UK members of Parliament agree to an Early Day Motion to the House of Commons "to bring Modi to justice"
By Our Representative The Awaaz Network and Monitoring Group of the United Kingdom organized a controversial meeting at UK Parliament urging parliamentarians to “bring Modi to justice.” A statement issued following the meeting said, among those who agreed with this view "included" members of Parliament John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) and Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North). This apart, the meeting received messages from British barrister and human rights campaigner and Mike Wood, MP for Balley. The statement quoted Mike Wood in the message as saying, “I extend my whole-hearted support for prosecuting Modi not least for the communal violence in the state of Gujarat in 2002 which claimed so many innocent lives including that of my constituents and their driver. He should remain banned from this country irrespective of the results of the upcoming Indian elections until he has been brought to account for his actions in fermenting racial and religious violence and bigotry”. “An Early Day Motion to the House of Commons was announced, and a delegation of MPs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking that there should be no engagement with him until he has been held legally accountable for his role in the violence. The meeting also heard that action is underway for an international tribunal on genocide in Gujarat”, the statement read.
The Monitoring Group message said, “Two of Yusuf Dawood’s brothers, on holiday in India twelve years ago, were brutally killed during horrific communal violence against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Over 1,500 died (including three British nationals), hundreds of women were raped and 200,000 people driven from their homes”, claiming, the speakers were head at a “packed meeting” on February 26, “focusing on the role of Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and prime ministerial candidate for the far-right BJP in India’s forthcoming elections.” It added, “Messages of support were received from many individuals and organisations including Sir Anish Kapoor, an Indian sculptor who is one of the world’s most eminent artists.” Kapoor wrote, “I am deeply grateful that you are doing this. We are in a moment of great danger and your call to our sense of justice is much needed”. “There is international consensus that Narendra Modi was responsible for the 2002 genocidal attacks in Gujarat,” wrote AnishKapoor. “India' s long history of cultural and ethnic tolerance is gravely in peril with the rise of this politician whose association with the fascist right cannot any longer be hidden. It is deplorable therefore that Britain continues to dialogue with this man and that British parliamentarians and businessmen shamelessly extend a hand of friendship to him and his political associates.” At the meeting, the statement said, Suresh Grover of the Monitoring Group outlined key events during the “orgy of violence” in 2002, even as launching an “extensively research book ‘Narendra Modi exposed: challenging the myths surrounding the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate’ by Prof Chetan Bhatt, Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics. “Bhatt spoke of Modi’s links with the Hindutva movement, which uses the guise of religion for its extremist brand of politics, and its ‘deliberate attempt to suppress freedom of speech’ in this country”, the statement said, regretting, “Virendra Sharma (MP for Ealing Southall) had originally agreed to host the meeting but withdrew after coming under pressure from supporters of Modi, who tried to force the event to be cancelled. A few turned up to disrupt the meeting, but did not succeed in silencing discussion.”
The statement further said, “Pragna Patel, of Southall Black Sisters, spoke on this movement’s disturbing attitude to and treatment of women, including sexual violence ‘unprecedented in nature’ in 2002. Prof Gautam Appa, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, exposed the inaccuracy of claims often made by BJP supporters that the Supreme Court has cleared Modi of responsibility and that Gujarat is a model of good governance and prosperity.”
A meeting organised on Wednesday by the UK based groups Awaz and the Monitoring Committee resolved to put pressure on the British government not to engage with Bharatiya Janata Party's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi until justice is done for victims of human rights violations during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The event was hosted by Labour Party MP for Hayes and Harlington John McDonnell and supported by party MP for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn at the House of Commons. The meeting resolved that it would seek an Early Day Motion to the House of Commons and take a delegation of MPs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking that there should be no official engagement with Modi until he has been held legally accountable for his responsibility in the 2002 violence. The meeting also heard that action is underway for an international tribunal on genocide in Gujarat.
Published: February 27, 2014 19:03 IST | Updated: February 27, 2014 19:03 IST
Rights groups urge UK not to engage with Modi
Parvathi Menon
A meeting organised on Wednesday by the U.K. based groups Awaz and the Monitoring Committee resolved to put pressure on the British government not to engage with Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidateNarendra Modi until justice is done for victims of human rights violations during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The event was hosted by Labour Party MP for Hayes and Harlington John McDonnell and supported by party MP for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn at the House of Commons.
The meeting resolved that it would seek an Early Day Motion to the House of Commons and take a delegation of MPs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking that there should be no official engagement with Mr. Modi until he has been held legally accountable for his responsibility in the 2002 violence. The meeting also heard that action is underway for an international tribunal on genocide in Gujarat.
The speakers at the meeting included Suresh Grover of the Monitoring Group; Pragna Patel from the women’s groupSouthall Black Sisters; Chetan Bhatt, director, Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics; and Professor Gautam Appa, professor emeritus from the LSE.
Yusuf Dawood and Imran Dawood, U.K. citizens of Gujarati origin whose close relatives were killed in Gujarat in 2002 were also present.
The sharp polarisation of political opinion within U.K.-based Indian community was on display at the meeting. A group of supporters of Mr. Modi engaged in arguments with the speakers and then staged a noisy walkout towards the end of the meeting, demanding proof of the allegations made against Mr. Modi.
Mr. Modi has considerable cross-party political support in Britain. Even within the Labour Friends of India there have been attempts to get the government to revoke the earlier restrictions that had been placed upon his visiting the U.K.
In fact, this meeting was initially to have been hosted by Virendra Sharma, Labour MP for Ealing and Southall. However, he pulled out of his sponsorship a day before the meeting. While Mr. Sharma said it was because he did not want to associate with the “anti-Hindu” agenda of the meeting, the organisers said that it was because of pressure from his pro-Modi constituency.
Messages of support were read out from the artist and sculptor, Sir Anish Kapoor, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a distinguished barrister and human rights campaigner and Mike Wood, MP for Batley and Spen.
Mr. Kapoor said: “I am deeply grateful you are doing this. We are in a moment of great danger and your call to oursense of justice is much needed.”
LONDON: A debate on BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi's controversial past sparked a row at a meeting within Britain's parliament complex.
Human rights groups and organisers of 'Narendra Modi and the Rise of Hindu Fascism' at a committee room in the Parliament building yesterday claimed they had been subjected to intense pressure and death threats from Hindu right-wing groups in the UK to cancel the debate.
"This meeting has been held under extremely difficult conditions, in the face of death threats. It just highlights the inability of Narendra Modi's supporters to tolerate anything other than their narrative and attempts to suppress free speech," said Chetan Bhatt, director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at theLondon School of Economics (LSE).
Bhatt traced Modi's RSS roots during the meeting leading up to his role as chief minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots.
"The human rights issues are very serious and are not going to go away, no matter what happens in the Indian elections," he added.
The meeting was also addressed by Yusuf Dawood, a British Gujarati who lost two of his brothers in the 2002 riots and filed a civil case against Modi for genocide and crimes against humanity back in 2004.
"We can't just brush the facts of what happened under the carpet. It is important that the truth remains the truth," he said.
Members of the Hindu Forum of Britain and other UK-based Hindu groups present at the event expressed their discontent with the proceedings and claimed Modi was being unfairly accused and attacked.
A small group of rabble-rousers had to be eventually escorted out of the room, with one member screaming "Modi will be PM of India".
The meeting received the backing of a number of British parliamentarians, led by Labour MP John McDonnell, as well as celebrated Indian-born British artist Anish Kapoor.
"We are in a moment of great danger and your call to our sense of justice is much needed," Kapoor said in his message read out at the event.
The event also marked the launch of 'Narendra Modi Exposed: Challenging the Myths Surrounding the BJP's Prime Ministerial Candidate', a report published by the Awaaz Network and Monitoring Group.
A discuss on BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi’s controversial past sparked a quarrel during a assembly within Britain’s council complex.
LONDON: A discuss on BJP primary ministerial claimantNarendra Modi’s argumentative past sparked a quarrel during a assembly within Britain’s council complex.
Human rights groups and organisers of ‘Narendra Modi and a Rise of Hindu Fascism’ during a cabinet room in a Parliament building yesterday claimed they had been subjected to heated vigour and genocide threats from Hindu worried groups in a UK to cancel a debate.
“This assembly has been hold underneath intensely formidable conditions, in a face of genocide threats. It only highlights a inability of Narendra Modi’s supporters to endure anything other than their account and attempts to conceal giveaway speech,” pronounced Chetan Bhatt, executive of a Centre for a Study of Human Rights during a London School of Economics (LSE).
Bhatt traced Modi’s RSS roots during a assembly heading adult to his purpose as arch apportion of Gujarat during a 2002 riots.
“The tellurian rights issues are really critical and are not going to go away, no matter what happens in a Indian elections,” he added.
The assembly was also addressed by Yusuf Dawood, a British Gujarati who mislaid dual of his brothers in a 2002 riots and filed a polite box opposite Modi for genocide and crimes opposite amiability behind in 2004.
“We can’t only brush a contribution of what happened underneath a carpet. It is critical that a law stays a truth,” he said.
Members of a Hindu Forum of Britain and other UK-based Hindu groups benefaction during a eventuality voiced their displeasure with a record and claimed Modi was being foul indicted and attacked.
A tiny organisation of rabble-rousers had to be eventually escorted out of a room, with one member screaming “Modi will be PM of India”.
The assembly perceived a subsidy of a series of British parliamentarians, led by Labour MP John McDonnell, as good as distinguished Indian-born British artist Anish Kapoor.
“We are in a impulse of good risk and your call to a clarity of probity is most needed,” Kapoor pronounced in his summary review out during a event.
The eventuality also remarkable a launch of ‘Narendra Modi Exposed: Challenging a Myths Surrounding a BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate’, a news published by a Awaaz Network and Monitoring Group.
In it a author, LSE Emeritus highbrow Gautam Appa remarkable that a BJP’s explain of a supposed “clean chit” given to Modi by a Supreme Court is a myth as a legal routine is still ongoing in India
Nobel laureate François Englert at CERN last week. The equation on the blackboard describes the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism that gives particles mass (Image: Maximilien Brice)
A Nobel laureate and a blackboard at CERN is all you need to explain the fundamental physics of the universe. At least, that's what François Englert convinced us on his visit to CERN last week.
Englert shared the 2013 Nobel prize in physics with Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles". In the video below, he explains how he and Higgs manipulated equations containing mathematical constructs called scalar fields to predict the existence of the Brout-Englert-Higgs field.
Nobel laureate François Englert explains the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism that gives particles mass, with the help of a blackboard (Video: CERN)
According to Englert, the equation describing this mechanism is built in two parts. One part consists of scalar fields; the other consists of constructs called gauge fields. Englert explains that a big problem in particle physics in the 1960s was to find a gauge field that had mass. Solving that problem - working out how a gauge field could have mass -would help to explain other problems in physics, such as how to mathematically describe short-range interactions inside the nuclei of atoms. But Englert says that you cannot easily just add mass to a gauge field "off-hand". He needed another theoretical approach.
The key was to add a new part – a new scalar field – to the equation describing the mass mechanism. Part of this new scalar field could be mathematically simplified. What came out of the algebraic manipulation was a term that gave rise to "a condensate spread out all over the universe". Then, the interaction between the condensate and another part of the equation could be generalized, says Englert, to give mass to elementary particles. Easy peasy!
