Opinion – Page 11

Pieces of a Rainbow lie scattered across the land…

December 23, 2014 by Nasheman

by Malavika

My heart leaps up when I behold,
A Rainbow in the sky,
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!

The Child is father of the man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

I like to think that when Wordsworth wrote the lines, his heart was full of indescribable joy. The feeling of joy we all so instinctively hang on to, cling to for all we are worth. Which we seek to revive through smell and feel. That smell of freshly cut grass in the breeze, the salty warmth of the sea or of aromas from a passing kitchen, a spicy pickle, a familiar perfume from old boxes of clothes. The feel of velvet, which one so rarely sees these days, reminds me of my grandmother, her blouses, the fabric of which I loved to feel shifting under the patterns my young fingers drew on them, bent fibres displaying shifting dark and light lines across the cloth. The scent of winter chill in the pine forests of the mountains flooded my mind when I was just a child, and till today the slightest hint of cold pine in the air calms my body and soul, lifting me deep into a meditative silence in a way nothing else can.

Like Freud knew, when we search for the depths of our needs, we find the roots of all joys, of all happiness deeply intertwined with the fabric of our youth. And the fears and unhappiness as well. What I felt when I was young, is what has shaped me as a woman. And what we face in our youth, we often spend lifetimes either building upon, or tearing down. It is our childhoods that determine our destiny’s, the choices we make and where we seek happiness and warmth. For some family warmth is what is home, for others it is the freedom of open spaces. For some warmth is the vague familiarity of rough relationships, for others, the guidance of familial commitments. And for many, childhood is simply hand to mouth survival, life continuing for generations to be about simply and sadly, life and death.

The deep and horrendous loss of so many young lives under fire from the toxicity of the environment in which they grew, reflects the growing disorder in the world around us. Now more than ever the Darwinian wisdom, survival of the fittest seems to be shaping civilization. Descriptions of fitness ranging from considerations of physical and economic strength, to considered moral and spiritual superiorities. And at the front of the firing line stand, as always, the week, the handicapped and the poor. Amongst these then, the women and the children are particularly vulnerable, and more often than not, targeted by those with the strength and flawed bravado, to impose.

What will impact us all, and will shape lives for decades to come much more than the deaths caused by the collapse of a society in Peshawar on that tragic day of December, will be the young who will carry this incident emblazoned upon their souls. How many of the children who saw their friends fall will forever fear, avoid and shape their lives around the sounds of ricocheting bullets. How many will hate that need to fear, how many will hate others for making them fear. Not all can be a Malala, nor should all need to be. As a society we are failing, failing to protect the most vulnerable almost deliberately, and worse, allowing every man with a stick, to use them for target practice. From Nirbhaya to Peshawar, we as a society have failed. There is no doubt about that. But in time nature finds its balance. We will pay, each one of us, for this. The reason being the strength of the force which shapes the growth and fall of civilizations. The undeniable fact that every child grows up to become a man.

Make in India: a critical examination of an economic strategy

December 22, 2014 by Nasheman

by Leila Gautham

‘Make in India’ is now an all-pervasive catchphrase – every newspaper and television channel trumpeting the Modi’s ‘clarion call’ to investors – but surprisingly empty in terms of substance. The website is flashy and vastly different from the run-of-the-mill government-of-India websites one is used to – but one has a hard time imagining the ‘captains of industry’ who attended the Make in India launch on September 25th finding any use for it. One begins to wonder, who exactly is the campaign aimed at? Is it the Indian public? An impressive farce, an ad campaign, the neoliberal dream of the efficient state come true – Make in India is not some brilliant brainwave of Modi’s: it is the culmination of very intensive campaign of worldwide propaganda that has been launched by global corporate capital.

I tried to probe deeper, to tease out concrete details if any – and the following article reflects my understanding, incomplete though it may be.

Firstly, I encountered some very puzzling things: for example, no one seemed to be sure about what precisely the objective of Make in India is. The BBC report claims that aim of Make in India is to increase the share of manufacturing from 15% to 25% – an increase of 10 points (no time period specified), the source for this being ‘authorities’ in the government. But the Hindu report claims that “officials” have said that the aim is to bring the manufacturing sector into a sustained growth rate of 10%.

Two explanations come to mind: deliberate vagueness is very useful because it can be easily woven into a certain rhetoric about delicensing and deregulation and efficiency. Everyone, from Arnab Goswami to the man beside you on the metro know (or think they know) what ‘Make in India’ is about, and can impose their own particular utopia into Modi’s vision without any bothersome facts entering into it. Which further reinforces my conviction that the aggressive coverage on Make in India is aimed at convincing people that the government is taking some real ‘solid’ measures to create jobs and remove ‘roadblocks’ to development.

So, what is Make in India?

I’ll briefly pick up some of the measures as they appear on the website and the launch:

Deregulation and delicensing of the manufacturing sector

Introducing self-certification or third-party certification for safety standards; for activities classified as non-risk or non-hazardous it’s to be entirely self-certified (seeming to render the very act of ‘certification’ a misnomer)
The process of applying for industrial licenses is to be made through an online portal
The validity of industrial licenses is extended from two to three years
A number of sectors such as defence and construction have been opened up entirely – (a further dwindling of the number of licensed industries – at the end of the deregulation phase in 1997–98, only nine industries had some regulations in terms of entry by private investors)

New Infrastructure

building industrial corridors and smart cities
strengthening intellectual property regime – compliance with global standards
skill development

Opening up India’s ‘high-value’ industrial sectors

Defence, construction and railways are open to private investment; in defence the FDI cap has been doubled, and on a case-to-case basis, 100% FDI may be permitted; 100% FDI in rail projects and in construction

Specific targeting of twenty-five sectors

These include automobiles, auto components, aviation, biotechnology, chemicals, defence manufacturing, electrical machinery, IT, pharmaceuticals, roads and highways, food processing, mining, oil and gas, and thermal power. Largely, these are capital-intensive and require highly skilled labour; even if in themselves they are not capital-intensive, the idea is clear that you’re going to use imported technology which as I will argue later on is inherently biased against employing a lot of labour.

And finally, and most importantly, our new government apparently has a ‘new mindset,’ as it claims with such fresh-faced Pollyanna-esque innocence: “an attitudinal shift in how India relates to investors: not as a permit-issuing authority, but as a true business partner.”

Roundup

The changes are in perfect continuity with reforms introduced by Congress-led government in the early 90s. The rhetoric of delicensing and deregulation and decrying the ‘inspector and license raj’ is no new innovation of Modi’s. However, there are a couple of things to be noted:

The new industrial corridors will cover vast tracts of land, and will likely result in a large number of social struggles against the acquisiton of this land, particularly damaging to tenants

Complying with global intellectual property rights regime has some very problematic consequences, particularly on the availability drugs and medicines

Lack of attention paid to ‘skill development’: the constant harping on the benefits ‘India’s youth’ is puzzling because the only provision that seems to have been made is an ‘Indian Leather Development Programme.’ It is supposed to train a lakh of young people, which is terribly inadequate, given the extent of unemployment existing now, and expected in the future. This is important, given the next point, which is:

The sectors being concentrated on are largely capital-intensive: IT, aviation, automobiles. They do not employ large amounts of labour, and whatever labour they employ is highly skilled labour. Without adequate education or training, only a miniscule fraction of the ‘youth’ are likely to benefit.

