Monday, 29 February 2016
Adam Dick
United States Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told Rachel Martin of National Public Radio, in a new interview released Sunday, that Russia behaved “completely wrongheaded” when it “came in and joined the [Syrian] civil war on the side of [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad], further fueling the civil war.” Carter’s statement is an immediately classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. The US government, including the military Carter oversees, long ago committed to supporting another side of the Syrian civil war – the side whose objective is deposing Assad.
After stating this criticism of Russian actions in Syria, Carter immediately follows up with this advice for the Russian government:
[Russia has] more influence with Bashar al-Assad than anybody else. So, the way the civil war is brought to an end and a political transition is, very importantly, the Russians persuading Assad to leave. If they are willing to use their leverage against Assad to achieve that end, that’s very welcome.
Carter thus reveals that his real beef with the Russian government is not that it intervened in Syria. Instead Carter opposes that Russia has chosen to pursue a foreign policy in Syria that differs from and even conflicts with the US dictate that “Assad must go.” Still, Carter is careful not to phrase his objection explicitly this way. Instead, Carter, who is no doubt aware that many Americans are skeptical and wary of foreign intervention, paints Russia as a bad guy for choosing a course of foreign intervention – something the US has also done in regard to Syria.
Indeed, Carter even misleads in the interview with a comment that the US is “not a party – in any formal way – to the Syrian civil war; what we want is an end to the Syrian civil war.” True, the US government does want an end to the civil war – an end in which its side wins.
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/02/28/pot-meet-kettle-ash-carter-says-russia-completely-wrongheaded-to-join-in-syrian-civil-war/
Saudi Warplanes Attack Yemen Market, Killing 45 Civilians
Planes Doubled Back to Attack Rescue Workers
by Jason Ditz,
Saudi warplanes launched multiple airstrikes against a marketplace in the Yemeni capital city of Sanaa today, killing at least 45 civilians and wounding some 50 others, the latest in a long series of strikes against civilians in Shi’ite territory in Yemen.
According to witnesses, the Saudi warplanes used a double-tap technique to kill as many people as possible, hitting the marketplace and then returning not long thereafter to attack rescue workers crowded around the site of the first strike.
The Saudis have come under growing criticism in recent months for massive numbers of strikes against civilian targets across Yemen during the war, and had announced not long ago that they intended to bring in US and British advisers to help them lower the number of civilian deaths.
So far though, the pace of attacks on obviously civilian targets doesn’t appear to have slowed in the least, and Saudi officials appear to be focusing their talking points not on defending themselves from criticism, but on claiming they’re gaining territory around the capital.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/02/28/saudi-warplanes-attack-yemen-market-killing-45-civilians/
Netanyahu: Syria Peace Deal Must Meet Israel’s Needs
Declares 'Red Line' in Allowing Terrorist Front in Golan
by Jason Ditz,
Speaking today ahead of a cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that Israel “welcomes” the ongoing Syrian ceasefire in theory, but insists that the international community recognize that any peace deal ending the Syrian Civil War has to comply with Israel’s needs.
Netanyahu and other officials were vague on exactly what that meant, but insisted that it had to halt “Iranian aggression from Syria,” which likely suggests Israel is going to demand a regime change that installs a new government that’s not an ally to Iran.
That’s in keeping with Israeli comments throughout the war that they “prefer ISIS” ending up in control of Syria as opposed to an Iranian ally, because they believe Iran will always be Israel’s “main enemy” under any circumstance.
Israeli officials also suggested they might attack Syria some more to prevent arms transfers to Hezbollah, and also to keep the Syrian Golan from becoming a “terrorist front.” Ironically, Israel appeared very comfortable when the Syrian Golan was under al-Qaeda control, and is only objecting to the notion the Syrian government might regain control of it.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/02/28/netanyahu-syria-peace-deal-must-meet-israels-needs/
ISIS Bombers Kill 70 in Shi’ite Market in Baghdad
Over 100 More Wounded in Attack by Motorcycle Bombers
by Jason Ditz,
A pair of ISIS motorcycle bombers detonated in the Shi’ite district of Sadr City in the capital city of Baghdad. The attack killed at least 70 people, and wounded another 100 in a crowded mobile phone market.
ISIS was quick to issue a statement confirming responsibility, saying they will continue to attack “rejectionist polytheists” wherever they can find them. This was the biggest ISIS attack in Iraq so far this year.
This was the second major ISIS attack in Baghdad in the past few days. On Thursday, a pair of ISIS suicide bombers attacked a Shi’ite mosque, killing at least 15 people and wounding 48 others. Those bombers were on foot.
Iraqi PM Hayder Abadi said he believes that the ISIS attacks are proof they are facing military defeats, and are desperately trying to target civilians after losing the initiative on the battlefield. This mirrors similar claims of “desperation” after previous bombings, though there has been little territory changing hands in recent weeks in Iraq.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/02/28/isis-bombers-kill-70-in-shiite-market-in-baghdad/
The WikiLeaks Files. The World According To US Empire
The WikiLeaks Files. The World According To US Empire
Review By Ludwig Watzal
Countercurrents.org
The WikiLeaks Files. The World According to US Empire, Verso, London 2015, 624 pp. L 20, € 20.90; $ 21.50.
"Each working day, 71,000 people across 191 countries representing twenty-seven different US government agencies wake and make their way past flags, steel fences, and armed guards into one of the 276 fortified buildings that comprise the 169 embassies and other missions of the US Department of State. They are joined in their march by representatives and operatives from twenty-seven other US government departments and agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the various branches of the US military", writes Julian Assange in his introduction to "The WikiLeaks Files". This book pictures a line of destabilization around the world by the US empire.Therefore, it's censored by the media, US government, facebook, twitter, and the Library of Congress.