"I know this is extremely abstract," says a modest Englert of his explanation. "But if I have two minutes [to explain it], I can hardly do more!"
Find out more about the Higgs boson in the pages below.
Posted by Cian O'Luanaigh on 26 Feb 2014. Last updated 26 Feb 2014, 15.31.
Google urges court to restore 'anti-Islam' film on YouTube
AFP | Mar 1, 2014, 04.30 AM IST
Google said it has complied with the "unprecedented sweeping injunction" but argued that irreparable harm is being done toconstitutional rights of YouTube, Google, and the public.
SAN FRANCISCO: Google on Friday urged a US appeals court to let it repost an anti-Islamic movie on YouTube, pending a re-hearing of the copyright case that got it removed.
The 2012 appearance of " Innocence of Muslims" on Google's video-sharing site provoked deadlyviolence, but the current legal case against it relates only to the concerns of one of its stars.
US actress Cindy Lee Garcia brought a lawsuit claiming she was tricked into appearing in the film, without realizing its provocative anti-Muslim slant, and has received death threats as a result of it.
Google said it has complied with the "unprecedented sweeping injunction" but argued that irreparable harm is being done to Constitutional rights of YouTube, Google, and the public.
"Under the panel's rule, minor players in everything from Hollywood films to home videos can wrest control of those works from their creators, and service providers like YouTube will lack the ability to determine who has valid copyright," the California Internet titan argued in its request for an emergency stay of the order.
A lower court had refused to order Google to remove the film while Garcia's case goes forward, but on Wednesday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.
The amateurish movie, which depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish deviant, triggered a wave of violent protests that left dozens dead in September 2012.
During the period of the protests, militants attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and US ambassador Chris Stevens and three more Americans were killed, although the extent to which popular local anger over the film played a role in the assault is a matter of fierce debate in the US.
Garcia was paid about $500 for three-and-a-half days of filming on the movie, which had the working title "Desert Warrior," after being cast by producer Mark Basseley Youssef, who had a variety of pseudonyms.
"Desert Warrior" never materialized, and Garcia only realized what had become of the footage when she saw "Innocence of Muslims" on YouTube.
She appears in the film for about five seconds. Garcia asked eight times for the film be taken down, but Google refused to comply, so she applied for arestraining order seeking removal of the film from YouTube, claiming that it infringed her copyright in her own performance.
The US Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) condemned the court order as a threat to free expression and reasoned that giving actors independent copyrights for performances in films is "absurd."
"In addition to the flaws in the court's analysis of who could claim copyright interests in a film, the court also failed to give adequate weight to the free expression interests at stake," CDT senior policy analyst Andrew McDiarmid said in a blog post.
Can Washington overthrow three governments at the same time?
by Thierry Meyssan
The power of a state is measured by its ability to defend itself and to attack on one or more fronts. In this context, Washington is trying for the first time to show it can overthrow three governments simultaneously: Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela. If it succeeds, no government would be henceforth able to resist it.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS | 23 FEBRUARY 2014
عربي FRANÇAIS DEUTSCH РУССКИЙ فارسى ESPAÑOL ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS ARMENIAN TÜRKÇE ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ
+
JPEG - 33.7 kb
Since when are revolutions supported by imperialism? (here: Maidan , Kiev).
Washington, which failed in 2011 to bomb Libya and Syria simultaneously, is now engaged in a new demonstration of its strength: organizing regime change in three states at the same time, in different regions of the world: Syria (CentCom), Ukraine (EuCom) and Venezuela (SouthCom).
To do this, President Obama has mobilized almost the entire National Security Council team.
First, Advisor Susan Rice and Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. These two women are champions of "democratic" talk. They have for many years specialized in advocating interference in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of preventing genocide. But behind this generous rhetoric, they couldn’t care less about non-US lives as shown by Ms. Power during the chemical weapons crisis in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The ambassador, who was aware of the innocence of the Syrian authorities, had gone to Europe with her husband to attend a film festival dedicated to Charlie Chaplin, while her government denounced a crime against humanity, the responsibility for which was placed upon President al Assad.
Then, the three regional co-ordinators: Philip Gordon ( Middle East and North Africa ), Karen Donfried (Europe and Eurasia ) and Ricardo Zuñiga ( Latin America).
• Phil Gordon (personal friend and translator of Nicolas Sarkozy) organized the sabotage of the Geneva 2 Peace Conference as long as the Palestinian issue is not settled to the U.S. liking. During the second session of the conference, while John Kerry spoke of peace, Gordon met with the heads of Jordanian, Qatari , Saudi and Turkish intelligence services in Washington to prepare for yet another attack. The plotters have gathered an army of 13,000 men, of whom only 1,000 were given brief military training, to drive tanks and take Damascus. The problem is that the column may be destroyed by the Syrian Army before arriving in the capital. But they fail to agree on how to defend it without distributing anti-aircraft weapons that could later be used against Israel.
• Karen Donfried is the former national intelligence officer for Europe. She has long led the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. Today, she manipulates the European Union to hide Washington interventionism in Ukraine. Despite the leak of a phone conversation involving Ambassador Victoria Nuland, she succeeded in convincing Europeans that the opposition in Kiev wanted to join them and was fighting for democracy. Nonetheless, more than half of the Maidan rioters are members of the Nazi party and brandish portraits of collaborator Stepan Bandera.
• Finally, Ricardo Zuñiga is the grandson of the namesake President of the National Party of Honduras who organized the coups of 1963 and 1972 in favor of General López Arellano. He directed the CIA station in Havana where he recruited and financed agents to form opposition to Fidel Castro. He mobilized the extreme Trotskyist Venezuelan left to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, accused of being a Stalinist.
The whole process is hyped under the leadership of one Dan Rhodes. This propaganda specialist has already written the official version of September 11, 2001, drafting the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. He managed to remove all traces of the military coup (power was removed from the hands of George W. Bush at about 10am and it was returned that evening; all the members of his cabinet and those of Congress were placed in secure bunkers "to ensure their safety") so that we remember only the attacks.
In all three cases, the U.S. narrative is based on the same principles: accuse governments of killing their own citizens, qualify opponents as ’democratic’; impose sanctions against the "murderers" and ultimately operate coups.
Each time, the movement begins with a demonstration during which peaceful opponents are killed, and where both sides accuse each other of violence. In fact U.S. or NATO special forces placed on rooftops shoot at both the crowd and the police. This was the case in Daraa (Syria) in 2011, Kiev (Ukraine) and Caracas (Venezuela) this week. Alas for bad luck: autopsies in Venezuela show that two victims, one opponent and one pro-government, were killed by the same weapon.
Qualifying opponents as democratic activists is a simple game of rhetoric. In Syria, they are Takfirists supported by the worst dictatorship in the world, Saudi Arabia. In Ukraine, a few sincere pro-Europeans surrounded by many Nazis. In Venezuela, young Trotskyists from good families surrounded by goon squads. Everywhere the false U.S. opponent, John McCain, brings his support to true and false on site opponents.
Support for opponents rests with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This agency of the U.S. government falsely presents itself as an NGO funded by Congress. But it was created by President Ronald Reagan, in association with Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. It is headed by the neoconservative Carl Gershman and the daughter of General Alexander Haig (former Supreme Commander of NATO, then Secretary of State ), Barbara Haig. This is the NED (actually the State Department), which employs the "opposition" senator John McCain.
To this operating group, you must add the Albert Einstein Institute, an "NGO" funded by NATO. Created by Gene Sharp, it trained professional agitators from two bases: Serbia (Canvas) and Qatar (Academy of currency).
In all cases, Susan Rice and Samantha Power take on airs of outrage before imposing penalties, soon echoed by the European Union, while they are in fact the sponsors of the violence.
It remains to be seen whether the the coups will be successful. Which is far from being certain.
Washington is thus attempting to show the world it is still the master. To be more sure of itself, it launched the Ukrainian and Venezuelan operations during the Olympic Games in Sochi. It was certain that Russia would not move for fear of having its party upset by Islamist attacks. But Sochi ended this weekend. Now it’s Moscow’s turn to play.
Obama warns Russia of 'costs' for intervention in Ukraine
BY STEVE HOLLAND AND MATT SPETALNICK
WASHINGTONSat Mar 1, 2014 7:08am IST
U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver remarks on the situation in Ukraine from the press briefing room at the White House in Washington February 28, 2014.
CREDIT: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned Russia on Friday that military intervention in Ukraine would lead to "costs," as tension with old foe President Vladimir Putin rose in a Cold War-style crisis.
"We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine," he told reporters.
Obama and European leaders would consider skipping a G8 summit this summer in the Russian city of Sochi if Moscow intervenes militarily in Ukraine, a senior U.S. official said. The G8 includes the world's seven leading industrial nations and Russia.
"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine," Obama said in the White House briefing room.
Facing yet another confrontation with Putin after butting heads with him over Syria, Obama said any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be "deeply destabilizing."
Obama did not spell out what he meant by Russian military intervention.
Russia has a huge naval base in Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula and says it has the right to move troops in Ukraine under an agreement between the two former Soviet neighbors.
U.S. officials said they saw indications of Russian troop movements into Crimea but that their numbers and intentions were unclear.
The chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Republican Mike Rogers, said in a statement: "It appears that the Russian military now controls the Crimean peninsula."
The crisis has presented Obama with a difficult challenge days after widespread demonstrations by pro-Western protesters prompted Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine's pro-Moscow president, to flee to Russia.
Armed men took control of two airports in the Crimea region in what the new Ukrainian leadership described as an invasion by Moscow's forces, and Yanukovich surfaced in Russia a week after he fled Kiev.
Ukraine fell into political crisis last year when Yanukovich spurned a broad trade deal with the European Union and accepted a $15 billion Russian bailout that is now in question.
A U.S. response to any Russian intervention in Ukraine could include avoiding deeper trade and commerce ties that Moscow is seeking, the senior U.S. official said.
Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine now at the Brookings Institution think tank, said it was inconceivable that the United States would consider a military response were Russia to seek to gain control of Crimea, and that it had few plausible options to oppose such a move.
"If you look at the U.S.-Russian relationship, what kinds of things could we do to punish them? There are not a lot of good levers there," he added.
Putin has proved immune to U.S. calls for Moscow to stop supporting Syria's government in its three-year-old civil war. And the United States was unable to prevent Putin from staging Russian incursions into neighboring Georgia in 2008.
IMF SEES NO PANIC
In the struggle between the West and Russia for influence in Ukraine, both sides are wielding money.
Putin last year offered $15 billion for Kiev, $3 billion of which has been delivered, in what was widely seen as a reward for Yanukovich's turning away from the EU deal.
Now, support from the Washington-based International Monetary Fund is seen as critical to shoring up Ukraine's collapsing finances. The United States and the EU say they are willing to provide funds alongside an IMF program.
Russia also supports the fund's involvement, and an IMF team is set to arrive in Kiev early next week to collect information and start working on a loan program.
But IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Friday suggested there was no rush to help Ukraine, which says it needs $35 billion over two years to avoid default and may need $4 billion immediately.
