The Pacific Freedom Forum is a regional and global online network of Pacific media colleagues, with the specific intent of raising awareness and advocacy of the right of Pacific people to enjoy freedom of expression and be served by a free and independent media. We believe in the critical and basic link between these freedoms, and the vision of democratic and participatory governance pledged by our leaders in their endorsement of the Pacific Plan and other commitments to good governance. In support of the above, our key focus is monitoring threats to media freedom and bringing issues of concern to the attention of the wider regional and international community.
[themify_hr color=”red”]
“ Are world press supposed to attend World Press Freedom Day, sip fruity drinks in Jakarta, and pretend our colleagues in West Papua are not being seriously mistreated? ”
“Latest deportation of two French journalists is an embarrassing reminder of how little Indonesia respects press freedoms,” says PFF Chair Monica Miller.
“Especially embarrassing because the two journalists were producing a documentary for Garuda, the national airline of Indonesia.”
Put it in writing
PFF is calling on #WPFD2017 co-host UNESCO to push for urgent action on the long promised but never delivered written directive from Indonesian President Joko Widodo.
Without any directive, the credibility of both UNESCO and Indonesia must come under serious question, says PFF.
“Indonesia cannot seek to enjoy favourable attention as hosts to world press while continuing a de facto ban on the same people,” says Miller.
Pretend
“Nor can UNESCO stand aside and let this issue slide silently by.”
PFF notes the lack of any specific sessions in the existing WPFD programme to address the issue of West Papua.
“Are world press supposed to attend World Press Freedom Day,” she asks, “sip fruity drinks in Jakarta, and pretend our colleagues in West Papua are not being seriously mistreated?
Two French journalists Franck Escudié and Basille Longchamp are put on display at an Indonesia police press conference in Tembagapura, Papua. Photo / AFP / Irsul Aditra
Farce
“Press freedoms in Indonesia have gone from a tragedy to a farce.”
PFF supports the call from Human Rights Watch for Joko Widowi to issue a long-delayed written directive lifting restrictions on foreign media access to Papua, and appropriately punish government officials who refuse to comply.
“Criticism is not enough, action is needed. Nor is it enough to state that the latest deportation raises questions,” says Miller.
Half a century
“News media, press freedom advocates and human rights activists have been raising questions for half a century.”
Enough, is enough, says Miller.
“Indonesia has been warned already.
Mockery
“Unless UNESCO and Indonesia take action to immediately address this issue, PFF will have no alternative than to declare this event a mockery of world press freedom, unworthy of attendance.”
Instead of ignoring West Papua, Indonesia should mark World Press Freedom Day 2017 by allowing credibly independent observers from overseas to arrange free, unhindered and unmonitored news media access to the provinces.
“Stop watching the watchdogs,” Miller tells Indonesian security forces, long documented harassing, arresting, and persecuting West Papua press.
West Papua has suffered censorship in the form of travel bans on foreign press for more than five decades. Image / Free West Papua campaign
Deported
Jean Frank Pierre, 45, and Basille Marie Longhamp, 42, were charged and deported with violating Article 75 (1) of the 2011 Immigration Law.
This is despite Indonesia having extensive press freedom protection laws, which are mostly sidelined in Papua under various other laws, such as security for local media, and immigration for foreign press.
Indonesia is also a member of the United Nations, with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guaranteeing that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
With NATO at the border, Russia took back its 1954 Crimea gift to Ukraine within the Soviet Union. Kiev with US help fought in Eastern Ukraine to make ethnic Russians escape to Russia. Maybe 60% did.
Enters world history: The Pope and the Patriarch declare their Christianities one and the same (Havana Airport, VIP Lounge, 14 Feb 2016). EU will no longer fight US wars (Bratislava, 6 Nov 2016). Protestant-Evangelical Christianity is marginalized. So is the USA.
Denmark and Norway were with Anglo-America fighting US wars in Libya; and with prime ministers as NATO’s secretary general. “Cold War jitters arise in Norway–arrival of US Marines stoke fears of being in cross hairs of Russia–a more likely bomb target” (NYT 18 Jan 2017). But they are low on the US “Ranking American Allies” (NYT 7 Feb 2017); the top three are Canada, Britain and Australia (top three enemies: North Korea, Iran, Russia). And “US Threatens to Penalize Allies on UN Voting (IPS 7 Feb 2017). Given that and US marginalization, how long will they remain “allies”?
Charles Glass, “How Assad Is Winning” (NYRB 23 Feb 2017): solving national conflict is a sum of local solutions, using local superiority to offer security for local opponents laying down arms; government and opponents both benefiting from fees from road controls. Israel will not get Syria cut into small pieces; USA will not get Sunni rule; Turkey will not control the Kurds; Russia keeps its air-navy base. Colombia, watch out; this may also be your alternative to US bombing. Politically the world is multi-polar, not run by superpowers. The West wants power-over-others and loses power-over-self; others have more Self-control, not Other-control. How does that work economically?
As debt. The debt/GDP ratio is: USA 98.3%, China 8.2%, India 23.0%, Russia 29.2%, and above 100% for many (Wikipedia “World Debt Clock”). The US 2016 trade balance was -$0.7 trillion, with China -$349 billion, with Mexico -$64 billion (Fortune, 1 Mar 2017). The 2016 US annual interest was $241 billion; the 2027 projection is $768 billion. Will Trump cancel the debt unilaterally? Or bomb creditors to cancel?
Another key factor is finance economy speculation–as opposed to real economy investment–in derivative chains with super-commissions. If drug chains are illegal and boycotted, why not also derivatives?
China’s 8.2% debt/GDP ratio is the lowest of the 30 states listed. How does Chinese economic policy differ from the West? A first simple formulation: qualitative, focused on “revolutions”, not quantitative focused on “growth”. The Economist Intelligence Unit, The World in 2017 fails to capture new qualities, too obsessed with quantitative growth.
Less simplistic: this difference follows from basics. The West has a creation myth, setting things right, with quantitative change, China has a never ceasing dialectics, new holons, with new realities. The two ways of thinking become self-fulfilling prophecies.
This author had a theory of China changing from distribution to growth and back every nine years from 1949 till 1989; with a 1976-1980 break after Mao’s death and before Deng launched the capitalist revolution.
That theory no longer holds. From 1989 the ethos has been distribution oriented: lifting a sector up–now under Xi Jinping the lagging countryside–or a part, the West; or simply more consumption. 6% growth does not even put China among the ten “Top growers”.
China Daily (27 Feb 2017): President Xi Jinping uses his village level experience for policies lifting them up, “stunned that there was still a place with such poor and difficult conditions after so many years of reform and opening up”. Problems: health, education. The typical reporting on Xi in the West, however, is on power struggle in the Communist Party, failing to catch processes involving millions.
USA: The Economist (p. 99) reports that “Americans–including those at the very bottom–have enjoyed surprisingly robust income gains of late.” Better distribution, great; but “8 richest men match wealth of half the world” (NYT 18 Jan 2017), 6 of them are Americans (one is Spanish, Ortega; one is Mexican, Slim); 3 of the 6 are the founders of Microsoft-Amazon-Facebook, like Internet changing the world we live in.
But USA has economic power-over-others: Lex americana extracted 40 billion dollars from European companies as fines to US authorities (Le Monde Diplomatique Jan 2017). The 1977 US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was extended to foreign companies in 1998; laws forbidding trade with states under US embargo likewise. US law is extra-territorial, so are US judges-courts, CIA-FBI-NSA at US embassies are the police. States that deviate from US norms when using boycott and trade for foreign policy risk their interests in the USA and prefer not to challenge it.
The net conclusion? The enormous US imbalance: no longer winning wars, less political clout, economically bankrupt but still powerful, shaping the world culturally. Wise US policy would celebrate the last two; unwise policy would Make America Great Again-military-political, as Trump wants. Drop “Again” Mr. Trump, Make America Great! Will do.
And wise world policy? Celebrate the military-political decline of the last superpower, fight lex americana, treat US$ like any other currency–in baskets with others or not–and the US federal reserve bank like other central banks. Normalize the USA from the outside.
And create world, UN, equivalents of Internet etc. as parts of the common human heritage, like oceans and space–beyond state ownership. In deep gratitude to the US–all immigrants–creative, innovative talent.
Prof Johan Galtung was born in Oslo. He earned the PhD degree in mathematics at the University of Oslo in 1956, and in 1957 a year later completed the PhD degree in sociology at the same university.
Prof Johan Galtung received nine honorary doctorates in the fields of Peace studies, Future studies, Social sciences, Buddhism, Sociology of law, Philosophy, Sociology and Law.
At the end of 1930, India was experiencing disruption on a scale not seen in nearly three quarters of a century — and it was witnessing a level of social movement participation that organizers who challenge undemocratic regimes usually only dream of achieving.
A campaign of mass non-cooperation against imperial rule had spread throughout the country, initiated earlier that year when Mohandas Gandhi and approximately 80 followers from his religious community set out on a Salt March protesting the British monopoly on the mineral. Before the campaign was through, more than 60,000 people would be arrested, with as many as 29,000 proudly filling the jails at one time. Among their ranks were many of the most prominent figures from the Indian National Congress, including politicians that had once been reluctant to support nonviolent direct action.
Not only were Indians illegally producing salt and staging blockades of government salt works, but, as the effort grew, the campaign adopted a rich array of additional tactics. Hundreds of thousands of villagers refused to pay land and timber taxes. Civil servants resigned from government, with as much as a third of local officials in one district of Gujarat declaring that they would leave their posts. And activists maintained an organized boycott of British imports to India. In the words of one historian, major textile centers including Calcutta, Bhagalpur, Delhi, Amritsar and Bombay, “came to a virtual standstill for part or most of 1930 as a result of [strikes], picketing and self-imposed closures by businessmen.”
Observers near and far could sense the historic magnitude of the moment. In England, Winston Churchill, then a conservative member of Parliament, railed furiously at what he perceived as his government’s incompetence in properly defending the empire. British officials within India were similarly distressed. Sir Frederick Sykes, the governor of Bombay, wrote to his superiors in May 1930: “It is now necessary frankly to recognize the fact that we are faced with a more or less overt rebellion … and that it is supported either actively or passively by a very large section of the population. We have, for one reason or another, practically no openly active friends.” One police commander described his district as: “virtually in a state of war for a substantial part of the year.”
How did the Indian independence movement get to this point? What type of organizing had allowed for this uprising to take place? What strategy had led to such widespread and coordinated disobedience?
In truth, it was not one strategy, but the combination of several. And a large part of the political genius of Mohandas Gandhi lay in his ability to bring these disparate strategies together.
For people seeking to generate change today, the landscape of social movements can appear fragmented and confusing. Responding to the myriad challenges of racial oppression, economic exploitation and environmental catastrophe, different groups pursue widely varying organizing strategies. Some people work to create mass mobilizations — actions such as the Women’s March, Occupy Wall Street, or large immigrant rights protests — that draw significant public attention, but that can fade away quickly. Others focus on the slow-and-steady work of building long-term institutions, such as unions or political parties. Still other groups foster countercultural communities and alternative institutions outside of the mainstream. Often, there is little contact between groups employing different strategies — and little sense of common purpose.
However, these different efforts need not see themselves at odds with one another. Movements function best when they recognize diverse roles and find ways to employ the contributions of each in constructive ways. In fact, this can be a key to success.
Although his organizing against British rule in India began a full century ago, Gandhi encountered many of the same divisions that we continue to see resurfacing in modern politics. Because of this, his ability to foster and nourish a rich social movement ecosystem — in which different approaches to change each helped to advance an overall anti-imperialist effort — offers intriguing lessons for today.
Bringing together organizing traditions
Gandhi is one of the most revered public figures of the 20th century. Yet, for all of his renown, Gandhi’s actual strategies for promoting social change in India are much less known. Some people think of him as a spiritual figure who led through moral persuasion alone. Others have heard of the most famous acts of civil disobedience undertaken by him and his followers, protests that have been celebrated widely and dramatized in Hollywood movies. Still others picture him as a political figure, sitting at the negotiating table across from officers of the British Empire.
All of these ideas reflect aspects of Gandhi’s political life. However, each portrait by itself is incomplete.
Gandhi’s methodology for bringing about social transformation was more interesting than any one of these facets suggests. What makes him such a unique figure to examine within the history of social movements is his ability to bring together a variety of different types of organizing. Gandhi was able to cultivate what can be called a healthy “ecology of change,” in which groups with diverse theories and practices for changing their society could each expand the capabilities of the movement as a whole.
In particular, he united three strains of activity — strains which parallel those present today in the U.S. and beyond: First, large-scale mobilizations that employed nonviolent direct action (what Gandhi called satyagraha). Second, efforts to build a lasting organizational structure (the Indian National Congress) that could influence dominant institutions. And third, the creation of alternatives outside of the mainstream (such as Gandhi’s ashrams and the “constructive program”).
Although these three different approaches for fostering progress — mass protest, structure-based organizing, and the creation of alternatives — have been present in many other countries in many different time periods, it is rare when the three approaches collaborate in the service of a unified social movement. Gandhi served as a bridge between these different orientations, providing an exceptional model of how movements can benefit when different strategies come together.
To appreciate Gandhi’s rare talent at bridging these worlds does not require putting him on a pedestal. While it may come as a surprise to those who regard him as an unquestioned saint, Gandhi has always been mired in controversy. The soundness of his various religious and social prescriptions, along with the merit of his countless strategic decisions, were the subject of constant debate even within his own lifetime — and the debates have continued since his death in 1948. Yet, even given the various contradictions and contentions surrounding Gandhi’s career, we can draw valuable insights from the growth of the Indian independence movement in his time and its success in elevating anti-imperialist agitation against British rule to historic levels.
Satyagraha: igniting a mass protest
The first type of activity that Gandhi promoted is perhaps his most renowned: He was famous for creating campaigns of mass disruption that would draw in many thousands of participants, spread over large areas, and force an issue to the fore of political discussion. Gandhi referred to this method of mass mobilization as satyagraha, or the application of “truth force.” Throughout his life, Gandhi led more than a half dozen major satyagraha campaigns. Undertaken over a period of four decades, these began with his initial experiments in civil disobedience and noncooperation in South Africa and culminated in drives that affected the whole of India.
The first mobilizations in India involved regional campaigns of strikes and protests by farmworkers in 1917 in Bihar and 1918 in Gujarat. In the latter case, farmers collectively refused to pay land taxes even in the face widespread arrests, beatings and confiscation of farmland. After five months, the government relented and returned land, released prisoners and eased taxes.
While such early drives were largely contained to local areas, the satyagrahas grew into disruptive campaigns with much larger scope. Today, as in Gandhi’s time, when mass protests grab headlines and send thousands into the streets, they are regularly described as “unplanned,” “emotional” and “spontaneous” uprisings. Many observers do not think that such upheavals can be planned at all, but rather are the product of the historical zeitgeist. Gandhi offered a different view. He argued that moments of whirlwind activity could be engineered by skillful practitioners. An influential early study of Gandhian civil resistance noted that “Satyagraha, as applied socio-political action, requires a comprehensive program of planning, preparation and studied execution.” Indeed, Gandhi’s refinement of this art — the strategic use of unarmed uprising — is one of his great contributions to social movement history.
Gandhi’s first nationwide satyagraha was the 1920-22 drive known as the Non-Cooperation Movement. This campaign unfolded through a series of escalating actions. Historian Perry Anderson describes four levels of disruptive activity: “First, renunciation of all titles and honours conferred by the British; next, resignations from positions in the civil service; then, resignation from the police and army; finally, refusal to pay taxes.” Following Gandhi’s announcement of the strategy in August 1920, the drive quickly took hold. “The campaign electrified the country,” Anderson notes, “drawing in social layers and geographical regions hitherto untouched by nationalist agitation[.]” Historian Judith Brown adds, “Men and women, old and young, townsman and rustic, could choose the action appropriate to them, from attending a meeting to closing a shop, staying away from classes, or persuading local shopkeepers to stop selling foreign cloth and liquor.”
The impact could be felt across an expansive area. Hindi poet Rambriksha Benipuri famously remarked, “From the time I have been aware, I have witnessed various movements; however, I can assert that no other movement upturned the foundations of Indian society to the extent that the Non-Cooperation Movement did.”
By early 1922, British administration had been disrupted but not disabled, and noncooperation leaders determined that the movement was ready to begin a tax strike. However, only four days after announcing this escalation, Gandhi controversially decided to call off the Non-Cooperation Movement altogether following an outbreak of violence in the northern town of Chauri Chaura. Gandhi subsequently spent two years in a British jail for promoting seditious activity. While the strategic wisdom of curtailing the campaign was hotly debated among supporters and detractors alike, what is not in question is that the drive successfully translated the principles of satyagraha from its regional applications in Bihar and Gujarat to an India-wide movement. In doing so, it set the stage for an even larger wave of mass civil resistance: the Salt Satyagraha.
Commencing in March 1930, the Salt Satyagraha began with a 200-mile march by Gandhi and his supporters to the coastal city of Dandi, and it expanded quickly from there. “The march generated great India-wide publicity,” Brown writes, and soon millions more joined the satyagraha. Although British authorities brutally repressed protests and made tens of thousands of arrests nationwide, resistance continued month after month. Reflecting on the breadth of mobilization, nationalist leader and future Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru later stated, “It seemed as though a spring had suddenly been released.”
After nearly a year of protest, sensing that the momentum of the campaign was abating, Gandhi brokered a settlement with the British Viceroy, Lord Irwin. While political insiders debated the value of the short-term gains secured in the compromise, the Indian public recognized that the Salt Satyagraha had dealt a significant blow to British prestige in India — a sentiment echoed by hardline imperialists in London, who regarded the settlement as a fatal blunder for the empire.
Building a structure for opposition: the Indian National Congress
Even as Gandhi led dramatic mass protests, he also contributed to building up a stable, long-term organization that could serve as an institutional body to represent the independence movement. That organization was the Indian National Congress. Founded in the 1880s, the original purpose of Congress was to foster the greater influence of Indian elites in the British-controlled government. After his return to India in 1915, Gandhi worked to change the organization’s composition and outlook, and in the following decades Congress grew steadily larger and more antagonistic toward the British. By 1930, the organization was advocating for full national independence and expulsion of the British Raj. In time it would become the ruling party of the world’s largest democracy. On August 15, 1947, Nehru, one of Gandhi’s top lieutenants, took office as India’s first prime minister, representing the dramatic transformation of Congress from a small dissident group to a insider party holding the reins of state power.
The gradual growth of Congress over the span of decades was akin to “structure-based” organizing in other parts of the world, such as the formation of social-democratic parties in Europe. In the U.S. context, we can see examples of structure-based organizing in the formation of major labor unions and in Saul Alinsky’s model for building community-based organizations that can leverage the power of their members over time. With reference to the U.S. civil rights movement, Gandhi’s satyagraha campaigns could be likened to high-profile drives such as the Freedom Rides or the Birmingham campaign, while the Indian National Congress bore more in common with durable membership organizations like the NAACP.
Gandhi’s involvement in the leadership of the Indian National Congress was episodic, and he would sometimes withdraw for long periods of time to focus on other aspects of his work. He held official positions only for relatively short stretches, and he went so far as to resign his party membership for a time, starting in 1934, after growing frustrated with internal politicking. Yet whatever his formal role at a given moment, Gandhi served as a key figurehead of Congress for nearly three decades, and his interventions played a decisive role in shaping the organization’s development. Even critics of Gandhi, such as Perry Anderson, acknowledge that, in the historian’s words, Gandhi “was a first-class organizer and fundraiser — diligent, efficient, meticulous — who rebuilt Congress from top to bottom, endowing it with a permanent executive at the national level, vernacular units at the provincial level, local bases at the district level, and delegates proportionate to the population, not to speak of an ample treasury.”
Rajendra Prasad, a longtime party leader, recalled several decades later that, prior to Gandhi’s involvement, “Congress had aroused and organized national consciousness to a certain extent; but the awakening was confined largely to the English-educated middle classes and had not penetrated the masses.” Historian Judith Brown is more blunt: the Congress of 1915, she writes, was little more than a “shambling debating society,” largely confined to major urban areas and possessing scant grassroots infrastructure; over the next decade, Gandhi’s organizing talents helped transform it into a “formidable national organization and fighting force.”
Among other activities, Gandhi authored a new organizational constitution that established a more representative governance structure for Congress and substituted Hindi for English as the language of party business. It also steeply reduced membership dues so that, as playwright, author, and first-hand observer Krishnalal Shridharani wrote in 1939, “the poor had as much opportunity to join as the rich.” Gandhi relentlessly traveled to different regions to cultivate relationships, solidify support for his program, and build up local party infrastructure. By 1922, there were 213 District Congress Committees, covering the great bulk the country that was under direct British administration. Shridharani estimated that by 1930 one out of every three villages had a Congress office. Gandhi’s exceptional fundraising abilities helped to support this growth.
In a heterogeneous India, rife with divisions of class, caste, religion, and geography, most organizations represented limited, sectarian constituencies. Congress made significant strides toward defying this trend, uniting rural and urban, educated and uneducated, and bridging large geographical expanses. Maintaining participation and shoring up the party’s local infrastructure was a continual challenge, and Gandhi’s hopes of bringing together Hindus and Muslims met with very limited success. Nevertheless, Judith Brown writes, by the early 1920s Congress had established itself as “the only organization with any realistic claim to be the mouthpiece of a nation.”
Living the alternative: the constructive program
In addition to the mass satyagraha campaigns and his structure-based organizing through the Indian National Congress, Gandhi was also active in the creation of alternatives, or what has sometimes been called “prefigurative politics.” This aspect of his work is evident in statements from Gandhi including his contention that “The best propaganda is not pamphleteering, but for each one of us to try to live the life we would have the world live.”
For Gandhi, the idea of India gaining independence was more than a political goal; it involved changing one’s way of life. His anti-imperialism did not involve merely having Indian elites take over national rule from the British. It also included a rejection of Western conceptions of civilization and modernity, against which he juxtaposed a vision of reinvigorated Indian village life. He saw his efforts to build alternative communities and counter-cultural institutions as an essential component of the overall push for swaraj, or freedom. Historian Dennis Dalton writes that, while more instrumentally focused Congress politicians understood swaraj in narrow terms, “Gandhi interpreted the word to mean freedom in two distinct senses: the ‘external freedom’ of political independence and ‘internal freedom,’” which required a more personal process of decolonization and the pursuit of social transformation outside the realm of formal politics.
Pursuing swaraj, then, was not just a matter of pushing for legal reforms. Rather, Gandhi spent much of his time working on what he called the “constructive program.” In the words of author and theorist Gene Sharp, the constructive program was an attempt “to begin building a new social order even as the old one still exists,” with decentralized cooperatives “functioning independently of the state and other institutions of the old order.” Gandhi’s vision for the constructive program included many overlapping activities: he advocated spinning of hand-woven cloth (or khadi), the expansion of village industries such as soap- and paper-making, and enhanced public sanitation and personal cleanliness. He pushed for simplicity in lifestyle, improved education, cultural practices that rejected established divisions between Hindus and Muslims, and the end of “untouchability.”
As a result of these efforts, many in Gandhi’s time viewed him less as a political leader than a religiously-driven lifestyle advocate. In his published writings, he frequently took up issues of diet and hygiene, concerning himself with matters such as the best way to make an affordable, effective and reusable toothbrush out of commonly available twigs. Needless to say, these were far from the core concerns of organizers in Congress, who focused on constitutional questions of how India would secure self-governance.
Gandhi’s vision of the constructive program was most fully put into practice in his ashrams, or intentional communities. Over the course of his life, Gandhi established and lived in a series of spiritually-oriented retreats, including the Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat (where he lived from 1917-1930) and the Sevagram Ashram in Maharashtra (where he lived from 1936-1948). In each case, hundreds of devoted followers lived in community with Gandhi and his lieutenants, adhering to a strict regimen of personal discipline, prayer and public service.