These institutions are like "official" US espionage centers in foreign countries. "Above them, radio and satellite antennas scrape the air, some reaching back home to receive or disgorge diplomatic and CIA cables, some to relay the communications of US military ships and planes, others emplaced by the National Security Agency in order to mass-intercept the mobile phones and other wireless traffic of the host population." The US security and surveillance state has not only wiretapped Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German political class in toto but also the rest of the European leaders, including the leader of the French "Grant Nation", and their cronies in Brussels. And it didn't end with Edward Snowdon's whistle-blowing.
According to Assange, the Department of State is unique among the other bureaucracies of the United States. "It provides cover for the CIA, buildings for the NSA mass-interception equipment, office space and communications facilities for the FBI, the military, and other government agencies, and staff to act as sales agents and political advisors for the largest US corporations." Every year, the Department of State spends more than $ 1 billion for "public diplomacy" that's a euphemism for outward propaganda. It's aimed at journalists and civil society agencies, including some US human rights agencies so that they serve as conduits for the cause of the State Department.
The diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks are not produced to manipulate the public but are aimed at the rest of the US state apparatus. They mirror the real opinion of the Empire's ruling class because they are free from distorting the public. Therefore, the US empire is doing everything to get a hold of Assange. He has violated the unwritten code of conduct and has exposed the evil and sinister machinations of the United States governments. Considering the importance of the cables, Hillary Clinton's email traffic as Secretary of State via her private server should be considered a crime and is going to be investigated by the FBI. While the US government claims that Assange has published "classified" documents without a security clearance that violates the Espionage Act of 1917, although he is not a US citizens, how does the some US government treat Clintons passing on of "classified" material via her private server to people that had also no security clearance? The double standard of the US political class seems obvious.
Assange rightly criticized the national security establishment as a quasi "religious phenomenon". National security and classified documents are seen as if they were surrounded by a blaze of glory ("holy seal"). That Julian Assange "violated" their sanctuary can explain why the US security establishment got so hysterical about WikiLeaks disclosures and wants to get a hold of him at any cost.
The hysteria went so far that in 2011, the US government issued a "WikiLeaks fatwa" forbidding government officials to read even published "classified" documents in the media. "The recent disclosure of US Government documents by WikiLeaks has caused damage to our national security. Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites, disclosed to the media, or otherwise in the public domain remains classified and must be treated as such until such time it is declassified by an appropriate US government authority … Contractors who inadvertently discover potentially classified information in the public domain shall report its existence immediately to their Facility Security Officers. Companies are instructed to delete the offending material by holding down the SHIFT key while pressing the DELETE key for Windows-based systems and clearing of the internet browser cache."
Assange hints at an odd phenomenon concerning the use of published "classified" documents by the academia, especially in US journals. "The academic censorship" in foreign relations surprised him most. The academic class doesn't accept papers that rely on published WikiLeaks material, although it is frequently used in courts or any other scientific fields. The field of international relations is dominated by ISA, the International Studies Association, which has banned the most important US foreign policy archive from appearing in its academic papers. "They are even worse than the US media", says Assange. Doesn't this academic fatwa call into question its entire output that explains the role of US foreign policy? A similar ignorant attitude on the part of academics can be determined relative to a questioning of the official 9/11 narrative.
The book falls into two parts: organized by continents and countries. Contributors, inter alia, are; Phyllis Bennis, Peter Certo, Michael Busch, Conn Hallinan, Sarah Harrison, Jake Johnston, Alexander Main, Robert Naiman, Linda Pearson, Gareth Porter, Russ Wellen, and Stephen Zunes. Three chapters in which US policy towards dictators, Iraq or economic questions such as TTP and TISA are nameless. Or were they written by Assange? Many authors take a very critical position towards US foreign policy. Some of them see no difference between Obama's and Bush's foreign policy. Their policy had little to do with human rights but rather with supporting Iraqi sectarianism that led to ISIS and the current refugee crisis.
Most information focuses on post-9/11 and the "war on terror" fought by the US and its client states. This war led to a never-ending nightmare for the people of these countries. It's not surprising that all authors describe US policy in the darkest colors possible. Many of these essays seem to be driven by a hypercritical political position rather than an open-minded behind-the-scene analysis. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to publish "the best of the best" of the millions of documents that WikiLeaks has presented so far on its website, provided with some ranging in comments of the US position in global affairs. This might have given a more objective picture of the highly questionable role the US empire plays around the world.
Despite these minor objections, it's a very important, informative and disturbing book that is a very dry read.
Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany. He runs the bilingual blog
http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/
http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/
Offer truth and hope, not drama: Teachers
The following is an open letter written by the SC/ST Teachers' Forum & Concerned Faculty, University of Hyderabad, to Union HRD minister Smriti Irani:
Dear Ms Irani,
Thanks to your stunning performance, we, many faculty members from the University of Hyderabad, are compelled to do what we should have done in the last one month or so, but could not bring ourselves to - write, write about Rohith, write about our other students, write about the state of academics, write about ourselves and write about society at large.
Our first acknowledgement to this therefore goes to you for revealing yourself and for bringing us back from grief, from reflection, from teaching and from various other mundane things we do as part of our job.
As we watched you in disbelief on our TV screens on 24th February 2016, you, in a voice choked with emotion, again and again referred to the "child" whose death has been used as a political weapon. We were left bewildered.
At what precise point, Madam Minister, did this sinister, anti-national, casteist, Dalit student of the University of Hyderabad transform into a child for you? Definitely not in those five rejoinders from MHRD (the ministry of human resource development) between 03-09-2015 and 19-11- 2015 with the subject line "anti-national activities in Hyderabad Central University Campus"? Definitely not when you chose to overlook and endorse what can only be read as extraordinarily aggressive and unfounded allegations by a minister in your own government, Mr Bandaru Dattatreya?