"We do not see anything that is critical, that is worthy of panic at the moment," Lagarde told reporters. "We would certainly hope that the (Ukrainian) authorities refrain from throwing lots of numbers which are really meaningless until they've been assessed properly."
U.S. lawmakers are hammering out details of an assistance package for Ukraine. Senator Chris Murphy, chairman of a Senate subcommittee on European affairs, said the package would be part of a broader, coordinated program with the EU, the IMF and other international partners.
"I encourage the new government to implement the necessary economic reforms to stabilize the economy and set Ukraine on a path to prosperity, including rooting out corruption and increasing transparency in government finances," Murphy said.
Republican Senator John McCain, a long-time Putin critic, said diplomatic and economic sanctions could be imposed. But Putin does not fear the United States, he told CNN.
Supporters of an Indian politician have gone to town with photoshopped posters and public hoardings for her 66th birthday.
Tamil Nadu's chief minister, Jayalalithaa Jayaram, known to her supporters simply as Amma - meaning "mother" in the local language Tamil - is seen being applauded by world leaders, including US President Barack Obama and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on a hoarding erected in the southern city of Coimbatore, the IBN Live news website reported.
A giant cake in the shape of India's parliament building, tree plantings, an arts festival and a world record blood donation drive also featured in the festivities, the Indian Express noted. The politician, who was the star of around 140 films before she entered politics, has been cited as a possible prime-ministerial candidate, ahead of a general election in Indiain May.
Other tributes to Jayalalithaa included a poster showing her likeness tattooed on a man's chest. On another billboard she coasted down a red carpet between American, Chinese and Japanese leaders under the slogan "East or West, Amma is best".
Even the local chess federation paid tribute to the politician in a public hoarding, declaring, somewhat inaccurately, "You are the unbeaten King".
This is how our PM should be,' reads a potentially controversial caption on one hoarding
But the image most likely to stir controversy is one of Sri LankanPresident Mahinda Rajapaksa kneeling before her, captioned: "This is how our PM should be. Who can be so, other than our Amma?"
Jayalalithaa is reported to be the prime-ministerial candidate favoured by India's left-leaning parties, should their alliance come to power in the general election, The Hindu reports. Voting will take place over several days beginning in the middle of April.
Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi at Jorhat event burnt to death by husband
India Today Online New Delhi/ Guwahati, March 1, 2014 | UPDATED 15:36 IST
A woman Congress worker, who had attended Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi's event in Jorhat on Wednesday and said to have kissed him, has been burnt by her husband.
Reports say the victim, Bonti Sootea, the Congress ward member from Bekajangaon panchayat in Jorhat district was set alight by her husband Someswar on Friday following an argument over the Rahul kiss/peck.
While the police said earlier there was a misunderstanding between the couple over the incident, a senior Assam Police officer has confirmed that the deceased woman was indeed the one who had kissed Rahul Gandhi on his head.
The husband also tried to set himself ablaze and has been hospitalised with 60 per cent burns at Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital, 130km east of Jorhat.
Reports said the couple had an argument over the news report that she had allegedly kissed Rahul at the event where the Congress scion addressed women party workers after which the husband set her afire.
Police said the woman and her husband were not on good terms.
WHAT HAPPENED IN ASSAM?
Rahul is criss-crossing the country to revive his party's fortunes ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.
Media reports had said he was welcomed with kisses on his cheek and on his head at Jorhat in Assam on Wednesday. The event was played up on TV channels.
The young Congress leader was slightly embarrassed after two women came closer to him, kissed on his cheek and forehead, while he was interacting with women.
The Gandhi scion pleasantly shook hands with women supporters, who seemed to be very happy at finding him in their midst.
According to reports, Rahul had met 600 self-help groups. He was quoted as saying that women from the Northeast were "more talented" than others.
March 01, 2014 16:18 IST Gen. VK Singh has also issued a legal notice to Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, threatening to drag him to court over his alleged "failure" to act upon his complaints of "sedition and treason" against certain individuals.
In the notice served to the Union home minister through his lawyer Vishwajeet Singh, the retired General said, "Why judicial intervention should not be sought in the matter against you for dereliction of duty in such a serious matter that has direct implications on India's national security."
The former chief said he had complained to Shinde on "offences of sedition, treason and violations of the official secrets act by certain individuals", referring to some media publications on the "attempted military coup" and had sought a probe into the matter.
Singh has given seven days time to Shinde to respond to his notice, failing which, he said, he will initiate legal action against him.
The alleged offences mentioned by Singh against some media personnel and army officials were related to violations under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the National Security Act, 1980 as also under various penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Singh said he had issued a reminder to the home minister in December seeking a response on his previous complaint.
Shinde, however, did not respond either to the complaint or to the reminder, the notice said.
"You chose to initiate no action whatsoever upon receiving the said complaint. You further chose not to respond to my client or inform him as to the reasons for not taking any action on his complaint," it said.
Crimea crisis deepens as Russia and Ukraine ready forces - live updates
LIVE
Follow the day’s developments as Russia, in conjunction with local leaders, extend their control of Crimea while the new government in Kiev prepares to respond and President Obama warns of “costs” to Russia.
Soldiers, believed to be Russian, guard the Crimean parliament building on Saturday next to a sign that reads: "Crimea Russia". Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
LIVE
Sort by:
Latest first
Oldest first
Auto update:
On
Off
Reuters report that Ukraine is unlikely to receive financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund before April according to Ukrainian Finance Minister Oleksander Shlapak.
Ukraine, which faces a further $6 billion in foreign debt payments this year, has asked the IMF for financial assistance of at least $15 billion. An IMF team is expected in Kiev next week.
People now storming into Kharkov provincial government building. One of most pro-Russian eastern provinces
According to various Russian and Ukrainian reports, the crisis is spreading from Crimea to other parts of the Ukraine. There are reports that pro-Russian demonstrators in Donestsk and Kharkiv have attempted to take parliament buildings.
Kiev-based Unian report some more worrying developments.
The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine said that about 300 soldiers are trying to capture a Sevastopol naval bases. Ukrainian ships have ordered to sea.
It is not clear if weapons are being fired or if there are any injuries.
Following the statement of Fabius, the German and British foreign ministers have weighed in.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday that developments in Ukraine over the past few hours were dangerous and urged Russia to explain its intentions regarding its troops in the Crimea region.
“The situation in Crimea in particular has become considerably more acute. Whoever pours more oil onto the flames now, with words or actions, is consciously aiming for further escalation of the situation. Everything Russia does in Crimea must be in keeping with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and treaties on Russia’s Black Sea fleet. We are holding the Russian government to its public statements on this. And this entails also that Russia provides without delay complete transparency over the movements of its troops in Crimea, as well as its goals and intentions behind these.”
William Hague, the British foreign secretary, has spoken to Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart and urged Russia to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and help de-escalate the situation.
Some images from Ukraine today.
Life goes on. A newly married couple kiss under the statue of Lenin in Simferopol on Saturday. Photograph: DAVID MDZINARISHVILI/REUTERSDemonstrators in Independence Square in Kiev hold placards, "Crimea is Ukraine" during a rally on Saturday. Photograph: LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP/Getty Images
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, has said it is concerned about the reports of troop movements and urged all sides in Crimea to refrain from acts that could increase tension.
In spite of the claims of normality, Kiev’s Unian agency report that armed have taken over the council of trade unions in Simferopol which is close to the government building.
Pravda reports that the speaker of the supreme council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov has said that the situation in Crimea will be normalised and guards will leave the boundaries of the parliament.
Konstantinov said that barricades will be dismantled and he intended to address issues such as the economy, wages and pensions.
In Moscow, Reuters reports that the Duma, has asked President Vladimir Putin to take measures to stabilise the situation in Ukraine’s Crimea.
Sergei Naryshkin, the speaker of the Duma, said “The Duma Council adopted an appeal to the president of Russia, in which parliamentarians are calling on the president to take measures to stabilise the situation in Crimea and use all available means to protect the people of Crimea from tyranny and violence.”
I have just spoken to Harriet Salem, our correspondent in Simferopol in Crimea, who is currently in a local McDonalds availing herself of the free wi-fi.
I have just travelled from Sevastopol to Simferopol. There was little sign of tension. Mostly people are just going about their business. There were blockades outside of Sevastopol manned by armed civilians with motorbikes parked nearby but there was no problem passing through.
Here’s more from Reuters on Gazprom.
Ukraine may lose a discount to the gas price it now pays to Russia’s state gas company Gazprom due to Kiev’s outstanding gas debt, Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov told Reuters on Saturday. In December, Russia agreed to reduce gas prices for Kiev by about a third, to $268.50 per 1,000 cubic metres from around $400 which Ukraine had paid since 2009, after ousted President Viktor Yanukovich spurned an EU trade deal in favour of closer ties to Moscow. Kupriyanov said Ukraine’s outstanding gas debt stood at $1.55 billion for 2013 and gas deliveries so far this year. “It seems that with such gas payments and fulfilment of its obligations Ukraine may not keep its current gas discount. The gas discount agreement assumed full and timely payment,” he said. The deal allowed for the price to be revised quarterly between the 5th and 10th day of the first month every quarter.
AFP report that the referendum in Crimea has been brought forward to March 30 by the regional parliament.
#BREAKING: Crimea brings forward referendum on region's status to March 30
The report continues that to say that 15 soldiers arrived at the military base and took over the checkpoint. They are now trying to get access to the command post.
This is what Ukrainian news agency Unian are reporting:
In Yalta Russian military is trying to capture the anti-missile part of the APU - source
There are now reports from Interfax that Russian forces are trying to take a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile base in Crimea.
A spokesman for Gazprom has said that Ukraine could lose its discount for gas supplies because of its outstanding debts, according to Reuters. Oil and gas diplomacy could be a potent weapon for both buyers and sellers.
The Telegraph’s Roland Oliphant has spoken to the mystery troops who say they are members of the Russian 810 brigade, based in Sevastopol.
But the author does not mention that Russian’s gas reserves are also its vulnerability. More than 60 per cent of Russian government revenues come from oil and gas. If the the EU stopped using Russian gas, it could cause immense problems for Russia. It would also cause big problems in Europe, but these would be of a different magnitude heading into spring as opposed to heading into winter.
Russia repeatedly confirmed it does not doubt Crimea is a part of Ukraine, even though it understands the emotions of the residents of the region. This week Russian MPs initiated a bill that will allow Russian citizenship within six month if the applicant successfully proves his or her Russian ethnicity. It is prepared especially to save Russian-speaking Ukrainians from possible infringement of their rights.
According to ITN’s James Mates, Russian troops are clearly patrolling Crimean cities.
In case of Crimea secession, Ukrainians will not forgive it to new @Yastenyuk_AP govt, ppl on the streets/social media enraged already
Updated
Ha’aretz have carried an interview with an ex-Israeli soldier who led one of the militias on the Maidan. He gives his opinions about the existence of anti-semitisim among the Ukrainian protesters.
AP have filed this report from Donetsk in the east of Ukraine where pro-Russian sympathies are strong about the differences between western and eastern Ukrainians.