Historians Judith Brown and Anthony Parel write that Gandhi considered the ashrams to be his “best work and [the place] where he tried to work out the core elements of his spiritual vision of the good human life in the pursuit of Truth.” Elsewhere, Brown writes that, for Gandhi, “they were places akin to laboratories where he could attempt to solve in microcosm problems that affected India on a much larger scale.” Regardless of the success or failure of Congress’ political demands on the British, ashram members were living their vision of swaraj in communities that reflected the ideals of local autonomy and decentralized government.
Ashram members lived in voluntary poverty. Among other aspects of communal life, they possessed limited material belongings, ate simple vegetarian meals, slept in collective residences, took vows of sexual restraint, and performed manual labor. They shared in domestic chores, no matter how menial, without regard to one’s class background or caste position. Moreover, they devoted themselves to serving nearby villages through medical relief, hygienic work, instruction in the hand-spinning of cloth and other crafts, and education against untouchability.
The ashrams also provided a base from which Gandhi and his followers developed a wider network of political volunteers and social workers. Early chronicler Shridharani argued in 1939 that this dedicated cadre of volunteers served as “the nuclei of the economic and spiritual regeneration of India’s countryside.” The constructive program reached beyond the ashrams in other ways as well. As one example, the All-India Spinners’ Association, dedicated to spinning khadi cloth and providing employment to Indian farmers during off-seasons, was active in some 15,000 villages and employed more than 350,000 spinners and weavers in 1942. Gandhi called on Indians throughout the country to boycott imported cloth and take up spinning as a method of noncooperation with British industry. In the words of writer Ved Mehta, he made “‘spinning wheel’ a byword for economic independence and nonviolent revolution.”
Toward a healthy movement ecosystem
The three distinct approaches to pursuing social change reflected in Gandhi’s diverse activity — the use of mass protest, structure-based organizing and creating alternatives — are not unique to the drive for Indian independence. Instead, they appear in many different social movements, across continents and time periods. But because these distinct organizing traditions are based on different theories of change, they often find themselves in conflict with one another.
One can find many examples of these tensions. A well-known saying to emerge from the community organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky was “Build organizations, not movements.” Here, suspicion of “movements” reflected a skepticism of mass mobilizations that seemed to burst suddenly onto the political scene but then to fade out just as rapidly. Likewise, in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, friction between “organizing” and “mobilizing” produced heated internal movement debates among groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC.
While mass mobilization and structure-based organizing are sometimes at odds, both approaches can be in tension with groups focused on “living the alternative.” Organizers trying to directly contest the power of capital or of the state are often dismissive of activists who are more interested in creating countercultural communities that sidestep currently dominant institutions. Sociologist Wini Breines argued that, in the context of the 1960s New Left, activists who pursued prefigurative politics “attempted to develop the seeds of liberation and the new society … grounded in counter-institutions[.]” Breines contrasts this orientation with organizers who embraced strategic politics. These politics generally involved different goals and practices, ones oriented toward building power “so that structural changes in the [existing] political, economic and social order might be achieved.” Although the two impulses co-existed within the New Left, they did so uneasily. As a result of their different approaches to change, “politicos” (who pursued strategic politics) and members of “the counterculture” (who focused on prefigurative activity) sometimes found themselves with little common ground.
Such conflicts continue to emerge today in disagreements between activists trying to influence mainstream politics and those trying to build autonomous spaces outside of it. Friction existed in Indian independence movement, too. Indeed, the multi-faceted movement ecosystem that Gandhi nurtured could only be sustained for a limited period. By the time the British had ceded rule over the subcontinent, the movement splintered back into disparate and rivaling factions.
Yet, while it can be difficult for people with different theories of change to work together, it is not impossible to overcome tensions. At its height, the Indian independence movement created levels of popular activity and mobilization rarely seen elsewhere, and it provided an example of how organizers with diverse orientations toward their work could complement each other in powerful ways. Through his personal commitment to each of the three approaches — and his ability to express a vision of them as a unified whole — Gandhi helped create a common identity for the nationalist movement. Within a thriving ecology of change, each branch of the movement could play an important role in advancing a transformative program.
An ecology of mutual support
Critical to a healthy movement ecology among Indian nationalists was the idea that each branch benefited from the contributions of the others. These benefits took tangible form.
First, the portions of the movement focused on alternatives received a major boost from the other branches of the movement — that is, from associating with Congress and with the satyagraha campaigns. Because of this association, counter-cultural stances became norms within the movement as whole. During the times of mass mobilization, movement participants were not merely asked to boycott British goods or legal institutions; they were also called upon to abstain from liquor, embrace the spinning wheel, and uphold principles of communal unity. Even though these activities had little to do with directly ousting the British, and more to do with projecting an alternative vision of Indian society, they were substantially integrated into the culture of the movement. Moreover, the mass satyagrahas greatly increased interest in the ashrams and the All-India Spinners Association.
Even though the Indian National Congress was more focused on winning formal independence from the British than building village-level alternative institutions, Congress members were influenced by the wider social movement ecosystem and adopted a variety of countercultural practices. As Brown writes, “The handspun cloth which Gandhi hailed as the symbol of a swaraj society became the virtual uniform of Congressmen who in an earlier generation had prided themselves on their semi-Western sartorial elegance.” So important was this symbol that the spinning wheel was featured on the official “swaraj flag” of the Congress party. Even today, the Indian national flag, by law, must be made of khadi cloth.
Second, the satyagraha campaigns of mass mobilization benefited from the other branches of the movement. Just as the constructive program and the ashrams were boosted by the other types of organizing taking place, the success of periodic mass protests owed much to longer-term activity. The announcement of a new satyagraha was like a declaration of war. As in war, the resources, energy and attention of the populace would be directed into emergency mobilization. This meant activating both the countercultural communities and the Indian National Congress’s networks in service of mass noncompliance.
Volunteers from the ashrams were among the most committed participants in nonviolent disruption. “When the call comes for direct action against the government” Shridharani explained, the ashrams were “transformed into Satyagrahis’ camps where the energy of the people is checked and guided into nonviolent channels.” The initial cadre who set out with Gandhi on the Salt March were members of his intentional community. In interviews with historian Dennis Dalton, former ashram residents recalled being well-prepared by their training in the ashram for the physical and emotional demands of the lengthy march, not to mention the later imprisonment and beatings they would endure at the hands of authorities. Members of the All-India Spinners Association were also reliable participants when a call to satyagraha was issued.
The nationwide satyagrahas were announced as official programs of Congress, and they were backed by the party’s organizational resources and legitimacy. Individual Congress members put their reputations on the line through participation in the campaigns. As Judith Brown writes, “Even such notable and law-abiding Indians as Motilal Nehru,” an esteemed party leader and father of the future prime minister, “now went to [jail] as an honor, though before 1921 they would have considered it a shameful disgrace.”
Third, and finally, the structure-based organizers of the Indian National Congress benefited from the other branches of the movement. For their part, politicians in Congress were willing to support mass protest (the satyagraha campaigns) and the creation of alternatives (the constructive program) not out of abstract commitment to these approaches, but because of the clear gains that their organization reaped. Periods of mass mobilization and civil disobedience allowed Congress to expand its popular reach and grassroots infrastructure, as waves of new people were drawn into political activity. In a 1966 study, Gopal Krishna of the New Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies reported that the non-cooperation campaign of 1920-1922 coincided with a “spectacular growth of the Congress organization,” and that during this time, the group’s recorded membership “increased enormously.” Likewise, with regard to the province of Bihar, scholar Lata Singh writes that it was only as the mobilization began to gear up in 1920 that Congress was able to grow beyond its urban and professionalized strongholds and reach into the countryside.
While satyagraha served as an effective means of expanding the base of the Indian National Congress, the organization also received a boost from the work of countercultural volunteers on the constructive program. Villages whose residents directly benefited from constructive work in sanitation, healthcare, job training and education showed increased commitment and loyalty to the party. Speaking to this point, Shridharani wrote in 1939 of the agricultural workers who gained extra income through the All-India Spinners’ Association: “The farmers … are not slow to recognize that the improvement in their living conditions has been made possible by Mahatma Gandhi and the activities of the Congress. When literature and information regarding the nationalist activities are supplied by the association’s ‘depots’ and wandering scouts, they are eagerly received.”
The end of an ecosystem
The struggle against imperialism in India offers a remarkable example of a rich social movement ecology in action. That the struggle was simultaneously able to sustain itself through repeated waves of nationwide disruptive protest, to build a robust oppositional party institution, and to cultivate communities of people living in resistance to mainstream norms represents a remarkable combination of feats. Yet the movement was not free from internal tensions. On the contrary, maintaining collaboration required persistent effort. Although the ecosystem was sustained for an impressive period, divisions between different approaches to change gradually deepened. Indeed, they would lead to a split by the time of independence.
Many members of Congress, particularly those of a more moderate and lawyerly disposition, were distrustful of mass mobilization. Lata Singh describes how these tensions played out in the lead-up to the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920. In Bihar, senior members of Congress “who believed strongly in constitutional methods of struggle opposed [passing a] resolution [to authorize the noncooperation campaign] and expressed strong doubts and apprehensions about the strategy of launching such a movement,” Singh writes. The resolution only passed after “these senior members had left the meeting in ‘disgust.’”
In subsequent decades, even as Congress repeatedly relied on Gandhi for his expertise in galvanizing public sentiment, only a portion of its members would identify as “Gandhians.” Brown argues that many in Congress extended “ambivalent and conditional support” for his nonviolent campaigns, and they were eager to return to constitutional politics as soon as mass mobilizations died down. “Gandhi accepted this limited commitment among his associates and apparent followers with realism if regret,” she writes.
A great number of Congress politicians did not closely identify with the constructive program and the alternative vision of society modeled by the ashrams. Perhaps most prominently, as Jawaharlal Nehru rose in the leadership of the party, he admitted that he did not follow the constructive program in any detail. He increasingly viewed Gandhi’s advocacy of village life as antiquated and romantic, instead advocating a program of state-led industrialization as the proper means of addressing poverty. He was not alone. Gandhi’s personal secretary Mahadev Desai wrote in 1944 that “khadi and spinning wheel were there on Congress’ program, yet only a few congressman have a living faith in … the potency of the wheel.”
In response, Gandhi and his ashramites were sometimes dismissive of Congress officials, painting them as petty parliamentarians overly concerned with their own prestige and inattentive to the actual living conditions of the poor. “Political freedom has no meaning for the millions,” he contended, without the economic improvements and cultural reforms that he envisioned achieving through the constructive program.
By the time independence was won and the Congress party assumed control of government on August 15, 1947, a vast divide had formed between these factions. Then in his 70s, Gandhi felt intensely disillusioned that only a limited version of swaraj was advancing. Having long emphasized the importance of communal unity and inter-religious harmony, he was shattered at the prospect of an impending partition of the country into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Biographer Joseph Lelyveld writes of Gandhi: “[H]ere he was, at the end of his days, expressing chronic disappointment and, sometimes, a sense of defeat. He’d had more to do with India’s independence than any other individual — in declaring the goal and making it seem attainable, in convincing the nation that it was a nation — but he was not among those who celebrated.”
By the time of Gandhi’s assassination, less than six months after independence, the gulf between the politicos taking over from the British and the alternative communities organizing in the villages had grown so wide that some preeminent leaders in each branch of the movement had virtually no interaction with one another. Lelyveld writes that immediately after Gandhi’s death, “his political and spiritual heirs gathered at Sevagram, his last ashram, in a meeting that was supposed to consider how they would go forward without him … Vinoba Bhave, widely considered Gandhi’s spiritual heir, noted that he was meeting Jawaharlal Nehru, his political heir, for the first time.”
Vinoba Bhave marching in 1960. (Wikipedia)
In later years, Bhave would go on to lead efforts such as the land-giftmovement, aimed at getting landowners to donate a portion of their holdings to the poor. Bhave continued to establish new ashrams and to work toward village-level revitalization until his death in 1982. Meanwhile, Nehru presided over the transformation of India into a modern state with distinctly un-Gandhian features, including a well-armed military and a program of government-supported steel mills, coal mines and eventually nuclear power plants. India would see some campaigns of nonviolent direct action in subsequent decades — including the Chipko movement for forest conservation, which started in the 1970s. Yet these newer efforts would be much smaller than the major satyagrahas of Gandhi’s time.
Steps toward liberation
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this history is not that the social movement ecosystem ultimately fragmented, but that it held together for as long as it did. Over a period of several decades, nationalist forces were able to create multiple cycles of widespread uprising and to absorb the energy of these revolts into lasting oppositional structures. They managed to profoundly alter public opinion during moments of peak mobilization, as well as to sustain a culture of resistance during periods of relative calm. Each of these accomplishments is rare and laudable.
The Indian independence movement was part of a complex array of developments that led to the British departure from India, and Gandhi’s role within this history is the subject of ongoing debate. Many scholars today emphasize geopolitical factors — especially Britain’s weakened position after battling Germany and Japan — as critical in compelling the end of imperial rule. And yet, as scholar Ananya Vajpeyi argues, the social movement ecology that Gandhi cultivated had a profound effect in shaping the course of India’s history.
“No doubt the Second World War hastened the dissolution of the British Empire,” Vajpeyi writes, “but neither Allies nor Axis powers came to rescue India: in the end, India liberated itself.”
In serving as a figure who was able to bridge different organizing traditions, Gandhi provided a model of a complex social movement ecosystem. This model not only holds rich lessons for students of social movements today, it illuminates a critical idea: that transformation is most likely to come about not through any one single approach to creating social change — but through the integration of many.
Research assistance for this article provided by Will Lawrence, with special thanks to Guido Girgenti.
[themify_hr color=”red” border_width=”2px”]
Mark Engler
Mark Engler
a writer based in Philadelphia, is an editorial board member at Dissent, a contributing editor at Yes! Magazine, and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books).
Paul Engler
Paul Engler
is founding director of the Center for the Working Poor, based in Los Angeles. He worked for more than a decade as an organizer in the immigrant rights, global justice, and labor movements.
UNIVERSAL AMBASSADOR OF PEACE LAUREATE OF THE EUROPEAN AND WORLD ACADEMIES OF CULTURE AND ARTS
PRIZE WINNER OF THE ACADEMIES EUROPEAN AND WORLD OF CULTURE AND ARTS
[themify_hr color=”red”]
Initially, the name of racism does not have of scientific criterion as I low expose it in this text. I use it: this, because name racism with a connotation specifies in the popular speech, and a sociological significance understood by all and all. This year: this day occurs in an international context tended and complicated, which alas does not support the respectful attitudes of universal citizen.
However, we all belong and all whatever our continent to universal mankind in its developed phase of the Homo sapiens. The wars at the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa, and in this context the israélo-Palestinian conflict which lasts for ever = cause clear-cut positions in favor of a camp, often according to the ideological options. That, does not support a serene behavior of reception of the migratory flux from the rise of terrorism with its attacks all over the world, and its taking of hostages under its various names of: DAECH, AL-QAIDA, AQMI, BOKO HARAM, …..
Indeed, these criminal odious acts, create fears, anguishes, fears and complicate the understanding reception of the political refugees in Europe victims of the wars, sometimes of the climatic epidemics and catastrophes, when alas sometimes all is cumulated.
Admittedly, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey receive per ten thousands of the refugees and in Europe the coasts Italian and Greek are those the most requested by the newcomers of which many embarked in boats of fortune by frontier runners without scruple, die at sea before touching the expected ground.
But that creates tensions within the EU (European Union), between the partisans of the reception like Germany and other countries like Hungary, Poland and others which reject them and which try to stop them by protections: Walls, barbed wires, militarized borders…
In this context, it is alas easy to note confusions which take place between the membership of an ethnos group, a culture, a religion, with the Islam and of its caricatural version of fundamentalist and political Islamism. This, whereas the economic crisis of 2008 caused a procession of unemployed person, various crises: housing, wages blocked, precarious work, and such circumstances facilitate the identity folds or the regroupings communautarists.
The tensions which developed these two last years between Russia the United States and the European Union feed also the anguish and the absence of vision of a desirable future.
UNO: seem more not to have a weight on the States nation and in particular most powerful militarily and economically which are freed from some of their obligations, or which use wrongly of their right to veto at the Security Council of UNO. However, the best way of respecting the citizens of the world than we all are and all, would be to have of the means and the support supporting sustainable development on all planet.
Then, the reception of the migrants for those and those which make the choice of the exodus pushed by climatic conditions or safety with such a prospect would meet another echo, and would support the dialog between the civilizations and the harmony between the people.
Then: impossible some will say. However, if one enters all it sums escaped in the tax havens and if one adds to it: all the gigantic military expenditure related to the nuclear weapons, chemical and bacteriological, there would be what to regulate many problems of planet.
Alas, these last years, the acts anti-semite developed in France, and also racist discriminations persist for the job access, with a formation, a housing, according to its ethnos group, its name, its facies….
The Théo business, reopened the debate on racial discriminations =Théo = this young person hospitalized following a muscular immobilization made by police officers following a control which degenerated, and which has after-effects in its body = after-effects qualified of rape by criticisms of certain comparable police methods to discriminatory attitudes according to: the facies, and the appearance of certain young people.
Justice will slice this business and the responsibilities, but this fact, after other burs, created a considerable emotion in our country.
This said, whereas in France with the emergency state following the terrorist attacks, the trade of police officer is very difficult, tiring, and its mediatization asks for police officers of a competence and probity specimens, respectful of the values of the Republic, but paid better, equipped better, being able to justify their intervention by camera and receipt which become necessary, but which will add to the complexity of their situation.
A neighborhood police: knowing the ground and its inhabitants, suited to the dialog, but without the use of the tu or another sufficient situation, while being firm on work to make = is a balance which remains to be found. I remember already at the beginning of the years 2000, to have tackled these questions during a formation with the social therapeutist: Charles ROJZMAN.
And however, science brings a lighting to us on our psychobiological reality. We all are of the human beings, it in a strict sense does not exist race. When the large plagues which threaten our humanities: the wars, the epidemics, the climatic disorders, poverty, the access to water, with energies, will be in the process of resolution, many evils will disappear which will support our to become common. Even if certain poisons will require a democratic vigilance still a long time and that differences far from being lived like obstacles or tares, but like inevitable and fertile wealths.
In the States, their governments, to be conscious about it! Especially:to the people to direct them from this point of view because it is the only likely one to save humanity. From this point of view of the spiritual leaders like the Pope FRANÇOIS and Daisaku IKEDA and Dalaï Lama for Buddhism, are éveilleurs of conscience, but it is also a scientific method of research for the peace initiated by the Russian thinker Léo SEMASHO, who has relay on all the continents, which transcends the membership of such philosophy and religion, and which by a scientific approach total science for peace (GPS), with the interaction of the spheres, offers a universal teaching means to mobilize the people for peace and the harmony. Complement on the subject treated this day:
The concepts of race, of innate gifts, justifying the inequalities, being used as a basis the racist theories and to anti-semites, continue to feed the chronicles and the behaviors. However, the social history of the men and the women, is never but that of their individual development.
Also of MARX in the manuscripts of 1844, in Simone de Beauvoir,…; in Judith Butler (To demolish the kind; editions of Amsterdam, 2006) it appears clearly, that the question of the women, is primarily the question of the men. The Key of femininity is in the historical relationship to the masculinity. Admittedly, the long ones and painful combat of feminists accentuate the event of the taking into account of their basic rights; however their emancipation passes by the transformation of mentalities and male practices for a total emancipation of mankind.
As wrote it Lucien SEVE, in its masterly test “the Man”; editions the Argument, 2009: the anthropological development cannot have any more the aim of elucidating the characteristic of the man but well that of the humanity concretely considered under development its historical. The psychic subject is not a natural invariant, but a historical production inherent in each kind of social formation…. The essential contribution of VYGOTSKI was faculty to understand that psychology became science only by identifying its object with the personality, but by being unaware of, that the only true access to the personality passes by the biography. The major idea is that specifically human psychism, takes source in the social world but acquires its identity in the individual life. The only place or the history and the biological one really coincide, it is the passage to the concrete individual, his existence made of all that passes between its birth and its death (matter of Georges POLITZER).
Thus, concerning the criticism of the ideology of the gifts, reality is different: the mental capacities, are the fruit of an appropriation whose secrecy is of a nonneuronal nature: innate, the but biographical one. The psychic form (like such) of individuality, does not come from sociability, but from individuality. Who known as: perception, emotion, memory, intelligence, will, said by the same individual with his corporality, his sexuality, its mental ability, its activity, its temporality….
Thus for example, to say that the natives or autochtones of Australia and Latin America are delayed, dangerous obstacles with progress by nature, is incorrect, and serves only the doctrinaire approach, discriminatory.
In its book:“The Man”; editions the Argument, 2008/2009, Lucien SEVE can write, I quote: “by using the neological concept of juxta structure: although they are functionally given by the whole of the social reports, the individuals, do not emerge on this basis, but are to some extent geared laterally in it, without having their source there even…”
Thus, speech of race nourishing racism and the anti-semitism, is an attempt dangerous, criminal, to divide the human beings. Here what I wrote on this subject in my test “Philosophy and autonomy citizen of thought”; university editions, October 2010, with a foreword of my friend Ernesto KAHAN:
Admittedly, in crisis period, of anguish of the following day, the rise of unemployment, the fear of the future nourishes the fears, that to apprehend the differences which can be lived: = not like inevitable and fertile wealths, but like obstacles or tares. All begins like indicated it: the philosophers Martin Buber and Emmanuel Lévinas, by our glance related to the other, the different one.
One should not confuse the dialog which (like expressed it in its works and its proposals for the peace addressed each January 26th to the General secretary of UNO, Buddhist essay writer Daisaku IKEDA) passes initially by interiorizing the reality of the other, with the debate: whose challenge is frequently (as for the political tournaments) = to gain on the other, to overcome it intellectually.
Then certainly sometimes there exists a racism, with the sociological direction gets along; this because the concept of race does not have any scientific base, however the fears or the particular history of such or such, in its context historical and social which can become those of a whole social group, can be transformed into prejudices, incomprehension, even hostility with respect to the white, of Arabic, African, the Jew, in the same way with respect to another sex, of a confession or design of the existence….
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROBLEMS HUMAN RACES ?
To answer the question, it would already be necessary to correctly define the term of “human race”.
In terms of classification of the species, the species is last classification and there exists only one mankind: the homo sapiens. The term “race” thus does not have a strictly scientific direction.
The term “race” applies normally only to the domestic species, to make a fine differentiation, based on morphological criteria. Thus one distinguishes Labrador from the German shepherd on morphological criteria. But this distinction is completely artificial, due to the selection forced by the stockbreeders during centuries to propose such or such particular morphological characteristic. “Races” of cats were thus created by judicious crossings in great number during the last century.
In the same way, one can distinguish from the human “races” on morphological criteria. The USA admit thus completely officially the term of “race” to define ethniquement their population except that it is up to each one to define itself in which “race” he feels to belong.
Resulting from mother white and from father Kenyan, Barack Obama defines itself as “Afro-American” but if it had been defined as “white” owing to the fact that his/her mother is white and of American nationality, that would not have been disputed to him from a strictly administrative point of view.
Nevertheless, this classification remains a fantastic notion, on purely morphological criteria. One chose to propose the color of the skin because at one time, it was representative of a space distribution. But one could have chosen other criteria: the “race” of fair different from the “race” of the brown ones. A “race” for the blue eyes and another for the eyes chestnut. There is no difference to define a “race” on the color of the skin or the color of the eyes, scientifically speaking.