Evaluating Make in India

To make sense of the strategy and critique it in any real way one needs to know what the stated objectives are, figure out how successful it is likely to be in achieving this, and finally to question the objectives and the strategy itself.

The objective is a bit confusing. Says Modi, “India must increase manufacturing and at the same time ensure that the benefits reach the youth of our nation.” (But isn’t the former a means to achieving the latter and not an end in itself?) But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his objective is this: to increase opportunities productive employment for a wide subset of the population via the means of growth in private manufacturing. The method being pursued is to integrate India into global manufacturing value chains as a way of driving export-led industrial growth.

This leads us naturally to the next part of the exercise: namely, what are the effects of such a process, how does it proceed, who does it benefit – in other words, what is the political economy of Make in India?

The political economy of Make in India

At a fundamental level Make in India is an attempt to alter the production structure of the economy. A shift from agriculture to manufacturing, is what is being drummed into our heads. But the important question to ask is this: what sort of industry are we promoting?

Producing goods for export and having these goods produced by multinational companies have very specific implications, and this requires consideration. The demand for these commodities come from export markets abroad and from the urban/metropolitan middle classes, and richer sections of the rural classes. In other words, domestic markets are extremely narrow – Ford and Honda aren’t producing for the typical rural agricultural worker or urban casual labourer.

The other important consideration is that these industries are capital-intensive and/or employ largely skilled labour (employment growth is therefore likely to be minimal, especially since domestic industry will undergo considerable upheaval and displacement). The reason why the incoming investment won’t generate employment is simply this: manufacturers producing abroad are likely to have developed processes that reflect the capital-labour ratios that are prevalent in advanced capitalist countries. And because this sort of investment makes use of highly-skilled highly-paid workers, the income distribution will get even further skewed.

What we have is this mutually-reinforcing cycle where the entire economy is restructured and reoriented to cater to the consumption of certain classes in the economy. Add to this the fact the BJP-regime is systematically dismantling all forms of social support – from labour laws to the MNREGA – and you not only have an absence of growth-benefits accruing to the poor: one is likely to see income being transferred away from them. The much-lamented reserves of labour will be left unemployed in agriculture but and you will have a set of urban casual labourers and contract workers who are kept at the periphery of this economy – marginalized, even as their labour is exploited.

Support for Modi and Make in India

This is a description of an economic process that is no doubt crude and simplified, and reflective of my own inadequate knowledge of the processes that the Indian economy has been undergoing since the last two decades. But I found it useful for two reasons: the first is a personal one in that it helped me form a convincing narrative of the transformation in my own city: Hyderabad. The IT industry in Hyderabad was the product of the 90s reforms and a certain policy followed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh state under Chandrababu Naidu, whose policy, insofar as it deviated from ‘deregulation’ emphasized urban infrastructure. It no doubt generated a great deal of indirect employment but the lion’s share of wages went to IT professionals – highly skilled, highly educated, and almost uniformly drawn from privileged class and caste backgrounds (by virtue of which they were given access to the aforementioned skills and education). What was remarkable was how rapidly the entire city changed, and centered around this new modern cosmopolitan young class of consumers. The Old City of the Charminar, of bangles and biryani, and the nizams is now merely another item up for consumption on tourist brochures – the city is peculiarly desolate: highways, malls, and franchise outlets dominate the urban landscape, and are all eerily empty precisely because only a tiny fraction of the city’s population can afford to frequent them. Using highways require cars, and most malls are situated on highways and inaccessible to those without such transport, and franchise outlets are priced so as to exclude consumption of most but a tiny few – are we not talking of a city structured to cater only to the richest?

In other words, those not belonging to the ‘middle-class’ have no spaces to call their own. In fact, this is not just a problem for the poor. I feel that the restructuring of the city in this fashion is impoverishing everybody, not just those on the margins of the economy. When consumption is individualised and commoditised, and when any recreational activity to be undertaken is premised on spending money, the concept of communal or public spaces disappears entirely, and if this is not impoverishment, what is?

The second reason such a narrative was useful in that it helped think of reasons why such a campaign could generate objective material interests in its support. The standard narrative of how the ‘toiling masses’ have been hoodwinked by Modi’s well-funded campaigning is only partly true as there are many groups who stand to gain, and not just global or domestic capital. One group is the urban middle classes and the rural rich who stand to gain in two obvious ways: the economy is being restructured to produce the sort of commodities they demand and they may also avail of lucrative employment opportunities. A greater demand for skilled labour would drive up wages (subject, of course, to constraints that I will outline next).

Constraints and limits to export-led narrow-based growth

Now we that we’ve seen how Make in India, and strategies running parallel to Make in India, could benefit the upper sections of society while marginalizing those already poor and vulnerable, we must recognize that such a strategy could fail:

Internal/domestic demand is necessarily constrained (and is bound to remain constrained over the entire course of the strategy as I have just sought to argue simply because it entails no transfers of income to a large majority of the Indian population). Demand from the developed world for Indian exports is likely to be low as well, particularly in the context of a global recessionary climate, which I think, is the point being made by our RBI governor.

Lack of infrastructure: a bid to build infrastructure via the thoroughly discredited PPP model is unlikely to solve the very real problem India faces in terms of infrastructure

In order to attract global capital the Indian state needs to undertake certain measures that ensure the cheap manufacturing costs: giving capital access to cheap labour and natural resources – as has already manifested itself in recent changes in the labour laws, in the land acquisition act, and in the flexibility of environmental clearances. Social resistance to such measures is inevitable, I think.

Other developing economies are also competing to be low-cost manufacturing locations, and the state will have to work doubly hard to ensure a favourable investment climate, and having to suppress resistance and social struggles as and when they arise.

To sum up: Make in India is not a novel or radical turn-about for the Indian economy, the way it is made out to be – it is merely an intensification (more blatant, more brazen, and more assertive) of the policy stance that has dominated discourse since the nineties. It represents a significant worsening of the economic marginalization of the poor and the vulnerable – both if it succeeds, and if it doesn’t.

Moazzam Begg on Peshawar massacre: All have lost moral high ground

December 19, 2014 by Nasheman

by Moazzam Begg

It’s not often that you’ll hear the Islamic Emirate (or the Afghan Taliban) condemning their Pakistani namesakes but that is precisely what happened on Tuesday when the horrific attack was carried out by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the city of Peshawar, writes.

Family blood feuds were fairly common when I lived in Peshawar many years ago but would only extend to individuals within clans and tribes. Children may have been abducted for ransoms but killing was rare. Today, it’s all out, unrelenting war with no rules.

The lives of all our children are precious: children of ruthless politicians, children of torture victims, children of terror suspects, children of anti terror SWAT officers, children of drone operators, children of soldiers, children of judges, children of farmers and children of the homeless and hopeless.

The children of our friend and the children of our enemy are still innocent. That is why the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) explicitly forbade targeting them, especially in times of war. Every law based on any aspect of human decency since concurs with this view.

The product of terror, torture and violence is more of the same. To end it we must we must stop regarding understanding and explanations as “justification.” Every crime has a motive, a mens rea behind it, even the most despicable ones.