For AP the contrast can be explained by looking at the cities of Donetsk and Lviv. “The eastern city of Donetsk can seem like a cliche of post-Soviet grimness, a place of Stalinist-era apartment blocks, tin-roofed shacks and loyalty to Russia. In the west, Lviv has emerged as a center for Ukrainian artists and writers, a huge draw for European tourists and a city desperate for closer ties to the West.”
“I have always felt that we are so different,” said a miner who gave his name only as Nikolai, a thickset 35-year-old who went from high school directly into the mines. People speak Russian across most of Ukraine’s east, and worship in onion-domed Orthodox churches. They were shaped by 70 years of Soviet rule and its celebration of socialist industrialization, and by the Russian empire before that. To them, the government is now being run by outsiders who care little for this side of the country. “If they try to pressure us, our region will revolt.”
“We are simply different people from those living in the East,” said Ludmila Petrova, a university student in Lviv, a hotbed of support for Ukraine’s pro-democracy forces and opposition to Yanukovych. “They don’t know what the West is. We have a different history. Maybe it is better that we separate once and for all.”
“The country is already separated,” said Ivan Reyko, a 30-year-old factory worker from Donetsk who joined a recent demonstration of about 100 people in the city’s main plaza, Lenin Square, where a 30-foot-tall statue of the Soviet hero gazes proudly toward the horizon. “There is no way back to a united Ukraine.”
Unknown armed men from Kiev have tried to seize the Crimean Interior Ministry overnight, and there were several injuries in that attack, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
“Thanks to the decisive action of self-defense squads, the attempt to seize the building of the Interior Ministry was derailed. This attempt confirms the intention of prominent political circles in Kiev to destabilize the situation on the peninsula,” the statement added.
Moscow is very concerned with the latest developments in Crimea and thinks any further escalation would be irresponsible, the ministry added.
Crimeans began protesting after the new self-proclaimed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of other languages in official circumstances in Ukraine. More than half the Crimean population are Russian and use only this language for their communication. The residents have announced they are going to hold a referendum on March 30 to determine the fate of the Ukrainian autonomous region.
Updated
Kiev Post reports that communications between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine have been cut.
Extraordinary Rus foreign ministry statement claims gunmen from Kiev tried to seize Crimea interior ministry, there are victims. Suspicious.
Reuters are snapping statements from Kiev and Moscow.
UKRAINE’S DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS UKRAINIAN MILITARY ON HIGH ALERT IN CRIMEA REGION
UKRAINIAN DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS RUSSIA HAS RECENTLY BROUGHT 6,000 ADDITIONAL TROOPS INTO UKRAINE
RUSSIA “EXTREMELY CONCERNED” ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE’S CRIMEA - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY STATEMENT
RUSSIA SAYS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMEA CONFIRM “DESIRE OF PROMINENT POLITICAL CIRCLES IN KIEV” TO DESTABILISE SITUATION ON THE PENINUSLA
Summary
Good Morning
Sergei Aksenov, the prime minister of Crimea has claimed control of all military, police and other security services in the region and appealed to Russia for help.
Troops, believed to be Russian, although not all are wearing clear insignias, have taken control of airports and other key sites.
President Obama has warned that if Russia breaches Ukrainian sovereignty there will be “costs”.
The Ukrainian defence minister has ordered all Ukrainian army units in Crimea to be on high alert.
Published: March 1, 2014 18:24 IST | Updated: March 1, 2014 18:24 IST
Swamy questions proposed draft ordinances
PTI
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Saturday termed the proposed draft ordinances “ultra vires” of the Constitution and urged President Pranab Mukherjee to seek legal opinion before promulgating them.
“The proposed draft ordinances to be considered by the Union Cabinet for proclamation by the President are ultra vires of the Constitution.
“The house is adjourned but not dissolved, this ordinance would be outside the nature and powers of the President under Article 53,” Mr. Swamy said in a statement.
Mr. Swamy said, “This is especially so because this present Lok sabha is to go out of existence in May 2014, and hence it cannot legislate to convert the ordinance into a legally valid statute within six months, which is the life span of the ordinance.” The Union Cabinet is going to meet tomorrow where it is likely to take up ordinances related to anti-corruption and rights-related issues whose consideration was deferred on Friday.
The decision to hold the Cabinet comes a day after government appeared to be having second thoughts on bringing ordinances, including those being pushed by Rahul Gandhi.
These ordinances were on the agenda of the Cabinet meeting yesterday but were deferred, apparently after senior minister and NCP chief Sharad Pawar raised questions over the need for promulgation at the fag end of the tenure of the government.
Mr. Swamy has also sought clarification from the cabinet in the matter.
“I urge the president not to be railroaded into exceeding his constitutional powers, and instead ask the cabinet to clarify its legal locus standi under Articles 78 (b), 86 (2), and finally ask for an opinion from the Supreme Court under Article 143,” Mr. Swamy added.
In response to Penguin Books voluntarily withdrawing a book by Wendy Doniger, the Indian Express has provided a platform to a professor at the University of Chicago named Martha Nussbaum to attack Hindus and give a sermon to Indians about free speech. However, Martha Nussbaum lacks the qualifications to write on the topic as she has been a staunch opponent of free speech rights for several years. Like most leftists, she is for laws banning hate speech and not for laws protecting free speech.
In the ‘Offensive Internet,‘ a book she co-edited and contributed to, she has argued for banning anonymous posts on the internet that is offensive to others. Targeting a site named AutoAdmit.com which focuses on law schools, she has claimed that “the behavior of the anonymous AutoAdmit writers is best understood as a gender-based hate crime” and that “my analysis suggests the importance of requiring identification as a condition of posting.”
Another contributor to this book is the controversial Cass Sunstein who Nussbaum’s partner and who now serves as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration. His proposal that the government should control information by infiltrating chat rooms generated a furore among free speech advocates and many of his suggestions were so outrageous that even writers on the far-left outfit, Salon.com, were upset. Sunstein has also suggested that false rumors be banned, a proposal that should remind Indians of Indira Gandhi’s chilling Emergency era regulations.
Apart from rooting for the squelching of free expression of ideas, Nussbaum reveals a sense of entitlement in the book when she writes that people like her should be protected from attacks by others while her usual targets do not deserve such protection. “More generally, my analysis suggests that we should be much less deferential to this sort of anonymous speech in close-knit communities (such as law schools) than in the broader public sphere.”
Even more jarring is the fact that one of the grounds for Nussbaum’s objection to the posts on AutoAdmit.com is identical to a charge made against Wendy Doniger in the ongoing controversy: that the content is offensive due to the pornographic nature of descriptions in the posts made on the website.
Such hypocrisy and sense of entitlement is visible in her other writings as well. One of her papers contains a revealing example of her Orwellian doublespeak and she even manages to support both free speech laws and hate speech laws in the same sentence. “The US tradition, which is extremely protective of hate speech, is not appropriate for all nations; Germany, in light of its history, has a much more restrictive attitude toward anti-Semitic speech than does America, and it seems to me that both nations are right.”
Such support is of course reserved for people of her race and would not apply to Indians. Author Carlin Romano writes that Nussbaum’s father, George Craven, held racist views but also makes the assertion that Nussbaum (she has taken on the last name of her ex-husband) repudiated these views. Romano does not present any evidence for the assertion that Nussbaum opposed her father’s views and her writings are consistent with the thoughts of those who would hold racist views. In the days of her father, racist views meant support for lynching Blacks, hanging them on trees, and terrorizing them by marching with like minded people (who typically supported the Democratic Party) while wearing cloaks made of white sheets and carrying burning crosses.
Another pertinent point in Nussbaum’s article is the use of the word ‘thug.’ Unlike in India where the word ‘thug’ is used interchangeably with ‘strongman,’ it is a racial slur in the US as pointed out by two Black professional sportspersons.
Nussbaum’s last name camouflages her true heritage and she has claimed to be a “Reform Jew.” This is a strange claim as a convert into a religion can lay claim to its heritage only by completely embracing it. Reform Judaism is a movement among Jews who criticize many aspects of traditional Judaism and seek to distance themselves from many beliefs and practices. Like similar movements that label themselves ‘reformist,’ this one too consists of dissenters.While an insider can be a dissenter, an outsider cannot join the dissenters and claim to be an insider.In other settings, such a person would be labeled either a deceiver or an infiltrator.
Martha Nussbaum also makes a fantastic claim in her Indian Express piece that needs sorting out. She has alleged that Hindus threatened violence against the employees of Harvard University Press in order to prevent the publication of her book.A phone call to the number listed on the website of Harvard University Press in order to verify this charge resulted in the veracity of her claim quickly evaporating. The person who answered the phone repeatedly denied that any such incident had taken place and even laughed at it and brushed off the claim.
That the false claim was carried by Indian Express without verification should raise a lot of eyebrows. A look at the leaked documents of Stratfor, the global intelligence firm with alleged CIA links, shows that the group cut deals with various media outlets. Nussbaum’s name seems to carry some weight with Stratfor and Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta has been named as one of their agents. So this is a case of various interests converging and the manner in which Nussbaum’s disinformation was placed in Indian Express merits further investigation.
This is not the first time that Martha Nussbaum has exhibited dishonesty. In the past, she was accused of committing perjury by lying in a court in Colorado. So the possibility of her conjuring up a “witness” who received threats from Hindus should not be ruled out, but it is too late for such theatrics and any such action should be considered the result of the expose in this article. The US is no banana Republic that people who make violent threats can roam free. Law enforcement in the US is one of the most effective in the world and unless Martha Nussbaum can prove that someone was arrested for threatening violence, her claims are just tall claims.
There is also much at fault on the side of Hindus for the current state of affairs as they seek approval from American institutions. Hindus have completely misunderstood the American system and erroneously view universities in the US primarily as centers of learning. In reality, universities, along with the media, so-called think-tanks, so-called non-profit organizations, and trade unions, are part of the power structure in America and serve as conduits for massive amounts of taxpayer money to be funneled into political machines, typically the Democratic Party. Billions of dollars in the name of student loans and research grants are transferred to universities every year making them one of the biggest recipients of welfare payments. Quite a bit of that money makes its way into the political system and one can search the contributions made by specific individuals on the website of the Federal Election Commission. (Individual states too maintain their own databases for state level contributions.)
While science, medicine and engineering departments still perform real research, the biggest culprits in the universities are the humanities departments. They confer degrees for completely frivolous stuff, and if we agree that psychobabble does not become scholarship because it includes footnotes and citations, there is absolutely no scholarship that comes out of humanities departments in USA. This fact is widely recognized in the US, which is why many reports lament the lack of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics or what are collectively known as STEM fields.
Among Whites, women outnumber men in getting college degrees, but unlike Indian, Chinese or Jewish women, White women are almost unheard of in STEM fields indicating that they swarm the humanities departments in huge numbers. Yet, in a tacit acknowledgment that very little intellectual ability is needed to obtain a degree in one of the humanities subjects, there are no studies lamenting the underrepresentation of men in the humanities divisions.
Corruption is also rampant in American universities when it comes to the award of honorary degrees, which, at one time were recognitions for superlative work performed typically by people not connected to the academia. They are now routinely awarded to professors and are unwritten quid pro quo arrangements for placing students as faculty members who then nominate their professors for such titles. Such honorary degrees are similar to government bureaucrats in charge of scouting for nominees abusing their power and nominating each other for awards given by the government.