In short, one can use the term “race “to define a population ethniquement. It then belongs to sociology to define which cutting is relevant for which goal, while remembering that does not have other realities only sociological.”
Also: to answer a friend, when young sons of immigrants, the proven case, do not comply with the rules of the host country: France or other, this does not come from an incapacity registered by nature in their genes, nor of the reality of an ethnos group which would not adapt, but it is a problem of parental education, a responsibility for the school system to teach them the language and the history from the country, and with the country itself, in its official responsibility and citizen, to learn how to them to comply with its legal rules, social, and it: commune with the Central state and these requirements will be validated less with difficulty if discriminations cease.
UNIVERSAL AMBASSADOR OF PEACE LAUREATE OF THE EUROPEAN AND WORLD ACADEMIES OF CULTURE AND ARTS
PRIZE WINNER OF THE ACADEMIES EUROPEAN AND WORLD OF CULTURE AND ARTS
[themify_hr color=”red”]
Initially, the name of racism does not have of scientific criterion as I low expose it in this text. I use it: this, because name racism with a connotation specifies in the popular speech, and a sociological significance understood by all and all. This year: this day occurs in an international context tended and complicated, which alas does not support the respectful attitudes of universal citizen.
However, we all belong and all whatever our continent to universal mankind in its developed phase of the Homo sapiens. The wars at the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa, and in this context the israélo-Palestinian conflict which lasts for ever = cause clear-cut positions in favor of a camp, often according to the ideological options. That, does not support a serene behavior of reception of the migratory flux from the rise of terrorism with its attacks all over the world, and its taking of hostages under its various names of: DAECH, AL-QAIDA, AQMI, BOKO HARAM, …..
Indeed, these criminal odious acts, create fears, anguishes, fears and complicate the understanding reception of the political refugees in Europe victims of the wars, sometimes of the climatic epidemics and catastrophes, when alas sometimes all is cumulated.
Admittedly, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey receive per ten thousands of the refugees and in Europe the coasts Italian and Greek are those the most requested by the newcomers of which many embarked in boats of fortune by frontier runners without scruple, die at sea before touching the expected ground.
But that creates tensions within the EU (European Union), between the partisans of the reception like Germany and other countries like Hungary, Poland and others which reject them and which try to stop them by protections: Walls, barbed wires, militarized borders…
In this context, it is alas easy to note confusions which take place between the membership of an ethnos group, a culture, a religion, with the Islam and of its caricatural version of fundamentalist and political Islamism. This, whereas the economic crisis of 2008 caused a procession of unemployed person, various crises: housing, wages blocked, precarious work, and such circumstances facilitate the identity folds or the regroupings communautarists.
The tensions which developed these two last years between Russia the United States and the European Union feed also the anguish and the absence of vision of a desirable future.
UNO: seem more not to have a weight on the States nation and in particular most powerful militarily and economically which are freed from some of their obligations, or which use wrongly of their right to veto at the Security Council of UNO. However, the best way of respecting the citizens of the world than we all are and all, would be to have of the means and the support supporting sustainable development on all planet.
Then, the reception of the migrants for those and those which make the choice of the exodus pushed by climatic conditions or safety with such a prospect would meet another echo, and would support the dialog between the civilizations and the harmony between the people.
Then: impossible some will say. However, if one enters all it sums escaped in the tax havens and if one adds to it: all the gigantic military expenditure related to the nuclear weapons, chemical and bacteriological, there would be what to regulate many problems of planet.
Alas, these last years, the acts anti-semite developed in France, and also racist discriminations persist for the job access, with a formation, a housing, according to its ethnos group, its name, its facies….
The Théo business, reopened the debate on racial discriminations =Théo = this young person hospitalized following a muscular immobilization made by police officers following a control which degenerated, and which has after-effects in its body = after-effects qualified of rape by criticisms of certain comparable police methods to discriminatory attitudes according to: the facies, and the appearance of certain young people.
Justice will slice this business and the responsibilities, but this fact, after other burs, created a considerable emotion in our country.
This said, whereas in France with the emergency state following the terrorist attacks, the trade of police officer is very difficult, tiring, and its mediatization asks for police officers of a competence and probity specimens, respectful of the values of the Republic, but paid better, equipped better, being able to justify their intervention by camera and receipt which become necessary, but which will add to the complexity of their situation.
A neighborhood police: knowing the ground and its inhabitants, suited to the dialog, but without the use of the tu or another sufficient situation, while being firm on work to make = is a balance which remains to be found. I remember already at the beginning of the years 2000, to have tackled these questions during a formation with the social therapeutist: Charles ROJZMAN.
And however, science brings a lighting to us on our psychobiological reality. We all are of the human beings, it in a strict sense does not exist race. When the large plagues which threaten our humanities: the wars, the epidemics, the climatic disorders, poverty, the access to water, with energies, will be in the process of resolution, many evils will disappear which will support our to become common. Even if certain poisons will require a democratic vigilance still a long time and that differences far from being lived like obstacles or tares, but like inevitable and fertile wealths.
In the States, their governments, to be conscious about it! Especially:to the people to direct them from this point of view because it is the only likely one to save humanity. From this point of view of the spiritual leaders like the Pope FRANÇOIS and Daisaku IKEDA and Dalaï Lama for Buddhism, are éveilleurs of conscience, but it is also a scientific method of research for the peace initiated by the Russian thinker Léo SEMASHO, who has relay on all the continents, which transcends the membership of such philosophy and religion, and which by a scientific approach total science for peace (GPS), with the interaction of the spheres, offers a universal teaching means to mobilize the people for peace and the harmony. Complement on the subject treated this day:
The concepts of race, of innate gifts, justifying the inequalities, being used as a basis the racist theories and to anti-semites, continue to feed the chronicles and the behaviors. However, the social history of the men and the women, is never but that of their individual development.
Also of MARX in the manuscripts of 1844, in Simone de Beauvoir,…; in Judith Butler (To demolish the kind; editions of Amsterdam, 2006) it appears clearly, that the question of the women, is primarily the question of the men. The Key of femininity is in the historical relationship to the masculinity. Admittedly, the long ones and painful combat of feminists accentuate the event of the taking into account of their basic rights; however their emancipation passes by the transformation of mentalities and male practices for a total emancipation of mankind.
As wrote it Lucien SEVE, in its masterly test “the Man”; editions the Argument, 2009: the anthropological development cannot have any more the aim of elucidating the characteristic of the man but well that of the humanity concretely considered under development its historical. The psychic subject is not a natural invariant, but a historical production inherent in each kind of social formation…. The essential contribution of VYGOTSKI was faculty to understand that psychology became science only by identifying its object with the personality, but by being unaware of, that the only true access to the personality passes by the biography. The major idea is that specifically human psychism, takes source in the social world but acquires its identity in the individual life. The only place or the history and the biological one really coincide, it is the passage to the concrete individual, his existence made of all that passes between its birth and its death (matter of Georges POLITZER).
Thus, concerning the criticism of the ideology of the gifts, reality is different: the mental capacities, are the fruit of an appropriation whose secrecy is of a nonneuronal nature: innate, the but biographical one. The psychic form (like such) of individuality, does not come from sociability, but from individuality. Who known as: perception, emotion, memory, intelligence, will, said by the same individual with his corporality, his sexuality, its mental ability, its activity, its temporality….
Thus for example, to say that the natives or autochtones of Australia and Latin America are delayed, dangerous obstacles with progress by nature, is incorrect, and serves only the doctrinaire approach, discriminatory.
In its book:“The Man”; editions the Argument, 2008/2009, Lucien SEVE can write, I quote: “by using the neological concept of juxta structure: although they are functionally given by the whole of the social reports, the individuals, do not emerge on this basis, but are to some extent geared laterally in it, without having their source there even…”
Thus, speech of race nourishing racism and the anti-semitism, is an attempt dangerous, criminal, to divide the human beings. Here what I wrote on this subject in my test “Philosophy and autonomy citizen of thought”; university editions, October 2010, with a foreword of my friend Ernesto KAHAN:
Admittedly, in crisis period, of anguish of the following day, the rise of unemployment, the fear of the future nourishes the fears, that to apprehend the differences which can be lived: = not like inevitable and fertile wealths, but like obstacles or tares. All begins like indicated it: the philosophers Martin Buber and Emmanuel Lévinas, by our glance related to the other, the different one.
One should not confuse the dialog which (like expressed it in its works and its proposals for the peace addressed each January 26th to the General secretary of UNO, Buddhist essay writer Daisaku IKEDA) passes initially by interiorizing the reality of the other, with the debate: whose challenge is frequently (as for the political tournaments) = to gain on the other, to overcome it intellectually.
Then certainly sometimes there exists a racism, with the sociological direction gets along; this because the concept of race does not have any scientific base, however the fears or the particular history of such or such, in its context historical and social which can become those of a whole social group, can be transformed into prejudices, incomprehension, even hostility with respect to the white, of Arabic, African, the Jew, in the same way with respect to another sex, of a confession or design of the existence….
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROBLEMS HUMAN RACES ?
To answer the question, it would already be necessary to correctly define the term of “human race”.
In terms of classification of the species, the species is last classification and there exists only one mankind: the homo sapiens. The term “race” thus does not have a strictly scientific direction.
The term “race” applies normally only to the domestic species, to make a fine differentiation, based on morphological criteria. Thus one distinguishes Labrador from the German shepherd on morphological criteria. But this distinction is completely artificial, due to the selection forced by the stockbreeders during centuries to propose such or such particular morphological characteristic. “Races” of cats were thus created by judicious crossings in great number during the last century.
In the same way, one can distinguish from the human “races” on morphological criteria. The USA admit thus completely officially the term of “race” to define ethniquement their population except that it is up to each one to define itself in which “race” he feels to belong.
Resulting from mother white and from father Kenyan, Barack Obama defines itself as “Afro-American” but if it had been defined as “white” owing to the fact that his/her mother is white and of American nationality, that would not have been disputed to him from a strictly administrative point of view.
Nevertheless, this classification remains a fantastic notion, on purely morphological criteria. One chose to propose the color of the skin because at one time, it was representative of a space distribution. But one could have chosen other criteria: the “race” of fair different from the “race” of the brown ones. A “race” for the blue eyes and another for the eyes chestnut. There is no difference to define a “race” on the color of the skin or the color of the eyes, scientifically speaking.
In short, one can use the term “race “to define a population ethniquement. It then belongs to sociology to define which cutting is relevant for which goal, while remembering that does not have other realities only sociological.”
Also: to answer a friend, when young sons of immigrants, the proven case, do not comply with the rules of the host country: France or other, this does not come from an incapacity registered by nature in their genes, nor of the reality of an ethnos group which would not adapt, but it is a problem of parental education, a responsibility for the school system to teach them the language and the history from the country, and with the country itself, in its official responsibility and citizen, to learn how to them to comply with its legal rules, social, and it: commune with the Central state and these requirements will be validated less with difficulty if discriminations cease.
PEN International is deeply concerned for the health and wellbeing of prominent Bahraini academic, activist and blogger Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, currently detained in Jau prison serving a life sentence for his peaceful opposition activities. According to the family, Dr. Al-Singace was urgently transferred to a military hospital last week. Doctors indicated that he had suffered severe dehydration. On 12 March 2017, prison authorities reportedly refused to allow Dr. Al-Singace to attend a hospital appointment as he refused to wear the prison uniform and handcuffs. Dr. Al-Singace has long required specialist medical treatment for ongoing health problems, some of which result from torture and ill-treatment in prison. PEN International calls for Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace to be granted access to all necessary medical care as a matter of urgency, and continues to call for his immediate and unconditional release, as well as all those detained in Bahrain in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bahrain is a state party.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Share on Facebook, Twitter and other social media
Please send appeals:
Expressing serious concern for the health of academic, activist and blogger Abduljalil Al-Singace, urging the authorities to permit him access to all necessary medical care;
Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Abduljalil Al-Singace and all those detained in Bahrain in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bahrain is a state party;
Demanding a full investigation into reports that Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace and others are being ill-treated in prison.
Send appeals to:
His Majesty Sheikh Hamad bin ‘Issa Al-Khalifa
King of Bahrain
Office of His Majesty the King
P.O.Box 555
Rifa’a Palace,
al-Manama,
Kingdom of Bahrain.
Fax: +973 176 64 587
Salutation: Your Majesty
Sheikh Khalid bin Ali Al-Khalifa
Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs
Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs
P.O.Box 450
al-Manama
Bahrain
Fax: +973 175 31 284
Please copy appeals to the diplomatic representative for Bahrain in your country if possible. A list of embassies can be found here.
***Please contact PEN International if sending appeals after 16 April 2017***
Please inform us of any action you take, and of any responses you receive.
SOLIDARITY ACTION:
Please send messages of solidarity to emma.wadsworth-jones@pen-international.org so that they can be forwarded to his family.
Elect Dr Al-Singace as an Honorary Member of your Centre and by doing so provide long-term support and advocacy for him and his family.
Background
Blogger and human rights activist Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace was sentenced by a special security court in June 2011 to life imprisonment for his peaceful activities; the verdict was confirmed by the appeal court on 4 September 2012. Dr. Al-Singace is a member of the “Bahrain 13”, a group of thirteen peaceful political activists and human rights defenders, including Ebrahim Sharif and Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, sentenced to prison terms for their peaceful role in Bahrain’s Arab Spring protests in 2011. Dr. Al-Singace was awarded the Liu Xiaobo Courage to Write Award by the Independent Chinese PEN Centre, and was named one of Index on Censorship’s 100 “free expression heroes” in 2016.
According to his family members, Dr. Al-Singace was urgently transferred to a military hospital from Jau prison’s clinic last week after he fainted. Doctors indicated that he had suffered severe dehydration. The doctor is reported to have prescribed medication, including antibiotics, and fluids. On 12 March 2017, Dr. Al-Singace was due to attend a hospital appointment, however, the prison authorities reportedly refused to allow him to attend as Dr. Al-Singace had refused to wear the prison uniform and handcuffs.
Dr. Al-Singace has long required specialist medical treatment for ongoing health problems, some of which result from torture and ill-treatment in prison. Dr Al-Singace is disabled, and suffers from a number of serious long-term health problems including disc problems in the lower back and neck, heart problems, nasal sinus inflammation and an enlarged prostate. In April 2015, Dr. Al-Singace was taken to al-Qala’a hospital, four weeks after starting a hunger strike in protest against the deprivation of basic rights and ill-treatment of prisoners in Jau prison. He was previously hospitalised in mid-September 2014 for investigation into ongoing problems resulting from a seriously damaged eardrum which is believed to have been caused by torture and ill-treatment in Jau prison in 2010 and 2011.
For more information on Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, please read PEN’s most recent statement on his case.
For further information, please contact Emma Wadsworth-Jones at PEN International, Koops Mill, 162-164 Abbey Street, London, SE1 2AN, UK, Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7405 0338, Fax: +44 (0) 20 7405 0339, Email: Emma.Wadsworth-Jones@pen-international.org
PEN International is deeply concerned for the health and wellbeing of prominent Bahraini academic, activist and blogger Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, currently detained in Jau prison serving a life sentence for his peaceful opposition activities. According to the family, Dr. Al-Singace was urgently transferred to a military hospital last week. Doctors indicated that he had suffered severe dehydration. On 12 March 2017, prison authorities reportedly refused to allow Dr. Al-Singace to attend a hospital appointment as he refused to wear the prison uniform and handcuffs. Dr. Al-Singace has long required specialist medical treatment for ongoing health problems, some of which result from torture and ill-treatment in prison. PEN International calls for Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace to be granted access to all necessary medical care as a matter of urgency, and continues to call for his immediate and unconditional release, as well as all those detained in Bahrain in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bahrain is a state party.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Share on Facebook, Twitter and other social media
Please send appeals:
Expressing serious concern for the health of academic, activist and blogger Abduljalil Al-Singace, urging the authorities to permit him access to all necessary medical care;
Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Abduljalil Al-Singace and all those detained in Bahrain in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bahrain is a state party;
Demanding a full investigation into reports that Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace and others are being ill-treated in prison.
Send appeals to:
His Majesty Sheikh Hamad bin ‘Issa Al-Khalifa
King of Bahrain
Office of His Majesty the King
P.O.Box 555
Rifa’a Palace,
al-Manama,
Kingdom of Bahrain.
Fax: +973 176 64 587
Salutation: Your Majesty
Sheikh Khalid bin Ali Al-Khalifa
Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs
Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs
P.O.Box 450
al-Manama
Bahrain
Fax: +973 175 31 284
Please copy appeals to the diplomatic representative for Bahrain in your country if possible. A list of embassies can be found here.
***Please contact PEN International if sending appeals after 16 April 2017***
Please inform us of any action you take, and of any responses you receive.
SOLIDARITY ACTION:
Please send messages of solidarity to emma.wadsworth-jones@pen-international.org so that they can be forwarded to his family.
Elect Dr Al-Singace as an Honorary Member of your Centre and by doing so provide long-term support and advocacy for him and his family.
Background
Blogger and human rights activist Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace was sentenced by a special security court in June 2011 to life imprisonment for his peaceful activities; the verdict was confirmed by the appeal court on 4 September 2012. Dr. Al-Singace is a member of the “Bahrain 13”, a group of thirteen peaceful political activists and human rights defenders, including Ebrahim Sharif and Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, sentenced to prison terms for their peaceful role in Bahrain’s Arab Spring protests in 2011. Dr. Al-Singace was awarded the Liu Xiaobo Courage to Write Award by the Independent Chinese PEN Centre, and was named one of Index on Censorship’s 100 “free expression heroes” in 2016.
According to his family members, Dr. Al-Singace was urgently transferred to a military hospital from Jau prison’s clinic last week after he fainted. Doctors indicated that he had suffered severe dehydration. The doctor is reported to have prescribed medication, including antibiotics, and fluids. On 12 March 2017, Dr. Al-Singace was due to attend a hospital appointment, however, the prison authorities reportedly refused to allow him to attend as Dr. Al-Singace had refused to wear the prison uniform and handcuffs.
Dr. Al-Singace has long required specialist medical treatment for ongoing health problems, some of which result from torture and ill-treatment in prison. Dr Al-Singace is disabled, and suffers from a number of serious long-term health problems including disc problems in the lower back and neck, heart problems, nasal sinus inflammation and an enlarged prostate. In April 2015, Dr. Al-Singace was taken to al-Qala’a hospital, four weeks after starting a hunger strike in protest against the deprivation of basic rights and ill-treatment of prisoners in Jau prison. He was previously hospitalised in mid-September 2014 for investigation into ongoing problems resulting from a seriously damaged eardrum which is believed to have been caused by torture and ill-treatment in Jau prison in 2010 and 2011.
For more information on Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, please read PEN’s most recent statement on his case.
For further information, please contact Emma Wadsworth-Jones at PEN International, Koops Mill, 162-164 Abbey Street, London, SE1 2AN, UK, Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7405 0338, Fax: +44 (0) 20 7405 0339, Email: Emma.Wadsworth-Jones@pen-international.org
PEN Internationalcontinues to call for the release of blogger Alaa Abd El Fattah, in light of the two-year anniversary of his imprisonment last week. He was sentenced to five years in prison on 23 February 2015 following a retrial, for contravening a repressive law which restricts peaceful demonstrations. PEN International believes he is imprisoned for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and assembly and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.
PEN is also concerned by recent reports that Abd El Fattah and other prisoners at Tora Prison Complex B (where Abd El Fattah is imprisoned) are not allowed to receive any books, apart from textbooks for study purposes. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that recreational and cultural activities should be provided, and that prisoners should be allowed some contact with the outside world, including by receiving correspondence from family as well as having access to newspapers, periodicals or special institutional publications. PEN believes that books and newspapers are essential for the transmission of thought and enrichment of culture and education, and calls for the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah and all other prisoners in Tora Prison Complex B to receive books and other printed materials such as magazines and newspapers.
TAKE ACTION: Share on Facebook, Twitter and other social media
Send letters of appeal to the Egyptian authorities:
Protesting the continued imprisonment of Alaa Abd El Fattah;
Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Alaa Abd El Fattah, and all others held solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and assembly, in accordance with Egypt’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party.
Urging the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah regular exercise and access to fresh air while in prison; Urging the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah and all other prisoners in Tora Prison Complex B to receive books and other printed materials such as magazines and periodicals, newspapers and any personal correspondence, in addition to text books for study purposes, in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,
Office of the President,
Al Ittihadia Palace,
Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt,
Fax: +202 2 391 1441
Email: p.spokesman@op.gov.eg Moh_moussa@op.gov.eg
Salutation: Your Excellency
Twitter: @AlsisiOfficial
Minister of Justice Mohamed Hossam Abdel Rahim
Ministry of Justice,
Lazoghly Sq.,
Fax: +202 2 795 8103
Email: mjustice@moj.gov.eg
Salutation: Dear Minister
Please send your letters via the Embassy of the Egypt in your country. Addresses may be found here.
***Please send appeals immediately. Check with PEN International if sending appeals after 3 April 2017. ***
Please inform PEN of any action you take, and of any responses you receive.
Spread the word Please share details of Alaa Abd El Fattah’s case on social media. If you have a Twitter account, please consider tweeting your support with the hashtag #FreeAlaa
Send a message of support If you would like to send a message of support to Alaa and his family please contact lianna.merner@pen-international.org for more details.
Read and share Alaa’s work
Read Alaa’s extraordinary piece for the Guardian, written from Cairo’s Tora Prison in January 2016
Background Alaa Abd El Fattah was one of the very first bloggers in Arabic and was the first to aggregate blogs coming out of Egypt. He has always worked for freedom of expression whether in his writing or in his work designing open-source digital software. His popular blog — established with his wife, Manal—helped spark a community of bloggers in the Arab World committed to the promotion of free speech and human rights.
He was one of the first Egyptian netizens seeking to facilitate a movement for political change in the wake of the January 2011 uprising, and he started a nation-wide people’s initiative enabling citizen collaboration in the drafting of the Egyptian Constitution. He was later among the many activists and political activists to fall foul of the controversial November 2013 law banning peaceful protest without government permission.
Following his arrest in June 2014, Abd El Fattah staged a partial hunger strike in prison, drinking only juice and other fluids. He was released on bail in 2014 having spent 115 days in prison. He was re-arrested at the resumption of his trial in October 2014 and sentenced four months later to five years in prison. He has three years still to serve. The United Nation’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its opinion delivered in June 2016 found that he was arbitrarily detained as a result of his exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and his participation in a peaceful demonstration on 26 November 2013.
Meanwhile, the authorities have sought to bring new charges against him, in relation to comments made on social media and in interviews with the press, in what appears to be an attempt to extend his detention and to deter others from speaking out.
Abd El Fattah has been gradually denied access to books, pens, and paper since his imprisonment. In response to the severe restrictions on his right to read and receive information and correspondence, the Egyptian Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE), brought a case to the Administrative Court (No 20107/2017). They requested a stay of the authorities’ decision to forbid Abd El Fattah to receive magazines and periodicals relating to his profession; that he be allowed to receive two daily newspapers at his own expense; and to ensure that he regularly receives his personal correspondence. It also asked the authorities to provide reasons for withholding correspondence, books and printed material. The administrative court examined the first hearing of the case on 21 February. However, according to Abd El Fattah’s aunt, renowned Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif, his family was told on 27 February – at the main gate of Tora Complex B – that all books (apart from textbooks) were now generally banned for all prisoners in the Complex. Abd El Fattah’s family believes this was in response to a statement the family published on the two-year anniversary of his imprisonment on 23 February 2017, which referenced the lawsuit.
PEN believes that prisoners should be able to receive reading materials including books and newspapers. Books and newspapers are essential for the transmission of thought and enrichment of culture and education. Writers that PEN has campaigned on behalf of have written moving messages on the important role books play in detention.