“Sick and twisted act”

The deliberate killing of children in Peshawar was a twisted and sick act. But this sickness has developed as a direct result of indiscriminate killing of faceless terrorist suspects and their families.

Recent reports have shown how 26 children were killed as collateral damage in trying to unsuccessfully kill one man, namely Aymanal-Zawahiri. Countless other attacks have caused “collateral damage” in Pakistani’s war in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and beyond have lead to deaths of thousands. Statistics and testimonies are hard to come by because of fear of further targeting and woeful under-reporting.

I understand there is a difference between deliberately targeting children, which is the most abhorrent of acts I can think of (how can a man point a gun at a child and pull the trigger?) and the targeting of suspects knowing and accepting that children may be killed in pursuit of the latter. However, in both cases it is accepted by the perpetrators that children will (or are likely to) be killed.

When I was evacuating from Afghanistan in 2001 with my own children under heavy US bombardment thousands of innocent civilians, many of them children, were shredded to pieces by 15,000 lb “daisy-cutter” bombs, vacuum bombs, smart bombs, cluster bombs, tomahawk cruise and “hellfire” missiles. The victims were often identifiable only by the clothes their family members recognized or by body parts. Exact numbers of casualties are still unknown. There was never an outcry for their children.

It is time to stop this cycle of uncontrolled rage and internecine violence that will only drive us to the pits of hell. Incessant calls for revenge each time need to be tempered with reflections on the consequences of what that means. There are no winners in this.

Instead, let the killers of these children look upon the faces of their victims and then ask themselves why they truly did it. Religion has nothing to do with it. If it had would the killers risk the eternal damnation Allah has promised for those who kill unjustly? For that is His solemn promise.

He may forgive those who repent if He wishes but how can the families of these child victims be expected to do such a thing? After all the killers couldn’t forgive, so why should they expect anything but retribution? So the vicious circle continues like the Pashtun code of badal (revenge – like for like) only in a more vicious, unremitting way.

Perhaps it cannot be stopped; its been going on for 13 years, but someone has to try. Let drone operators and pilots who drop bombs from thousands of feet on their victims see the carnage on the ground: indistinguishable body pieces in rural villages where poverty and illiteracy is still the greatest unacknowledged enemy.

Let them see what their hands have caused and how the circle of violence they began with the press of a button ended with the lives of mangled bodies of men, women and innocent children. Let the murderers of children look at the corpses of the young lives they snuffed out and remember how they killed innocence and destroyed their own hereafter in the process. Before they embark on the same road to disaster let those considering this path look closely at the faces of children in their own family.

War on terror

Before the “war on terror” Pakistan had a reputation for world-class corruption – from the government all the way to the cricket pitch and everything in between. After the war on terror this was followed by enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, drone strikes and full scale military operations which led to unprecedented levels of extremism, terrorism, sectarianism and ultimately the targeting of schools and children.

It has descended to depths few could have envisaged before the war on terror started.

It was Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agents who, along with the CIA stormed into my house in Islamabad in the middle of the night and carried me away, hooded and shackled in front of my children and handed me over without any judicial process to the US military in 2002. The same was done to hundreds of others, for bounty money.

In Bagram CIA agents waived pictures of my children in front of my face as they beat me and threatened to send me to Syria or Egypt while a woman who I thought was my wife screamed in agony in the next cell. I would have done anything to stop them. At that moment my family and children were more precious to me than theirs’ were to them.

And they must’ve thought likewise. I sometimes overheard them talking to their kids, how they’d missed their birthdays because they were here in this Afghan hellhole [Bagram] interrogating scumbag terrorists like us.

The truth is that we all love our children and they (mostly) love us right back, the best of us and the worst of us. It is their innocence that reminds us often of our flaws, our guilt even. Tuesday’s killings were a stark reminder of that.

All who claimed the moral high ground have lost it, the ones who kill children in the name of democracy and the ones who retaliate in the name of Islam. The ideology doesn’t matter – not when the sacred is de-sanctified like this.

It is actions to end the cycle of violence, at least on the children, which are needed now more than anything. Otherwise words mean nothing.

How is Ghar Wapsi different from forcible conversions?

December 19, 2014 by Ram Puniyani

Propaganda around conversions has been one of the major political tools during last few decades. It was Niyogi Commission report which investigated the conversions in Adivasi areas in 1950s, then the Meenaxipuram conversions of Dalits into Islam, and then the gruesome murder of Pastor Graham Stewart Stains on the charges that he was doing conversion; these are a few amongst the big spectrum related to the phenomenon of conversions. As such the regular propaganda by communal forces that Muslim Kings converted people into Islam by sword has been made the part of ‘social common sense’ by now. On regular basis around Christmas time one saw the anti Christian violence in Adivasi areas a decade ago, and in that context rather than focusing on the violence against religious minorities, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee called for a National debate on Conversions.

In the recent conversions to Hinduism in Agra (10 December 2014) nearly 350 pavement dwellers-rag pickers and other destitute sections were promised that if they participate in the religious function they will be given the ration card and BPL cards. This was done by the Bajrang Dal activist and the Hindu Janjagriti Samiti both outfits affiliated to RSS. The only difference is that this process has been called as Ghar Vapasi and not conversion. On one hand this is being projected as a great valorous achievement by the RSS leaders like Yogi Adiytnath, on the other it is being labeled as a master stroke by RSS by other RSS ideologues. According to one ideologue of RSS, they had been calling for a ban on conversions, which was being opposed by the secular elements and religious minorities. This conversion nay Ghar Vapasi will bring to fore the debate to bring in the strict law against any conversion. If, as reported, the conversion of 350 odd Muslims in Ved Nagar in Agra to Hinduism is the work of RSS, it is clear that the RSS has grown strategic, according to RSS ideologue.

[pullquote]Do we need laws to ban conversions? We have laws to punish those who indulge in force, fraud and allurement. What we need is to distinguish between voluntary conversion and forced one’s. Ghar Vapasi is a shrewd name for forcible conversions. So what we need is the political and moral will to promote freedom of religion and punish the guilty, using illegal means to achieve the change of faith. The so called ‘Freedom of Religion’ bills are there not to provide freedom of conscience but to curb the same by legal means.[/pullquote]

As per this ideologue this move of RSS is a smart one too. It seems to have triggered a debate on conversions which it has been asking for decades but was evaded by its critics. While communal elements are crying hoarse that Meenaxipuram has been the act of conversions through petro dollars and the Christian missionaries are doing conversion though foreign money, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Meenaxipuram conversion was triggered by humiliation of the dalit youth by the upper caste. While the propaganda that Christian missionaries are doing forcible conversions is on the peak the fact is that no evidence of the application of force has been generally reported. It is also true that while some sects of Christian do claim that they are converting; the majority sects affirm that when the conversion is sought by someone in the society and only under that voluntary request the conversion if at all takes place. Interestingly as many people have started believing that the missionaries are converting the population of Christians has been shown a marginal decline during last few decades as per census figures (1971-2.60, 1982-2.44. 1991-2.34, 2001 -2.30 and probably 2.20 in 2011) The Wadhwa Commission, which was appointed by the then home minister L.K.Advani in the after math of the burning of Pastor Stains points out that Pastor was not involved in the work of conversions and that in Keonjhar in Manoharpur of Orissa, the percentage of Christians has shown fair stability, or an statistical insignificant rise in the percentage of Christian population during the time Pastor Stains was working there.