Ms Irani, your constant reference to him as a child is nothing but a patronising attempt to dehumanise his reality. It is also deeply disrespectful to Rohit's mother whose child he actually is - because she knows how ironic your appropriation of him is, considering your culpability in his death.
Only after more than a month of his death Rohith becomes a "child" for you "whose death was used as a political weapon". A political weapon by whom, honourable Minister? By the other four students who were expelled with him and who spent those cold nights out in the makeshift velivada (which loosely translates as Dalit ghetto), with nothing but each other for company and succour? By the other students and friends who stood by him? Because you definitely seem to imply that when you say this child could possibly have been revived and yet his body was hidden and no doctor or police was allowed near him.
By now incontrovertible facts have emerged that belie this.
However, we would like to go beyond those facts and appeal to your heart. You were not there that night, Respected Minister. You did not see the grief or the shock, nor were you there to feel the despair. How could you even begin to fathom how desperate the students were when they called faculty members and the medical doctor of the university's health centre as soon as Rohith's body was found hanging by students and security officials? As Dr Rajyasree, medical officer, has stated, she rushed to the hostel at 7.30pm and declared Rohith dead at 7.40pm, all recorded in his case sheet on that fateful night of 17-01-2016.
The police arrived at the scene immediately after this. Iraniji, it is beyond our simple comprehension to understand how you with your meticulous preparation, evident in the Lok Sabha speech, ignored these crucial medical documents/preliminary evidences. This also includes the post-mortem report that declares Rohith was dead at least 18-24 hours before the body was examined the subsequent day. From all the medical and post-mortem reports, statements by friends, faculty and university officials - it is clear that Rohith's body was found hours after he hanged himself.
Not only are your claims factually incorrect but they point to an utter lack of respect and sensitivity for the grieving family, friends and students. You are clearly disconnected from the heartbreaking grief of his friends, palpable to anyone present that night or the accompanying anger knowing the injustice that led to this tragedy. Does it befit our honourable minister to implicate these very grieving people in the death of their beloved friend?
Respected Minister, you have also repeatedly claimed that the committee which suspended Rohith Vemula and four other Dalit students was not constituted by your government, but by the UPA regime. You have also emphasised that there indeed was a Dalit faculty member in that committee.
We are astounded that you can so smoothly pass on the responsibility for this tragedy to someone else. Being at the helm of the MHRD, we are sure you must know that the Executive Council's Sub-Committee that took the fatal decision to suspend the Dalit students from hostels and other common spaces was expressly constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Appa Rao, following five rejoinders from your ministry goading the university to take action against the Dalit students.
We may also point out that the two-member committee constituted by the MHRD itself points out a curious anomaly - the EC and its sub-committee is the very same body that recommends and ratifies - this simply cannot be.
Just in case your busy schedule has not allowed your attention to the following, permit us to point out further contradictions:
That this subcommittee was composed of all upper caste members except for one. We fail to understand how this one member is expected to overrule the will of five.
Most importantly, Prof. Prakash Babu, the sole Dalit member, was co-opted as the Dean, Students' Welfare and NOT as an SC/ST representative. Kindly refer to the constitution of the EC sub-committee in its minutes of meeting dated 24-11-2015.
That the EC sub-committee did not hear out the key stakeholders or consider the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police on 3rd October 2015 and simply concurred with the much contested Proctorial Board's decision is matter for another enquiry.
Now let us come to the punishment itself. Let us think of the lives and struggles of the five boys who were suspended - four of them being sons of agricultural labourers and one without both parents. For them, suspension from hostel meant denial of food and shelter. Add to that, denial of right to access common spaces effectively amounted to social boycott in caste terms. Students who had surmounted unimaginable obstacles to reach the university were pushed back right into the velivada, the "untouchable" fringes of the village.
Do you not believe that the administration should have reached out at least when Rohith wrote that 18th December 2015 letter asking the VC to provide Dalit students "(a toxic inorganic compound) and a nice rope" at the time of admission itself?
Ms Irani, for all practical purposes, it was a cry for help. This was an opportunity for us to help this "child" and we lost that opportunity. And we have never heard you quote from this letter that was acknowledged as received by the VC's office.
For a despondent, beleaguered Rohith, hounded and ignored by the powers that be, death was probably the only way to freedom and the limitless wonder and beauty of the universe that so moved him! Perhaps it was the only way out for someone as conscientious, brilliant and reflective as Rohith was. This was Rohith's assertion of dignity, a dignity that was not allowed to him or his friends in their lives.
Their lives, in the words of Gopal Guru, mirrored social death, smeared with indignities of caste. To say that his "suicide note" of 17-01-2016 does not name or implicate anyone amounts to gross opportunism and abandonment of moral responsibility.
Permit us to remind you, dear minister, that the VC did not think/feel it worthwhile enough to meet the grieving students on that fateful night. We are reminded ad nauseam of the threat that students posed to him and continue to pose to him.
Students who already had lost a dear friend were accused by the ABVP of violence, and, this is important - students who throughout their struggle since those intense first days following Rohith's death until now have maintained their poise, their maturity, through all their struggles and protests and have never resorted to violence.
Could the Vice-Chancellor of the University not meet and console them in that most vulnerable, heartbreaking moment? Even when nearly 300 teachers requested the VC to come and assured him of a space to meet students along with them, the VC's sense of authority prevailed over his sense of duty and responsibility. This was a defining moment Ms Irani, when the VC could have regained his moral stature and humanity in the eyes of the students. He clearly let history slip through his fingers.
Rohith is not there with us any more. His four friends suspended along with him are, his larger group of friends in this university and growing group of friends across the country are.
What we expect from you is very minimal. Do not turn this into a fight against students who have nothing to rely upon, no power - political or social - no connections, no money, not even a home.