PEN Centres have been actively campaigning on behalf of Abd El Fattah. Abd El Fattah is an Honorary Member of Austrian PEN. English PEN will be highlighting his case at the English PEN Modern Literature Festival where poet Mischa Foster Poole will perform a new piece in his honour.
PEN’s work on Egypt The climate for free expression in Egypt has deteriorated sharply in recent years. PEN passed a Resolution on Egypt at its 82nd World Congress and noted with concern the rise in the number of writers and journalists who have been detained or imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression, association, and assembly, including during journalistic, artistic, or human rights work. For example, in January 2016, the poet Fatima Naoot was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on charges of ‘contempt of Islam’ and ‘disturbing public peace’ for a comment made on Facebook criticising a traditional Islamic celebration. In November 2016, an appeals court reduced and suspended the three-year prison sentence to six months. Naoot is appealing the decision as the suspension does not mean she has been acquitted of the charges.
PEN has also campaigned on the case of journalist and novelist Ahmed Naji, who was sentenced to two years in prison in February 2016 for ‘violating public modesty’ in relation to the publication of excerpts from his 2014 novel Istikhdam al-Haya (The Use of Life). On 18 December 2016, a Court suspended Naji’s sentence pending his appeal, which has now been scheduled for 2 April 2017.
Internationally acclaimed poet Omar Hazek was banned from leaving Egypt in January 2016 to accept an Oxfam Novib/PEN Award for Freedom of Expression. In early February 2017, Hazek was detained alongside fellow activists and questioned for five hours, before being released.
PEN continues to call for the Egyptian authorities to protect the rights of all Egyptians to freely express their views, whether as citizens, journalists, or writers, as protected under the Egyptian Constitution and as per Egypt’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
For further information, please contact Lianna Merner, PEN International, Koops Mill Mews, 162-164 Abbey Street, London, SE1 2AN, UK, Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7405 0338, Email: lianna.merner@pen-international.org
PEN Internationalcontinues to call for the release of blogger Alaa Abd El Fattah, in light of the two-year anniversary of his imprisonment last week. He was sentenced to five years in prison on 23 February 2015 following a retrial, for contravening a repressive law which restricts peaceful demonstrations. PEN International believes he is imprisoned for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and assembly and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.
PEN is also concerned by recent reports that Abd El Fattah and other prisoners at Tora Prison Complex B (where Abd El Fattah is imprisoned) are not allowed to receive any books, apart from textbooks for study purposes. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that recreational and cultural activities should be provided, and that prisoners should be allowed some contact with the outside world, including by receiving correspondence from family as well as having access to newspapers, periodicals or special institutional publications. PEN believes that books and newspapers are essential for the transmission of thought and enrichment of culture and education, and calls for the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah and all other prisoners in Tora Prison Complex B to receive books and other printed materials such as magazines and newspapers.
TAKE ACTION: Share on Facebook, Twitter and other social media
Send letters of appeal to the Egyptian authorities:
Protesting the continued imprisonment of Alaa Abd El Fattah;
Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Alaa Abd El Fattah, and all others held solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and assembly, in accordance with Egypt’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party.
Urging the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah regular exercise and access to fresh air while in prison; Urging the authorities to allow Alaa Abd El Fattah and all other prisoners in Tora Prison Complex B to receive books and other printed materials such as magazines and periodicals, newspapers and any personal correspondence, in addition to text books for study purposes, in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,
Office of the President,
Al Ittihadia Palace,
Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt,
Fax: +202 2 391 1441
Email: p.spokesman@op.gov.eg Moh_moussa@op.gov.eg
Salutation: Your Excellency
Twitter: @AlsisiOfficial
Minister of Justice Mohamed Hossam Abdel Rahim
Ministry of Justice,
Lazoghly Sq.,
Fax: +202 2 795 8103
Email: mjustice@moj.gov.eg
Salutation: Dear Minister
Please send your letters via the Embassy of the Egypt in your country. Addresses may be found here.
***Please send appeals immediately. Check with PEN International if sending appeals after 3 April 2017. ***
Please inform PEN of any action you take, and of any responses you receive.
Spread the word Please share details of Alaa Abd El Fattah’s case on social media. If you have a Twitter account, please consider tweeting your support with the hashtag #FreeAlaa
Send a message of support If you would like to send a message of support to Alaa and his family please contact lianna.merner@pen-international.org for more details.
Read and share Alaa’s work
Read Alaa’s extraordinary piece for the Guardian, written from Cairo’s Tora Prison in January 2016
Background Alaa Abd El Fattah was one of the very first bloggers in Arabic and was the first to aggregate blogs coming out of Egypt. He has always worked for freedom of expression whether in his writing or in his work designing open-source digital software. His popular blog — established with his wife, Manal—helped spark a community of bloggers in the Arab World committed to the promotion of free speech and human rights.
He was one of the first Egyptian netizens seeking to facilitate a movement for political change in the wake of the January 2011 uprising, and he started a nation-wide people’s initiative enabling citizen collaboration in the drafting of the Egyptian Constitution. He was later among the many activists and political activists to fall foul of the controversial November 2013 law banning peaceful protest without government permission.
Following his arrest in June 2014, Abd El Fattah staged a partial hunger strike in prison, drinking only juice and other fluids. He was released on bail in 2014 having spent 115 days in prison. He was re-arrested at the resumption of his trial in October 2014 and sentenced four months later to five years in prison. He has three years still to serve. The United Nation’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its opinion delivered in June 2016 found that he was arbitrarily detained as a result of his exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and his participation in a peaceful demonstration on 26 November 2013.
Meanwhile, the authorities have sought to bring new charges against him, in relation to comments made on social media and in interviews with the press, in what appears to be an attempt to extend his detention and to deter others from speaking out.
Abd El Fattah has been gradually denied access to books, pens, and paper since his imprisonment. In response to the severe restrictions on his right to read and receive information and correspondence, the Egyptian Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE), brought a case to the Administrative Court (No 20107/2017). They requested a stay of the authorities’ decision to forbid Abd El Fattah to receive magazines and periodicals relating to his profession; that he be allowed to receive two daily newspapers at his own expense; and to ensure that he regularly receives his personal correspondence. It also asked the authorities to provide reasons for withholding correspondence, books and printed material. The administrative court examined the first hearing of the case on 21 February. However, according to Abd El Fattah’s aunt, renowned Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif, his family was told on 27 February – at the main gate of Tora Complex B – that all books (apart from textbooks) were now generally banned for all prisoners in the Complex. Abd El Fattah’s family believes this was in response to a statement the family published on the two-year anniversary of his imprisonment on 23 February 2017, which referenced the lawsuit.
PEN believes that prisoners should be able to receive reading materials including books and newspapers. Books and newspapers are essential for the transmission of thought and enrichment of culture and education. Writers that PEN has campaigned on behalf of have written moving messages on the important role books play in detention.
PEN Centres have been actively campaigning on behalf of Abd El Fattah. Abd El Fattah is an Honorary Member of Austrian PEN. English PEN will be highlighting his case at the English PEN Modern Literature Festival where poet Mischa Foster Poole will perform a new piece in his honour.
PEN’s work on Egypt The climate for free expression in Egypt has deteriorated sharply in recent years. PEN passed a Resolution on Egypt at its 82nd World Congress and noted with concern the rise in the number of writers and journalists who have been detained or imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression, association, and assembly, including during journalistic, artistic, or human rights work. For example, in January 2016, the poet Fatima Naoot was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on charges of ‘contempt of Islam’ and ‘disturbing public peace’ for a comment made on Facebook criticising a traditional Islamic celebration. In November 2016, an appeals court reduced and suspended the three-year prison sentence to six months. Naoot is appealing the decision as the suspension does not mean she has been acquitted of the charges.
PEN has also campaigned on the case of journalist and novelist Ahmed Naji, who was sentenced to two years in prison in February 2016 for ‘violating public modesty’ in relation to the publication of excerpts from his 2014 novel Istikhdam al-Haya (The Use of Life). On 18 December 2016, a Court suspended Naji’s sentence pending his appeal, which has now been scheduled for 2 April 2017.
Internationally acclaimed poet Omar Hazek was banned from leaving Egypt in January 2016 to accept an Oxfam Novib/PEN Award for Freedom of Expression. In early February 2017, Hazek was detained alongside fellow activists and questioned for five hours, before being released.
PEN continues to call for the Egyptian authorities to protect the rights of all Egyptians to freely express their views, whether as citizens, journalists, or writers, as protected under the Egyptian Constitution and as per Egypt’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
For further information, please contact Lianna Merner, PEN International, Koops Mill Mews, 162-164 Abbey Street, London, SE1 2AN, UK, Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7405 0338, Email: lianna.merner@pen-international.org
He is a professor of Religion and Society in the Department of Comparative Religion at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA. Professor Siebert has taught, lectured, and published widely in Western and Eastern Europe, the United States, and Canada.
He is the director of the Center for Humanistic Future Studies at Western Michigan University since 1980, the director of the international course on the “Future of Religion” in the Inter-University Center for Post-Graduate Studies in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia / Croatia since 1975, and the international course on “Religion and Civil Society” in Yalta, Crimea, and Ukraine since 1999. The Inter-University Center is sponsored by the University of Simferopol, Simferopol, Ukraine, and Western Michigan University.
GHA Ambassador for Peace and Disarmament of the Harmony of the Golden Rule, GHA “World Harmony Creator”.
GHA, http://peacefromharmony.org/
[themify_hr color=”red”]
February 1, 2017
To:
Mr. Donald Trump,
President of the United States,
Subject: Your Global Peace Paradigm for the US geopolitics, its Christian meaning, and convergence with President Putin’s Global Peace Paradigm of Russia.
Dear President Trump:
I enjoyed very much that you became a peacemaker, when you in your campaign speech on foreign policy of April 27, 2016, promised to end President Obama’s aggressive geopolitics, and to make our goal – peace and prosperity, not war and destruction, and to make America great again through global peace, and not through war. Here you have formulated the Global Peace Paradigm for the United States, in which I see a deep religious, and even Christian meaning. You have formulated this Paradigm at a time, when the Dooms Clock in New York has once more moved several degrees toward Midnight.
I am a scholar, who has devoted his life to the comparative study of religions, particularly their ability to promote harmony and peace, as formulated and expressed especially in the Sermon on the Mount, including the Golden Rule. The latter is recognized by almost all living world religions. It has been translated into the widely accepted secular ethics of the categorical imperative and of the a prioriunlimited communication community. Your Global Peace Paradigm is built on this Golden Rule. Thus, it carries in itself the religious and Christian meaning of love and nonviolence, inspiring all faithful and reasonable people. You and President Putin have both confessed publicly, that you are not only modern enlightened people, but also believers, and even Christians, if also in different Christian paradigms.
I have founded a Center for Humanistic Future Studies at Western Michigan University, with a strong peace component, out of which developed an international course on The Future of Religion at the IUC in Dubrovnik, Croatia, which has lasted now for over 40 years, and an international sister course about Religion in Civil Society in Yalta, Crimea, which is supported by American as well as by the Crimean Universities, and which has now lasted for 14 years. Scholars from all over the world have met in both courses every year in order to work for peace. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet in the past year in Yalta, because of President Obama’s United States Executive Order 13685, and other sanctions, which are harmful not only for Russia, but also for America, and for the development of mutual scientific and cultural cooperation. We are looking very much foreward to your cancellation of these sanctions, which will allow us to resume again our international course in Yalta, in the service of peace. For more than 40 years, I have travelled between the American and the Slavic Worlds, in order to promote friendship and peaceful cooperation between them. Please, see my biography: http://www.rudolfjsiebert.org/.
In our Center for Humanistic Future Studies, and its branches in Dubrovnik and Yalta, we have created a critical theory of religion in the past 50 years, which asserts that there can not be any peace among nations without peace among religions; no peace among religions without discourse among them; and no dialogue among the religions without foundation research in them (Hans Küng). Our dialectical religiology understands itself as practical discourse: as future-oriented remembrance of human suffering, particularly through war, with the practical intent, to diminish it through helping to reconcile the dissonance between the sacred and the profane dimension, and in the religious and secular spheres, and thus to resolve some of the consequent, most painful culture wars, at home and abroad. The critical theory of religion aims, with the help of the great world religions and world philosophies, particularly Kant, Hegel, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Einstein, King, Kalam, and many Nobel Peace Laureates, at the post-modern alternative of Future III – a free and peaceful society, characterized by the reconciliation of the religious and the secular, as well as of personal autonomy and universal solidarity, instead of Future I – a totally administered society, or Future II – and entirely militaristic society. Secular people know, that there is something missing in modern civil society. Religious people have to find new translators for their message of redemption, and liberation, and peace. Please, see our books, in which our critical theory of religion has been developed, on my website: http://www.rudolfjsiebert.org/.
More than 11 years ago, I became a member of the international peacemaking organization Global Harmony Association (GHA: http://peacefromharmony.org). It brings together thousands of individual and collective members from over 60 countries, and has a prominent place in the global civil society. The GHA has published 8 books, and has created more than 50 projects of global peace for 12 years (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=472). The GHA has created a Global Peace Science (GPS) with the help of 174 co-authors, including the President of India, Abdul Kalam, three Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, and dozens of distinguished scientists and peacemakers from 34 countries, including 59 of them, coming from the US (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf). A book about this Global Peace Science is attached.
As GHA nominated Ambassador of Peace and Disarmament, on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount, including the Golden Rule, I would like to submit the following proposals and invitations to you, in the name of all of us:
In your speech on April 27, 2016, you promised to seek a new vision, new minds, voices, ideas and approaches to peace. Could you make practical use of these resources by inviting GHA to cooperate?
For the purpose of convergence of the peace positions of the Presidents of the two nuclear superpowers, GHA invites you and President Putin to take part in the republication of the book on the Global Peace Science, including articles on your own vision of a global peace paradigm and its geopolitics,in the historical perspective of the 21st century, which you can today offer to your nations, and the entire world. This will immortalize your names as the founders of peace science together with the names of Kant, Hegel, Tolstoy, Gandhi, King, Kalam, and several Nobel Peace Laureates, and will open the common ground for peace negotiations between the American and the Slavic Worlds. Here the Global Peace Paradigm contained in our critical theory of religion can be particularly helpful.
A logical extension of the Global Peace Science would be a joint establishment of a small, but nevertheless effective International Institute/Academy of Global Peace in the United States and in Russia, in order to find collective answers to increasing challenges, and for the sake of peace of all humanity. Only you and President Putin together can constitute this science through its support, use and participation in its development. Only you and President Putin are able to give practical life to the Global Peace Science in the world politics and culture. Hardly anything else can strengthen and lift up your and President Putin’s world prestige, as well as the good reputation of your countries respectively. This Global Peace Institute would be an intellectual as well as spiritual bridge between the two countries, which will show to all the world that you can build not only walls, but also bridges. Pope Francis I has defined being Christian as being able to build bridges: to break through the many ingroup – outgroup barriers.
You, together with President Putin, could offer the GlobalPeace Science, developed with your participation, to the educational systems of the American and the Slavic worlds, in order to increase the level of peaceful consciousness in their populations. Your presidential narratives in the Global Peace Science would be able, to pull the consciousness of the world media away from militarism, fakes and military terminology in all areas(Putin), and from defining politics as the identification of the enemy (Carl Schmitt, Hitler’s jurist and political theologian), and toward defining it as the art to make friends, and toward a way of peaceful thinking, in order to provide a common goal – peace and prosperity, not war and destruction (Trump).
A joint development of the Global Peace Science could be the best convergence of President Putin’s and President Trump’s global peace paradigms, and their common sense(Trump) in nuclear disarmament up to nuclear zero as soon as possible. It will allow both of you together to make this century the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever known (Trump), and spread the peace ideal of humanity (Putin).
The joint Global Peace Science could become a common philosophical and scientific foundation for the creation of Peace Departments in the Governments (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of State) of the two world powers, about which the best minds of Russia and America have dreamed and thought. Global Peace Science, global peace education, and governmental Peace Departments as the soft-power resources (Putin) could fulfil the hope of Mahatma Gandhi and of Martin Luther King Jr.: We must shift the arms race into a peace race.
You and President Putin are pragmatists in the best sense of the word, and both of you are the peacemakers, who can make use of the proposed soft-power resources, in your quest to find a new vision, new minds, ideas and approaches (Trump) for your common peace geopolitics.
Certainly, the GHA, and the majority of peace organizations in the USA, and in the world, are happy to support your historically important paradigm of global peace, which you have presented on April 27, 2016 in your election campaign speech. It was presented in comparison with President Putin’s peace paradigm in our published article Putin-Trump: Two Paradigms of Global Peace: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=735 (in attachment).
Our deep concern is to ensure, that your peace program is not only a pre-election promise, that is easily forgotten, but that it will find its development and validation in a radical change of the US relations with Russia, which recently have reached a very dangerous point in the nuclear standoff. We would like to believe and to hope, that your peaceful program will be implemented as promised: We shall seek common ground, based on shared interests. Theory must turn over into praxis, without neglecting theory!
We are convinced that the Global Peace Science and its philosophy will be the best scientific and spiritual basis for shared interestsand forawhole complex of peacemaking cooperation between the American World and the Slavic World, Eurasia, concerning, e.g. terrorism, or environmental issues, or epidemics, etc., but mainly and particularly nuclear disarmament/zero, and a common Summit, to address this global and most dangerous challenge for all nations, and not just for the USA and Russia. Please, see our project: Russia and the USA Peaceful Cooperation Instead of the Insanity of Nuclear War: “RUSAP” by 42 peacemakers, including three Nobel Peace Laureates from 21 countries: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=710 (in attachment).
Our proposals include not only the creation of a Peace Department in the USA and in the Russian Federation, but also the development of an Earth Constitution, as a renewed international law, ensuring global peace. Both projects are formulated in a Pragmatics page at the end of our article Trump: Peacemaking Revolution of the USAAggressive Geopolitics by 20 coauthors from 11 countries: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=685 (in attachment).
We very much hope for your attention to the peace proposals contained in the Global Peace Science, which were carried on for decades in theory, but were ignored in praxis by the past Administrations, neglecting peace problems. These proposals are extremely important for the development, and successful realization of your global peace paradigm. With your Administration, the time has come to move from peace talk to peace action.
Thank you for your consideration. I am, with my best wishes, for you and your administration
He is a professor of Religion and Society in the Department of Comparative Religion at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA. Professor Siebert has taught, lectured, and published widely in Western and Eastern Europe, the United States, and Canada.
He is the director of the Center for Humanistic Future Studies at Western Michigan University since 1980, the director of the international course on the “Future of Religion” in the Inter-University Center for Post-Graduate Studies in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia / Croatia since 1975, and the international course on “Religion and Civil Society” in Yalta, Crimea, and Ukraine since 1999. The Inter-University Center is sponsored by the University of Simferopol, Simferopol, Ukraine, and Western Michigan University.
GHA Ambassador for Peace and Disarmament of the Harmony of the Golden Rule, GHA “World Harmony Creator”.
GHA, http://peacefromharmony.org/
[themify_hr color=”red”]
February 1, 2017
To:
Mr. Donald Trump,
President of the United States,
Subject: Your Global Peace Paradigm for the US geopolitics, its Christian meaning, and convergence with President Putin’s Global Peace Paradigm of Russia.
Dear President Trump:
I enjoyed very much that you became a peacemaker, when you in your campaign speech on foreign policy of April 27, 2016, promised to end President Obama’s aggressive geopolitics, and to make our goal – peace and prosperity, not war and destruction, and to make America great again through global peace, and not through war. Here you have formulated the Global Peace Paradigm for the United States, in which I see a deep religious, and even Christian meaning. You have formulated this Paradigm at a time, when the Dooms Clock in New York has once more moved several degrees toward Midnight.
I am a scholar, who has devoted his life to the comparative study of religions, particularly their ability to promote harmony and peace, as formulated and expressed especially in the Sermon on the Mount, including the Golden Rule. The latter is recognized by almost all living world religions. It has been translated into the widely accepted secular ethics of the categorical imperative and of the a prioriunlimited communication community. Your Global Peace Paradigm is built on this Golden Rule. Thus, it carries in itself the religious and Christian meaning of love and nonviolence, inspiring all faithful and reasonable people. You and President Putin have both confessed publicly, that you are not only modern enlightened people, but also believers, and even Christians, if also in different Christian paradigms.
I have founded a Center for Humanistic Future Studies at Western Michigan University, with a strong peace component, out of which developed an international course on The Future of Religion at the IUC in Dubrovnik, Croatia, which has lasted now for over 40 years, and an international sister course about Religion in Civil Society in Yalta, Crimea, which is supported by American as well as by the Crimean Universities, and which has now lasted for 14 years. Scholars from all over the world have met in both courses every year in order to work for peace. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet in the past year in Yalta, because of President Obama’s United States Executive Order 13685, and other sanctions, which are harmful not only for Russia, but also for America, and for the development of mutual scientific and cultural cooperation. We are looking very much foreward to your cancellation of these sanctions, which will allow us to resume again our international course in Yalta, in the service of peace. For more than 40 years, I have travelled between the American and the Slavic Worlds, in order to promote friendship and peaceful cooperation between them. Please, see my biography: http://www.rudolfjsiebert.org/.
In our Center for Humanistic Future Studies, and its branches in Dubrovnik and Yalta, we have created a critical theory of religion in the past 50 years, which asserts that there can not be any peace among nations without peace among religions; no peace among religions without discourse among them; and no dialogue among the religions without foundation research in them (Hans Küng). Our dialectical religiology understands itself as practical discourse: as future-oriented remembrance of human suffering, particularly through war, with the practical intent, to diminish it through helping to reconcile the dissonance between the sacred and the profane dimension, and in the religious and secular spheres, and thus to resolve some of the consequent, most painful culture wars, at home and abroad. The critical theory of religion aims, with the help of the great world religions and world philosophies, particularly Kant, Hegel, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Einstein, King, Kalam, and many Nobel Peace Laureates, at the post-modern alternative of Future III – a free and peaceful society, characterized by the reconciliation of the religious and the secular, as well as of personal autonomy and universal solidarity, instead of Future I – a totally administered society, or Future II – and entirely militaristic society. Secular people know, that there is something missing in modern civil society. Religious people have to find new translators for their message of redemption, and liberation, and peace. Please, see our books, in which our critical theory of religion has been developed, on my website: http://www.rudolfjsiebert.org/.
More than 11 years ago, I became a member of the international peacemaking organization Global Harmony Association (GHA: http://peacefromharmony.org). It brings together thousands of individual and collective members from over 60 countries, and has a prominent place in the global civil society. The GHA has published 8 books, and has created more than 50 projects of global peace for 12 years (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=472). The GHA has created a Global Peace Science (GPS) with the help of 174 co-authors, including the President of India, Abdul Kalam, three Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, and dozens of distinguished scientists and peacemakers from 34 countries, including 59 of them, coming from the US (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf). A book about this Global Peace Science is attached.
As GHA nominated Ambassador of Peace and Disarmament, on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount, including the Golden Rule, I would like to submit the following proposals and invitations to you, in the name of all of us:
In your speech on April 27, 2016, you promised to seek a new vision, new minds, voices, ideas and approaches to peace. Could you make practical use of these resources by inviting GHA to cooperate?
For the purpose of convergence of the peace positions of the Presidents of the two nuclear superpowers, GHA invites you and President Putin to take part in the republication of the book on the Global Peace Science, including articles on your own vision of a global peace paradigm and its geopolitics,in the historical perspective of the 21st century, which you can today offer to your nations, and the entire world. This will immortalize your names as the founders of peace science together with the names of Kant, Hegel, Tolstoy, Gandhi, King, Kalam, and several Nobel Peace Laureates, and will open the common ground for peace negotiations between the American and the Slavic Worlds. Here the Global Peace Paradigm contained in our critical theory of religion can be particularly helpful.