How have conversion taken place in India? We can examine this in two stages. In medieval period as far as conversion to Islam is concerned it took place mainly due to the caste oppression, as pointed out by Swami Vivekananda “Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammadens? It is nonsense to say that they were converted by the sword. It was to gain liberty from Zamindars and Priests…..” (Collected Works- Vol. 8- Page 330). Surely a small section did convert to Islam due to anticipation for reward by Muslim kings, a smaller section due to fear and a substantial chunk due to the social interaction as seen in the Muslims of Malabar coast and the Muslims of Mewat. Major conversion to Islam during medieval time was due to the influence of Sufi saints, at whose Dargaha the untouchables could also visit. Since even today one fourth of the population holds to the norms of untouchablity, it is not surprising that some dominated castes do keep deciding to leave the fold of Hinduism, as was proclaimed by Dr. Ambedkar, who left Hinduism with proclamation that ‘I was born a Hindu; that was not in my hands, but I will not die a Hindu.”

The conversions to Christianity did not begin with the coming of British as propagated by some. Christianity is centuries old, entering India with the coming of St Thomas in the first century. Some doubt this version and hold that Christianity came here in fifth century. The Christian missionaries have been working here in the neglected Adivasi areas providing the health and educational services, the appeal of which prompted many Adivasis-Dalits to embrace this religion. It is only from last six decades that communal forces have been showing their discomfort of Missionaries working in the Adivasi-village areas violence has been more in those areas. Not to forget here is the point that many Christian institutions are located in cities, where all sections of society vie to send their children. One can also concede that a few of these missions may be aiming for conversions through their prayer and healing services. The question of allurement and fraud, if at all, may be a small component of the phenomenon of conversion to Christianity. Most of the attacks and accusations which took place against Christian missionaries were when they were holding prayer meetings. The money they receive comes through proper FCRA channel, and many NGOs including the organizations like RSS also receive foreign funds to be sure.

Now the assertion is that what RSS affiliates do is a Ghar vapasi! They claim so many things which are a pure political concoction. The voluntary conversions have very much been a part of caste ridden Indian society. It is another matter that even the Christian and Muslim communities could not remain free from this caste virus, but the hope of the dominated castes to get social justice has played a major role in changing one’s faith. The RSS claim that the ancestors of all these converts are Hindus has no relevance in the debate. How is ancestry important in one’s faith and the citizenship today? Do we have to trace our ancestry to decide today’s faith? Where will this lead us? The theory of evolution apart from the latest DNA studies show that human’s beginning is from South Africa. The coming of Aryans to India from Arctic zone (Lokmanya Tilak ) to that Aryans were original inhabitants of India is a perpetual debate, with more heat than light in it.

What was the religion of Nomads-Pagans? Some social scientists call it Indigenous culture, rather than religion for the phenomenon which was and is practiced by indigenous (Adivasi) people all over the World. Society is always changing. As caste system has been the central part of religion in India many of the dominated castes regularly kept leaving Hinduism to opt for other religions, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism. People felt that they are not getting equality and so kept leaving the Hindu fold and embracing other religions. After Lord Buddha’s teachings a large chunk of people became Buddhists in the sub continent. It is another matter that later in the Brahminical reaction, Buddhism was wiped out from here. Many felt that the missions are doing service to their community so they changed their faith.

The problem, which RSS projects is due to its being hung up to the values and system of past; pastoral, agricultural-feudal societies. The changes in social system accompany the changes in systems of production and education in particular; are totally missing in its world view. India came into being through the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, who could unite the people of all religions as he treated all religions on equal ground. For him, there is no distinction between foreign and Native religions. Three types of Nationalisms competed with each their during freedom movement. On one hand was the concept of Indian Nationalism and the accompanying concept of ‘India as a nation in the making’, this is what was followed by most of the people. The other was Muslim Nationalism, which located its beginning from the time of Muhammad bin Kasim’s victory in Sindh in eight century. And the third one was Hindu nationalism, ‘we are a Hindu nation from times immemorial’, held by the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. Both these latter nationalisms derived their legitimacy from identity of religion had miniscule social support.

Unfortunately Gandhi is quoted extensively by Right wing forces to oppose conversions; but his quotes which are taken support are fragments of what he said. His major quote on conversion is from collected works, Volume XLVI p. 27-28. In an interview dated 22nd March 1931, given to The Hindu, Gandhi apparently stated that “if in self governing India, missionaries kept ‘proselytizing’ by means of medical aid, education etc., I would certainly ask them to withdraw. Every nation’s religion is as good as any other. Certainly India’s religions are adequate for her people. We need no converting spirituality.” This is the first part of the quote and the lines that follow give the totally opposite idea, the ideas, which Gandhi held. Gandhi goes on to write, “This is what the reporter has put in my mouth… All that I can say is that it is a travesty of what I have always said and held.” He goes on to explain, “I am, then, not against conversion. But I am against the modern methods of it. Conversions nowadays have become a matter of business, like any other… Every nation considers its own faith to be as good as that of any other. Certainly the great faiths held by the people of India are adequate for her people. India stands in no need of conversions from one faith to another.” And then he goes on to list the faiths of India, “Apart from Christianity and Judaism, Hinduism and its offshoots, Islam and Zoroastrianism are living faiths.”

As Gandhi opposed the divisive agenda of communal forces, which were using identity of religions for political purpose, Gandhi in contrast was harping on ‘morality’ of religions to unite the people. So while he was leading the anti colonial struggle the communalists were spitting fire against the ‘other community’ and ‘Shuddhi’ (Arya Samaj) and Tanjim (Tablighi Jammat) was part of their political agenda in the early part of twentieth century. The Hindu religion is not a prophet based religion, so the concept of conversion is not there. In most prophet based religions the call for spreading the divine word is there. So earlier Arya Samaj coined the word Shuddhi, which was for forcible conversion into Hinduism. RSS improvised on that and has coined the word Ghar Vapasi as a clever move to hide its ‘forcible conversion drive’. Its claim that it is undertaking Ghar vapasi to bring the religious minorities in the mainstream is again a hoax as minorities had been equal participants in the movement for India’s freedom, a struggle from which RSS remained aloof, barring one exception. To claim that adivasis are Hindus, is again does not hold water as Adivasis are animists, believing in nature worship, and in the spirit of their ancestors and spirit of Nature. All over the World indigenous people hold similar belief and have similar practice. This is unlike Hinduism where Gita, Ram and Acharya are the core part of it belief today.

The central point is that RSS does not recognize Indian nationalism and holds to Hindu nationalism so the whole maneuver for this ‘forcible conversion’ is being passed off as ‘Ghar Vapasi’ while dubbing other conversions as forcible. Rather than recognizing the qualitative change in the formation of India as the nation state, it is stuck to the pastoral-feudal-preindustrial society with the values of caste and gender hierarchy. The ‘Ghar vapsi’ is being planned at larger scales. And an intimidating and fraudulent atmosphere is being created to execute the forcible conversions. This is a frightening message to religious minorities. This is a clever manipulation of political power to violate the norms of Indian constitution.

