on private network ONTV (with some Muslim Brotherhood members suggested had a hand in the accident due to their prompt presence on site before other networks) and seen the photos from Hawamdiya Hospital.

\"\"
[President Morsi`s visit to the Badrashin accident victims who had been transported to the Maadi Military Hospital.
Only state media and press were invited to cover the visit. Photo by Egypt Presidency]

On the second anniversary of the Day of Rage, 28 January 2011, when Egypt’s uprising reached a crescendo that permanently changed the political map of the country, it feels like derailment is less of symptom of the railway sector, and more of a condition afflicting the state. As its institutions stubbornly cling to corruption and approximation, its new leaders are setting new standards of negligence, incompetence, and disingenuous political posturing. It seems today’s authorities are more concerned with varnishing their image than developing a systematic plan to change. Attempting, in any way, to deviate attention away from its disastrous mismanagement of both the country and national tragedies, the government’s “mothership,” the Muslim Brotherhood, has often resorted to distraction through divisive identity politics and sectarianism. On the frequent train accidents, various Muslim Brotherhood members and affiliated groups have openly alluded to these tragedies being intentional acts by Christians. More recently, the Brotherhood has also described the Black Bloc, a newcomer to the Egyptian protest scene fashioned after similar anonymous dissident groups worldwide, as a Christian militia.

However, the Black Bloc are not divorced of Egypt’s railways, not because of the false claim that they share a confessional faith with the train drivers, but rather because their first actions alongside the Ultras and other groups were largely focused on blocking train traffic in the country. On several occasions, two days before the 25 January anniversary, and the three consecutive days leading up to the Day of Rage memorials, the Black Bloc placed their bodies on the train tracks and brought the railroads to a standstill. Similar revolutionary groups closed down several metro lines and blocked traffic on 6 October bridge and other arteries in the country.

As battles rage on in Port Said, Suez, Cairo, Alexandria, and elsewhere for more reasons than can be overviewed here, there is a general sentiment that the country’s revolution is not only outside the offices of power, it has been irreparably derailed. The myriad forms of civil disobedience occurring across the country today, which President Morsi vowed to decisively counter, speak to more than a commemoration of a bygone era of tyranny. In no mood to celebrate, Egyptians are revolting against political monopolization, the continuation of a defunct economic policy, an empty state discourse of embellishment, the radical deprofessionalization of the public service sector, and, of course, the country’s “trains of death.” Two years have passed since anger swept the country and shook the world. With Morsi in the driver’s seat, the so-called “renaissance train,” what the Muslim Brotherhood often calls its multi-faceted modernization project, is now no more than a sick joke. Little remains of this misnomer besides twisted irony and, in response, depressing satire. In Egypt’s streets today, curfews are being violated, reinstated emergency laws are being ignored, and the state’s overt threats seem to intimidate no one. While the government accuses protesters of derailing the country’s progress and development, it is evident to most that it was Morsi who had driven this train off the tracks.

All photographs from Badrashin taken by Jonathan Rashad

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

      Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

      On 23 February 2021, Politico broke the news that Al Jazeera was launching a right-leaning American digital news outlet called Rightly. The outlet’s first program “Right Now with Stephen Kent” is an opinion-led interview program reflecting libertarian perspectives on American politics. In response to the launch, over one hundred Al Jazeera staff members penned an open letter condemning the move as antithetical to Al Jazeera’s mission and values. Cat Haseman, MA Arab Studies candidate at Georgetown University and Jadaliyya copyeditor, interviewed Adel Iskandar, media professor at Simon Fraser University and author of Al-Jazeera: The Story Of The Network That Is Rattling Governments And Redefining Modern Journalism, to get a better understanding of recent developments and the debates about Rightly that have unfolded across social media in recent weeks.

    • In Memoriam: A Coptic Eucharist

      In Memoriam: A Coptic Eucharist
      The previous day, shortly after they had sipped the wine symbolic of the blood of Christ and in remembrance of the Holy Communion, an explosion tore through the church leaving the their blood in smal
    • The Meme-ing of Revolution: Creativity, Folklore, and the Dislocation of Power in Egypt

      The Meme-ing of Revolution: Creativity, Folklore, and the Dislocation of Power in Egypt
      It was 20 January 2011, just five days before a major protest called for by many youth and opposition groups in Egypt, when Ali came across a hilarious image on Facebook. One of his friends had share

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?