A logical extension of the Global Peace Science would be a joint establishment of a small, but nevertheless effective International Institute/Academy of Global Peace in the United States and in Russia, in order to find collective answers to increasing challenges, and for the sake of peace of all humanity. Only you and President Putin together can constitute this science through its support, use and participation in its development. Only you and President Putin are able to give practical life to the Global Peace Science in the world politics and culture. Hardly anything else can strengthen and lift up your and President Putin’s world prestige, as well as the good reputation of your countries respectively. This Global Peace Institute would be an intellectual as well as spiritual bridge between the two countries, which will show to all the world that you can build not only walls, but also bridges. Pope Francis I has defined being Christian as being able to build bridges: to break through the many ingroup – outgroup barriers.
You, together with President Putin, could offer the GlobalPeace Science, developed with your participation, to the educational systems of the American and the Slavic worlds, in order to increase the level of peaceful consciousness in their populations. Your presidential narratives in the Global Peace Science would be able, to pull the consciousness of the world media away from militarism, fakes and military terminology in all areas(Putin), and from defining politics as the identification of the enemy (Carl Schmitt, Hitler’s jurist and political theologian), and toward defining it as the art to make friends, and toward a way of peaceful thinking, in order to provide a common goal – peace and prosperity, not war and destruction (Trump).
A joint development of the Global Peace Science could be the best convergence of President Putin’s and President Trump’s global peace paradigms, and their common sense(Trump) in nuclear disarmament up to nuclear zero as soon as possible. It will allow both of you together to make this century the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever known (Trump), and spread the peace ideal of humanity (Putin).
The joint Global Peace Science could become a common philosophical and scientific foundation for the creation of Peace Departments in the Governments (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of State) of the two world powers, about which the best minds of Russia and America have dreamed and thought. Global Peace Science, global peace education, and governmental Peace Departments as the soft-power resources (Putin) could fulfil the hope of Mahatma Gandhi and of Martin Luther King Jr.: We must shift the arms race into a peace race.
You and President Putin are pragmatists in the best sense of the word, and both of you are the peacemakers, who can make use of the proposed soft-power resources, in your quest to find a new vision, new minds, ideas and approaches (Trump) for your common peace geopolitics.
Certainly, the GHA, and the majority of peace organizations in the USA, and in the world, are happy to support your historically important paradigm of global peace, which you have presented on April 27, 2016 in your election campaign speech. It was presented in comparison with President Putin’s peace paradigm in our published article Putin-Trump: Two Paradigms of Global Peace: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=735 (in attachment).
Our deep concern is to ensure, that your peace program is not only a pre-election promise, that is easily forgotten, but that it will find its development and validation in a radical change of the US relations with Russia, which recently have reached a very dangerous point in the nuclear standoff. We would like to believe and to hope, that your peaceful program will be implemented as promised: We shall seek common ground, based on shared interests. Theory must turn over into praxis, without neglecting theory!
We are convinced that the Global Peace Science and its philosophy will be the best scientific and spiritual basis for shared interestsand forawhole complex of peacemaking cooperation between the American World and the Slavic World, Eurasia, concerning, e.g. terrorism, or environmental issues, or epidemics, etc., but mainly and particularly nuclear disarmament/zero, and a common Summit, to address this global and most dangerous challenge for all nations, and not just for the USA and Russia. Please, see our project: Russia and the USA Peaceful Cooperation Instead of the Insanity of Nuclear War: “RUSAP” by 42 peacemakers, including three Nobel Peace Laureates from 21 countries: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=710 (in attachment).
Our proposals include not only the creation of a Peace Department in the USA and in the Russian Federation, but also the development of an Earth Constitution, as a renewed international law, ensuring global peace. Both projects are formulated in a Pragmatics page at the end of our article Trump: Peacemaking Revolution of the USAAggressive Geopolitics by 20 coauthors from 11 countries: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=685 (in attachment).
We very much hope for your attention to the peace proposals contained in the Global Peace Science, which were carried on for decades in theory, but were ignored in praxis by the past Administrations, neglecting peace problems. These proposals are extremely important for the development, and successful realization of your global peace paradigm. With your Administration, the time has come to move from peace talk to peace action.
Thank you for your consideration. I am, with my best wishes, for you and your administration
For now, let’s refrain from discussing the commitment and the integrity of the Maoist movement in Bastar towards the welfare of the local ‘Adivasis’ or the indigenous tribal community. Let’s also not discuss if Bastar’s Maoist movement truly represents the Adivasi community, and whether or not the Mao activists there even understand Maoism. The fact is, I want to refrain from this discourse in this book, because there’s a possibility of it being laced with prejudices and because, different experts will claim different realities based on their individual biases. In this book, I will instead discuss only the factual information related to the efforts being made in Bastar. My hope is that after reading this book, you will have enough information to debate and discuss about the Maoist movement in the Bastar area.
One of the major paradoxes for maoists is that they consider the conversion of Aristocratic rule to communist rule as revolutionary. However, they do not consider conversion of communist rule to democratic rule as revolutionary; give various arguments to not consider it valid. This paradox exists despite the fact that both conversions require a change in ruling structures, and both are carried out by common people. It seems that the definition of a ‘revolution’ is framed according to biases.
When considering Maoism, a fundamental and important question is how a person, who has never ever even killed a fly (figuratively speaking), finds honour and pride in the gory murders of other people? This person rationalises killings and murders as a sacrifice for the great cause of transition and considers him/herself also as a sacrifice. How does this person accept the murders of innocent and harmless people, with pride and adulation, all for contribution towards revolution!? The following discussion will help us understand why this happens.
Strong social conditioning provides that power is necessary and a change in power structures is presented in a certain way. Changing power structures is seen as the only way to reach a “better” system. This is called revolution and its associated persons are revolutionaries. An individual’s ideas, thoughts and thinking are all conditioned. This conditioning makes them believe that if the current system is destroyed, it will create lots of chaos, which can be then used to create a classless social order. Even the current order of the things is considered as chaos. The massacre of people are considered merely a necessary sacrifice in the process and creation of an ideal classless social order.
The scariest fact about revolution is that the value of life of existing people is seen as less than the value of life of people that are not even born yet. It is so negligible that it justifies the feeling of pride to kill people, in the hope of an imaginary and better future for imaginary people ahead.
However, the future is uncertain. To sacrifice the present for an imaginary future is nothing but propaganda, sophistry and trickery. How is it that revolutionaries are so sure about the future? How do they claim to have a humane order and structure in the future, when they carry out murders, establish fear and restrain human freedom in the present? Is it that violence, killings, using weapons, and establishing fear enable them to see and feel future?
Maoism may be good or ideal, but violence cannot be ideal, it cannot be good. Violence is unreasonable, unacceptable, trickery and self-deception. Non-violence is reasonable and good. This fact cannot be rejected by any human being. Maoism indoctrinates people and makes them lose their consciousness. It makes them violent, and they feel proud about being violent. Such a person cannot survive without violence and does it for revolution, which is unacceptable and unreasonable.
Such revolutions are merely reactions. Reactions of being in the opposition, reactions to reactions. These are nothing but a series of reactions. And no matter how strongly one insists on naming it a revolution, a revolution based on reactions, assumptions and a fanciful future cannot be revolution.
No matter how much one glorifies the revolution based on assumptions and a non-existent future, gives coherent arguments, or validated based on historical evidence; such revolution cannot bring equality. Let’s look at it another way. Some people try to save the world by their methods and thought process. Others use their thought process and methods to disrupt mutual symbiosis and eradicate each other’s existence from the very root. All this for creating a better and an ideal order. However, neither really wants to create a better society. They merely want to shape the structure to suit their needs and use deception, lies, violence, power, corruption and other such tools to achieve this objective. It is ‘the assumption’ that creates differences between human beings and makes them consider other people and groups as inferior.
This revolution merely replaces the groups in power, establishing one group rather than the other. The new ruling group then controls different powers. Then a new upper class emerges, which empowers itself through different types of special rights. For revolution, this process is repeated multiple times on various levels and through various methods. However, a power-centric revolution doesn’t destroy inequality, nor is it capable or desirous of doing so. It is merely a cobweb of swindling, based on a reaction or a series of reactions, with an objective of becoming important. Reaction causes strife, which means never-to-be resolved conflict, violence and the massacre of symbiotic reciprocity. How can such a revolution be meaningful, humane and equanimity?
Broadly, the current communism is based on the opposition of capitalism. In communism, an illusion of financial equality is served. I call it an illusory dream because if we examine it in depth, communism is similar in its inherent nature with capitalism. The capitalism of communism is the state ownership in nature, the state-capitalism. Capitalism, whether personal, or of an elite group, or of state, can never be oriented around welfare and equality. It’s not possible.
So far it is deemed that the difference between communism (or even socialism) and capitalism is that the autonomy and control of capital is with the governance and the state rather than the individual. This is in no way related to the creation of the better society and the governance, since the state is not a live object with functional autonomy. The state is controlled by individuals or the groups of individuals. Thus, despite changing the name, control and power stay concentrated around some individuals or groups.
Just like capitalism, the basis of communism is also financial, hence their basic natures are not different. The desire for financial prosperity is the prerequisite for financial equality of communism. Communism is based on reaction and this is why it got entangled in class conflict. It thus became a system to use humans. It establishes and nurtures the fanatic, rigid and self-deceiving ideas that hatred, violence, malice, and killing are essential and necessary. There is no fundamental difference of character between capitalism and communism.
Democracy requires the fundamental ideal to be strong. To name the mindset of ruling and governing, to refer to democracy in scriptures, documents, language, and arguments casually, actually belies democracy. The fundamental principle of the real democracy lies in providing ample opportunities for the human potential and the establishment of a rule-free society, while reducing state-governance by establishing policies based on public trust and participation.
Destruction can be stopped only by a democracy which will accept non-violence, social equality and welfare as its long-term policy and will frame its financial, bureaucratic and political structures accordingly. So far, the best method humanity has for governing is democracy. Merely to repeat older revolutions in an organised or a disorganised manner has no significance. The basic fundamental is in living authentically, understanding and accepting the most important creation, value and strength of human history – ‘non-violence’/AHIMSA, with insistence for truth. I consider Gandhi as great and visionary because he envisioned a humane democracy. His Ahimsa or non-violence was closer to truth and was self-disciplined.
I do not wish to discuss communism, Maoism, capitalism, and democracy in detail within this book because the objective of this book is about the constructive efforts for conflict resolution in Bastar. I do not wish for the book to deviate from this objective. I do hope however, that the brief discussion here on these subjects in this prologue will give you an insight into my understanding of communism, Maoism, revolution, system-change, capitalism, and non-violence. Also, I hope that the book does not seem to be merely singing accolades of constructive efforts. Rather, you should find the book useful in helping you understand the ground reality and constructive approach for conflict resolution, and also help you contemplate and rectify your understanding for better contribution for the conflict resolution.
She identifies herself as a young, energetic, thoughtful and sensitive human being before anything else. An author, a content strategist, a communications expert, a ghost writer, a blogger, a devil’s advocate and a woman are some other hats she wears. She writes books on controversial subjects, expresses her opinions and thoughts vocally and believes in empowerment and responsibility of expression. She can be reached on her LinkedIn/Facebook profile(s) at :
He is an Indian citizen & permanent resident of Australia and a scholar, an author, a social-policy critic, a frequent traveller, a social wayfarer, a social entrepreneur and a journalist.
He has been exploring, understanding and implementing the ideas of social-economy, participatory local governance, education, citizen-media, ground-journalism, rural-journalism, freedom of expression, bureaucratic accountability, indigenous community development, village development, reliefs & rehabilitation, village revival and other.
For Ground Report India editions, Vivek organised many national and state levels tours for exploring ground realities covering 5000 to 15000 kilometres in one or two months to establish Ground Report India, a constructive ground journalism platform with social accountability.
He has written a book “मानसिक, सामाजिक, आर्थिक स्वराज्य की ओर”on various social issues, development community practices, water, agriculture, his ground works & efforts and conditioning of thoughts & mind. Reviewers say it is a practical book which answers “What” “Why” “How” practically for the development and social solution in India.
Nowadays, He is writing a book on the theme of the Constructive Conflict Resolution in the Maoists affected region Bastar Chhattisgarh.
Attacking the Affordable Care Act; the “global gag rule” against abortion; the federal regulation and hiring freeze; canceling the TPP; restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline; limiting entry with the Mexican Wall; the 90-day travel ban on seven countries; more undocumented people prioritized for deportation; no federal funding for cities refusing to cooperate; communications blackout from federal agencies; Guantánamo torture continued–What does it add up to?
A very strong white state centered on a president with absolute power and control over life (birth) and death (care) of the citizens. Not regulating police racism. So far, no order on the military.
Fascism? Too early to say; but in that direction. It opens for questions about the inner workings of Donald J. Trump. Who is he?
A Johns Hopkins psychologist sees Trump suffering from “malignant narcissism“. A Norwegian historian, Öystein Morten, in a detailed analysis of Norwegian king crusader Sigurd Jorsalafare (1103-1130)–clearly crazy–has a Norwegian psychiatrist diagnose him as suffering from “bipolar depression”, manic-depressive. Is Trump only manic?
This column early on saw Trump as suffering from “autism”, living in his own bubble, speaking his babble with no sense of reciprocity, the reaction of the other side. The column stands by that.
However, this column drew a line between his words and deeds; denouncing his rhetoric as grossly insulting and prejudicial, but pinning some hope on his deeds. Wrong, and sorry about that. After one week, Trump clearly means every word he says, and enacts them from Day 1; even what he once retracted in a New York Times interview.
Combine the two points just made: autism and immediate enactment. He acts, and from his bubble does not sense how others will react, and increasingly proact. He assumes that others will accept his orders, obey, and that is it. It is not. His orders may even backfire.
As many point out, terrorism in the USA after 9/11 is almost nil. But his actions may change that. Some Mexicans may hit back, not only against the wall but the border itself, drawn by USA grabbing 53% of Mexican territory in 1846-48, then soaking Mexico in debt and violence importing drugs and exporting arms, even unaware of the harm they do.
Take the seven countries targeted by Trump for collective punishment: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen; the old seven with state central banks targeted by Bush, with Yemen substituted for Lebanon. All mainly Muslim. Imagine them reacting by cooperating, learning from China to raise the bottom up, starting building a West Asian community with links across the Red Sea, and “Saudi” Arabia soon joining?
If their governments do not do that, imagine the Islamic State doing exactly that? What a gift to the Islamic State/Caliphate!
As a minimum, the 7 might reciprocate and block US citizens’ entry for the same period. How would that affect US military operations? Would it force Trump to use force? In fact, are his demands on other countries so extreme, not only in words but in deeds, that there are no more words and deeds left short of force? Does his extremism limit his range of options, making war as probable as under Hillary Clinton?
And yet what he has done so far, firing and backfiring, is little relative to what other US presidents have done of harm.
Take FDR spending much of his presidencies on beating Japan, scheming to provoke Japan into war, defeat and permanent occupation to eliminate Japan as a threat to US economy and polity. That policy is still being enacted, now as “collective self-defense.”
Take JFK getting USA into the Vietnam War in 1961.
Take Eisenhower eliminating Lumumba, maybe Hammarskjöld.
They caused devastation of Japan, of Vietnam and set back Africa on its way to freedom, autonomy, independence. Trump is retracting, contracting, away from others, but not expanding into them. So far.
The reaction inside the USA has been from judges challenging the legality of the orders and launching court suits. The market has been ambiguous but generally down with heavy protests from Silicon Valley. Trump claims the orders are working. What else will happen?
It is difficult to imagine that there will not be a CIA response, being challenged and provoked by Trump, not only for accusing Russia of intervening to his advantage. There are probably at this moment countless meetings in Washington on how to get rid of Trump. Yet, he has command over not only his Executive, Congress and the Supreme Court, but also over the overwhelming number of states in the union.
US presidents have been assassinated before Trump when the forces against are sufficiently strong. Could somebody from the Travel ban 7 be hired to do the job, making it look as a foreign conspiracy?
Another and more hopeful scenario would be nonviolent resistance. Difficult for border officials. But inside the USA people to be deported may be hidden, protected by their own kind and by others–with care though, Trump also has some good points.
More constructive would be alternative foreign policies by cities, at present not by the federation, nor by most of the states. Reaching out to the seven and above all to Mexico for dialogue; searching for better relations than at present and under Trump. Preparing the ground for something new, under the Democratic Party or not. Not a third party, impossible in the USA it seems, but as general approach. The relation between New York and Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Tripoli, Khartoum, Mogadisciu and Sana’a as an example. Still some space!
There is no greatness in what Trump does, he makes USA smaller. Trying rebirth instead of rust, canceling stupid deals like TPP: OK. But retracting into a self-glorifying strong state is not greatness, it is isolation. Greatness is not in what you are but in how you relate. And Trump relates very badly.
‘Genesis of Right Wing Islamic Activism’ is a chapter in the book ,”God, Government and Globalization,” published in 2015.
Right Wing Islamic Activism, usually called ‘terrorism’ is the product of post colonial Imperialist policy focused on combating the Soviet block; the cadres of Osama ben Laden’s Al-Qaida were trained, armed and organised by the ‘West’, Taliban cadres were in addition funded by the US and Saudi Arabia. Prior to that the West conspired to overthrow Mossadeg in Iran, Soekarno in Indonesia and undermine Nasser of Egypt. Once the USSR had been driven out of Afghanistan, the West ditched Al-Qaida and Taliban. They hit back. ‘Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind’. The West goaded agent Saddam Hussein to fight with for eight years, gave a nod to attack Kuwait, and hit him when he tried to get out of the ‘US Dollar Zone’. The high point was, of course, 9/11 followed by innumerable ‘terror’ attacks all over the world.
The US believed that Muslims between Greece and China, The Arc of Islam would function as fire wall against the USSR, and might even incite the restive Muslims inside the USSR to open rebellion. 1.
The U.S. and other Western countries and Israel have in turn befriended, manipulated, double crossed and cynically used the Mujahedeen as cold war allies. After the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, they disdainfully ditched the fighters and must accept a major share of responsibility for the emergence of Islamist terrorism.
In the 1950s, the prime nationalist enemies were Nasser of Egypt and Mossadegh of Iran. The US and Britain used Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser, and funded Ayatollahs during the US sponsored coup in Iran in 1953. 2.
In Islam, religion and state are not separate. But the initial Islamic state followed an egalitarian policy. No holds barred Islamism, a more recent political creed, is in fact a perversion of the religious faith. The US supported, organized and funded it. It is variously represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, Ayatollahs, Saudi Wahhabis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihadis and Al-Qaida.
9/11 shook Washington to realize that if you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. The pace of Islamist regression since 9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq has accelerated; extremism, fundamentalism and fanaticism increased immeasurably in the Indian sub-continent and Muslim countries.
During the cold war, the USSR was only an emblem of the enemy of the capitalist society. Nationalism, humanism, secularism, and socialism were also enemies. Muslim fundamentalists collaborated with the West because they too were scared of liberal and secular ideas.
In spite of all the effort of the imperialists and their satraps, Arab socialism and left wing nationalism grew during the 1960s. The US forged an alliance with Saudi Arabia and with Wahhabis, and joined hands with the former in pursuit of an Islamic bloc. Saudis founded the Islamic Center of Geneva (1961), the Muslim World League (1962) and the Organization of the Islamic Conferences (1969).
After the death of Nasser whose image had been tarnished by the 1967 war with Israel, the US actively supported the ascension of Anwar Sadat to unchallenged authority in Egypt. The US funded religious opposition of Bhutto in Pakistan. General Zia of Pakistan could not have gotten away with killing Bhutto without US connivance. Hasan Turabi of Sudan could not have risen to power without the help of the US ally, the Islamic Brotherhood.
The 1979, Iran revolution should have taught the US and its allies that fighting against a nationalist tide was counter-productive. But they went on to spend billions on Afghan jihad. The US looked on as Jordan and Israel aided terrorists in Syria, and Israel helped found HAMAS.
To undermine Carters bid for reelection, the neo-cons even made a deal with Iran not to let the hostages go before the polls. They again made secret deals with Iran in 1980s. 3.
With the U.S.S.R out of the way, the US and its allies felt that they could sit on their laurels. Political Islam was not regarded as an existential threat. But to keep their hand in, instead of supporting democracy, they favored the army crackdown in Algeria. To keep the satrap Mubarak in line in Egypt, the US covertly supported the Islamists. In Afghanistan they watched unconcerned as the relatively liberal factions were wiped out by the Pakistan supported Taliban.
Post 9/11 Bush panicked. His handlers held his hand and told him that Al-Qaida, which the U.S had nurtured, could be taken care of easily. World public opinion was with the U.S.
The window of opportunity thus opened up had potential. But instead of using it to consolidate support for anti-terror campaign, they used it to invade Iraq. Iraq was sitting on vast oil reserves. Its Arab allies had gone back on their word to fund the aftermath of the disastrous war with Iran. The US had implicitly given Saddam the go ahead to capture Kuwait. 4. An excuse to invade the country had to be found. It had a secular government so an Al-Qaida link would not be credible. WMDs had to be invented and the support of the Islamic right and Iraqi Shias, who were supported by Iran, had to be garnered.
Post WW I, when the Ottoman Empire finally crumbled, the U.S.A had actually started casting covetous glances on the Mid-East.
In 1945, FDR went east in search of oil, and met with the king of Saudi Arabia, Ibne Saud on board his ship, which was denuded of all females for the encounter. That started a long lasting relationship.
The U.S academia started launching departments and centers for Middle Eastern studies (discussed in detail elsewhere in the narrative).
Americans believed that the religious fanaticism of Arabs would make them natural enemies of atheistic communism. Islam seemed a better bet than secularism. *But it never dawned on them that the Islamists were qualitatively different from the comprador clerical establishment.*
The advent of the cold war and Founding of the state of Israel empowered the Zionists in the U.S establishment and Middle East scholars found themselves in the backbenches. The U.S was deprived of the insight the scholars could offer.
In the late 1970s, Timothy LaHaye formed California Alliance of Churches, Jerry Falwell launched Moral Majority, and the two dominated the discourse in the Council on National Policy, the Christian Coalition. Pat Robertson’s broadcast empire and James Dobson’s Focus on Family
reinforced the emergence of the religious right as a potent force. Texas and Midwest oil barons lavished funds on the Christian Right.
Islam had been a dominant force for a thousand years. Though there were dissenting voices like Ibne Tammiyya, the religious establishment collaborated with the ruling class. Wahhab was a voice in wilderness, accepted only by a tribe on the fringe. Wahhabis joined hands with the British and French agents sent out to undermine the Ottoman Empire.
Looking for ways to revive the fortune of Islam, Jamal al-Afghani had created the Pan-Islamic movement in the late 1880s. Hassan al-Banna in 1928 and Maududi in 1940 respectively, founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamat e Islami in India.
The Nasserist wind of change was blowing hard across the whole Arab world. It was an existential threat to the Arab rulers. Oil satraps of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf opened their coffers to the Muslim Right. They were deemed natural partners by the Right Wing in the USA. The partnership matured in Reagan years.
Blinded to irrationality by their hate of secular nationalism, the fundamentalist Christian Right and fanatic Zionists happily threw their whole hearted support behind the fanatic Taliban in Afghanistan.
The biggest hazard is the regression of Muslims, especially the younger individuals, not only in all Muslim countries but also among the Muslim populations all over the world. They are highly vulnerable to the lure of the fantasy land of an after-life surrounded by blooming gardens, with springs of wine, masses of delectable food and seventy two nubile virgins. Women are not offered an equivalent deal.
But the scarcity of suicide bombers in the gender is not just due to their pleasure being restricted to husbands. They are treated as little more than serfs in the tribal-feudal mode prevalent in Muslim countries.