Then how do we distinguish between a forcible conversion and adoption of a new religion. In the present scheme of things if one leaves Hindu fold to embrace Buddhism-Jainism-Sikhism, it is OK, as they are ‘Indian religions. For communalists problem seems to be only with Islam and Christianity! The basic shrewdness is to call religions as national or foreign. As such religions are basically universal not bound by national boundaries.

Constituent Assembly had discussed this thread bare and so the right to practice and propagate one’s religion is very much there. In the debate the word used is ‘converting’ others. Where is the place for people volunteering and adopting another religion, like Ambedkar and so many others? In a way it is a way to undermine the conscience of people that somebody is converting them. Where is the place for choice of one’s religion in a democratic society believing in ‘freedom of religion and conscience’?

With RSS plans for a bigger conversion nay Ghar vapasi in Aligarh this Christmas (2014) the attempt to polarize the society are being taken to a higher pitch. The heroes of RSS parivar like Yogi Adityanath are saying that those being subjected to ghar vapasi will be given the Gotra and caste from which they converted! So come what may the caste structure and rigidities remain and thrive. That’s what the agenda of nationalism in the name of Hinduism is!

Do we need laws to ban conversions? We have laws to punish those who indulge in force, fraud and allurement. What we need is to distinguish between voluntary conversion and forced one’s. Ghar Vapasi is a shrewd name for forcible conversions. So what we need is the political and moral will to promote freedom of religion and punish the guilty, using illegal means to achieve the change of faith. The so called ‘Freedom of Religion’ bills are there not to provide freedom of conscience but to curb the same by legal means.

Pakistan school attack: years of inaction on terror led to this atrocity

December 17, 2014 by Nasheman

Protestors gather in the wake of the attack. EPA/T Mughal

by Talat Farooq, The Conversation

The shock waves from a brutal terror attack that claimed the lives of more than 130 children in the northern Pakistani city of Peshawar are being felt around the world.

The Taliban assault, which began on Tuesday morning, has claimed the lives of at least 141 people. Across social media people expressed their horror and sympathy. From Pakistan to the UK, relatives of children attending the Army Public School were anxiously awaiting news.

The attack is being seen as one of the worst in nearly a decade of unabated violence in the country that has killed more than 55,000 Pakistanis – most of whom were civilians.

The Pakistani Taliban, or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, has confirmed that it was responsible for the attack and said the school was hit in response to army operations that have been taking place in the tribal areas.

Background to the attack

Over the past six months hundreds of Taliban fighters have been killed since a full-fledged military operation called Zarb-e-Azbwas launched. This has involved bombing the North Waziristan and Khyber areas in a bid to stamp out insurgencies.

Zarb-e-Azb was launched on June 15 2014 after talks between the Taliban and the government failed and a terrorist attack on Jinnah International Airport in Karachi left 39 dead, including all 10 gunmen.

The operation has been regarded as successful so far. The main hubs of militant activity have been cleared from North Waziristan and Khyber. And last week, the army gave the go-ahead for civilian authorities to start returning more than one million displaced people to North Waziristan.

But while the military side of the operation has met its targets, the political contribution made by successive governments has been less than satisfactory. The Pakistan Muslim League, in power since 2013, has long argued that dialogue with the Taliban is the preferred option. But this has meant failing to take any real ownership of the war that was raging regardless.

Just days after Zarb-e-Azb started, protesters associated with the political party Pakistan Awami Tehrik were killed in a violent clash with the Punjab police in Lahore, setting the stage for major political turmoil.

The situation worsened as Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf party started to accuse the PML government of electoral fraud in the elections of May 2013. Since August 2014, the PTI has continued to carry out protests, sit-ins and shut-downs in major cities. For its part, the government has failed to seriously resolve the issue through meaningful negotiations.

Failure to act

There has been a consistent lack of sufficient political will and seriousness on the part of the government to fully implement Pakistan’s anti-terrorism laws. Not a single convicted terrorist has so far been punished even though Pakistan carries the death penalty for such crimes.

According to experts, a backlog of cases, the absence of a proper mechanism to monitor religious schools, the proliferation of mobile phones in prisons, over-reliance on witnesses rather than forensics by the police and a lack of information sharing between civil and military intelligence agencies are just some of the major weaknesses and problems encountered in Pakistan’s anti-terrorism investigations.

Institutionalised corruption and political interference has also seriously undermined the capacity of civilian law enforcement agencies to tackle the terrorist threat. The government administrations have therefore proved to be poorly equipped to cope with the demands of unconventional warfare and have failed to systematically dismantle sleeper-cells within the country.

This attack is likely to have serious repercussions within and beyond Pakistani territory. At the domestic level the public – already fed up with perennial energy crisis and rising inflation – is bound to lose whatever faith it may have had in the government’s current approach to tackling internal security threats. None of this bodes well for the democratic process in a country that has had 32 years of military rule since its creation 67 years ago.

Talat Farooq is a Research Associate at University of Birmingham.

Are all Indians Sons of Ram?

December 8, 2014 by Ram Puniyani

During the anti colonial movement, Mahatma Gandhi emerged as the tallest of leaders and was called, ‘Father of the nation’ Rashtrapita. This term was first used by Subhash Chandra Bose in a Radio address in 1944 and later approved, accepted and upheld by majority of Indians. Of course he was not accepted as Father of the Nation by Muslim and Hindu communalists. For Muslim communalists, Muslim Nation began from eight century with the rule of Mohammad bin Kasim in Sindh. For Hindu Communalists this has been a Hindu nation from times immemorial. Gandhi was accepted as Father of the nation by majority of Indians and all those who were with freedom movement led by him for his role in bringing together all the people of India. The nation was seen as ‘Nation in the making’ not as a ready made nation as presented by religious nationalists.

Gandhi’s marathon effort was to bring in fraternity amongst all the Indians and so Hindu-Muslim unity was central to his enterprise. This was the logical central point of his effort as these were two main religious communities. He anchored himself to morality of all the religions and could bring the bonding of different religious communities under the overarching identity of ‘Indian’. He faced the strong resistance to his efforts from the propaganda and deeds of the communal forces, that’s also what led to his murder in 1948.

Despite his murder; the communalists and their hate propaganda and divisive thinking continued and kept changing its language in different guises. While majority Muslim communalists went over to Pakistan, the leftover of this communalism did produce the likes of Akbaruddudin Owaisi and his clones indulging in hate speech against Hindus. On a much larger and bigger scale the head of Hindu communal organization, kept harping on creating social common sense picked from the British introduced communal historiography, where Muslim kings were demonized, labeled as aliens etc. around which stereotypes and myths were constructed. This demonization reached its peak in the slogan Babar ki Aulad jao Kabristan ya Pakistan (sons of Babar go to Pakistan or graveyard) The latest in the line is that all those who do not identify with Lord Ram are Haramjade (Illegitimates) and the country belongs to Ramjade’s (Sons of Ram) only, others are to be treated like aliens.