Please understand this - the minority status you love to claim for yourself cannot in any way be equated with the state of disprivilege and dispossession that many of these students battle on a daily basis. All our students have is the hope of a future which education can possibly bring - to quote Rohith - "from shadows to the stars".
Do not blight their hopes, their dreams. Help us ensure each one of us is sensitive to cater to their needs inside classrooms, in labs, in hostels, outside, everywhere. As teachers, as ministers, we have much more to offer - truth, equality, justice, hope and inspiration. Not melodrama.
The Prime Minister has extolled your speech tweeting " Satyamev Jayate". Whose Truth? We ask.
SC/ST Teachers' Forum & Concerned Faculty, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160228/jsp/frontpage/story_71798.jsp#.VtQD6X2GMgs |
Modi Regime Turning Fascist or A Farce? Sedition Charges Slapped On Rahul Gandhi, Kejriwal, Yechury, D. Raja And Others
By Countercurrents.org
The Narendra Modi regime fast turning into fascist or a farce! Only time will tell which direction India is heading . In the latest incident a case of sedition has been registered in Hyderabad against Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury,CPI leader D Raja and five others in connection with the JNU row. Others named in the First Information Report include Congress leaders Anand Sharma and Ajay Maken, JD(U) Spokesperson KC Tyagi, JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar and JNU research scholar Umar Khalid. Kanhaiya and Khalid, who have earlier been arrested in Delhi on sedition charge, have also been booked again on the same charge.
A Hyderabad lawyer, Janardhan Goud filed a complaint in court after which a case was registered in the Saroornagar police station under the Cyberabad police.
Sedition is alleged for visiting the JNU campus on February 13 to support and express solidarity to the students who had participated in event against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. The complaint calls JNU a “hub of anti-national activity” and claims that the politicians are “violating the constitution by supporting the anti-nationals”. In his petition, Goud said Rahul and other leaders, despite being aware that Delhi Police had registered a case against Kanhaiya on charge of sedition had visited JNU campus and knowingly supported them and hence it "amounted to sedition".
Mr Goud had filed a complaint in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on Thursday, seeking its direction to police for registration of a case against Kanhaiya and Khalid for allegedly raising anti-India and pro-Afzal Guru slogans on JNU campus and others. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court of L B Nagar ordered the cases to be filed on a petition by advocate S Janardhan Goud, who stated that he was disturbed by the video footage shown on Times Now and Zee News in which he heard students chanting anti-India slogans. He said "I want citizens all over the country to file such FIRs against them."
Reacting to the case against Rahul Gandhi, the Congress said it wouldn’t stop it from remaining “the torch-bearer against oppression and suppression” by the BJP. “Sadly, the BJP and its allies want to suppress every voice that speaks against their repressive anti-Dalit and anti-poor policies. From Rohith Vemula to Rahul Gandhi, everyone who raises an opinion against suppressing of opinion by the Modi government is branded anti-national,” chief party spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said.
Yechury said the case had to have the government’s approval. “This is a political move by the RSS-BJP. This could not have happened without the government’s sanction. The matter will be taken up politically and legally,” the CPM leader said.
JD(U) leader Tyagi said the charge reminded him of “pre-Emergency days”. “Along with Jayaprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, Chaudhary Charan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, we have faced all these charges. This is a government with new ideology and it reminds me of pre-Emergency days,” he said. The issue would definitely be raised in Parliament, Tyagi added. “We will fight it inside and outside Parliament.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be asked for “the definition of national and anti-national”.
It seems that the Sangh Parivar has let loose its fringe elements to brand anyone who doesn't agree with its ideology as antinationals, framing fabricated cases, beating them up and even publicly lynching. The eerie silence of the central government is deafening and frightening.
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc290216.htm
The rise of the angry national
Rather than being threatened by currents of world history, India can take any current of thought and make it its own, but in a way that exudes that ineffable sense of being shaped by India.
Let us leave aside the question: who is an anti-national? In this special issue, we explore, instead, what makes up a nation and what it means to love, or not, the country that is India. Pratap Bhanu Mehta on why the current nationalism has worked itself up into a fury
Nationalism is the inescapable passion of the modern world. It is the basis of self-governing communities. It is the only ideology that can compete with religion in consecrating death.
Like religion, it is a source of immense idealism and the basis for horrible crimes and exclusions. The persistence and diversity of nationalisms is a big subject. At the moment, the issue that needs diagnosis is the rise of the “angry national”: a vituperative, accusatory and divisive nationalism. For the first time in my life, concerned friends and suspicious strangers are asking: are you a patriot?
Do you love India? In my context, these questions seem more like an affectation than a threat. But these questions are taking a menacing and accusatory form, driven by the language and imagery reminiscent of the Weimar Republic — of a nation infested with anti-nationals that needs cleansing. The real threat is not posed by anti-nationals, it is by the drive to see anti-nationals everywhere.
The current moment makes Indianness into a subject of unnecessary contestation. In The Meaning of India, writer Raja Rao observed that it is not the Indian who makes India, but “India” makes the Indian, and this India is in all: it is the centre of awareness wherein one ’s self dips again and again.” It is for this reason anxieties about the Indian identity have always been misplaced. Rather than being threatened by currents of world history, India can take any current of thought and make it its own, but in a way that exudes that ineffable sense of being shaped by India.
This is not a triumphal argument for a disfiguring self-congratulation, but it should lay to rest the anxieties about the “foreign.” Every stream of world history — from Islam to Marxism, from enlightenment to nationalism — is Indian in its own way. To think of India as inescapable is liberating. It becomes the ground on which you stand and aim higher, not the ceiling which you are nervously trying to hold up.