The reaction of the US to 9/11 in Afghanistan was fast, effective and widely applauded. But it morphed into an agenda of colonization of abstract space, encirclement of Iran, and control over the oil in the Mid-East and the former Asian Soviet Republics and keeping a close eye on China.
* Ideas can be combated only with ideas. The term war on terror is a misnomer. It is akin to the British conquering all of India because a few of its soldiers had been killed in an ambush. War in Iraq was akin to FDR attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.*
Terror is a product of conflict of ideology and a profound feeling of victimization.
Continued War (in the 12th year end of 2013) in Afghanistan did not destroy Al-Qaida or the Taliban. It only weakened the government, left the general populace at the mercy of marauders of all kinds. They have little choice but to support the resurgent Taliban.
The adventures have dealt a severe blow to the U.S. economy. The Afghan and Iraq wars were tailor made for the Bush policy of empire building and pre-emptive war, and allowed the administration to construct a huge political-military enterprise from East Africa to Pakistan.
The U.S must deal with grievances that push angry Muslims to such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S must join the U.N.O, E.U and Russia to help settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with a two state solution and by withdrawal of Israelis from illegally held lands to pre-1967 borders. That would pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Islamic right.
The U.S must abandon its imperial pretensions, withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantle its bases in mid-East and elsewhere (at the last count some 9,000), sharply cut training mission and visibility of its navy and arms sales.
The U.S must refrain from imposing its preferences on the region. Its call for democracy is taken as (and is) a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in the region. The countries have to find a political system they can live with. The US must stop propping up satraps in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The U.S must give up its tendency to make bellicose threats to nations such as Iran, Syria and Sudan. The true emancipation of the Mid-East will only come from secular and liberal forces, which will offer education, freedom of expression and religion and modernization. Fundamentalism of whatever variety-Islamic, Christian or Jewish, is always a reactionary force.
The book “God, Government and Globalization”, defines the germination and evolution of the concept of faith, the evolution of government through multiple stages of human civilization and emergence of capitalist corporation domination. The central theme of this book is that religion, except in its pristine stage, has always supported establishment and the ruling elite, whether it be a monarchy, aristocracy or corporations. All religions have advocated aggression against the other, ostensibly in the name of faith, but actually to acquire land and assets. Islam’s early colonization and the crusades are just two examples from history. Capital has changed its essential character from being national to multi-national and with the advancement in technology, has ceased to pay even lip service to the working class.
Syed Akhtar Ehtisham,
He was born in India in 1939, at the university was exposed to radical left influences and participated in anti government demonstrations. He went to the UK in 1965 for postgraduate studies, drifted to Nova Scotia, Canada and finally arrived in Brooklyn NY in 1974, stayed in Brooklyn till 1980 then moved to Bath NY, a town in upstate NY, retired in 2002, and have since devoted his entire time in reading and writing.
He took part in medical politics, co-founded a chapter of IPPNW (Boston MA based International Physicians For Prevention Nuclear War), and visited Delhi and Stockholm for anti-nuclear war conferences.
Reading has been a life long passion. He had written articles on political/economic and social issues when time permitted. His first writing venture, “A Medical Doctor Examines Life on Three Continents,” by Algora Publishing in New York in October 2008.
Studied in Oxford University, columnist with The Guardian newspaper, also the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed, No Man’s Land, How Did We Get into This Mess? Politics, Equality, Nature and other.
[themify_hr color=”red” border_width=”5px”]
Debased and de-based: that’s the condition of our political systems. Corrupted, they no longer fulfil their democratic potential. They have also lost their base: the politically engaged population from which democracy is supposed to grow. The sense of ownership has been eroded to such an extent that, for millions of Americans, Donald Trump appeared to be the best the system had to offer.
I don’t blame people for voting for him, or for Brexit: these are responses to a twisted, distrusted system. Elections captured by money, lobbyists and the media; policy convergence among the major parties, crushing real choice; the hollowing out of parliaments and other political institutions and the transfer of their powers to unaccountable bodies: these are a perfect formula for disenfranchisement and disillusion. The global rise of demagogues and outright liars suggests that a system nominally built on consent and participation is imploding.
So could we do better? Could a straighter system be fashioned from the crooked timber of humanity? This is the second of my occasional series on possible solutions to the multiple crises we confront. It explores some of means by which democracy might be improved.
Over the past few months, I’ve read dozens of proposals, some transparently awful, others pretty good. The overall result so far is this: there is no magic formula, no single plan that could solve our democratic problems without creating worse ones. But there are plenty of ideas, of which I will mention just a few, that could enhance our politics.
The first necessary shift is a radical reform of campaign finance (political funding). The power of money in politics poisons everything – literally in some cases. In my column last week, I mentioned the Pollution Paradox: the dirtiest companies must spend the most on politics if they are not to be regulated out of existence, so politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest companies.
It applies across the board. Banks designing dodgy financial instruments; pharmaceutical companies selling outdated drugs; gambling companies seeking to stifle controls; food companies selling obesogenic junk: all have an enhanced incentive to buy political space, as all, in a fair system, would find themselves under pressure. The system buckles to accommodate their demands.
My proposal for reforming campaign finance is brutally simple. Every party would be entitled to charge the same small fee for membership (perhaps £50 or $50), which would then be matched by the state, with a fixed multiple. Any other political funding, direct or indirect, would be illegal. This would also force parties to re-engage with voters. Too expensive? Not in the least. The corruption of our politics by private money – financial crises caused by politicians’ failure to regulate the banks; environmental crises caused by the political power of the dirtiest companies; lucrative contracts for political funders; overcharging by well-connected drugs companies – costs us hundreds of times more than a funding system for which we would pay directly.
The next crucial reform is to help voters make informed choices. Germany provides a brilliant example of how this could be done: its Federal Agency for Civic Education* publishes authoritative but accessible guides to the key political issues, organises film and theatre festivals, study tours and competitions, and tries to engage with groups that turn their backs on democratic politics. It is trusted and consulted by millions.
Switzerland offers the best example of the next step: its Smartvote system presents a list of policy choices with which you can agree or disagree, then compares your answers to the policies of the parties and candidates contesting the election. It produces a graphic showing whose position most closely matches your interests.
There is some excellent civic technology produced by voluntary groups elsewhere (such as Democracy Club, Crowdpac and mySociety in the UK). But without the funding and capacity of the state, it struggles to reach people who are not already well-informed.
Once these reforms are in place, the next step is to change the architecture. As both US presidential elections (distorted by the electoral college system) and UK general elections (allowing a minority of the electorate to dictate to the majority) suggest, this should start, for those who don’t use it already, with a switch to proportional representation. Ideally, in parliamentary elections, this would mix the national with the local by retaining constituency links, such as the single transferable vote or the additional member system.
There are plenty of proposals to replace representative democracy with either sortition (randomly selecting delegates) or direct democracy (referendums and citizens’ initiatives). Such systems might have worked well in small city states with a limited franchise (sortition was used in ancient Athens and mediaeval Venice and Florence). But in populations as large and complex as ours these proposals are a formula for disaster. It’s hard to see how we can escape the need for professional, full-time politicians. (Perhaps, in a fair and accountable system, we could learn to love them).
But I believe that both approaches could be used to temper representative democracy. Sortition can be seen as political jury service, in which citizens chosen by lot are presented with expert testimony then asked to make a decision. As an advisory tool, it could keep representative politics grounded in the real world. It could be used to create constitutional conventions, at which proposals for better political systems are thrashed out. There might even be some virtue in the idea of a second parliamentary chamber (such as the House of Lords or the US Senate) being chosen by lot.
But we should be aware of the dangers. The Westminster government’s first experiment with citizens’ juries (Gordon Brown’s attempt to determine whether doctors’ surgeries should be replaced with giant clinics) was corrupted from birth. Jurors were hand-picked and presented with one-sided evidence, then the results were buried when they came out “wrong”. No system is immune to fraud.
Once political funding has been reformed, ballot initiatives of the kind widely used in American states – if you gather enough signatures you can demand a vote – become a powerful political tool, enabling people to propose legislation without waiting for their representatives. (Without reform they are another means by which billionaires rig the system). Referendums on huge questions, such as our membership of the European Union, suffer from an imbalance between the complexity of the issue and the simplicity of the tool: they demand impossible levels of political knowledge. But, for certain simple, especially local issues – should a new road be built?, should a tower block be demolished? – they can, if carefully designed, enhance political transparency.
Also at the local level, a method called sociocracy could enhance democracy. This is a system designed to produce inclusive but unanimous decisions, by encouraging members of a group to keep objecting to a proposal until, between them, they produce an answer all of them can live with. A version designed by the Endenburg Electronics firm in the Netherlands is widely used in companies and cooperatives. It’s not hard to see it producing better decisions than the average local authority meeting. But it is difficult to imagine how it could be scaled up without losing intelligibility.
Making any of this happen – well, there’s the challenge. I’ll pick it up in future columns. But change happens when we decide what we want, rather than what we think we might get. Is a functioning democracy an outrageous demand?
The domination of communal consciousness in social space is very frightening. The prevalent ‘social common sense’ looks at history through the prism of Kings’ religion and that too in a very selective way. This version picks and chooses from events to ‘construct a past’ suitable to its ideology, the communal one. This ideology has been at the roots of the hatred which has been built up among communities, hate for Hindus propagated by Muslim communalism and vice versa, hate for Muslims by Hindu communalism. This hatred has formed the foundation on which communal violence was and is being orchestrated. This violence kills the innocents on one side and polarizes the communities for electoral benefits on the on the other. The same ideology looks down upon inter-religious marriages and cultural expressions which unite the people, cutting across boundaries. Currently the marriages between Muslim boy and a Hindu girl are denigrated as ‘Love jihad’. To cap it all now the baby born from such a marriage, is being hurled abuses at, instead of the usual welcome which a new born deserves in our society.
Kareena Saif Taimur
On 20th September (2016) Kareena Kapoor and Saif Ali Khan were delighted as their bundle of joy, baby boy, arrived. They named him Taimur (also pronounced as Timur). With this; the whole hell was let loose on the social media. Many tweeters wished ill for the baby. These communalists seem to be pained by the name Taimur as he had invaded Delhi in 1398, looted plundered and killed the people in Delhi. Interestingly Delhi that time was being ruled by a King, who was a Muslim with Turkish lineage Mohammad Tughlaq. Taimur, Ghenghis Khan and Aurangzeb in particular are presented as the major villains of Indian medieval history and also are identified with Muslims of India today. Ghengis Khan was builder of Mongol Empire who was a Shamanist (not Muslim) who had also killed and plundered north India. Aurangzeb is regarded as a tyrant who imposed Jizia, forcibly converted people to Islam and destroyed Hindu temples. All the demonization of these kings is reflected upon Muslims of India today. These kings belong to various religions and did not undertake these acts for their religion in any way. Again this is just one small side of the story.
The plunder of wealth and associated killings are part of the invasions of Kings, unrelated to religion. Surely sometimes cover of religion is put up by the courtiers for the actions of kings. Plunder and killing was not a monopoly of any particular king from one religion or one region. Kings were plundering in the neighboring areas and extracting tribute in their own territory. It was not a period of ‘laws’ or ‘nationalism’ as understood today. Kings were sovereigns, above being questioned. Incidentally the clergy, cutting across religions, provided the ideological cover, cover of religion and sanction of God for the acts of these Kings. The concept of India or Bharat does not apply to this period and it was in a way ‘free for all’, depending on the strategy of the kings and his alliances as for as the outcome of battles was concerned. One knows that it was Babar who was invited by Rana Sanaga to ally with him to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. The Muslims kings had many courtiers who were Hindus in top rungs of power and vice versa in the subcontinent.
In India today Muslim Kings or Kings with Muslim sounding names are presented as villains. At the same time Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Govind Singh are projected as the Heroes for Hindus. Godse, the killer of father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, says that as a nationalist, Gandhi was a pigmy as compared to the nationalists like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Govind Singh. While today Shivaji is being eulogized as a great national hero, it’s interesting to note that initially there was a great resistance to accepting Shivaji as a National hero in Gujarat and Bengal in particular. These are two areas where Shivjaji’s armies plundered and killed the local people. Today, to say that Shivaji was also looting and plundering is tantamount to insulting ‘national icon’. One Bal Samant, who was close to Bal Thackeray, very much accepted by Hindu nationalists, devotes nearly 21 pages in his book ‘Shivkalyan Raja’ to the chapter on the looting by Shivaji. He quotes from Dutch and British sources to give the account of massive plunder and looting by Shivaji’s army. The massive carnage by Ashoka in Kalinga is well known. Most kings have undertaken the killings to expand their empires to take revenge against the enemy Kingdom.
With the communal ideologies holding the sway; the interpretations have also changed. The looting by Shivaji’s army has been described by Narendra Modi as looting of Aurangzeb’s treasury! The account of Maratha armies destroying Shrirangpatanam Hindu temple are being hidden in the margins of consciousness. Similarly the account of 1857, First war of Independence has suffered the fate of distortion. While Savarkar the Hindutva ideologue describes it as the First war of Independence, Golwalkar another major ideologue of Hindutva says that the rebellion failed as it was being led by a Muslim, Bahadur Shah Jafar as he could not inspire Hindu soldiers. While one knows that the failure of revolt was due to the reason that Punjabis and Gorkhas came to the rescue of the British.
Communal ideology sits on the distorted and selective version of history and religion is presented as the primary motive in this narrative. Taking it to murkier depths some commentators have gone to the abysmal low by abusing this child as a terrorist and a jihadi. All newborns deserve welcome into this universe. Saif Ali Khan in his article in Indian Express tells us as to how their marriage was opposed as ‘love Jihad’. One tweet warns the Hindu girls that they should not marry Muslim boys as they may give birth to a Ghengis Khan or a Taimur or a Aurangzeb. The divisive mindset is pushing the culture to low ebbs in society!
The Haryana government organized Gita Festival in Kurkshetra with a budget of Rs 100 Crores. This was to celebrate the teachings of Bhagavad Gita. This is the place where Lord Krishna is believed to have delivered the sermons that form the core of a version of Hinduism. The celebration of the Gita Festival has been very meticulous to involve most of the districts of Haryana and is replete with seminars and cultural programs around the teachings of this holy book. As such it is a Holy Scripture, which has been most in news from last quite some time. Those taking part in the festival include the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), yoga guru Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yog Peeth, Ram Krishna Mission, and ISKCON.
This state funded festival comes in the backdrop of the Modi Sarkar coming to power at the centre. Modi, in his innumerable trips abroad has been gifting Gita to the dignitaries overseas. Also his foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had once proclaimed that Gita should be declared as the national book. One recalls that many BJP ruled state Governments like MP have started teaching Gita Saar (Essence of Gita) in their schools. When BJP was in power in Karnataka, the State government had planned to introduce the teaching of Gita in its schools. There is also an attempt to present this holy tome not as a religious book but a book of Indian Philosophy, cutting across different religions. For example Madhya Pradesh High court has ruled (Jan 2012) that “Gita is essentially a book on Indian philosophy, not a book on Indian religion”. This judgment seems to be influenced more by the dominant political ideology than the theological understanding of Hinduism or the principles of Indian Constitution or even by the practices of the Courts themselves. One knows that Gita is used in the courts for administering oath to Hindus before they depose.
The Bhagwat Gita or Gita (Song of God) is a 700 verse scripture that is part of the epic Mahabharata. As it is drawn from Mahabharata it can be labeled as Smriti text (from memory). Some sects of Hinduism give it the status of Upanishad, thereby making it sruti (revealed) book. It is also regarded to represent the summary of Upanishadic teachings and so it is also called as ‘Upanishad of Upanishads’. In this Holy Scripture Lord Krishna teaches Arjun about his duties as a Prince belonging to Kshtriya Varna. Arjun was faced with the dilemma of the war, the possibility of killing his own kin. Lord tells Arjun that it is his holy duty to undertake the war. As most holy scriptures are the revelations from the supreme God, in Gita also Krishna reveals his identity as Supreme Being himself (Svayam Bhagvan) and this book is also regarded as the core of Hindu philosophy.
The Gita elaborates on the central part of Hindu theology, the origin of Varnas. In Purush Sukta of Vedas tell us as to how Lord Brahma created four Varnas from the body of Virat Purush (Primeval man). In Gita on similar lines Lord Krishna also tells about the divine origin of Varna’s. Lord says that the fourfold order was created by him according to the divisions of quality (Guna) and work (karma).
One knows that origin of Hinduism is different from the Prophet based religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity and Islam. Here there has been an evolution of the Hinduism over a period of time and today while Hinduism is a religion, Gita is its Holy Scripture. To take the stand that it is Indian philosophy and not religious one is far from truth. There is philosophy also in many a Holy Scriptures. Notwithstanding that, they are primarily religious scriptures. From the religion of Pastoral Aryans to the practices of Hindus today, there is a long journey. The communal forces want to introduce this text in schools as not only they want to impose Hindu nation in this country but also through this book, they aim to reinforce the concept of Varna, which is one of the core doctrine of Brahmanical version of Hinduism, and Gita tells this by attributing Varna to the divine creation by Lord Himself. While there are many a philosophical formulations in this divine book there is also the subtle defense of what the Hindutva politics wants to bring in today, Varan- Jati in a repackaged form.
Dharma spoken of in Gita is essentially is Varnashram Dharma, which is a graded hierarchy, which is against the spirit of Indian Constitution, the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Gita’s Varnashram Dharma violates the principles of equality. So here you are showing that violation of norms of equality. Surely, Gita is a Holy Hindu scripture. We are a secular country, where citizenship is equal for people of all religions. So here you violate the secular ethos of our country by state sponsoring a festival in its name. Ambedkar, the Chairman of drafting committee of Indian Constitution, had an interesting take on Gita. In his work ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ (Critical Quest 2010) where he points out that ‘Bhagwat Gita is a Manusmriti in Nutshell’. His supporting the burning of Manusmriti was symbolic of opposing the hierarchy inherent in the Brahmanical Hinduism. It is also true that what has been asserted as Hinduism from last two centuries is Brahmanical Hinduism. Gita does represent the Brahmanical Hinduism, in contrast to other Hindu traditions like Nath, Tantra, Siddha, Shaiva and Bhakti. These traditions are away from Brahmanical hierarchical values. RSS-Hindutva has made Brahmanical values as the base of their politics.
So while there is a lot of confusion among many who eulogize Gita, the practitioners of Hindutva politics RSS-BJP are very consciously promoting Gita, as the restoration of caste and gender hierarchy is the core agenda of their politics. Gita is not a national book; it is a Holy Hindu Scripture for sure. Indian Constitution is our National book. The verdict of the court needs re-examination as it is not conforming to the belief of millions of Hindus who have been away from Brahmanical notions.
The Haryana government organized Gita Festival in Kurkshetra with a budget of Rs 100 Crores. This was to celebrate the teachings of Bhagavad Gita. This is the place where Lord Krishna is believed to have delivered the sermons that form the core of a version of Hinduism. The celebration of the Gita Festival has been very meticulous to involve most of the districts of Haryana and is replete with seminars and cultural programs around the teachings of this holy book. As such it is a Holy Scripture, which has been most in news from last quite some time. Those taking part in the festival include the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), yoga guru Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yog Peeth, Ram Krishna Mission, and ISKCON.
This state funded festival comes in the backdrop of the Modi Sarkar coming to power at the centre. Modi, in his innumerable trips abroad has been gifting Gita to the dignitaries overseas. Also his foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had once proclaimed that Gita should be declared as the national book. One recalls that many BJP ruled state Governments like MP have started teaching Gita Saar (Essence of Gita) in their schools. When BJP was in power in Karnataka, the State government had planned to introduce the teaching of Gita in its schools. There is also an attempt to present this holy tome not as a religious book but a book of Indian Philosophy, cutting across different religions. For example Madhya Pradesh High court has ruled (Jan 2012) that “Gita is essentially a book on Indian philosophy, not a book on Indian religion”. This judgment seems to be influenced more by the dominant political ideology than the theological understanding of Hinduism or the principles of Indian Constitution or even by the practices of the Courts themselves. One knows that Gita is used in the courts for administering oath to Hindus before they depose.
The Bhagwat Gita or Gita (Song of God) is a 700 verse scripture that is part of the epic Mahabharata. As it is drawn from Mahabharata it can be labeled as Smriti text (from memory). Some sects of Hinduism give it the status of Upanishad, thereby making it sruti (revealed) book. It is also regarded to represent the summary of Upanishadic teachings and so it is also called as ‘Upanishad of Upanishads’. In this Holy Scripture Lord Krishna teaches Arjun about his duties as a Prince belonging to Kshtriya Varna. Arjun was faced with the dilemma of the war, the possibility of killing his own kin. Lord tells Arjun that it is his holy duty to undertake the war. As most holy scriptures are the revelations from the supreme God, in Gita also Krishna reveals his identity as Supreme Being himself (Svayam Bhagvan) and this book is also regarded as the core of Hindu philosophy.
The Gita elaborates on the central part of Hindu theology, the origin of Varnas. In Purush Sukta of Vedas tell us as to how Lord Brahma created four Varnas from the body of Virat Purush (Primeval man). In Gita on similar lines Lord Krishna also tells about the divine origin of Varna’s. Lord says that the fourfold order was created by him according to the divisions of quality (Guna) and work (karma).
One knows that origin of Hinduism is different from the Prophet based religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity and Islam. Here there has been an evolution of the Hinduism over a period of time and today while Hinduism is a religion, Gita is its Holy Scripture. To take the stand that it is Indian philosophy and not religious one is far from truth. There is philosophy also in many a Holy Scriptures. Notwithstanding that, they are primarily religious scriptures. From the religion of Pastoral Aryans to the practices of Hindus today, there is a long journey. The communal forces want to introduce this text in schools as not only they want to impose Hindu nation in this country but also through this book, they aim to reinforce the concept of Varna, which is one of the core doctrine of Brahmanical version of Hinduism, and Gita tells this by attributing Varna to the divine creation by Lord Himself. While there are many a philosophical formulations in this divine book there is also the subtle defense of what the Hindutva politics wants to bring in today, Varan- Jati in a repackaged form.
Dharma spoken of in Gita is essentially is Varnashram Dharma, which is a graded hierarchy, which is against the spirit of Indian Constitution, the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Gita’s Varnashram Dharma violates the principles of equality. So here you are showing that violation of norms of equality. Surely, Gita is a Holy Hindu scripture. We are a secular country, where citizenship is equal for people of all religions. So here you violate the secular ethos of our country by state sponsoring a festival in its name. Ambedkar, the Chairman of drafting committee of Indian Constitution, had an interesting take on Gita. In his work ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ (Critical Quest 2010) where he points out that ‘Bhagwat Gita is a Manusmriti in Nutshell’. His supporting the burning of Manusmriti was symbolic of opposing the hierarchy inherent in the Brahmanical Hinduism. It is also true that what has been asserted as Hinduism from last two centuries is Brahmanical Hinduism. Gita does represent the Brahmanical Hinduism, in contrast to other Hindu traditions like Nath, Tantra, Siddha, Shaiva and Bhakti. These traditions are away from Brahmanical hierarchical values. RSS-Hindutva has made Brahmanical values as the base of their politics.
So while there is a lot of confusion among many who eulogize Gita, the practitioners of Hindutva politics RSS-BJP are very consciously promoting Gita, as the restoration of caste and gender hierarchy is the core agenda of their politics. Gita is not a national book; it is a Holy Hindu Scripture for sure. Indian Constitution is our National book. The verdict of the court needs re-examination as it is not conforming to the belief of millions of Hindus who have been away from Brahmanical notions.