This formulation is the culmination of RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent statement that all of us are Hindus, this is Hindustan. By inference Lord Ram is the symbol of India that is Hindustan and so Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti the BJP minister in central cabinet stated “Modi has given a mantra that we will neither take bribe nor let others take bribe. Now you have to decide whom to choose. Will you choose the sons of Ram or those who are illegitimate),” Just a small recap; Indian Constitution calls it as “India that is Bharat’.

Now while the collective opposition is demanding the suspension of the Sadhvi from Minister ship and initiating the legal proceedings against her, the BJP is hiding her under the pretext that she has already apologized and that she is new to the ministry. Also that she is coming from a poor dalit background. The opposition argument is that she has taken oath under the Indian Constitution, while her statement is not only an attempt to create a divide between religious communities, it’s a blatant hate speech and such a person is already guilty of violating the Indian Constitution. The criminal action demanded by opposition ranks against the minister Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti relates to the hate speech provision, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of three years of imprisonment.

One can be charged under this section only with the government’s sanction. Hate speech is widely understood to be an exception to the freedom of speech, Section 153A also holds to account anybody who is “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion … and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”. There are many in this gallery, prominent amongst them being Akbaruddin Owaisi, Raj Thackeray, Praveen Togadia, and Varun Gandhi, to name the few who came out with scathing statements against the ‘other community’. Hiding behind the fact that Sadhiv Jyoti is a dalit holds no water as she is fully indoctrinated in the ideology of Sangh Parivar. Also the argument that even Sonia Gandhi used the word ‘Maut ke Saudagar’ (Merchants of Death) is not relevant here, as Sonia was talking about a political tendency of communalism, not against any particular religious community.

Overtly BJP leadership is not much supporting this statement, but this is the logical outcome of the politics of their Parivar, which brought them to power and whose agenda of Hindu nationalism they are pursuing. How do we deal with such divisive agenda and Hate speech? One recalls Akbaruddin Owaisi was taken to task for his Hate speech. If one recalls right Dr. Pravin Togadia was also the guest of the prison for Hate speech once. Dr. Togadia has probably set the bench marks more than once in clever use of divisive language. His video of how to get rid of Muslim neighbors by throwing tomatoes on them was also seen but most of the time he has escaped the punishment. A similar comment, like the one now of Sadhvi Jyoti was also made by another BJP leader in Uttar Pradesh by Ram Pratap Chauhan in Vijay Shankhnaad Rally in Agra on 21st November 2013 as well. That one got unnoticed. IT only goes on to show, Sadhvi’s statement is a part of the thinking in the wider Parivar circle.

BJP leadership faces the dilemma. In Parliament and for the global consumption it has to keep the face of ‘Development’, while to keep its political power it has to go with the divisive agenda of its parent organization as unfolded by its associates and many elements within the party. So a clever balancing act is always in order, to hide under the apology of A Sadhvi and to turn a blind eye towards such tendencies. For them the same divisive agenda has to be operationalized with some variations in places where elections are to be held.

Then the question comes, as Indian nation who is our Father; Gandhi or Ram? Ram is a mythological reality with whom large section of Hindus identify. He was King of Ayodhya. The criticism of the prevalent version of Ram Story by Dr. Ambedkar seems to have been ignored in the din of communal hysteria. In ‘Riddles of Hinduism’, Ambedkar takes up the issue of Ram upholding caste and gender hierarchy amongst others. Rams’ murder of Shambuk, as Shambuk was a Shudra who was doing penance has come under heavy criticism from Ambedkar. Similarly banishing his pregnant wife Sita is a serious issue. One more point Ambedkar raises is also about Ram’s killing of Bali Raja, that too from behind. Bali was a popular king revered by dalit bahujans. Similarly Periyar Ramasami Naicker also took many of these issues about the Lord.

While there are claims that we are a Hindu nation from times immemorial, as a matter of fact India became a nation state through the anti colonial struggle led by Gandhi. So the very formulation that all Indians are sons of Ram has no grounding. Surely many Hindus identify with Ram but as Indians, it is Gandhi who is the ‘father of the nation’. Ram is symbol of Hindu nationalism while Gandhi is symbol of Indian nationalism.

After Modi came to power in 2014, the assertion of RSS agenda is going on uninhibited and intimidating those who uphold the Indian Constitution and values of freedom struggle. Assertions like Ramjade as synonymous with Indian-ness are revival of the forces which killed and went on to celebrate this dastardly act, which was the first attack on values of our freedom movement.

What did Babri demolition leave behind?

December 6, 2014 by Nasheman

by Mujeeb Vallapuzha

Every year, Dec 6 is a reminder how the Babri Masjid demolition ripped apart communal coexistence in India. The communal violence that followed the demolition shows how the disaster has polarized the communities in India and, in retrospect, how it has represented a particular religion – Islam – and its followers in a extremely negative light to its other inhabitants.

The composite nature of Indian society, which is known for its religious diversity and communal plurality, was ruptured at the dawn of its independence, which witnessed a nightmarish bifurcation on religious lines; the Babri episode further antagonized the communities. The continued religious violence since is merely an extension of that momentous event. Since the perpetrators of the demolition – the Hindu right-wing forces – have gone largely unpunished, it has further emboldened the fringe groups encouraging them to operate with impunity both under the erstwhile centrist and the current right-wing government. Inter-community conflict has become a more pervasive national phenomenon since the demolition.

Even after 22 years, what makes Babri demolition a dreadful memory is the way it has redefined religious coexistence in the country. The communal polarization has unleashed unprecedented attacks against Indian Muslims.

Following the demolition, places such as Delhi, Bhopal, Kanpur, Bombay, Ahmadabad, and Surat became cauldrons of communal resentment. B.N. Srikrishna Commission Report, compiled after the Bombay Riots, had also pointed out how these communal conflagrations vilified the Muslim community.

Despite the fact that the the Babri demolition was purportedly sponsored by a handful of fascist terror outfits that made the Muslim community all over India feel insecure and threatened the secular fabric of the country, the Muslim community was widely portrayed in the Indian Mass media as foreign invaders and advocates of terrorism. The media completely elided the role of extremist Hindu outfits that were behind the real destruction and mayhem.

What made such a terror campaign acceptable was the fact that the demolition and riots could be used as a political trump card by almost all the political parties. The passions over Ramjanmabhoomi issue were not only employed to distort Indian history but to rouse Hindutva fervor among the people, which manufactured a view of Islam as a belligerent opponent to Hindutva. In short, the demolition of Babri Masjid reversed the story of Hindutva consolidation by presenting Islam and Muslims as the real culprits. It led to an irreversible negative image of Islam and Indian Muslims in the public sphere.

The disaster marked a loss of faith and hope in democratic principles in the country. It ripped open the scars of Partition, engendering a feeling of insecurity among Indian Muslims. Consequently, this feeling of insecurity was exploited by certain vested interests which lured some of the youth from the community into terrorist and anti-national activities, further reinforcing the view that Muslims are prone to violence. Following the demolition, no efforts were made to alleviate the fears and insecurities of the Muslim community.

What Indian Muslims would like to see is not a reopening of those wounds but a restoration of peace and harmony. On this anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition, one hopes that the Indian state once again restores values of secularism and communal coexistence.

However, catharsis is possible only when we remember those moments of despair and devastation.