There can be no benchmarks for Indian nationalism. India is woven of complex strands. If you pull at one thread too much, the whole tapestry gets distorted. Anti-nationalism in India is almost always produced by a desire to benchmark nationalism; secessionism in India has mostly been a result of state authoritarianism. If you let identities work out as a matter of course, India becomes stronger, not weaker. These were the platitudes of Indian nationalism. They now seem like propositions that we are wilfully bent on forgetting. The India that could seamlessly infuse everything with its distinctive, abundant and colourful hues, is being converted into a dark shadow.
The real question is not: what does it mean to be a patriot? Those asking that question are often trying to set an insidious trap, getting you to acknowledge the terms of nationhood they want to set. The real question is why are we turning on each other in an orgy of mutual recrimination? The making of a healthy nation requires granting all our fellow citizens presumptive standing as patriots. In the context of discussions on radicalism, it is worth recalling HL Mencken’s words, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”
Why have these presumptive courtesies of standing that patriots extend to each other, even in course of disagreeing, broken down? Why is there so much anger? Five conjunctures seem to be at play.
The first is simply the partiality of justice. The weakness of our institutions has made us internalise the view that the only way to secure justice is through shrill advancement of partial claims. This has infected even as basic a right as freedom of expression, where the entire debate is not over the consistent application of principles, but over “You defended X’s rights but not Y’s”.'
Everyone invokes the Constitution. And everyone is immediately reminded that we remember the Constitution only when it affects us. The mutual accusation comes from a loss of faith in the idea that our universal principles are, in fact, universal; their activation almost always requires partisan accusation as a pressure tactic. This partiality can make everyone feel like a victim. But in the premium on exposing hypocrisy, the very principles that bind us get lost. Partial justice will make for a fragmented nation.
Secondly, a weakly institutionalised rule of law is producing a rage for order. But instead of this rage being harnessed into energy for reform, it is yearning for an expression of toughness: a sign that shows that the state exists, even when it is being hollowed out from inside. What better sign than rounding up a few hapless anti-nationals?
Third, no nation finds it easy to face up to its choreographies of oppression. India’s sacred and cultural geography is superabundant with meaning, to delight, charm and liberate. But the original sin of Indian democracy — caste —is still a riposte to India. It is a source of shame; and shame, by its very nature, looks for a covering cloak. The more abstract the idea of India is, the easier it is to disguise the way in which India has also created its distinctive oppression. And as that order gets unsettled and contested, it is being seen, in some quarters, as a very threat to the idea of Hinduism. It takes immense self-confidence to confront the fact of oppression squarely; but anxiety about facing oppression gives fragility to oneself, and the standing of the nation.
Fourth, there is no doubt that we are living under a political dispensation that has a deep sense of victimhood. Its abiding thread is that it was victimised by the ideological complex of Congress’s ancien regime. This is a complicated story whose various strands need to be unpacked. But the essence of this kind of ideology of victimhood is that it will see the world conspiratorially. Political success has not dented the sense of victimhood. It feels entitled to aggression because it sees itself as victim. And self-constructed victims have a need to show they are being constantly attacked.
The final conjuncture is a loss of faith in the India story itself. This government was elected with high hopes — of economic growth, reform and putting India on the world stage. But the brute fact of the matter is that it has not proved transformative. It is not entirely incompetent.
But it is hard to disguise the fact that there is no inexorably rising India, no collective narrative in which we can all exult and share. This is probably a global phenomenon; a sense of economic powerlessness looking for recompense in nationalism. But our current nationalism is angry, inward-looking and divisive, because it is not driven by a sense of beauty, achievement or comradeship. It is driven by a sense of failure looking for someone to blame. We have an angry Indian who is, most of all angry at himself.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is president, Centre for Policy Research
Is India at an inflection point?
M. K. NARAYANAN
It is evident that we have entered a new era but are probably not yet aware of its implications. They cannot, hence, be dealt with in the same manner as in the past, or by employing antiquated methods and resorting to shopworn rhetoric. Understanding the true meaning of real-time information gleaned from “data-in-motion” (such as phone calls or chat services) or from access to “data-at-rest” (text messages and videos stored in computers and cell phones) is critically important today.
It is vitally important for the authorities, hence, to discern the real meaning behind many of the actions taking place in our universities and avoid any overreaction. “Building a just society by just means” — a quote from former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru — has become crucially important in many campuses at this juncture. Nothing could be more poignant in this respect than the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula, the Hyderabad Central University PhD student, who in his suicide note blamed his birth as “a fatal accident”. It gave an impression of the prevalence of a “dark state” mindset among those who exercise power and authority.
It is important to take the time out to address social cohesion and sustain the social compact that India has striven to maintain since Independence. Instead, the government’s use of the sedition law in JNU has been a blunder, which is widening the gulf between different segments of society.
The first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a great deal of unrest and turbulence in several countries across the globe, notably in West Asia. India was spared the kind of protests that marked the “Arab Awakening”, though it did confront a number of disparate protests, which cumulatively reflected a high level of discontent. Individual incidents had even then begun to spark off violent reactions.
However, it is the metastasising nature of recent agitations and protests, involving almost every segment of the population, students, peasants and the disaffected — alongside the persistent provocation from Pakistan — which is resulting in new paradigms of thought and behaviour. Whether they relate to terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based outfits such as the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, agitations based on identity, ideology, idea-logy politics, human values and dignity, or unstructured movements dictated by rage or other considerations, they all involve a level of public mobilisation and spectacle different from what had been seen in the past.
Need for new strategies
It is evident that we have entered a new era but are probably not yet aware of its implications. They cannot, hence, be dealt with in the same manner as in the past, or by employing antiquated methods and resorting to shopworn rhetoric. Understanding the true meaning of real-time information gleaned from “data-in-motion” (such as phone calls or chat services) or from access to “data-at-rest” (text messages and videos stored in computers and cell phones) is critically important today.