University professors, especially those aligned with the Democratic Party, are big on talk when it comes to ‘affirmative action’ (equivalent of reservations in Indian college admissions) for Blacks, but it is the privileged White leftist women who have benefited the most from this system. In a move that illustrates the sense of entitlement among women like Martha Nussbaum, White women are treated as “minorities” in USA and use this unfairly gained advantage to advance their careers or grant titles to themselves. Blacks are disproportionately kept out from humanities departments despite having the right qualifications.
Hindus need to stop feeding on information supplied to them by the mainstream media in USA which is operated by the extreme left and should instead form their own opinions based on first hand experiences. They will then realize that the left in the USA is not worthy of support as it is merely a conglomeration of every racist force in the world. The Democratic Party seeks to be the Pied Piper that leads the people of various races while singing tunes accusing their political opponents of racism. The American academia is a manifestation of this fact which is why there is an unending attack on Hindus. The people in this system do not deserve any respect and Hindus need to work towards eradicating this system instead of seeking to join it.
[The author can be reached at arvind@classical-liberal.net.]
The University of California at Berkeley has set up a project to “create a policy and protocol framework for protecting people’s rights in situations of internal armed conflict and mass violence” in India.
It is claimed that “The project will avoid taking positions on political questions, focusing instead on human rights and humanitarian concerns”. However, the composition and well-known records of their staff raise some concerns.
The stated aim of the “Armed Conflict Resolution And People's Rights Project”, is “creating a policy and protocol framework for protecting people’s rights”. It is set up by the Center for Nonprofit and Public Leadership at the Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley, near San Francisco. The Center is one of two under the Institute for Business and Social Impact under the Haas School. The Center lists 15 faculty. The Center Director is Dr. Nora Silver, listed as an Adjunct Professor at the Haas School. Her own project under the Center deals with Multi-Sector Leadership and Non-Profit Networks.
The Co-Chairs of the Armed Conflict Resolution project are Dr. Shashi Buluswar and Dr. Angana Chatterji. Dr. Buluswar is a Senior Fellow in International Development at the Haas School. He is prominent in the ASHANGO which raises funds for projects in India. He also holds a position as Executive Director of the Lawrence Berkeley Institute for Globally Transformative Technologies. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is operated under a Department of Energy contract by the University of California. Dr. Buluswar’s research area at the Haas School of Business is listed as “Armed Conflict in India”. Dr. Chatterji is not on the School’s list of 278 “faculty and executive leadership”.
The project lists a Working Group including Rajvinder Singh Bains, Lawyer, Punjab High Court and Haryana High Court, Mihir Desai, Lawyer, Mumbai High Court and Supreme Court of India, Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Policy Expert and South Asia Director, Human Rights Watch, Parvez Imroz, Lawyer, Jammu & Kashmir High Court and President, Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, Srinagar, Harsh Mander, Director, Center for Equity Studies, Delhi, Jaykumar Menon, Legal Expert and Professor of Practice, McGill University, Binalakshmi Nepram, Founder, Manipur Women Gun Survivors Network, Delhi and Manipur, Sudhir Pattnaik, Human Rights Expert and Editor of Samadrusti, a human rights news magazine, Bhubaneswar, Teesta Setalvad, Secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai.
Partner institutions include the Institute for the Study of Human Rights; Alliance for Historical Dialogue and Accountability, Columbia University, Asian Legal Resource Center, Hong Kong (holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, United Nations), Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong, Center for Equity Studies, Delhi, Manipur Women Gun Survivors Network, Prashant Center for Human Rights, Justice, and Peace, Gujarat, Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons, Jammu & Kashmir, Khalra Mission Organization, Punjab, Indian American Muslim Council, Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, Philippines.
Scholar-Affiliates are Paramjit Kaur Khalra, Khalra Mission Organization, Punjab, and Robert Nickelsberg, Photojournalist, New York.
The Project’s Advisory Group includesAmitava Kumar, Vassar College, Homi K. Bhabha, Harvard University, Jyoti Puri, Professor of Sociology, Simmons College, Khurram Parvez, Program Coordinator, Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, Srinagar, Vinay Lal, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles. Quoting the project website: The Working Group plans to “engage with affected communities, and periodically engage with members of the Government of India and the Parliament of India”….Opportunities for Students: The project is engaging exceptional graduate students and select undergraduate students from UC Berkeley, Stanford University, other institutions, and from impacted communities in Indiaand the Indian Diaspora in the U.S. The project will engage age-appropriate youth from affected communities in the work of creating archives, experimenting with photography and videography, and documenting remembrance.”
The University website page as it appeared on March 2, 2014 is reproduced below. Further analyses and questions raised by this project will need a follow-up post.
Kalyanaraman
March 2, 2014
Armed Conflict Resolution And People's Rights Project
Creating a policy and protocol framework for protecting people's rights.
The Project’s Working Group is comprised of two Sub-Groups; Dr. Buluswar heads the Policy Sub-Group and Dr. Chatterji heads the Protocol Sub-Group. The Working Group combines technical experts and scholars with individuals who have relevant experience with broad social issues and current and recent incidents of unrest in India, and existing international frameworks.
Peoples' rights provocateurs and armed conflict resolvers -- profiles.
The key statement is here: "... technical protocols... implemented with the aid and participation of civil society and affected populations, it would serve as a model for other countries."
In American idiom, this can be countered: Don't fix things that ain't broke. Mind your business. Don't make India an American academic guinea pig for armed conflicts.
It is time for Capitol Hill and Whitehouse to re-evaluate purpose of 'scholarly' American traditions while engaging in 'Hindu studies'.
American academe, mind your own business of education. Don't step on India's toes. Don't try to make a model for your protocols of armed conflicts.
On further deliberation, the University research project in collaboration with an affiliate apparent 'science' outfit called Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is clearly an interference in the internal affairs of an independent, sovereign nation -- India.
The usual cover for the covert initiative is human rights and conflict resolution.
Why does it take an American institution to be uninvited guests for resolution of an imagined conflict? Shouldn't Obama administration get concerned that such parallel academic interventions undermine the US foreign policy and the imperative of maintaining peaceful, friendly relations with a nation with over 1250 million people striding an Indian Ocean Rim with over 59 nations which live under the traditions of dharma-dhamma?
Has American academe forgotten the wisdom imparted by the great American historian: Will Durant? Will Durant who authored a 11-volume history of philosophy and narrated the story of civilizations observed: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all". See more at: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/02/call-for-us-commission-of-inquiry-into.html?q=will+durant
The analyses of the American University project are presented in two parts: 1. A Few issues; 2. Some Questions
We hope that the deliberations will be joined by many citizens of the world elaborating further on the issues and answering some questions raised.
Part 1: A Few Issues
1.The project list reads like a “Who’s Who” of the Forum of Indian/Inquilabi Leftists (FOIL), and the “Coalition Against Genocide”(CAG), a loose coalition of groups including the FOIL and IAMC. Members of this Coalition have been associated with the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency, and other suspected connections to international organizations as well as political parties, particularly the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist/Leninist/Maoist) and to Evangelist Christian organizations and their activist arms such as the Christian Aid group. There are some suspected links to foreign terrorist organizations such as the Khalistan groups, the SIMI, through the Indian Muslim Council, the Maoists in India, to secessionist groups active in Jammu-Kashmir, and to interests in Odisha and Chattisgarh. The FOIL and CAG have been studied in articles in the early 2000s, in the book titled “NGOs and Foreign Funding: Anti-National Industry” edited by Kishan Kak and Radha Rajan and a recent report by the Hindu American Foundation. In 1997-2002, Ms. Teesta Setalwad’s “Sabrang” organization channeled funds to the FOIL to develop a “5-year comprehensive research report” that attacked the India Development and Relief Fund. Dr. Angana Chatterji was a primary author of that report. Dr. Vinay Lal was the spokesman for the FOIL. The attack was proven to be baseless. The thorough debunking of that report was published in the book “IDRF: Let the Facts Speak”. Since then, the FOIL has reorganized on several occasions to launch campaigns, generally against India and particularly against the government of Gujarat.
2.It may be useful to remember the past. In October 2001, while the world was in upheaval after the 9/11 attacks in the USA, and Pakistani terrorism was spiking in Kashmir, the Oberlin College Trust in Ohio announced a conference to be held in April 2002, titled: “Siting Secularism in India”. The Oberlin Foundation, a Christian missionary organization, has excellent relations with the Shanxi University in China, with specific approval from the government of the PRC. (seehttp://shansi.org/about-shansi/history/for a recently sanitized version). Around that time, the FOIL seemed to have received a sudden influx of funding, and started an active campaign. They hurriedly revived their dormant publication, “Ghadar” citing the urgent need to get organized and conduct a media campaign, since they expected “a loud noise that will be heard around the world” or words to that effect. In January they held a meeting in Maryland, USA. The Siting Secularism in India conference occurred just a few weeks after the events of late February 2002, with many visitors from the US, India, UK and France, most of them with Communist/Islamist leanings. The only business at that conference for which any record can be found, is anOberlin Resolutioncondemning the government of India for alleged genocide against minorities. Those who remember this, find the parallels with the present Project to be chilling. We wonder what “loud noise” is anticipated this time. Note that we have no evidence to link any of these entities directly to any violence, and are not claiming any. However, their apparent foresight and timing seem remarkable.
3.Dr. Angana Chatterji’sactivities and visits in India have perhaps coincidentally, preceded violence in the parts where she focused her activities. Examples are Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Odisha, and Jammu-Kashmir.
4.Circa 2010, Dr. Chatterji and her US citizen husband Dr. Richard Shapiro, were asked to terminate their visit to Jammu-Kashmir. Shapiro was asked to leave India, and later denied a visa to enter India.
5.On July 19, 2011,GhulamNabi Fai, Kashmir activist in the USA, was indicted in US Federal Court for being an agent of the Pakistani ISI. The indictment listed his contacts with/ funding of a woman code-named “Mary” for making a presentation before a UN panel, presenting the Pakistani point of view on Jammu-Kashmir. In May 2011, Dr. Chatterji made a presentation to a UN Panel to raise Kashmir issues.On July 19, 2011, the California Institute for Integral Studies suspended Drs. Chatterji and Shapiro, tenured full professors (he was Department Head), citing financial and other irregularities. Both were later dismissed after faculty hearings. CIIS denied any link to their outside activities.
6.Although the project claims to develop policies and protocols for nations around the world, there is no indication of any activities directed at any nation other than India.
7.The project claims interest in various troubled parts of India, including Jammu-Kashmir, Odisha, Chattisgarh, the Northeast, and Punjab. The inclusion of Teesta Setalwad and Harsh Mander suggest that the main interest is in Gujarat. Ms. Setalwad has several allegations filed against her in India and has sought anticipatory bail again. Mr. Mander, during and after his tenure as IAS officer, has a history of association with the British NGO Action Aid, which shares origins and close synergy with Christian Aid, which is active in conversions in the tribal regions of Gujarat and elsewhere in India.
8.The Lok Sabha elections in India are only two and a half months away.