Mujeeb Vallapuzha is a lecturer at Abdullah Educational Academy, Kerala, India.

If Junaid Jamshed’s “Blasphemy” Can Be Forgiven, Then Why Are Others Punished?

December 5, 2014 by Nasheman

by Ro Waseem, Patheos

Pakistan is known for its notorious anti-blasphemy laws. Under the Pakistan Penal Code, making blasphemous remarks about Prophet Mohammad can get you imprisoned for life, or be sentenced to death. Making blasphemous remarks about the Quran will get you imprisoned for life. While, making blasphemous remarks about his family or his companions will cost you 3 years in prison.

When “preserving” the sanctity of religious figures becomes more important than human lives, then that is an indicator for some serious introspection. Something we Muslims have been shying away from, for too long!

It would take too much space to expand on that, but I’ve previously argued in one of my articles that anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws differ from the Quranic commandments, on a most foundational level (You might want to read that here). No, Islam is not so feeble that it needs protecting from citizens who have probably never even read the Quran in their own language. So, perhaps what you are really protecting is your ignorance and your superficial understanding of Islam, gathered through pseudo scholars and the likes.

Moving swiftly on, an interesting (and quite revealing) case broke out recently with Junaid Jamshed, who is popularly known for his transformation from a prominent singer to quite a conservative Islamic preacher. A short clip from one of his sermons recently got viral, in which he is accused to be “blaspheming” against Hazrat Ayesha, one of the wives of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

He starts off, seemingly in a jovial mood, talking about how she would always demand more attention from Prophet Mohammad. So, one day she decided to fake sickness by wrapping a towel around her head.

“What happened, what happened?” inquired Prophet Mohammad.

“Ah, my head is bursting with pain!” she complained.

To which, he said: “Oh Ayesha, if you were to pass away, the Prophet of God would personally offer your funeral prayers. How fortunate would you be?”

She stood up at once: “This is what you ardently desire–that I die, so you could spend more time with your other wives.”

Using this as a reference point, Junaid Jamshed goes on further to add some disgusting & misogynistic comments about the supposed flaws of women. But, I’m quite sure that is not what’s bothering those who seem to have been offended.

Although what Junaid Jamshed said about Hazrat Ayesha seems like an attempt of character assassination, I fail to see how that is more blasphemous than ISIS slaughtering people in the name of Islam, and why the outrage is not directed there. Regardless, soon after, a Fatwa (religious opinion) was issued against Junaid Jamshed by “Sunni Tehreek”, and some people were seen protesting against him.

Given that Junaid Jamshed is a member of “Tableeghi Jamat”, they obviously did not want bad press associated with their movement, which could perhaps delegitimize the authority they enjoy in mainstream Muslim circles. Thus, Maulana Tariq Jameel, a senior member of the Tableeghi Jamat, released a video in which he expressed his sorrow over the “blasphemous” remarks made by Junaid Jamshed, and repeatedly clarified that these views were neither endorsed by him nor the Tableeghi Jamat as a whole. He said human beings are bound to make mistakes, and so Junaid Jamshed should apologize and seek forgiveness from everyone.

Now, the issue had become way too sensitive. So, Junaid Jamshed put on an embarrassed face, and released a video in which he apologized for his “blasphemous” remarks, and pleaded everyone to forgive him. “People make mistakes”, he said. And, judging by the top comments under the video, it seems that people have indeed forgiven him. Case resolved. What a happy ending!

Yet, is it really?

Needless to say that I do not think he should be charged for blasphemy and that I feel relieved that Muslims have forgiven him, I think this partial attitude does more harm than good, for it promotes double standards and hypocrisy! I wonder, why are people who belong to minority groups in Pakistan not given the same privilege, the same benefit of doubt when accused of blasphemy? Why are they not given the luxury of apologizing for their “mistake”, a mistake they may or may not even have committed? Why does the state not recognize that anti-blasphemy laws are mostly used to settle personal disputes and prejudices?

Furthermore, what happened to the central Quranic commandment of standing up for justice impartially, even if it be against ourselves, or our family (Quran 4:135)? Conveniently ignored, as always?

Hence, the question that begs to be asked is: What if this “mistake” was made by someone not as religiously influential as he is? Would they deserve the same fate as the scores of people who have been murdered or put to death, in the name of “preserving” a religion that is increasingly becoming more and more intolerant & detached from the Quran? Wouldn’t this then be blatant hypocrisy?

So, let us recall what the Quran says about hypocrites, and put an end to the façade of criminals posing as Muslims:

“Without a matter of doubt, the hypocrites shall be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper.” Quran, 4:145

No, Junaid Jamshed should not be tried for blasphemy, but neither should anyone else be. The fact that Veena Malik is sentenced to prison for 26 years for “blasphemy”, while Junaid Jamshed is immediately forgiven is a reflector of our double standards. “We strongly believe in our religion and respect it. It is beyond our wildest imagination to even think of disrespecting the institution.”, said Veena Malik.

Why is her apology not acceptable? Is it because of the fact that we judge people’s character by how “Muslim” they look, instead of looking at their values? Maybe if Veena Malik could grow a beard, we would embrace her too?

Bhopal: A Metaphor

December 4, 2014 by Nasheman

‘The 30th anniversary of Bhopal gas tragedy,’ writes Shiva, ‘should catalyse actions worldwide for justice for Bhopal and for all victims of an economy based on toxics.’ (Photo: Bhopal Medical Appeal/flickr/cc)

by Vandana Shiva, The Asian Age

December 3, 2014, marks the 30th anniversary of the terrible Bhopal gas tragedy, which killed more than 3,000 people almost immediately, another 8,000 in the following days, and more than 20,000 in the last three decades.

Despite the tragedy of humongous proportions, the people of Bhopal are still fighting for justice despite the apathy they continue to face.

Bhopal was a watershed moment. The tragedy woke up the world to industrial, chemical violence. The chemicals being manufactured at the Bhopal plant had their roots in warfare.

Bhopal gas tragedy was a political, economic, legal watershed for India and the planet. It was a toxic tragedy at two levels the leakage of a toxic gas from a plant producing toxic pesticides, the continued presence of 350 metric tonnes of hazardous toxic waste from the now-defunct Union Carbide India Ltd’s plant in Bhopal, combined with a toxic influence of corporations on courts and successive governments. Legally, Union Carbide and the US courts escaped liability and responsibility for the damage, setting a precedent of governments shrugging their duty to protect their citizens, taking away citizens’ rights and sovereignty in order to make settlements with corporations, letting them off lightly.

The cases brought by the victims to US courts were dismissed on the grounds that the appropriate platform was the Indian legal system, though other cases involving US corporations and foreign victims were being heard in US courts. In 1999, when the victims again approached the US federal court seeking compensation for the 1984 incident as well as for the alleged ongoing environmental contamination at and around the Bhopal plant site, the case was dismissed again.

In 1989, the Indian Supreme Court approved a settlement of the civil claims against Union Carbide for $470 million. The state forcefully took over the representation of the victims on the principle of parens patriae (Latin for “parents of the nation”) — “a doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf”.