For instance, almost fortnightly, or at shorter intervals, Pakistan-based terrorist outfits are carrying out assaults with still greater military precision than previously, inflicting greater casualties among both civilians and armed force personnel, all the while holding up the country to ridicule as the Indian Establishment seeks opportunities to revive anti-terror talks. Gurdaspur, Pathankot and now Pampore are hardly isolated incidents and reflect elements of a grand strategy. Only the most myopic of leaders can fail to see the writing on the wall and heed the message coming out of Pakistan. A nation fully conversant with what is taking place can hardly be misled into ignoring the truth and reality.
At another level, India is internally undergoing a baptism through fire. This has been brought on by a conflict between extremes — the politics of the Right Wing and the Left Wing; a confrontation between anti-national and irredentist elements on the one hand, and so called nationalist and identity-based groups on the other; and increasing militancy on the part of the so-called excluded and marginalised segments in pursuit of their rights. The “quota agitation” by the Jat community in Haryana exemplifies the dangers inherent in the increasing stratification of Indian society.
Following the Patidars in Gujarat and the Jats in Haryana, the Marathas in Maharashtra and the Rajputs in Rajasthan are threatening to agitate. In almost every State across the country, several among the more “backward” are about to throw their hat into the ring seeking among the Other Backward Class quotas. Finally the worst fears about the end result of the Mandal Commission recommendations appear to be coming true.
The Centre’s succumbing to the violence perpetuated by Haryana Jats could not have come at a more inopportune moment. The ineptitude displayed in handling the agitation, and the spectacle of the Centre dispatching several Army columns to quell a law and order situation in an hinterland State, tends to evoke comparisons with the “Arab Spring”.
Memories of 1968
The question as to whether India is today at an inflection point is, however, more relevant in the context of the present unrest among students of the nation’s prestigious universities. Equating the students’ unrest in Jawaharlal Nehru University and Hyderabad and Jadavpur Universities and in several of the Indian Institutes of Technology with the Paris and Nanterre students’ uprising in 1968 may sound farfetched, but there are some eerie similarities. In both cases, agitating students have used metaphors to demonstrate their opposition to the existing order. Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh were names chosen by the Paris and Nanterre students to ventilate their anger against the Fifth Republic, knowing full well that it would anger the authorities.
The question as to whether India is today at an inflection point is, however, more relevant in the context of the present unrest among students of the nation’s prestigious universities. Equating the students’ unrest in Jawaharlal Nehru University and Hyderabad and Jadavpur Universities and in several of the Indian Institutes of Technology with the Paris and Nanterre students’ uprising in 1968 may sound farfetched, but there are some eerie similarities. In both cases, agitating students have used metaphors to demonstrate their opposition to the existing order. Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh were names chosen by the Paris and Nanterre students to ventilate their anger against the Fifth Republic, knowing full well that it would anger the authorities.
In current agitations across Indian universities, the names Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon mean little to most students, but they are intended to be symbols of opposition to the Establishment. Anti-national rhetoric is often the fuel that feeds demonstrations against the existing order of things. Today, the Left in India has no icon around whom they can rally students. They have, hence, chosen to join forces with other anti-Establishment groups, for whom the more outrageous the claim, the more likely it is to rile those in authority. This has little to do with “insiders” and “outsiders”.
Building a just society
It is vitally important for the authorities, hence, to discern the real meaning behind many of the actions taking place in our universities and avoid any overreaction. “Building a just society by just means” — a quote from former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru — has become crucially important in many campuses at this juncture. Nothing could be more poignant in this respect than the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula, the Hyderabad Central University PhD student, who in his suicide note blamed his birth as “a fatal accident”. It gave an impression of the prevalence of a “dark state” mindset among those who exercise power and authority.
What cannot be ignored is that with ubiquitous access to interconnected mobile devices and other advanced communication systems, events are getting transformed in a way that could hardly be envisaged even a couple of years ago. In this milieu, failure to anticipate the intensity of anger that prevails on a particular occasion, judge the unintended consequences of a growing groundswell of protest against an incident that has captured public imagination and recognise that the diffusion of power between the state on the one hand, and people on the streets or students in campuses on the other, has become far more consequential than at any time previously — and it can have grave consequences.
What is tragic is that in an increasingly acrimonious and polarised atmosphere, political elements of all hues are by their actions further aggravating the situation. The public discourse has thus become that much more acrimonious and polarised. The Prime Minister’s statement about “conspiracies” directed against him and his government hardly helps. It only brings back memories of other Indian Prime Ministers placed in difficult situations coming up with similar conspiracy theories. Employing the provision for sedition in JNU, instead of taking time out to address social cohesion and sustain the social compact that India has striven to maintain since Independence, has been a blunder, widening the gulf between different segments of society. What is most needed today is an activist state that is focussed on preserving social cohesion and a sense of optimism to protect and enlarge the dignity of every human.
At this critical juncture, it is unfortunate that the vice chancellors of central universities have hardly covered themselves with glory. Most universities today are guilty of the charge that they are out of touch with Young India, even as student activism has reached a tipping point. Vice chancellors find themselves inadequately equipped to grapple with problems facing their universities such as social exclusion, identity conflicts, the subaltern and minority syndrome, unchecked dissent, etc. Most also lack the authority (and personality) to not only deal with students’ protests, but even determine when to call for outside support, including the police, before the situation goes out of control.
Finally, what is least required at this moment is for students across universities to be lectured on the virtues of nationalism from all and sundry. What is specifically needed are methods to deal with the current situation so as to prevent it from getting out of hand. Leaving matters to be dealt with by the police after the horse has bolted, and then blame the police for inadequacy is, however, neither a method nor the means.