India continued to be confronted with the menace of communal violence in the year 2016. The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) monitors communal violence tracking 5 newspapers in two languages – English and Urdu. Some newspaper reports were then cross checked with web portal TwoCircles.net. The newspapers monitored were Mumbai editions of The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, Inquilab and Sahafat.
Violence is a broad term which encompasses in its ambit communal attitudes or symbolic violence, structural violence and physical attacks resulting in injuries, deaths or loss of property. However, the present report is limited to physical violence wherein communal hatred motivates attacks on members of a community only on the basis of their religious identity. The report excludes primarily ethnic violence with communal overtones as, for instance, in Manipur. This report does not include inter-sect or inter denominational violence, for instance within the Muslim community in Kalyan between Barelvis and Salafis on 28th December.
Every year CSSS reports communal violence on basis of data and figures released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However neither the NCRB nor the Ministry of Home Affairs has released data on communal violence for the year 2016. There is usually a huge gap between the communal violence reported by the media and the data of communal violence gathered by the NCRB and MHA. For instance, in the year 2015, according to the Home Ministry data, there were 751 incidents of communal violence in which 97 people died and 2264 were injured. Whereas the 5 newspapers mentioned above, reported only 47 incidents in the same year in which 15 lives were lost and 272 suffered injuries.
The MHA data for the year 2016 is available only till the month of May. According to MHA data, upto May 2016 there were 278 incidents of communal violence in which 38 lives were lost and 903 were injured. The state wise break of the MHA data on communal violence in the year 2016 till May is as under:
States
Incidents
Killed
Injured
Assam
1
0
2
Bihar
23
0
85
Chhattisgarh
1
0
3
Delhi
4
0
16
Gujarat
16
3
38
Himachal Pradesh
1
0
0
J & K
4
0
4
Jharkhand
12
5
76
Karnataka
40
4
116
Kerala
3
0
3
Madhya Pradesh
35
2
110
Maharashtra
40
4
127
Manipur
4
3
58
Odisha
2
0
26
Rajasthan
16
1
20
Tamil Nadu
3
0
3
Telangana
3
1
6
Uttrakhand
2
0
7
Uttar Pradesh
61
13
185
West Bengal
7
2
18
Total
278
38
903
Source: Statement referred to in reply to part (a to c) of Lok Sabha starred question N0. 35 for 19.07.2016. Showing number of communal incidents, persons killed/injured therein in 2016 (upto May)
For the sake of analysis in this study we refer only to the aforesaid newspapers and we compare it with newspaper reports of communal violence in 2015.
According to the data from the aforesaid newspapers, in the year 2016, there were 62 incidents of communal violence as compared to 47 incidents in 2015. In 2016, 8 deaths were reported in the newspapers against 15 deaths reported in the same newspapers in 2015. 435 injuries were reported in 2015 whereas the number of injuries reported in 2016 is 676. 323 arrests were reported in 2015 in comparison to 823 arrests reported in 2016.
Comparison between number of Communal Violence Incidents, Deaths, Injuries and Persons Arrested in 2015 and 2016
Communal violence 2016: Salient trends
Highest incidents of communal violence in 2016 were reported from the poll bound state of Uttar Pradesh (18 out of 62 incidents), followed by Bihar (10), Maharashtra (8), Jharkhand (6) and Madhya Pradesh (5). These five states made up for nearly 76% of total incidents of violence reported in 2016.
State wise break up of number of communal incidents:
Prominent scholars including Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer and Ashutosh Varshney described communal violence primarily as an urban phenomenon. We observe communal violence increasingly spreading to rural areas as well. The data in 2016 shows that out of 62 incidents of communal violence, 18 incidents took place in rural areas.
In 2016, Punjab witnessed communal violence for the first time after the Khalistan related extremism was neutralized. This time it was conflict between a section of Muslim and Hindu communities. The local Sikhs were in support of the Muslims. West Bengal is witnessing steady rise in communal violence after near riot free regime during the Left Front rule (24, 16 and 27 in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively according to Home Ministry data for those years).
Regime wise analysis of the data shows that almost 40.3% of incidents of communal violence were reported from states ruled by BJP which made up for 50% of the states where communal violence took place. 4.8% incidents of communal violence were reported from Karnataka ruled by Congress. Congress rules 8% of the states where communal violence was reported. Lastly, 54.8% incidents were reported from states ruled by parties other than Congress and BJP and they ruled in 42% of states where incidents of communal violence were reported.
Regime wise comparison of number of incidents of communal violence
The major triggers of communal violence in 2016 have been festivals like Muharram and Durga Puja. The second major trigger of violence was social media. While posts in social media were used as triggers in 7 cases of incidents of communal violence, it was used as a platform and tool of mobilization in other incidents too like Peda in Bijnor, UP.
The response of the police during communal violence has been wanting. The police took preventive action only in 3 out of 62 incidents reported. The police failed to respond effectively in BJP as well as non BJP/Congress ruled states.
Growing incidents of communal violence is increasingly normalizing violence in the society. Citizens are becoming indifferent to communal violence. In such a scenario and taking into consideration the above trends, it can be gauged and predicted that communal violence as a phenomenon in the society will continue and there is no end to it in immediate future or short term.
Communal violence Analysis:
As mentioned earlier, the states that have reported the highest incidents of communal violence are UP, Bihar, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh. Together they account for 47 out of 62 incidents of communal violence, constituting 75.81% of total incidents of communal violence.
Uttar Pradesh is slated for Assembly elections in 2017. It has been generally observed by many social scientists that impending elections and political mobilization strategies tend to be along caste and communal fault lines contributing to communal polarization and communal violence.
Bihar has witnessed increasing incidents of communal violence after coalition of JD(U) and BJP split in 2013. Maharashtra which falls in the West zone has been always prone to communal riots.
Communal violence in 2016 claimed 8 lives. 7 out of the 8 deceased were Muslims and the community of the remaining one deceased was not specified.
Zone wise analysis:
Zone wise analysis shows that the North zone of the country has reported highest incidents of violence – 42 incidents were reported in the North zone. West zone reported 12 incidents, while South and East zone each reported 4 incidents. North zone includes Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Punjab and Rajasthan. The West zone consists of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The South zone comprises of states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka while the East zone comprises of the states of West Bengal and Chhattisgarh. The North and West zone which is generally referred to as the cow belt for higher reverence of cows has traditionally been the hot site of communal violence.
Zone wise breakup of incidents of communal violence:
Triggers of communal violence:
A number of communal incidents took place because of the clash of Muharram and Durga Puja being on the same day. Stone pelting and tensions were experienced during the processions. Festivals and desecration of places of worship and sacred symbols were exploited to trigger communal violence. In Deoband, UP, locals found vandalised idols in a temple on 27th July. Suspect belonging to the Muslim community was caught and beaten up by locals before he was handed over to the police. Officers claimed Sadik appeared to be mentally-challenged. Though the gates of a religious structure of his community was found damaged late at night, police acted proactively and repaired the gates in the night itself and the situation was under control. In Shahabad, Karnataka, a youth called Shiva posted an inflammatory post on facebook against the Muslim community and was arrested for the same. Next day a Dussehra cut out was found desecrated. Rama Sene and VHP tried to exploit this incident to fan communal violence. The Muslims were being blamed for desecration and hurting the sentiments of the Hindus. This misinformation was spread to apparently secure the release of Shiva. Later it was found that some Hindu youth had desecrated the Dussehra cut off. The police arrested 5 Hindus and one Muslim in this case and prevented riots on a large scale.
Festival processions and Social Media were used as trigger events of communal violence. Social media posts triggered off 7 incidents of communal violence. Derogatory posts about Prophet Mohammad or Hindu Gods/Goddesses or other community were circulated on social media like facebook and whatsapp which triggered off violence. In one such instance in Sagar situated in Madhya Pradesh, a nephew of an RSS member was found guilty of posting objectionable post. One Muslim youth lost his life and 3 were injured in the violence that ensued in Ilambazar in West Bengal. 21 incidents took place during festivals of Durga puja, Muharrum, Ganpati procession, Hanuman jayanti and Eid-e- Miladun. Festival related incidents were reported highest in UP (8) followed by Bihar (4), Jharkhand (3), Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka reporting two each.
Losses and Damages suffered in communal violence:
Muslims suffered more in terms of deaths, injury and damage of property. They also suffered more in terms of coercive force used by the state as a riot control measure, post riot arrests, and launching of prosecutions. Out of 62 incidents, in 12 incidents religion wise disaggregated data of arrests was available. In these 12 incidents, 178 arrested were Muslims and 75 were Hindus.
In the case of injuries, religion wise disaggregated data was available in 5 incidents. In these five incidents, 46 injured were Muslims and 11 were Hindus. In terms of deaths, religion wise disaggregated data was available in 4 incidents. 7 deaths were those of Muslims. In the case of damage to properties, disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents for vehicles, 6 belonged to Muslims and none to Hindus. In the cases of houses attacked, disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents – 1 house belonged to Hindu and 67 belonged to Muslims. Disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents for shops attacked – 3 houses belonged to Hindus and 56 belonged to Muslims. These figures strike one as odd since the arrests indicate that the Muslims are perpetrators in the communal violence. But if this was the case, then the victims ought to have been the Hindus which should have reflected in the figures related to the number of deaths, injuries, houses/ shops/ vehicles attacked. But the figures tell a different story where major loss has been borne by the Muslims. Communal violence is a double whammy for the Muslim community as targets of violence as well as the consequent police actions. That is why there is no effective deterrence against communal violence.
Regime wise comparison of arrests, injuries and deaths of Hindus and Muslims
Regime wise comparison of property – Vehicles, Houses and Shops attacked of Hindus and Muslims
Regime wise analysis:
6 out of 12 states where communal violence was reported are under BJP rule, one under Congress and 5 under other parties.
40.3% of incidents of communal violence were reported from states ruled by BJP comprising of 26% of the total population. 4.8% incidents of communal violence were reported in states ruled by Congress which constitute for 3% of the total population. 54.8% incidents were reported from states ruled by parties other than Congress and BJP comprising of 72% of the population.
Regime wise comparison of percentage of incidents and percentage of population of states:
No. of states ruled by BJP, Congress and Others where incidents of communal violence took place
It has been observed from the data and number of incidents reported that in BJP ruled states, there is low intensity communal violence. There are no deaths but higher number of injuries (446) in 25 incidents. The number of deaths is low so as to not attract undue media attention or criticism from international organizations but communal violence is allowed to brew sub radar. This sub radar communal violence is used to impress upon the Muslims that they are second class citizens. The higher number of incidents is also because that the perpetrators didn’t anticipate punitive action against them.
The Congress government in Karnataka was successful in preventing a riot in Shahabad where one Muslim and five Hindus were arrested (referred to above). In 2015, the media reported three incidents of communal violence in Karnataka and in 2016 also this number has remained the same suggesting no increase in the number of communal incidents.
The role of non BJP and non Congress governments has been distressing. The Samajwadi Party government in UP has failed to check communal violence though electoral calculations should require it to prevent communal violence. Communal violence benefits BJP as seen in 2014 general elections post Muzzafarnagar riots. However the role of the Hindu nationalist actors can’t be ruled out given the hate speeches. The Samajwadi party led government in spite of booking persons allegedly involved in communal violence under the National Security Act and giving compensation to survivors of communal violence has by and large failed to prevent or contain communal violence. It was able to avert one incident of communal violence in Shahjahanpur due to active intervention of the police.
The Mamta Banerjee led government in West Bengal has also failed to arrest communal violence which has undermined the secular Bengali identity and helped emergence of a stronger Hindu identity amongst the Hindus in West Bengal. The failure to check communal violence can be attributed to either the lack of intention to prevent or contain communal violence or the ability to prevent/ contain it. However the BJP stands to benefit from the communal violence in West Bengal due to the polarization it achieved. Bihar government prevented one riot in Bettiah.
How were riots dealt with?
Ruling regimes are able to exert tight control on the state police as they determine postings/ transfers and promotions of the police personnel. There is little incentive to the police to act independently and uphold law and order even when it goes against the political interests of the ruling party. The police action (or inaction) during riots is largely determined either by their own biases and prejudicial attitudes or due to political pressure exerted. It is important to examine the role of police at three different stages of communal violence – prevention, control during riots and post riot actions. We here examine the role of police at all three stages in BJP, Congress and non-BJP/non-Congress ruled states.
The police were able to prevent only 3 incidents of communal violence and all three states were ruled by non-BJP governed states (Bihar, Karnataka and UP).
At the stage of riot control, the action of police has been inadequate in all states except Karnataka. The observation is based on comparison of religion wise arrests and victim community. In BJP ruled states, religion wise disaggregated data is available in 5 incidents. Out of 189 people arrested in the BJP ruled stated for which religion wise disaggregated data is available, 18 arrested were Hindus and 171 arrested were Muslims even though the victims were by and large Muslims (see the graphs). In case of states ruled by the non BJP and non Congress governments, religion wise disaggregated data is available in 6 incidents. There were 52 arrests of Hindus (51 from UP alone) and 6 arrests of Muslims. The victim community in these riots was Muslim.
70 police personnel were also injured during the riots – 12 each in Umerkhed and Nandurbar. In all, 27 police personnel were injured in Maharashtra. 14 police personnel were injured in Khodadadpur (UP). BJP ruled Maharashtra thus reports highest number of injuries of the police.
Maharashtra police has also arrested the highest number of Muslims – 156 (Badlapur 21, Umerkhed 63 and Malkapur 72) out of 179 Muslims arrested in all the communal riots. In Umerkhed for which religion wise disaggregated data is available, 25 Muslims were injured whereas no Hindus were killed or injured whereas 4 houses were attacked whose community is not specified.
Comparison between no. of arrested from Hindu and Muslim community from the three areas of Malkapur, Nandurbar and Umarkhed.
Comparison between no. of arrested and injured from Hindu and Muslim community in Umarkhed
In Peda in Bijnore, the police though didn’t respond in a timely manner which allowed the communal violence to take place, the police later arrested 23 Hindus. National Security Act was invoked against the accused 2 accused. In other incidents too, UP Government has invoked draconian law – NSA. However that has not proved to be a deterrent as high number of communal violence persists.
India continued to be confronted with the menace of communal violence in the year 2016. The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) monitors communal violence tracking 5 newspapers in two languages – English and Urdu. Some newspaper reports were then cross checked with web portal TwoCircles.net. The newspapers monitored were Mumbai editions of The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, Inquilab and Sahafat.
Violence is a broad term which encompasses in its ambit communal attitudes or symbolic violence, structural violence and physical attacks resulting in injuries, deaths or loss of property. However, the present report is limited to physical violence wherein communal hatred motivates attacks on members of a community only on the basis of their religious identity. The report excludes primarily ethnic violence with communal overtones as, for instance, in Manipur. This report does not include inter-sect or inter denominational violence, for instance within the Muslim community in Kalyan between Barelvis and Salafis on 28th December.
Every year CSSS reports communal violence on basis of data and figures released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However neither the NCRB nor the Ministry of Home Affairs has released data on communal violence for the year 2016. There is usually a huge gap between the communal violence reported by the media and the data of communal violence gathered by the NCRB and MHA. For instance, in the year 2015, according to the Home Ministry data, there were 751 incidents of communal violence in which 97 people died and 2264 were injured. Whereas the 5 newspapers mentioned above, reported only 47 incidents in the same year in which 15 lives were lost and 272 suffered injuries.
The MHA data for the year 2016 is available only till the month of May. According to MHA data, upto May 2016 there were 278 incidents of communal violence in which 38 lives were lost and 903 were injured. The state wise break of the MHA data on communal violence in the year 2016 till May is as under:
States
Incidents
Killed
Injured
Assam
1
0
2
Bihar
23
0
85
Chhattisgarh
1
0
3
Delhi
4
0
16
Gujarat
16
3
38
Himachal Pradesh
1
0
0
J & K
4
0
4
Jharkhand
12
5
76
Karnataka
40
4
116
Kerala
3
0
3
Madhya Pradesh
35
2
110
Maharashtra
40
4
127
Manipur
4
3
58
Odisha
2
0
26
Rajasthan
16
1
20
Tamil Nadu
3
0
3
Telangana
3
1
6
Uttrakhand
2
0
7
Uttar Pradesh
61
13
185
West Bengal
7
2
18
Total
278
38
903
Source: Statement referred to in reply to part (a to c) of Lok Sabha starred question N0. 35 for 19.07.2016. Showing number of communal incidents, persons killed/injured therein in 2016 (upto May)
For the sake of analysis in this study we refer only to the aforesaid newspapers and we compare it with newspaper reports of communal violence in 2015.
According to the data from the aforesaid newspapers, in the year 2016, there were 62 incidents of communal violence as compared to 47 incidents in 2015. In 2016, 8 deaths were reported in the newspapers against 15 deaths reported in the same newspapers in 2015. 435 injuries were reported in 2015 whereas the number of injuries reported in 2016 is 676. 323 arrests were reported in 2015 in comparison to 823 arrests reported in 2016.
Comparison between number of Communal Violence Incidents, Deaths, Injuries and Persons Arrested in 2015 and 2016
Communal violence 2016: Salient trends
Highest incidents of communal violence in 2016 were reported from the poll bound state of Uttar Pradesh (18 out of 62 incidents), followed by Bihar (10), Maharashtra (8), Jharkhand (6) and Madhya Pradesh (5). These five states made up for nearly 76% of total incidents of violence reported in 2016.
State wise break up of number of communal incidents:
Prominent scholars including Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer and Ashutosh Varshney described communal violence primarily as an urban phenomenon. We observe communal violence increasingly spreading to rural areas as well. The data in 2016 shows that out of 62 incidents of communal violence, 18 incidents took place in rural areas.
In 2016, Punjab witnessed communal violence for the first time after the Khalistan related extremism was neutralized. This time it was conflict between a section of Muslim and Hindu communities. The local Sikhs were in support of the Muslims. West Bengal is witnessing steady rise in communal violence after near riot free regime during the Left Front rule (24, 16 and 27 in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively according to Home Ministry data for those years).
Regime wise analysis of the data shows that almost 40.3% of incidents of communal violence were reported from states ruled by BJP which made up for 50% of the states where communal violence took place. 4.8% incidents of communal violence were reported from Karnataka ruled by Congress. Congress rules 8% of the states where communal violence was reported. Lastly, 54.8% incidents were reported from states ruled by parties other than Congress and BJP and they ruled in 42% of states where incidents of communal violence were reported.
Regime wise comparison of number of incidents of communal violence
The major triggers of communal violence in 2016 have been festivals like Muharram and Durga Puja. The second major trigger of violence was social media. While posts in social media were used as triggers in 7 cases of incidents of communal violence, it was used as a platform and tool of mobilization in other incidents too like Peda in Bijnor, UP.
The response of the police during communal violence has been wanting. The police took preventive action only in 3 out of 62 incidents reported. The police failed to respond effectively in BJP as well as non BJP/Congress ruled states.
Growing incidents of communal violence is increasingly normalizing violence in the society. Citizens are becoming indifferent to communal violence. In such a scenario and taking into consideration the above trends, it can be gauged and predicted that communal violence as a phenomenon in the society will continue and there is no end to it in immediate future or short term.
Communal violence Analysis:
As mentioned earlier, the states that have reported the highest incidents of communal violence are UP, Bihar, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh. Together they account for 47 out of 62 incidents of communal violence, constituting 75.81% of total incidents of communal violence.
Uttar Pradesh is slated for Assembly elections in 2017. It has been generally observed by many social scientists that impending elections and political mobilization strategies tend to be along caste and communal fault lines contributing to communal polarization and communal violence.
Bihar has witnessed increasing incidents of communal violence after coalition of JD(U) and BJP split in 2013. Maharashtra which falls in the West zone has been always prone to communal riots.
Communal violence in 2016 claimed 8 lives. 7 out of the 8 deceased were Muslims and the community of the remaining one deceased was not specified.
Zone wise analysis:
Zone wise analysis shows that the North zone of the country has reported highest incidents of violence – 42 incidents were reported in the North zone. West zone reported 12 incidents, while South and East zone each reported 4 incidents. North zone includes Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Punjab and Rajasthan. The West zone consists of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The South zone comprises of states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka while the East zone comprises of the states of West Bengal and Chhattisgarh. The North and West zone which is generally referred to as the cow belt for higher reverence of cows has traditionally been the hot site of communal violence.
Zone wise breakup of incidents of communal violence:
Triggers of communal violence:
A number of communal incidents took place because of the clash of Muharram and Durga Puja being on the same day. Stone pelting and tensions were experienced during the processions. Festivals and desecration of places of worship and sacred symbols were exploited to trigger communal violence. In Deoband, UP, locals found vandalised idols in a temple on 27th July. Suspect belonging to the Muslim community was caught and beaten up by locals before he was handed over to the police. Officers claimed Sadik appeared to be mentally-challenged. Though the gates of a religious structure of his community was found damaged late at night, police acted proactively and repaired the gates in the night itself and the situation was under control. In Shahabad, Karnataka, a youth called Shiva posted an inflammatory post on facebook against the Muslim community and was arrested for the same. Next day a Dussehra cut out was found desecrated. Rama Sene and VHP tried to exploit this incident to fan communal violence. The Muslims were being blamed for desecration and hurting the sentiments of the Hindus. This misinformation was spread to apparently secure the release of Shiva. Later it was found that some Hindu youth had desecrated the Dussehra cut off. The police arrested 5 Hindus and one Muslim in this case and prevented riots on a large scale.
Festival processions and Social Media were used as trigger events of communal violence. Social media posts triggered off 7 incidents of communal violence. Derogatory posts about Prophet Mohammad or Hindu Gods/Goddesses or other community were circulated on social media like facebook and whatsapp which triggered off violence. In one such instance in Sagar situated in Madhya Pradesh, a nephew of an RSS member was found guilty of posting objectionable post. One Muslim youth lost his life and 3 were injured in the violence that ensued in Ilambazar in West Bengal. 21 incidents took place during festivals of Durga puja, Muharrum, Ganpati procession, Hanuman jayanti and Eid-e- Miladun. Festival related incidents were reported highest in UP (8) followed by Bihar (4), Jharkhand (3), Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka reporting two each.
Losses and Damages suffered in communal violence:
Muslims suffered more in terms of deaths, injury and damage of property. They also suffered more in terms of coercive force used by the state as a riot control measure, post riot arrests, and launching of prosecutions. Out of 62 incidents, in 12 incidents religion wise disaggregated data of arrests was available. In these 12 incidents, 178 arrested were Muslims and 75 were Hindus.
In the case of injuries, religion wise disaggregated data was available in 5 incidents. In these five incidents, 46 injured were Muslims and 11 were Hindus. In terms of deaths, religion wise disaggregated data was available in 4 incidents. 7 deaths were those of Muslims. In the case of damage to properties, disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents for vehicles, 6 belonged to Muslims and none to Hindus. In the cases of houses attacked, disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents – 1 house belonged to Hindu and 67 belonged to Muslims. Disaggregated data was available in 3 incidents for shops attacked – 3 houses belonged to Hindus and 56 belonged to Muslims. These figures strike one as odd since the arrests indicate that the Muslims are perpetrators in the communal violence. But if this was the case, then the victims ought to have been the Hindus which should have reflected in the figures related to the number of deaths, injuries, houses/ shops/ vehicles attacked. But the figures tell a different story where major loss has been borne by the Muslims. Communal violence is a double whammy for the Muslim community as targets of violence as well as the consequent police actions. That is why there is no effective deterrence against communal violence.
Regime wise comparison of arrests, injuries and deaths of Hindus and Muslims
Regime wise comparison of property – Vehicles, Houses and Shops attacked of Hindus and Muslims
Regime wise analysis:
6 out of 12 states where communal violence was reported are under BJP rule, one under Congress and 5 under other parties.