Part 2: Some Questions
1.Who is sponsoring this project?
2.Who are the Members of the Indian Parliament and other lawmakers in India that this project intends to “engage” or co-opt? Have they already been approached and have they agreed? Are they also sponsoring it?
3.Given the background of Ms. Teesta Setalwad’s fundraising and past activities, is the Congress Party funding this enterprise as well?
4.Why are such Protocols and Policies for India, the largest sovereign democracy in the world, being developed in America, and by a group that has a clearly one-sided political bias and record?
5.Why is a person whose primary employment is with a US Federal Laboratory focused on bringing science to public welfare, engaged in such a project which has clear overtones and undertones of interfering in the politics/public policy dealing with internal armed conflict of a friendly foreign nation?
6.Why is this project within Dr. Buluswar’s or the LBNL’s mandate?
7.Why is this project dealing with making protocols for armed conflict, sited within a Business School?
8.Why is the staffing of such a project done exclusively with people who have such a colored record, with no effort to strike a balance between law enforcement interests and secessionist/subversive interests?
9.Is the University of California, Berkeley, aware of Dr. Angana Chatterji’s prior activities involving Kashmir and the United Nations, among others?
“This project seeks to create a policy and protocol framework for protecting people’s rights in situations of internal armed conflict and mass violence. Interdisciplinary in practice and rooted in local knowledge, this project seeks to define steps in conflict resolution through capacity building for psychosocial healing and the amelioration of abuses. In so doing, we contend with the condition of violence and the contested terrain of human rights and transitional justice.
India serves as a case in point, given that several diverse parts of the country are beset by armed conflict. Civilian populations—especially children, youth, women and minorities—suffer in the absence of adequate governance, access to responsible development, and the preservation of human rights.
The National Human Rights Commission of India, in its submission to the UN Human Rights Council for India’s Second Universal Periodic Review (2008), stated: “There are inordinate delays in the provision of justice... There is still no national action plan for human rights.”
Drawing on international, regional, and local expertise, the project aims to develop two inter-related but separate outputs:a Policy document and several Protocols.
Contemporary conflicts and transitional contexts will inform the development of this policy and the protocols.
The regions of Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, and Chhattisgarh are differently but persistently affected by conflict, with conflict-related issues intermittently occurring in Punjab. Additionally, areas such as Gujarat and Odisha have been impacted by far-reaching violence on minority communities in recent history.
These conflicts are spurred by a myriad of issues, including cultural and communal identity, religionization, self-determination, and economic empowerment. Such conflicts can have far-reaching human impact and lead to intense psychosocial and economic suffering of civilian populations in the affected areas, collapse of responsible governance, development, and social protection mechanisms, and can also have a broader disruptive effect impacting national, regional, and global security.
The importance of this project lies in the fact that nothing close to a policy framework with attendant protocols currently exists in India that protects civilians and their rights in areas of armed conflict and mass violence, in a way that is consistent with India’s legal, ethical, and constitutional obligations, even as brutal conflicts and suffering continue.
If such a policy framework is adopted in India, and appropriate technical protocols are implemented with the aid and participation of civil society and affected populations, it would serve as a model for other countries.”
Objectives
In the development of the Policy and Protocols, this project will focus on questions of transitional and transformative justice.
These questions pertain to issues of access to justice and conflict resolution; accountability and human rights; governance and the rule of law; gendered violence; minority rights; religious freedom; memory and healing; commitment to nonviolence; mechanisms for restitution and redressal; and people’s rights and humanitarian considerations during and after conflict; as well as multi-sectoral approaches, including involving education technology and social enterprise, toward inclusive development.
Policy and Protocols:
The Policy will be a document proposing a general course of action with the long-term goal of justice and stability across the country.
The Protocols --blueprints of standards and steps for accountability and reparation pertaining to healing through reparatory, transitional, and transformative justice in areas of current conflict and post-conflict--will be specific to the issues presented by various conflicts in India. Topics of the protocols will include:
·Gendered violence and human rights during armed conflict and massified violence.
·Casualties and missing persons.
·Supporting survivors through holding all parties to the conflict accountable (army, paramilitary, police, and non-state armed groups).
·Impunity laws and failures of legal justice.
·Historical dialogue and alliance-building.
·Social trauma, memory, and psychosocial restitution.
·Humanitarian and socioeconomic development, such as women’s health, and access to education.
In the course of producing these outputs, the project will involve those affected by conflict in conceiving redress. It will initiate cross-cultural dialogue. The project will facilitate remembrance and documentation, and undertake to create an archive and web-based memorialization installations. It will involve progressive civil society and the next generation in India, the Diaspora, and the global community in dialogue on peace, nonviolence, and justice. The project will initiate pilot processes through which to identify mechanisms for psychosocial restitution and humanitarian efforts.
The project will draw on diverse and plural imaginations of rights and justice in local, customary, and global traditions, in creating a framework for acknowledgement and remorse, accountability and justice, and healing and restitution.
The project will avoid taking positions on political questions, focusing instead on human rights and humanitarian concerns.”
Nivedita Menon launches an intriguing and productive experiment in her article, 'The Embarrassed Modern Hindu' written in response to De Roover’s 'Untangling the Knot'. The questions she asks about the imaginary sister of the frustrated US immigrant imagined by De Roover are ones that we should not side-step. But Menon does not go far enough with her questions about this girl of the 1950s.Would this girl be excited by the ‘alternative’ readings/histories of the stories she grew up with? Menon assumes she would. Why? Because she grew up in a household completely geared towards fulfilling her brother’s needs rather than hers. Let us grant to Menon that it is very likely that she did grow up in such a house-hold. But would that make her see the stories of Surpanakha and Sita as ‘oppressed women’ to which she wishes to draw her brother’s attention? What makes this a poignant question is that it really isn’t as if we have to draw completely from our imagination in order to re-construct this sister Menon has posited. Our mothers/grandmothers (Menon’s own, as she herself indicates) are a fair representation of what these women thought/think of these texts and these characters. What do/did they draw from them? The ‘oppression’ inherent in ‘Hinduism’? Surely, it would be odd if they did so, and yet, read the book from beginning to end every year with great devotion, as does Menon’s own mother! What could have been simpler and more authentic for Menon to do in order to gain an insight into her imaginary girl of the 50s, but to ask her mother what she thought of Doniger’s book? This is part of the problem De Roover points towards when he speaks of the frustration amongst some Indians about the way their culture is depicted. Why is it Menon draws only page numbers from her mother but not her understanding of these texts? The answer for feminists is always already given: that’s a generation of women who have been ‘conditioned’ by patriarchy. So patriarchy conditions women, but American Academia cannot. Isn’t it training in an academic tradition very much drawn from the West that makes Menon silence her own mother’s views on these texts? She does exactly what she implies De Roover does, silence the imaginary girl born in the 50s once she has served the purpose of drawing sympathy away from her brother. What makes patriarchy oppressive and Western academia liberatory if we learn to silence the very sources of our stories— our mothers and grandmothers/ fathers and grandfathers? Our attitude is: “Oh they know the texts, but they just don’t understand how to read them!”. Yes, and we don’t know the texts but we always already know what to make of them! Sounds suspiciously like either arrogance or folly, or what is worse— both— one compounding the other. If the real point of Doniger’s book is, as Menon says, that “other subject positions than that of the beleaguered upper caste, upper class man have always laid claim to Hinduism”, then this is a point as banal as it may be true. Surely a culture that generated thousands of re-tellings of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata does not need to learn this from Doniger. (Neither does it need to learn from Dinanath Batra what the ‘correct’ versions are!) The point, however, is that these are stories re-told by communities or individuals from their perspective. What Doniger does, is to turn these stories into the source of an ‘alternative history’ of the Hindus! Doniger does not write a work of fiction. And it is here that De Roover’s point for a more scientific approach to the study of India needs to be amplified. There is a long, and very much mainstream body of scholarship which draws a history of ancient India through completely haphazard readings of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. This body of scholarship is nothing but the continuation of a colonial ‘scholarly’ tradition driven towards proving one nonsensical theory or another (from the Aryan-Dravidian divide to the ‘corruption’ of ‘Hinduism’ in the post-Vedic age). While the theories have been rejected, the tradition of scholarship they spawned remains intact. In that sense, Doniger’s is no ‘alternative history’ at all! Whether highlighting a feminist/sexual/low-caste historical perspective, the point Doniger and other scholars writing in this vein ignore is akin to this: to say that the story of Eklavya shows the position of tribals/lower castes in ancient India is like saying that the rape rate in ancient Greece is mirrored in the number of women Zeus rapes in Greek mythology. Similarly, to say that Surpanakha is the measure for how women’s sexuality was suppressed is akin to saying that Greek women were taught to give undue emphasis to virginity since Daphne preferred to be turned into a laurel tree than be taken by Apollo. What sounds patently absurd to us in one case does not strike us as in the least incongruous in another. Clearly, this has more to do with what passes as the ‘serious’ study of India as against what would be entertained as scholarship about the West. Once we understand the primarily unscientific nature of Doniger’s work, the debate around ‘free speech’ will automatically disappear. For instance, we may ‘tolerate’ publications by Christian institutions or individuals who seek to reject the theory of evolution. But we certainly don’t teach them at University! And nobody writing such books is likely to get tenured positions in Universities. So clearly, there are standards of scientific and unscientific scholarship that even Menon would readily uphold and not confuse them with an issue of ‘free speech’. It is just that in the case of India studies, these lines have simply not been drawn! That is why practically anybody gets away with anything in the name of ‘Hinduism’ studies. Not just Doniger, but even Batra gets away with any kind of ‘knowledge claim’ that Penguin simply cannot fight. After all, as Menon says, if everybody is entitled to ‘their version’, then on what basis can Penguin fight Batra for the counter claims he makes? Thus, if anything, De Roover’s call for setting standards for the scientific research of India can only ensure that we can go beyond the shoddy notions about India that both Doniger and Batra express. Dr Sufiya Pathan teaches at the Department of Religious Studies, University of Pardubice, Pardubice, Czech Republic Srini Kalyanaraman
Just brilliant, Sufia. Yes, go beyond Sepoy syndrome. Modern Hindu are free people. Thanks, Sufia Pathan for articulating every Hindu's yearning for dharma-dhamma which governs his or her life. It is about freedom. Let not the scholars mess with free people. Thanks. Kalyanaraman
Sufiya, kudos to you for the article! Succinctly and most sensibly argued. Clearly Bunan Mikael isn't cramping your pen at all. Thank you for remembering me.
The essence of scientific work is being able to withstand scrutiny aimed at demolishing them (recall Popper's view of science), in order to stand the test of time. Dishonest academics like Wendy and her sycophants in Academia cannot shield their nonsense parading itself as valid history from criticism and then expect it to remain unchallenged. These myriand indian sepoys who are working extra hard these days to give Wendy credentials that she neither has nor deserves with respect to studies on India. Thanks to Dr. Sufiya Pathan for saying it as it is. It would be surprising if Nivedita Menon has the brains or the intellectual integrity to defend herself now that her dishonesty has been exposed.