(M.K. Narayanan is a former National Security Adviser and former Governor of West Bengal.)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/is-india-at-an-inflection-point/article8292598.ece?homepage=true
Fingerprints of the RSS: Police Report on JNU Strikingly Similar to Sangh’s Arguments
On the leading Dalit-Bahujan website Forward Press, Pramod Ranjan has written a brilliant article that deserves widest possible reading, to grasp the larger context of the current onslaught against JNU. Through his incisive research, he suggests that the 10-fold increase in the number of dalit-bahujan students in JNU over the past decade has qualitatively transformed the campus into a site of social assertion. It is to subdue this new profile of the university, and its unfolding political implications, that the RSS has upped its ante against the campus.
As he suggests,
“This change in the social texture of the students not only changed the composition of the students’ union but also the dominant discourse on the campus. Though leading students’ organizations continued to hold the flag of Marxism aloft, their slogans started changing. The graffiti started changing. Instead of Marx, Lenin and Mao, the slogans increasingly started quoting Birsa, Phule and Ambedkar. Portraits of Bahujan heroes who took on Manuvad and casteism started adorning the walls – so much so that it became impossible for any students’ organization to survive on the JNU campus without sporting these symbols.”
Pramod Ranjan traces the onslaught on JNU to the vilification of the campus in the RSS’ mouthpiece Panchajanya published in November last year. The rabidly casteist language of the article betrays the real agenda of the RSS. The nationalism professed by the RSS is only about an upper caste hegemony:
“Till some time ago, the leftists used a different set of policies and tools to break the nation and society. With time, their strategy has changed. They have changed their faces; they have changed the arena of their ideological battle. Now, they do not parrot the formulations of Lenin. Now they talk of secularism, human rights and rights of minorities, women and the deprived sections of society to implement their agenda. The lush crops grown on this poison can be seen everywhere in the university. The walls on JNU campus are full of slogans, pamphlets and posters. Most of these slogans and posters are aimed at fracturing Indian culture, civilization and society and the country itself.”
The RSS sees this shift in JNU’s texture and its political implication a conspiracy to “break the nation”. The Sangh manifesto claimed that the “innocent Hindu youth are lured after being fed wrong facts about the Varna system, which is an integral part of Hindu society”. In the RSS article, a box titled ‘JNU Leela” enumerates the “nefarious activities” on the campus as follows:
- The valiant soldiers who fought in the Kargil battle were humiliated in a mushaira in the university and India-bashing was supported.
- The killing of 72 jawans by the Naxals in Bastar in 2010 was celebrated.
- In the name of food freedom, a row was kicked up over serving beef.
- Slogans demanding freedom for J&K and northeastern states were openly raised.
- The hanging of Afzal Guru was mourned and a protest march taken out.
- With the support of Forward Press, programmes were organized to insult Hindu gods and to execute the conspiracy of the missionaries to break society.
Pramod Ranjan’s article in Forward Press charts out the unmistakable similarities between the charges levelled by Panchjanya in November 2015, and the intelligence report filed in February 2016:
“The Panchjanya article and the report of the intelligence department have uncanny similarities. Their tone is the same, basic content is the same, charges are the same and both smack of a conspiracy to associate students’ organizations of Bahujan ideology with extremist leftist organizations. The only difference is that of language. While the language of Panchjanya has a literary touch, that of the intelligence report is dry government-speak.”
The similarities are striking.
“DELHI POLICE SITUATION REPORT
On 9 February 2016, after the so-called seditious sloganeering in JNU, the Delhi Police, on the basis of the report of its intelligence wing, submitted a report to the Government of India. This report was leaked to the media by “sources in the Home Ministry” on the basis of which, Firstpost, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Times of India, The Telegraph and other newspapers and TV channels ran stories on the “celebration of Mahishasur Day in JNU during Navratri” and on the “demand to serve beef in JNU mess”. Barring BJP-supporter Zee News and few other channels and newspapers, most of the media outlets took a dig at the government for treating these events as “seditious”. But even they were unaware of the facts and could not grasp the issue in its entirety.Let us see what this four-page report of the intelligence wing of the Delhi police titled “Situation report regarding the incident at Jawahar Lal Nehru University on 09.02.16” says. The first two pages of the report are devoted to the incident of 9 February. The two remaining pages are about the “earlier incidents” in JNU, including “celebrations of Mahishasur Day during Navratri in 2014” and the “demand that beef be served in the hostel mess”. The question that arises is: Why did the police report talk in detail about the older incidents, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called seditious sloganeering? And why was this report made available to media in haste? And how is it that two days before the release of the report to the media, on 15 February, newspapers carried a statement of BJP MP Yogi Adityanath in which he branded “observance of Mahishasur Day” and “holding beef party” as acts of sedition and demanded that JNU be shut down.See the first two pages of the report, which talks about the “sedition”. The report, which was sent to the Union Home Ministry, says: “It is important to mention here that Y&S section of Special Branch always keeps an eye on the activities of students, student organizations, youths and people who have a stake at JNU.”The report says, “[a]round 5 pm, DSU students led by their president Umar Khalid, convenor, DSU began to gather near Sabarmati Dhaba. Around 80/100 DSU and Left students were present at the venue.” It also claims that “The Left-supported student groups were shouting ‘Bharat ki Barbadi tak jang rahegi jang rahegi’, ‘Kashmir ki Ajadi tak Jang Rahegi, Jung rahegi’, ‘India Go Back’ ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, ‘Kitne Afzal maroge, ghar ghar se Afzal niklega’.“In the meantime 30/40 activists from ABVP reached there under the leadership of Sh. Sourav Kumar Sharma, Joint Secretary, JNUSU. They were shouting slogans against DSU and shouting Bharat Mata Ki Jai.” Note that while the references to leaders of other organizations don’t have the respectful “Shri”, it has been used with the name of Saurabh Kumar Sharma, president of the RSS’ student wing ABVP.”The report adds, “At 7:30pm the activists of DSU & ABVP started their march from Sabarmati Dhaba to Ganga Dhaba. They raised slogans against each other. At 8:30 PM the activists of DSU & ABVP dispersed from there peacefully.” Demonstrations and sloganeering demanding the right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir are common on JNU campus and after such events, the students invariably disperse peacefully. Then, why did the sleuths take this particular event so seriously?The report says, “At present, ABVP [is] alleging that the activists of DSU and other left supporting student organizations are indulged in anti-national activities. They want action against such students who are into such anti national activities.”This is broadly the content of the first two pages of the report.SANGH’S FINGERPRINTS ON POLICE REPORT