40.3% of incidents of communal violence were reported from states ruled by BJP comprising of 26% of the total population. 4.8% incidents of communal violence were reported in states ruled by Congress which constitute for 3% of the total population. 54.8% incidents were reported from states ruled by parties other than Congress and BJP comprising of 72% of the population.
Regime wise comparison of percentage of incidents and percentage of population of states:
No. of states ruled by BJP, Congress and Others where incidents of communal violence took place
It has been observed from the data and number of incidents reported that in BJP ruled states, there is low intensity communal violence. There are no deaths but higher number of injuries (446) in 25 incidents. The number of deaths is low so as to not attract undue media attention or criticism from international organizations but communal violence is allowed to brew sub radar. This sub radar communal violence is used to impress upon the Muslims that they are second class citizens. The higher number of incidents is also because that the perpetrators didn’t anticipate punitive action against them.
The Congress government in Karnataka was successful in preventing a riot in Shahabad where one Muslim and five Hindus were arrested (referred to above). In 2015, the media reported three incidents of communal violence in Karnataka and in 2016 also this number has remained the same suggesting no increase in the number of communal incidents.
The role of non BJP and non Congress governments has been distressing. The Samajwadi Party government in UP has failed to check communal violence though electoral calculations should require it to prevent communal violence. Communal violence benefits BJP as seen in 2014 general elections post Muzzafarnagar riots. However the role of the Hindu nationalist actors can’t be ruled out given the hate speeches. The Samajwadi party led government in spite of booking persons allegedly involved in communal violence under the National Security Act and giving compensation to survivors of communal violence has by and large failed to prevent or contain communal violence. It was able to avert one incident of communal violence in Shahjahanpur due to active intervention of the police.
The Mamta Banerjee led government in West Bengal has also failed to arrest communal violence which has undermined the secular Bengali identity and helped emergence of a stronger Hindu identity amongst the Hindus in West Bengal. The failure to check communal violence can be attributed to either the lack of intention to prevent or contain communal violence or the ability to prevent/ contain it. However the BJP stands to benefit from the communal violence in West Bengal due to the polarization it achieved. Bihar government prevented one riot in Bettiah.
How were riots dealt with?
Ruling regimes are able to exert tight control on the state police as they determine postings/ transfers and promotions of the police personnel. There is little incentive to the police to act independently and uphold law and order even when it goes against the political interests of the ruling party. The police action (or inaction) during riots is largely determined either by their own biases and prejudicial attitudes or due to political pressure exerted. It is important to examine the role of police at three different stages of communal violence – prevention, control during riots and post riot actions. We here examine the role of police at all three stages in BJP, Congress and non-BJP/non-Congress ruled states.
The police were able to prevent only 3 incidents of communal violence and all three states were ruled by non-BJP governed states (Bihar, Karnataka and UP).
At the stage of riot control, the action of police has been inadequate in all states except Karnataka. The observation is based on comparison of religion wise arrests and victim community. In BJP ruled states, religion wise disaggregated data is available in 5 incidents. Out of 189 people arrested in the BJP ruled stated for which religion wise disaggregated data is available, 18 arrested were Hindus and 171 arrested were Muslims even though the victims were by and large Muslims (see the graphs). In case of states ruled by the non BJP and non Congress governments, religion wise disaggregated data is available in 6 incidents. There were 52 arrests of Hindus (51 from UP alone) and 6 arrests of Muslims. The victim community in these riots was Muslim.
70 police personnel were also injured during the riots – 12 each in Umerkhed and Nandurbar. In all, 27 police personnel were injured in Maharashtra. 14 police personnel were injured in Khodadadpur (UP). BJP ruled Maharashtra thus reports highest number of injuries of the police.
Maharashtra police has also arrested the highest number of Muslims – 156 (Badlapur 21, Umerkhed 63 and Malkapur 72) out of 179 Muslims arrested in all the communal riots. In Umerkhed for which religion wise disaggregated data is available, 25 Muslims were injured whereas no Hindus were killed or injured whereas 4 houses were attacked whose community is not specified.
Comparison between no. of arrested from Hindu and Muslim community from the three areas of Malkapur, Nandurbar and Umarkhed.
Comparison between no. of arrested and injured from Hindu and Muslim community in Umarkhed
In Peda in Bijnore, the police though didn’t respond in a timely manner which allowed the communal violence to take place, the police later arrested 23 Hindus. National Security Act was invoked against the accused 2 accused. In other incidents too, UP Government has invoked draconian law – NSA. However that has not proved to be a deterrent as high number of communal violence persists.
Professor Christophe Jaffrelot specializes on South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. He is Professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at the King’s India Institute at London, and Research Director at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris. He also teaches South Asian politics and history at Sciences Po (Paris) and is an Overseas Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was Director of CERI (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales) at Sciences Po, between 2000 and 2008. He was awarded the 2014 Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism in commentary/interpretive writing and the Brienne Prize for geopolitics by the Defense Ministry of France for his book Le Syndrome Pakistanais. He has been the editor-in-chief of Critique Internationale and serves on the editorial boards of Nations and Nationalismand International Political Sociology. He is also on the editorial board of The Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Jaffrelot is the author of several books including Religion, Caste and Politics in India (2011), Dr. Amebedkar and Untouchability (2004), India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (2003).
Adv. Prakash Ambedkar is national leader of Bharatiya Republican Pakch Bahujan Mahasangh. He is the grandson of Bharat RatnaDr. B. R. Ambedkar. He has twice represented the Lok Sabha constituency of Akola, Maharashtra, India. He has served in both houses of the Indian Parliament.
About the lecture:
The lecture would elaborate on the contribution of Dr. Ambedkar to Democracy. Dr Ambedkar envisioned democracy from Indian shramanic traditions as were seen in Buddhism, Jainism, and other rational traditions of the country. Dr. Ambedkar endeavoured to take the Constituent Assembly through the debates whilst always upholding the rights of the dalits, minorities and the marginalised. The entwined relationship between economic and political democracy as conceptualised by Dr Ambedkar would be discussed further.
All are cordially invited to a lecture on
“DR. AMBEDKAR AND DEMOCRACY”
To be delivered by
Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot (Professor, Indian Politics & Sociology, King’s India Institute, London, and Research Director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris)
Maharashtra Lok Adhikar Manch Centre for Study of Society and Secularism Centre for Development Research and Action Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Contemporary Studies, University of Mumbai
RSVP:
Sai Bourothu Programme Coordinator
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
603, New Silver Star, Near Railway Bridge,
Prabhat Colony Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai
Phone: 022-26149668, +91-7045469132|| Fax: +91-22-6100712
Professor Christophe Jaffrelot specializes on South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. He is Professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at the King’s India Institute at London, and Research Director at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris. He also teaches South Asian politics and history at Sciences Po (Paris) and is an Overseas Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was Director of CERI (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales) at Sciences Po, between 2000 and 2008. He was awarded the 2014 Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism in commentary/interpretive writing and the Brienne Prize for geopolitics by the Defense Ministry of France for his book Le Syndrome Pakistanais. He has been the editor-in-chief of Critique Internationale and serves on the editorial boards of Nations and Nationalismand International Political Sociology. He is also on the editorial board of The Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Jaffrelot is the author of several books including Religion, Caste and Politics in India (2011), Dr. Amebedkar and Untouchability (2004), India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (2003).
Adv. Prakash Ambedkar is national leader of Bharatiya Republican Pakch Bahujan Mahasangh. He is the grandson of Bharat RatnaDr. B. R. Ambedkar. He has twice represented the Lok Sabha constituency of Akola, Maharashtra, India. He has served in both houses of the Indian Parliament.
About the lecture:
The lecture would elaborate on the contribution of Dr. Ambedkar to Democracy. Dr Ambedkar envisioned democracy from Indian shramanic traditions as were seen in Buddhism, Jainism, and other rational traditions of the country. Dr. Ambedkar endeavoured to take the Constituent Assembly through the debates whilst always upholding the rights of the dalits, minorities and the marginalised. The entwined relationship between economic and political democracy as conceptualised by Dr Ambedkar would be discussed further.
All are cordially invited to a lecture on
“DR. AMBEDKAR AND DEMOCRACY”
To be delivered by
Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot (Professor, Indian Politics & Sociology, King’s India Institute, London, and Research Director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris)
Maharashtra Lok Adhikar Manch Centre for Study of Society and Secularism Centre for Development Research and Action Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Contemporary Studies, University of Mumbai
RSVP:
Sai Bourothu Programme Coordinator
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
603, New Silver Star, Near Railway Bridge,
Prabhat Colony Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai
Phone: 022-26149668, +91-7045469132|| Fax: +91-22-6100712
is the author of the bestselling book, Village Diary of a Heretic Banker. He has worked in the development finance sector for almost four decades in India.
“Comment is free but facts are sacred.”
— CP Scott, founder editor of The Guardian
A growing problem that threatens to undermine the quality essential to journalism remaining a reliable, credible, ongoing, and profitable business is: low trust. Journalism has veered off course though. In fact, it’s taken a dangerously wrong turn, all in the name of more web traffic. This is best summed up by the unwritten mantra of many digital newsrooms: ”We might get it wrong, but we’re not wrong for long.” Once, the idea that a certain level of error was acceptable in journalism would have been anathema to any news editor. But it’s pretty clear that’s not the case anymore.
The press once seemed to have a conscience, thanks to history’s painful social conflicts and questions of war and peace. The world has changed, however, and many of us may be in the time warp of old values. This is not to deny that the journalist’s task has become much more difficult on account of the wider segmentation of the reader. There is almost an equal division of readers holding allegiance to contrasting values and accordingly yearning for news that affirms their own value systems and judgments. Young journalists who once dreamed of trotting the globe in pursuit of a story are instead shackled to their computers, where they try to eke out a fresh thought or be first to report even the smallest nugget of news—anything that will impress Google algorithms and draw readers their way
But as we are slowly learning, all of us from the media–from the most powerful columnists to the tiniest bloggers—need to be careful about what we put out into the cloud. Our keyboards have become so powerful now, that our slightest action of irresponsibility can blow the world into a crisis. Can we, members of the media, also not cooperate to stave off negativity from ruling the psychology of our people? Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to indulge in guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many immature, hasty, misleading and superficial judgments are expressed every day, confusing the common reader? Many of the readers rely on our opinions for making l decisions in their everyday life.
We must not forget the commonsense lesson that objectivity has been the hallmark of quality journalism. In an attempt to break news or create exclusive stories, many journalists leave objectivity, professional ethics and personal integrity behind. Exaggerating facts, presenting just one side of the argument or sensationalizing stories is bad journalism and one must steer clear of the factors that lead to confusion and misrepresentation.
There are a number of ways that a journalist can hold people and organizations accountable for their actions without taking a position. To start with, journalists working on a story must be determined to stay objective, throughout the period of research and investigation. To avoid taking a position, both or multiple sides of the story must be presented. If people or organizations are involved in wrongdoings, then their view as well as the views of those facing the repercussions of their actions must be made clear. It is not up to the journalist to help shape the reader’s perspective, especially, while reporting a story or doing a feature, therefore, one should avoid taking a stand. Sometimes, simply pursuing a story, because personal interests could be at stake, amounts to taking a position.
In journalism, like in law, facts can be presented to support or disprove an incident, an action or a decision. Being aware of this, can help journalists understand that facts have to be presented not as one would like them to be read to fit a notion or a brief, but as they have occurred.
Readers and viewers are now immediately taking comments from their peers, seeing additional points of view on the blogosphere, and even hearing directly from companies and sources that may be the subject of a story. No longer do reader letters take days or weeks to publish–and that was only after they’d been edited down to bite-sized, consumable blip–after a story’s news cycle has already passed
What is ironic is that although media causes a lot of angst by revealing what is on the other side of the curtain, or creating desires that seem frivolous, it could also be the tool that empowers the poor the most, and ultimately inverts the pyramid!. Newspapers can manipulate
While it is vital for journalists to keep a healthy distance from the subjects they cover and the source material they call upon, the good news is that we’ve arrived at a point where content is ubiquitous, and the very participation of multiple parties has resulted in a much more dynamic, energized and exciting form of journalism. That means the current generation of news consumers are the beneficiaries of a rich conversation that occurs among sources, the press and the public–which, in the end, has resulted in more of a reporting partnership than a soapbox.
The rise of blogs has greatly enlarged and confused the market. The opinion of the blogosphere is having a growing influence over the most serious political, economic, and social processes. A disparager would say that anybody can be a blogger, and anything can be a blog: is this not proof of low standards? And yet, top bloggers include academics and commentators whose work would qualify them as public intellectuals by any traditional measure. Indeed, it seems fair to say that if you have the quick wit and the pithy turn of phrase traditionally needed to succeed as a public intellectual, then you are one of nature’s bloggers .Bloggers however run the risk of appropriating to themselves the right to comment on everything under the sun, to pontificate on matters with which they may have just a cursory relationship. There is no filtering point for blogs, like we have in letters sent to editors and the blogosphere could get cluttered by much casual and non serious stuff which would only obscure the more qualitative and well researched despatches.
Liberalization in the country has ushered in so many news channels and newspapers that it has become a tough challenge for newsmen to differentiate themselves from the flock. While lauding investigative journalism and judicial activism, the Supreme Court had cautioned about the possible abuses that could creep in. Activism can have its dangers. Poorly calibrated, it can make bad problems worse. The baby boomers in the news business certainly did cut our teeth on huge stories that raised powerful emotions, though another generation of journalists is now also in place. It is the older journalists who have defined newsroom values, and for us, these events provided a fertile breeding ground for a low-key, backburner liberalism.
In the pursuit of truth and fairness, no price is too high to pay. One should make that extra call, take that extra trip, visit that additional source – then do it all over again until one is truly convinced that the story is as accurate, as fair and as thorough as humanly possible.
Let us not forget that there was a generation of journalists in whose hands a mystic transference took place with each clack of the typewriter imprinting a journalistic legacy on the next generation. Stamped indelibly on our formative minds when we were training for journalism was the line;”every time a grand editor puts a finger to a typewriter, he sits back to hear the crash of falling governments.”
The journalism of today may be bringing a lot of power and pelf to the practitioners of its trade, but, it is losing its sheen because it is becoming increasingly devoid of the essential content that earned it the honor of the Fourth Estate : trust.
I remember a young journalist desperate to make to the big media .He was always on the hunt for a story that would catapult him to the national league. He coldly hunted stories for a page-one byline. And he landed on one .He did not allow a corrective conscience. Within hours of reaching the village, his story was ready – a villainous moneylender killed by long-suffering villagers. But the young inquisitive journalist had also unearthed a disconcerting fact: the moneylender was a kind-hearted, generous man whose death was being used to intimidate other moneylenders. Outstanding loans are written off by the moneylender to buy peace with villagers, but the politically well-connected and dangerous moneylenders plan a brutal retribution. The young journalist hates the half-truth he reports, but covets the byline it gets him?’
A Chicago-based Neonatologist has openly criticized the opaque funding practices of Aam Aadmi Party and has called upon the party workers, volunteers and the public to take a pledge not to donate to AAP until it makes its donations public.
He announced an online Stop Donation (Chanda Bnd Satyagraha/चन्दाबंदसत्याग्रह) on December 4, 2016. He says that the ground Satyagraha will be started at Raj Ghat on December 24. Giving the details, Raizada says that after seeking inspiration from Gandhi ji at Raj Ghat, the volunteers and participants of Satyagraha will proceed to New Delhi Assembly area. Over next several days, they will cover the assembly area door to door and through market places and metro stations. They will seek signatures from the public and voters on a pledge form which states: “I take a pledge NOT to donate to Aam Aadmi Party until it makes its donations public.”
Raizada says that the campaign will also seek apology from the voters of Delhi for the betrayal in the name of transparent funding. He says that we at AAP sought donations from the public with a promise that each penny donated would be put in public domain, but since June 2016, the party has shut down the Donors’ list from its website. He says that transparent political funding was the raison-detre of the Party, but its refusal to divulge details of donations is a big setback to its ideology. He claims that a few individuals have taken over the party and have blatantly made mockery of its promise of politics of Clean Money. Raizada says that AAP was born out of a movement and promised to bring vyastha parivartan/व्यवस्था परिवर्तन and an era of honest politics. But, by hiding donations, AAP has damaged its credibility. He says that the idea of Aam Aadmi Party is still very relevant, but the vested interests at the helm of affairs are bent upon destroying the efforts put by thousands and thousands of selfless volunteers to prop up the party.
It may be mentioned that Raizada had written an open letter (link) to Aam Aadmi Party on Nov 26 (Foundation Day) with an appeal to restore the practice of displaying donors’ lists on the official website of the party within a week. Getting no response from the party, Raizada launched a website called www.NoListNoDonation.com with a stated objective that if the party does not show (donors’) list, the public should not donate to the party.
Raizada practices Neonatology in Chicago, but had quit his job to serve the party in India. He was a co-convener of the NRI cell of the party during 2015 and also assisted the health ministry of Delhi govt as a pro-bono advisor. He was suspended from the party in Nov 2015 when he fell out with leadership over his public criticism of Kejriwal supporting Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar Assembly elections.
Formerly Secretary, Ministry of Power, Govt of India (1997-98)
Formerly Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India (1998-2000)
Formerly Principal, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad (2001-04)
Presently, active in taking up issues concerning electoral reform, environmental conservation and protection of human rights
Letter on 04.12.2016
To
Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister
Dear Shri Narendra Modiji,
I enclose two news reports, one that appeared today in Hindustan Times on “50 chartered planes to ferry VVIPs to Nagpur for Gadkari’s daughter’s wedding”, and the second in today’s Times of India, “Weddings put off as families struggle to tide over crash crunch”.
Apparently, there is one set of rules and standards for NDA Ministers (please see my letter addressed to the Enforcement Directorate , forwarded here on a similar wedding equally lavishly celebrated last week by your Minister Mahesh Sharma, ) and another set of rules and standards for the common man on the street.
As a result of the prevailing cash crisis, many families have put off their scheduled weddings. Many other weddings have broken down. But, Gali Janardhana Reddy, Mahesh Sharma and Gadkari feel no crisis whatsoever, as they seem to have the blessings of bigwigs from both BJP and the NDA. While your Ministers are indulging in such unhealthy extravagance, is it not ironic that you yourself should exhort the common man to stand in queues to uphold your grandiose mission to fight against black money?
Those that stand in the queues like myself feel that your intentions are great and temporary inconveniences should be ignored. At the same time, we feel perplexed to find no
Janardhana Reddy’s, Mahesh Sharma’s and Gadkari’s in the queues. Adding insult to injury, they flaunt their wealth and mock at the public at large. Are we living in a civilised society, Mr Modi?
I am asking the Enforcement Directorate to investigate the source of every rupee that these Super-Citizens have spent and the cash component of every expense they have incurred. I am not sure whether the Enforcement Director has the authority or an inclination to carry out an impartial investigation, as the numerous cases of overseas accounts standing in the names of some of your Chief Ministers brought to their notice by me, are yet to be investigated by the Central investigation agencies till now.
I do not think that any marriage in the West can boast of 50 chartered flights being arranged as it seems to be the case with Gadkari.
Are these chartered flights paid for by the corporate houses? Who are those corporate houses? Are there quid pro quos involved? How many Five-Star rooms have been booked on behalf of Gadkari at Nagpur? How many air-conditioned cars are deployed to ferry the VIPS to and fro? Who has paid for the same? What was the expenditure incurred on the wedding celebrations?
Have Gadkari and his associates withdrawn cash from banks at the expense of all those languishing for days in long serpentine queues in front of banks and ATMs?
Are the local senior Income Tax officials have already compromised their position by attending the wedding reception as honoured guests?
Who are the NDA, RSS and BJP bigwigs who attended the wedding and endorsed the extravagance?
This calls for a full-fledged investigation, Mr. Modi.
I am marking a copy of this letter to Hasmukh Adhia, the Union Revenue Secretary so that he may feel that he too has the obligation to order an investigation into this conspicuously celebrated Gadakari wedding, especially at a time when his Department is harassing small jewellers and petty contractors in the name of “tightening” the noose around the necks of “black marketeers”.
I believe that in a democracy like ours, we need an explanation on this questionable wedding from the highest level in your government. I believe that the CBDT and the Enforcement Directorate should investigate and report on this. The public at large have not yet fully digested the initial “clean” certificate provided by the Income Tax Department on the details of Gali Janaradhana Reddy’s spending on his daughter’s wedding. This has certainly eroded the credibility of your government in regard to the demonetisation measures.
If you do not act quickly and firmly on these letters of mine, I will be constrained to seek judicial intervention, as every citizen in this country has the right to question the basics of governance.
I am circulating this letter widely to generate a public discussion and a debate on NDA’s true stance on profligacy and conspicuous expenditure in the context of demonetisation.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
E A S Sarma
Former Secretary to GOI
Visakhapatnam
Letter on 06.12.2016
To
Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister
Dear Shri Narendra Modiji,
My last letter addressed to you was dated 4-12-2016. Copies of my correspondence on the subject are enclosed for your ready reference.
The latest report that Ramesh Gowda, a driver of Gali Janarshana Reddy, who had celebrated his daughter’s wedding in pomp and style, despite all the cash restrictions you announced on 8-11-2016, committed suicide, leaving a suicide note indicating the fact that Shri Reddy had laundered more than Rs 100 crores for celebrating the marriage, in defiance of the harsh restrictions imposed by you and your colleagues in the government. What distresses me is that, despite my cautionary letters addressed to you, the Finance Minister, the Union Revenue Secretary, the Enforcement Director and Director, CBI, all the central agencies seem to have deferred raids on Shri Janardhana Reddy’s premises till he had successfully laundered the black cash holdings and allowed the local officers to give him a “clean” chit.
Many of your colleagues in BJP and several other political leaders had attended the wedding and there was not even an advisory from the NDA parties to their members not to attend the function. Those like me, standing in serpentine
queues in front of banks, wonder whether you have a separate set of rules for the likes of Janardhana Reddy and another set for the suffering common man/ woman on the street!
Though the Income Tax authorities had raided small businesses and traders post-demonetisation, not one of them had the courage to raid the premises of Janardhana Reddy, or Gadkari who too has celebrated a similar wedding in great extravagance.
I request you to ponder over this earnestly.
Were the local senior officers of CBDT “honoured” guests at the lavish weddings celebrated by Gali Janardhana Reddy, Mahesh Sharma and Gadkari recently? Did they compromise their role as investigators and watchdogs by attending those marriages?
Did any of these celebrity, Super-Citizen, political leaders indulge in money laundering and whether officials, especially bankers, were hand-in-glove with them?
Did the Income Tax officials who have apparently given a clean chit to Gali Janardhana Reddy, as already reported, fail in their duties by not conducting surprise inspections prior to the wedding, thereby giving Reddy enough time to efface the evidence necessary to prosecute the culprits?
Did CBDT/ ED investigate the so-called “Singapore” property referred by Gali Janarsdhana Reddy in one of his statements to the press to explain away the source of funds for the more-than-Rs 500 Crore-wedding?
Mr. Modiji, while the demonetisation mission launched by you is a commendable step forward, if it is established that
your government is complicit in letting the money launderers off the hook, the credibility of what you have done in the name of demonetisation will certainly come under public scrutiny. I am afraid that the overwhelming presence of some of your own colleagues at these weddings did force the officials to go soft on investigating the possibility of black money being used at these lavish weddings.
May I demand quick action even at this belated hour to demonstrate your willingness to fight the black money hoarders. If the Central government takes the stand that it is for the State govt to take action in such matters, as is the usual approach adopted by your Ministers, it may not in anyway reinforce public confidence in what you say and do.
I have separately asked the Karnataka govt to order an independent investigation into the suicide committed by Shri Ramesh Gowda, the driver who had apparently witnessed Gali Janaradhana Reddy laundering his black money.