""The history of ideas, even if not a source of 'hard history,' is a very precious thing to have. This is part of chapter 1, titled "Working with available light," where she discusses at length sources of history in India...So saying that her work is unscientific is a little uncharitable, to say the least."
Uncharitable my foot. What is this nonsense. History is meant to be an attributable collection of thoughts categorized in time and space, at the very least verifiable sources that can be debated upon, especially if the meanings are not clearly understood, or are interpreted differently by different scholars. Wendy's pretense of "available light" does not withstand scrutiny especially given her (and her "indology" cronies) deliberate refusal to even consider other scholarly work that refutes her theories, and then defend her own "ideas of history". Wendy cannot just pull out "ideas of history" from her rear end, refuse to acknowledge valid criticism and then pretend that she is working with "available light".
Wendy Doniger and her cronies cannot just come up their own "ideas of history" and pretend that is the same as correctly analyzing known history that is intimately tied to the people who are derivative of such history. Just spraying noxious fumes about "precious history of ideas" without exactly identifying verfiable sources of such "ideas of history" is known by another name: fiction. These retards who hold a benign view of Wendy's "scholarship" should try applying similar standards to studying the history of other religions and then see how far they get..they won't get to the next street corner, metaphorically speaking.
To be fair to Wendy Doniger, she does talk about using stories as historical sources right at the beginning of her book, in the section titled "Myth, History and Symbolism," wherein she also says, "The history of ideas, even if not a source of 'hard history,' is a very precious thing to have.
This is part of chapter 1, titled "Working with available light," where she discusses at length sources of history in India...So saying that her work is unscientific is a little uncharitable, to say the least.
Great article. Also lovely to see that the best and most sensible take over this Doniger affair coming from a Muslim woman writer :).
It is high time that some scientific approach and common sense is injected into cultural studies in the universities, especially for cultural studies of non-European societies. Colonialism is over but intellectual laziness is not over yet.
An apt response to Menon who in the process of trying to give voice to the Hindu boy’s sister unassumingly ended up silencing her mother. It is easy to theorise and discuss the plight of the ‘other’, the ‘subaltern’. It is even easier to pick out almost any written work and point out the unfairness of not looking at it from the feminine perspective but there are limits to how far one can go. Menon’s response to De Roover makes one wonder if feminism is one of the most easily available and safest option a critic can resort to. Pathan’s response in such a scenario becomes important if it has to escape being branded as an anti-feminist or patriarchal response which this response does, mostly owing to the fact that Pathan is a woman as well.
The examples of Eklavya and Surpanakha’s stories were among the high points of the article. However the lines that followed them were what this response actually seems to be wanting to point at, which unfortunately looks overshadowed by the remaining arguments being made about free speech and such-
"What sounds patently absurd to us in one case does not strike us as in the least incongruous in another. Clearly, this has more to do with what passes as the ‘serious’ study of India as against what would be entertained as scholarship about the West."
Yes, indeed. Telangana episode does NO credit to BJP. BJP should have opposed the skullduggery of SoniaG tooth and nail. The BJP did not.
BJP leaders have failed in their responsibility to ensure harmony within the nation. Instead, the BJP tamasha in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha chose to tow the dirty line of SoniaG UPA. When one wallows in the mud, some mud will stick. So it has to BJP which has certainly dented the dream of NaMo's nationalism, participative abhyudayam. NaMo has many wounds to heal. BJP does not come through as a friend of NaMo who is posited as the hope for a resurgent nation.
The unacceptable and insulting way in which Andhra Pradesh was divided shakes any residual trust left in India’s democratic institutions. The way both the Government and the Opposition leadership colluded in the Lok Sabha confirms the suspicions about the compromised leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). If dissent can be stifled and dirty tricks used in Parliament, the highest democratic institution, to pass an important bill in the dark, one wonders if such a farce can be called democracy. While no sane person can expect anything good from this totally corrupt, insensitive, mafia-style government the country has ever seen, the Opposition was not far behind in sharing this glory with the regime.
The shameless arrogance of the UPA was matched by the impotence of a compromised Opposition. The fact that Sushma Swaraj (chinamma) begged for a little credit for the formation of Telangana State speaks volumes about the stature and quality of opposition leadership in Parliament. The question arises how such incompetent and compromised persons ended up as leaders of the principal opposition party in parliament. It’s not just about the Andhra Reorganization Bill; forget about cornering government, they seem to have made secret agreements with the regime on every issue that came up on the floor of the house. For the last decade there seems to be no distinction between government and opposition.
People will soon reconcile to a separate State, but Seemandhra is deeply hurt. People now expect nothing from the Congress, but they did expect some sane behavior from the BJP. They do not understand the internal dynamics within the BJP, but they hoped something from Narendra Modi; what happened in the Lok Sabha really shook their confidence. He needs to address their concerns soon.
The BJP highlighted the separate Telangana issue in 1998, when Hyderabad was not even one-third of what it is today. In the NDA coalition, bowing to Telugu Desam pressure, they quietly dropped the issue. Since then, they have let unscrupulous elements hijack the issue and vitiate the relationship between people in the State. In 2014, the situation being different, they should have revised their stand or made necessary amendments. Sticking rigidly to a 15-year-old stand is not adherence to principles, certainly not for a dynamic political party that claims to work for people; it is intellectual laziness. They should have reviewed the situation and communicated with the people, rather than bungle under pressure from mafia-style tactics.
The 15-year drama for a separate Telangana has some important lessons for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which has been directly involved via frontal organizations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). Andhra Pradesh is a predominantly Hindu state with a great Hindu cultural and spiritual heritage. The RSS is uncomfortable with regional diversity and hardly highlights this local heritage; their template is the same all over the country. They hardly speak of the Satavahana, Kakatiya, Vijayanagar dynasties or local heroes and achievers. As such, they cannot connect with the majority working class and their scope is limited to a narrow segment of the elite classes.
Their talent pool is limited; many potential mass leaders left, though some returned recently under the influence of Narendra Modi. Overall, the leadership is mostly unelectable. The Hindu castes capable of churning out mass leaders never took RSS seriously. Even when they agree with the Parivar ideology and finance some of its social work projects, they are reluctant to support it politically. In Andhra Pradesh, the situation is worse because the political and intellectual ecosystem is influenced by the Dravidian movement, Marxism and Naxalism and because of the language barrier which makes the Sangh Parivar look like a north Indian entity. Andhra Pradesh has historically supported the Congress for decades because it had a strong leadership rooted in one or other strong Hindu caste, as was the case in Maharashtra. But once a local hero like NT Rama Rao emerged as an alternative, they discarded the Congress, though it still occupied political space due to leaders with a strong caste background.
The Sangh Parivar couldn’t win over Seemandhra but managed to gain some influence in parts of Telangana where the Hindu population faced atrocities from the Nizam’s Razakars, the riots in Hyderabad city and the Naxalism in rural Telangana. But Leftist and anti-Hindu leanings are also strong in Telangana, as demonstrated by the celebration of Mahishasura and Ravana as icons in Osmania University in the recent past, which was later copied by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) brigade in Delhi.
Other than Venkaiah Naidu, most BJP leaders are from Telangana. After unsuccessful attempts to influence the entire Andhra Pradesh, the RSS supported a separate Telangana in 1998. The ABVP, its active student organization in the region, played a key role in the episode; many TRS leaders were active members of the RSS in the past. TRS leader Chandrasekhar Rao, frustrated by the strong-arm tactics of YS Rajshekhar Reddy to decimate his party by using caste affiliations after coming to power with an alliance, launched vituperative attacks on Seemandhra people.
This, more than the separate Telangana and Hyderabad issue, angered Seemandhra people and vitiated the atmosphere between the regions. Blinded by hatred they demolished statues of Telugu icons on Tank bund in Hyderabad. While KCR was provoking people, state BJP leaders and the ABVP collaborated with rowdy TRS elements and Maoist sympathetic groups on the ground. Other than some lip service, state BJP leaders neither bothered to oppose or protest KCR’s approach nor made efforts to reach out to Seemandhra people. Sushma Swaraj addressed meetings in Telangana promising separate state in 100 days if BJP was voted to power, but not once cared to address Seema people. The BJP leadership was silently complicit with KCR and his party in their abusive campaign against Seemandhra.
Now Telangana is separate, the question is whether the BJP can win significant seats in the coming polls or emerge as a political force in the near future. Telangana has a significant Backward Caste population compared to Seemandhra, the Upper caste population is just around 12%, and if Backward Castes connect with Modi they can win some seats. In the long run, RSS may have to find Backward Caste leadership to consolidate its clout or Naxal and anti-Hindu elements can gain.
Seemandhra is a different game. Historically Christian missionary activity is high in this region and their influence is not limited to the Scheduled Castes; there are many upper caste converts also. Under YSR, their activity increased to unprecedented levels; his son-in-law runs an evangelical empire and his family actively participates in mass evangelical gatherings. An influential Hindu caste with strong roots in Rayalaseema is solidly behind YSR’s son, Jagan Reddy. As of now, it seems that the Reddy-Dalit-Christian support base of Congress has migrated to Jagan’s party in Seemandhra and an incremental vote from upper castes and Backward Castes could bring his party closer to a majority. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) with its Kamma-Backward Caste support base also needs incremental vote from other upper castes. Both parties are evenly balanced and whoever gains the extra vote could win a majority in Seemandhra.
The RSS in Seemandhra is incapable of tackling the widespread missionary activity; Jagan’s victory will make things worse. The only option is to join hands with TDP, but the antagonism between upper castes which constitute 32 per cent of the coastal Andhra and 22 per cent of the Rayalaseema population remains a hurdle. A BJP-TDP-Loksatta alliance is the need of the hour to consolidate upper caste, Backward Caste and swing votes in Seemandhra. Jagan’s support base is like the Bahujan Samaj Party vote base in UP; he needs increments from all other castes to win.
After supporting the division of Andhra Pradesh for political expediency, if the RSS fails to manage a hold in the region, then anarchic and casteist forces could take over both Telangana and Seemandhra. It will have to accommodate regional identities. A monolithic Hindu identity may have to be projected to the outside world to survive as a group in the present geo-politics hostile to Hindus, but internal diversity should never be compromised.
In the long run, bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh may not be an economic disadvantage for both regions in long run, but the Telugu people have lost their political clout and prestige within the Indian union. Their icons now belong to either Telangana or Seemandhra. But this is not the time for disappointment; they now have to strive hard to make both regions prosperous and focus more on their language and culture which has been neglected so far.
General VK Singh vs Lt General? The battle for Jhunjhunu heats up by Sandipan Sharma Mar 1, 2014
Never before in the history of India have two Generals of the army fought in public with each other. But, if the battle script unfolds on expected lines, a bitter duel between two former army officers could become a reality in Rajasthan.
Lt General Raj Kadyan, a former deputy chief of army staff, is the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate from Jhunjhunu. His adversary could be former army chief General VK Singh, whose name the state BJP has proposed as its candidate for the constituency.
If an imminent General vs General contest isn't enough gunpowder for the Lok Sabha war, many other battles within the battle promise to turn Jhunjhunu into the Kurukshetra of the 2014 Mahabharata.
