Nuestros Desaparecidos

Contributed by Jason Ketola
GEOVISION Production Company

(San Francisco CA) OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS is the heart-breaking chronicle of director Juan Mandelbaum’s personal search for the souls of friends and loved ones, idealistic young students and activists, who were caught in the brutal vise of the right-wing military and “disappeared” in his native Argentina during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS will air nationally on the Emmy Award-winning PBS series Independent Lens, hosted by Terrence Howard, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10PM. Find your local listing here.


Mandelbaum’s quest was triggered by a recent and very painful revelation. Through a Google search, he made the terrible discovery that Patricia Dixon, a long lost girlfriend,was among the desaparecidos. Almost thirty years after he left at the height of the repression, to escape the pervasive climate of feat, Juan returned to Argentina to explore her story and the stories of other friends and loved ones who had also disappeared. He learned first-hand of the horrors that befell them and the almost 30,000 people who were kidnapped by agents of the military government, secretly detained without trial, brutally tortured and then killed, never to be seen again.



Although idealistic and involved in community organizing, Mandelbaum was not willing to join the more militant and radical groups that were recruiting many of his friends. Inspired by the Cuban revolution and the election of Chile’s Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Socialist president in the Americas, many of his fellow students at the University’s School of Philosophy and Letters were willing to support an armed struggle for a cause they believed in passionately -- that former President Juan Peron, who had been exiled to Spain, would lead Argentina on the road of socialism. It was a hope that was quickly crushed when Peron returned in 1973, and disowned the young radicals who had fought so hard for his return. Instead, right wing death squads began to pave the way for the military regime that, after 1976, targeted thousands of leftist activists for annihilation. Over 250 of Mandelbaum’s fellow students are among the disappeared.

In OUR DISAPPEARED, NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS, Mandelbaum meets with the parents, siblings and children of many of these old friends, piecing together their dramatic stories through reminiscences, home movies and old photos. The film also uses rare and extraordinary archival footage (including an appearance by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1977 endorsing the military president) to bring the energy and tension of the time and place to life. It is a quietly devastating story of young lives viciously ended and the unending pain suffered by their families and their country.



To learn more about the film, visit the OUR DISAPPEARED, NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS interactive companion website (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/ourdisappeared/) which features detailed information on the film, including an interview with the filmmaker and links and resources pertaining to the film’s subject matter. The site also features a talk back section for viewers to share their ideas and opinions, preview clips of the film, and more.

The name's Khan. Shahrukh Khan.

by Sarika Arya

Indians speak over 400 different dialects and devote themselves to as many different religions and spiritual followings. The country finds common ground in its worship of cricket players and movie stars who are demigods among the population of more than 1 billion. Among even these select few, some, like Shahrukh Khan, stand out as Herculean when compared to the rest.

Khan is an actor (he has been in more than 70 films), film producer, television host, and a Bollywood king; which is really film star royalty since Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world. Bollywood produces 850 films annually (about 2 films a day), while Hollywood churns out about 450 films annually. Khan is slowly gaining prominence among Western audience who were hitherto still clueless about Bollywood. In 2008 Newsweek named Khan one of the 50 most powerful people in the world.

So, Khan is an internationally recognized name: but, as the megastar realized, not always for the right reasons.

On Friday, at Newark Liberty International airport, Khan was detained for inspections. Immediately, tales of racial profiling hit Indian newsstands, enraging Khan’s extensive fan base. Apparently inspired by the incident, 'The Times of India’ published this affronted, defensive, (and oddly patriotic) segment:

My name is Khan? Too bad. SRK feels the heat of American paranoia.
Chidanand Rajghatta and Bharati Dubey, 15 August 2009

WASHINGTON/MUMBAI: “My name is Khan.” “Oh it is, is it? Step aside, please.”

The way it was related, that might well have been the opening exchange between Shahrukh Khan and an unnamed, uninformed, super-empowered US immigration official who had no idea (and didn’t care) that the man in front of him is the star of a film by the same name (My name is Khan), much less that he is a universal Bollywood icon.

SRK, as the actor star is known by his popular acronym, was asked to indeed step aside for a “secondary inspections” at Newark’s ironically named (in this context) Liberty International airport on Friday en route to an event to celebrate India’s Independence Day in Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown. But that was only after a “primary inspection.”

(Click the link above to read the entire piece on 'The Times of India' website.)

Apparently, Khan, who has travelled to the US before and was never singled out then, believes that he was questioned because of his Muslim name and heritage. “I told them I was a movie star,” he was quoted as saying. But Khan’s stardom did not shield him from detention and a barrage of irrelevant questions, excused away by security reasons.

It has become disturbingly easy to generalize notions of human rights, simplifying the particular down to vague umbrella terms like “security,” “peace,” and “freedom.” In doing so, specific human rights law has been forgotten as governments tries to forward greater, unspecific, ‘humanitarian’ missions. The means justifies the ends. America tortures for security, bombs for peace, and detains for freedom. Paraphrasing Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, in recent times America, instead of being a country of “zero tolerance” has become a country of “zero accountability.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the US bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) “suspicionless search policy” violates the constitutional rights and privacy rights, as well as the right to freedom of speech, inquiry, and association, of international travellers. CBP is even permitted to search laptops and other electronic devices of passengers, retaining their personal information indefinitely, regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing in the first place. Human rights groups claim that CBP’s policies allow them to severely discriminate against travelers who are, or even appear to be, Muslim, Arab, or South Asian – those most associated with extremism and terrorism in light of the 9/11 attacks. Towards it end, the Bush administration issued a report to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stating it was making efforts to end racial profiling, but included an absolute reservation against previous U.N. recommendations concerning “national security” or “border integrity.” Bush- era policies have become status quo in airport security, although the Obama administration has pledged to reverse this effect.

Racial profiling in airports can actually undermine security initiatives. According to Reginal Shuford, a senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, “It is a dangerous and slippery slope when we allow our government to take away a person’s rights because of his speech or ethnic background. Racial profiling is illegal and ineffective and has no place in a democratic society.” This does not mean security should be absent in American airports; far from it. "American paranoia" is very much so justified, to a certain extent. Recent events prove that it is necessary, more than ever, to maintain high vigilance – especially in ports of entry. But nations must be careful that in protecting human rights and civil liberties, they do not actually provoke and instigate the desire to revolt against such measures. For instance, detaining international Muslims is not a good way to promote peace and gain respect for democracy in an already alienated part of the world. Continental Airways employees are still suffering the backlash of frisking A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, Indian V.V.I.P (very very important person), and, not to mention, the former president of India, before he boarded a flight to New York back in April 2009. A standard security procedure should be required for all travelers (whether they be tourist, businessman, movie star or president) but further detention should only be implemented when suspicion is warranted by very specific behavior – one’s ethnic makeup does not qualify as a security breach that justifies a round of humiliating questions, full body pat- down, and retainment of one's private documents, in an isolated back room. In the case that security officials grossly misjudge someone, apologies, for the goodwill of all, must be made. Being treated in an otherwise degrading manner would only encourage hateful sentiments, fuelling desire to actually commit an act of terrorism. Big ideas about human rights can be reinforced and actually achieved by ensuring the detailed intricacies of human rights, those rights enshrined in national and international law, are respected.

US officials disputed the claim that Khan was detained. CBP stated that the agency routinely questioned foreigners and that Khan was questioned for exactly 66 minutes – not, as is being reported, 2 hours. Following intervention by American and Indian officials, Khan was ultimately released and is now focusing on completing his next film, which has since become a kind of art-imitates-life-piece, “My Name is Khan,” in which Shahrukh stars as a man subjected to racial profiling in America.