The next two pages have been appended to the report without any apparent reason. It says, “On 06.10.2015, ACP, Y&S/SB visited JNU and had a meeting with the then VC of JNU . During this meeting discussions were held on various subjects including CCTV surveillance in JNU campus to avoid any untoward incident. It was discussed that often some student groups raise slogans and participate in protests inside JNU campus. Many a time such slogans/protests have anti-national colour. It is reflected through objectionable posters which are prepared mostly through computers and affixed at hostel/JNU campus. Sometimes such posters are found to be hurting patriotic/religious feelings of the society. It was also discussed that the objectionable/anti-national activities of members of Democratic Students’ Union (DSU) have to be curbed by JNU authorities with the help of police.”What is significant is that an ACP of the Special Branch met the JNU vice-chancellor on 6 October 2015. The Mahishasur Martyrdom Day is observed on Sharad Purnima, which fell on 26 October last year. It is clear that the proposal to install CCTV cameras on the university premises was made in view of this event. Note how “patriotic/religious feelings” and “objectionable/anti-national” have been used as synonyms. Even if we do not dwell on whether the sentiments of only the protectors of brahmanical culture are “hurt” or whether anything which they dislike becomes “objectionable”, the question that remains is whether observance of Mahishasur Day by the deprived sections is “sedition”. It is noteworthy that later, on 24, 25 and 26 February, in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively, the government attacked the Mahishasur movement and linked it to seditious activities on the basis of the fabricated charges in this report.The report shrewdly attributes the event to DSU, even when it is well known that All India Backward Students’ Forum, the Phule-Ambedkarite organization of Bahujan students, was the organizer of this event. Furthermore, it says: “There are so many Left-supported student unions active in JNU. Most of them are non-reactive and mild in nature. They often raise slogans/protest on different national as well as local issues but their gathering remains very low. But two hidden students groups i.e. 1) DSU and 2) DSF have been found volatile and reactive. However, they are less than 10 in number. Sometimes they prepare nude and objectionable posters of deities on their computer and affix it on wall to hurt the religious feelings of the society. Their activities in the past are:1) They mourned the death of Afzal Guru.2) They celebrated killing of CRPF Jawans in Dantewara, Chattisgardh in 2010.3) They worshipped ‘Mahisasur’ [sic] in place of Goddess Durga during September 14 ‘Navrata’ festival last year.4) They invited Kashmiri separatist leader Gilani for meeting. But JNU authority imposed ban on their such moves.5) They asked for beef in hostel mess.”Isn’t this list of charges in the police report a rough translation of the ‘JNU Leela” published in Panchjanya. The report also says that these groups put up pictures of gods and goddesses in the nude on walls. No such thing has ever happened in JNU. The posters put up by the All India Backward Students’ Forum in 2011 were a reproduction of an article written by Prem Kumar Mani titled “Who are Bahujans really worshipping?”, published in FORWARD Press. It only mentioned that Mahishasur came from the Bahujan community. It did not make any objectionable comment about any god or goddess. The police report, as part of a well-planned conspiracy, says, “They worshipped ‘Mahisasur’ in place of Goddess Durga during September 14 ‘Navrata’ festival last year.” The fact is that Mahishasur Day is celebrated in JNU and all over the country on Sharad Purnima, five days after Dussehra, whereas Navratri is celebrated before Dussehra. In 2014, Mahishasur Day was celebrated on 9 October and Navratri from 25 September to 3 October. The Mahishasur Day celebrations in JNU in 2014 were much talked about due to the registration of a case against FORWARD Press. Almost all newspapers and channels had carried news about it. The police record also mentions the date of celebrations, 9 October. Then, would it be wrong to presume that the lie of “Mahishasur Day celebrations during Navratri” was peddled only to incite people?Similarly, the claim that a students’ organization had demanded that beef should be served in hostel mess is a white lie. The New Materialists had planned to hold Beef-Pork Festival for a couple of hours on an open ground and not in the mess. Here too, very shrewdly, ‘pork’ has been dropped from “beef-pork” so that the event can be given a religious colour. Instead of upholding the Constitutional secularism, the police report seeks to fan Hindu communalism by linking these two events with DSU and DSF. DSU is associated with the CPI (Maoist), which has been banned by the Government of India. The police and government are trying to link Bahujan youths with organizations that are on the radar of security agencies even when they are ideologically disparate, so that they lose popular support and can be subjected to police atrocities.Anyway, these are not the final truths vis-à-vis a nexus of government, police and a section of the media trying to prove that JNU is a centre of “sedition”. But one thing is certain. The reverberations of the tumult in the dominant classes due to the entry of Bahujan youths in the portals of institutions of higher learning will continue to be felt in the years to come. Truth, equality and justice will ultimately win — no matter how long it takes.”
The Forward Press magazine itself faced police repression soon after the NDA government took over, its office was raided and the Editor was hounded for publishing article on Bahujan re-interpretation of Mahisasur story.
http://www.indiaresists.com/rss-fingerprints-police-report-jnu-and-sangh-arguments/