]Can VK Singh capitalise on the Modi wave? PTI
One, Kadyan is a known critic of Singh's. Both have had a history of fighting many verbal battles over the past few years, especially when Singh was accused of financing a secret intelligence unit in the army. So, there is more at stake than just a Lok Sabha seat.
Two, both come from communities considered inimical to each other in the heart of Rajasthan. Kadyan is a posterboy of the Jat community, whose numbers dominate Jhunjhunu. Singh is a Thakur, the traditional rulers of the Shekhawati area comprising the desert districts of Jhunjhunu, Sikar and Churu. Jats and Rajputs have traditionally been on the opposite side of the social and political divide in the area and their rivalry has been both bitter and brutal.
Three, Jhunjhunu is a catchment area for the Indian army. Most of the families in the area have either a soldier in the army or somebody who retired from it. Loyalty to the army runs in the veins of Jhunjhunu.
Kadyan began his campaign in Jhunjhunu when his name was announced by the AAP a few days ago. His reputation of a sophisticated soldier with an impeccable track record, the tag of being an ‘achiever' from the majority Jat community and his years of association with the welfare of ex-soldiers has given him a headstart in the constituency. The only thing that is hurting him is the tag of an outsider.
Singh's name is yet to be announced. But the state BJP wants him to contest from this seat or the one abutting it. It has shortlisted his name and forwarded it to the high command. The BJP, according to reports, was earlier insisting that Singh contest from Haryana. But the General backed out citing the large number of Jat voters in the region.
The Jat vote may still hurt Singh in Jhunjhunu. But he may not be worried too much about it because of the Congress, which is likely to field the daughter-in-law of Jat heavyweight and former minister Sis Ram Ola who died recently. In case the Ola family contests, a two-way split in the Jat vote would help Singh.
The former army chief too is an outsider-he was born in Haryana. But Singh went to a public school in Pilani, which is part of Jhunjhunu, and can thus stake claim to the local legacy. Add to this the Modi wave and Singh seems have the edge over his rivals.
But Jhunjhunu is a tricky constituency. Its voters have had a history of favouring the underdog and rebelling against the powerful. The Jats of the region are known more for their Leftist leanings and a hint of antipathy towards right-wing politics. If there is one constituency that is likely to support the AAP brand of politics, it is Jhunjhunu.
So, the battle looks engrossing. Two Generals and an aam aurat; a constituency tailor-made for the AAP and a wave meant to take the BJP to power; a local Jat vs an outsider Jat vs a half-local Jat; even a specialist couldn't have come up with a better war game.
NEW DELHI: Another book on Hinduism by American indologist Wendy Doniger has come under attack from the same Delhi-based group which had compelled the publishers of an earlier work by her to withdraw the title.
Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti (SBAS) demanded on Saturday that the Aleph Book Company stop sales and pulp all remaining copies of Doniger's book "On Hinduism", published in 2013.
Dina Nath Batra, who had led the charge against Doniger's previous book, said that the contents of "On Hinduism" were, like the previous work, "malicious and offending".
"She has used derogatory terms for Hindu deities, which hurts the sentiments of devotees," Batra charged. The book is part of a conspiracy hatched by "pseudo-secularists" to tarnish the image of Hindu culture and India, he alleged.
"It is part of a conspiracy hatched by the children of (Karl) Marx and (Thomas) Macaulay to tarnish the image of Hindu culture. There are certain pseudo secularists who are behind this conspiracy," Batra alleged.
Atul Kothari, co-convener of SBAS, said the publishers had assured that they would pulp the book within a week but, if that did not happen, legal recourse would be taken.
"We have been given an oral assurance by the publishers that the sales of the book will be stalled. The publishers have been given a week's time to provide an assurance in writing, failing which, SBAS would... move the judiciary," Kothari said.
The publisher, when contacted, however, declined to comment on the issue.
She has been accused by SBAS of using content which is "derogatory and offending to Hinduism" and "misrepresents facts".
"Recalling this book is essential because (Doniger), a so-called scholar, has misrepresented India and Hinduism. If research studies are carried out in future on Hinduism and her book is referred to, it will lead to an alteration of facts. That is not correct; therefore, we demand this book be recalled and banned," said Kothari.
Citing Article 295 (A) of Indian Penal Code, Batra said, "Article 295 (A) states that deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs shall be punished with imprisonment or fine, or both."
Russian armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula on Saturday.
SIMFEROPOL
Scores of heavily armed soldiers tightened their grip on the Crimean capital, Simferopol, surrounding government buildings, shuttering the airport, and blocking streets.
SEVASTOPOL
Russia's Black Sea Fleet is set to be based in Sevastopol until at least 2042, based on an accord between Russia and Ukraine.
Gas pipelines
About 80 percent of Russian gas exports to Europe pass through Ukraine. Europe, in turn, depends on Russia for 40 percent of its imported fuel.
According to Mikhail Korchemkin, head of East European Gas Analysis, a consulting firm in Pennsylvania, the most important pipelines that run through Ukraine are the ones leading to Slovakia. They will eventually take gas to Germany, Austria and Italy.
SUDDENLY the specter of the Cold War is back. Prompted by the political crisis in Ukraine, some conservatives have called for President Obama to stand up to Vladimir V. Putin in the grand tradition of previous American presidents who stared eyeball to eyeball with Soviet leaders from Joseph Stalin to Mikhail S. Gorbachev.
Mr. Obama came close on Friday. Responding to reports of Russian mobilization, he said, “There will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.”
His critics acknowledge that times have changed. “No one wants a new Cold War,” a Wall Street Journal editorial put it, before going on to imply the opposite, that Mr. Obama could prevent a civil war in Eastern Europe “if he finally admits Vladimir Putin’s hostility to a free and democratic Europe and clearly tells protesting Ukrainians that we’re on their side.”
Such a sentiment inevitably conjures John F. Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech before a crowd in West Berlin in 1963, or Ronald Reagan, on a visit there in 1987, urging the Soviets to “tear down this wall.”
The Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev on a plane with President Richard M. Nixon in 1973.CreditDirck Halstead Liason via Getty Images
More echoes of the Cold War surfaced in recent reports that Russia has been violating nuclear arms accords dating back to the Reagan years and alarmed reactions to the news of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s proposal to reduce the United States Army to a level not seen since before World War II.
Even Mr. Obama seemed to be drawing on the collective memory of old-time superpower struggles when he insisted recently that his administration’s approach to Ukraine was “not to see this as some Cold War chessboard in which we are in competition with Russia.”
That image of a chessboard — an epic contest between two giant players, carefully nudging their pieces around the globe as part of a grand strategy — has indeed become a familiar metaphor for the Cold War. But it is misleading. Many decisions remembered today for their farsighted, tactical brilliance were denounced in their day as weak-willed. And big, public gestures often made less difference than the small, hidden ones.
Born in tandem with the nuclear age, the Cold War was defined from the outset less by outright confrontation than by caution. And with caution came adjustment, compromise, improvisation and at times retreat. As often as not, both sides blinked.
The term surfaced in 1947, in Walter Lippmann’s book “The Cold War,” whose title was derived from a phrase “used in Europe during the late 1930s to characterize Hitler’s war of nerves against the French, sometimes described as la guerre blanche or la guerre froide,” as Ronald Steel wrote in his book “Walter Lippmann and the American Century.”
Lippmann, a dean of foreign policy realism, argued that policy should be made in the spirit of pragmatism, rather than as a global crusade against Communism that would require the headache, or worse, of “recruiting, subsidizing and supporting a heterogeneous array of satellites, clients, dependents and puppets.”
In fact the costliest maneuvers — chess-piece gambits in Korea and Vietnam — backfired, increasing tensions abroad even as they shook public confidence at home.
Overheated rhetoric often contributed to trouble. In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected on a Republican platform that promised to replace the Communist containment strategy of President Harry S. Truman with a more aggressive “liberation” policy that would seize the initiative from the Soviet Union.
Yet throughout his two terms, Eisenhower consistently opted for stability over conflict. Arriving in Geneva for a summit with Nikita S. Khrushchev in July 1955, Eisenhower said he came bearing “the goodwill of America” and “the aspirations of America for peace.”
Continue reading the main story
Travel Diary | Road-tripping in the name of fashion
Alice Herz-Sommer, who found peace in Chopin amid Holocaust, dies at 110
SeaWorld questions ethics of "Blackfish" investigator
A year later, when Moscow sent two Red Army tank divisions to quell anti-Communist protesters in Budapest, killing as many as 30,000 people, the cry went up for action. “What are the West and the United Nations going to do?” one despairing protester asked an American reporter.
The answer: nothing. Counteraction would only provoke Moscow to tighten its noose and perhaps “go back on de-Stalinization,” Eisenhower explained.
To some this sounded like retreat. John W. McCormack, a Massachusetts Democrat, accused the Eisenhower administration of appeasement and said it was living in “a dream world” that was emboldening the Soviets.
A similar tone was struck recently when Senator John McCain said Mr. Obama was “the most naïve president in American history,” blind to the reality that Mr. Putin “wants to restore the Russian empire.” That second charge was also made (by Lippmann, among others) of Stalin and his successors.
Still, it did not stop Eisenhower from inviting Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, again angering conservatives, who mounted protests during the visit.
Later presidents followed Eisenhower’s example. Even the most celebrated war of nerves, the Cuban missile crisis, was resolved by a secret bargain: The Soviets agreed not to place missiles in Cuba, and the Kennedy administration agreed to remove missiles it had placed in Turkey.
Another cold warrior, Richard M. Nixon, got the country out of the Vietnam War and also cut deals with the Soviets, including an accord that reduced both nations’ stockpile of nuclear missiles.
Or consider the most hallowed of Republican Cold War presidents, Ronald Reagan. Early in his first term, he too faced a Ukraine-like emergency when the Solidarity movement was crushed in Poland. Many expected a powerful response. Instead he showed restraint. He voiced sympathy for the movement, but the assistance he provided came quietly — and covertly, in part — through money and communications equipment funneled to anti-Communists. Eventually, Poland and other Soviet satellites were freed, but the change was partly made possible after Reagan realized he could negotiate with Mr. Gorbachev.
Calculations like these are the true prologue to the approach that Mr. Obama seems to have adopted in trouble spots from Syria to Ukraine. Like Nixon, he wound down a war he inherited, this time in Iraq, just as his reliance on drones and cyberwarfare parallels Eisenhower’s avoidance of military operations. And his ambition to eliminate nuclear arsenals builds on the efforts of both Nixon and Reagan.
Perhaps it’s time the chessboard metaphor was retired. The truth is that the Cold War was less a carefully structured game between masters than a frightening high-wire act, with leaders on both sides aware that a single misstep could plunge them into the abyss.
Correction: March 1, 2014
An earlier version of this news analysis misstated John W. McCormack’s role at the time that he accused the Eisenhower administration of appeasement. He was a member of the House of Representatives; he was not yet the speaker of the House.
Sam Tanenhaus is a writer at large for The New York Times.
Jayalalithaa Jayaram (centre) is 'saluted' by world leaders in this doctored image
Applauded by Putin, Obama and Kim Jong-un
PERMALINK
LIKE (2)
DISLIKE (1)
REPORT ABUSE
Can VK Singh capitalise on the Modi wave? PTI