A criminal lawsuit against Union Carbide and Warren Anderson, its former CEO, continues since 1989. In June 2010, a court in India handed down a verdict in the case. It found Union Carbide India Ltd. and seven executives of the company guilty of criminal negligence (this came after the September 1996 order that had reduced their charges). The company was required to pay a fine of Rs 500,000 ($10,870) and the individuals were each sentenced to two years in prison and fined Rs 100,000. On August 2, 2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the charges of culpable homicide against the accused. In May 2011, the Supreme Court rejected this petition and declined to re-open the case to reinstate harsher charges. However, after the protests of the Bhopal survivors in November 2014, the government promised to strengthen the “curative petition” that Dow Chemical was already facing in the Supreme Court. The petition is designed to address inadequacies in the 1989 settlement on the basis that the correct figures for dead and injured were not used. The Indian government is seeking an additional amount of up to $1.24 billion, but Bhopal survivor groups, quoting the Government of India’s published figures (Indian Council of Medical Research, epidemiological report, 2004), say the required settlement amounts to $8.1 billion.

On February 6, 2001, Union Carbide Corporation became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company following an $11.6 billion transaction approved by the boards of directors of Union Carbide and the Dow Chemical Company. Owning means owning both, assets and liabilities. However, Dow would like to disown the Bhopal gas disaster. While Dow wants immunity from liability in the case of deaths and diseases caused by Union Carbide in Bhopal, it has accepted liability for harm caused to workers of Union Carbide in the US.

In January 2002, Dow settled a case brought against its subsidiary UCC by workers exposed to asbestos in the workplace and set aside $2.2 billion to address future liabilities.

The case was filed before the acquisition of Union Carbide by Dow. Dow refuses to address the death and damage caused by Union Carbide in India.

This pattern of double standards, of privatising profits and socialising disaster runs through the pattern of corporate rule being institutionalised since the Bhopal tragedy. Dow, along with Monsanto, is involved in pushing hazardous, untested GMOs on society, along with the same war-based chemicals such GMOs rely on.

On October 15, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency, in spite of protests from citizens and scientists, gave final approval to Dow’s Enlist Duo genetically engineered corn and soya resistant to round-up and 2,4-D, or 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, which was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the Vietnam War defoliant that was blamed for numerous health problems suffered during and after the war.

As this chemical arms race unfolds, more and more communities and countries are making the democratic choice to become GMO free. In the mid-term elections of November 2014, Maui County of Hawaii voted to become GMO free. Dow and Monsanto immediately sued Maui to stop the law banning GMO cultivation.

The 30th anniversary of Bhopal gas tragedy should catalyse actions worldwide for justice for Bhopal and for all victims of an economy based on toxics. It should strengthen our resolve to create toxic-free food and agriculture systems, and to defend our freedom to be free of poisons.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist and eco feminist. She is the founder/director of Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology. She is author of numerous books including, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis; Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply; Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace; and Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Shiva has also served as an adviser to governments in India and abroad as well as NGOs, including the International Forum on Globalization, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and the Third World Network. She has received numerous awards, including 1993 Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) and the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize.

Aligarh Muslim University, Raja Mahendra Pratap and Attempts of Polarization

December 2, 2014 by Ram Puniyani

Those resorting to communal politics have not only perfected their techniques of polarizing the communities along religious lines, but have been constantly resorting to new methods for dividing the society. On the backdrop of Muzzafar nagar, where ‘Love Jihad’ propaganda was used to enhance the divisive agenda, now in Aligarh an icon of matchless virtues, Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh is being employed for the similar purposes.

The attempt by BJP and associates to hold the memorial function in his honor within campus was successfully deflected by the Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) University with the plan for a seminar befitting his contribution to the freedom movement of this AMU alumnus.

BJP dug up this icon from pages of history and gauzing prevalent respect for him after the lapse of decades after his death. The answer to why now at this particular juncture is very revealing. Mahendra Pratap died on 29 April 1979, and now out of the blues BJP seems to have felt that his Jat, Hindu identity can be pitched as a flag of their politics. Pratap was a freedom fighter extraordinary, a journalist and a writer. He was a humanist, believing in International federation of nations transcending the national and religious boundaries. He was a Marxist who called for social reforms and empowerment of Panchayats. He was president of Indian Freedom Fighters’ Association He was also the first one to form the provisional Indian Government in exile by establishing it in Kabul in 1915. Just to recall the Indian National Congress adopted the goal of complete freedom for India much later in its 1929 session. This Provisional Government was called Hakumat-i-Moktar-i-Hind, and was constituted with Pratap as the President, Maulvi Barkatullah as prime minister and Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi as interior minister.

After independence he also participated in the electoral arena where he defeated Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Mathura in the 1957 Lok Sabha election. His commitment to being opposed to communal forces could not be more evident than this opposition of his to the leader of Bhartiya Jansangh, Vajpayee. Ironically same person is being lifted up as the icon, who opposed their politics. BJP leaders like Yogi Adityanath are claiming that had Mahendra Pratap not donated the land the AMU would not have come up. This is contrary to the facts. The predecessor of AMU, Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College was formed in 1886, with a land bought from British cantonment (Nearly 74 Acres) and much later Pratap had leased 3.04 acres of land, this is called Tikonia ground and is used as a playground by the City High School of AMU in 1929. He joined the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College in 1895, but could not complete his graduation. He left MAO College in 1905. MAO became Aligarh Muslim University in 1920, which regards Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh as an alumnus. In 1977, AMU, under V-C Prof A M Khusro, felicitated Mahendra Pratap at the centenary celebrations of MAO.

He wasn’t born when MAO was established, and there is no record of any donation of land from him. Mahendra Pratap’s father Raja Ghanshiam Singh of Mursan had got a hostel room constructed, which continues to stand as Room Number 31 in Sir Syed Hall (South).

BJP demanded that Mahenra Pratap’s birthday should be celebrated as AMU celebrates the birthday of Sir Syed, the founder of the University RSS Functionaries and BJP leaders put pressure on the VC. VC pointed out that AMU cannot celebrate birth day of every donor or alumnus, while recognizing their contribution to the building up of the University. As such already AMU in recognition of Pratap’s contribution to the University has put up his photo in University along with the photo of Sir Syed.

On November 17 (2014), BJP chief of UP Mr. Laxmikant Bajpai and general secretary Swatantra Dev Singh visited Aligarh and directed their district unit to celebrate the birth day of Mahendra Pratap’s within the MU campus. The raja is a also Jat icon, In popular perception AMU is seen as a Muslim institution. The Jat-Muslim conflict instigated by communal forces, which erupted in the form of violence in Muzaffarnagar continues to affect in western part of UP. The BJP through its machinations allegedly wants to restore the glory of a Jat ‘king’. As such the idea is to appropriate one more of icons and in the process if the state government puts curbs on the celebration, the BJP can benefit by accusing the state Government of “Muslim appeasement”.

As the matters stand VC, Gen. Shah’s suggestion of celebrating the birth anniversary of Raja Mahendra Pratap by organizing a seminar on his contribution to freedom movement of India is a welcome initiative. The situation seems to have been diffused for the time being. BJP had planned a rally outside the gate of AMU, which would have precipitated the unwarranted incidents.

This whole episode has many lessons for the society. To begin with, the national icons are being modulated to suit the interests of communal politics. Be it Sardar patel, Swami Vivekanand, Mahatma Gandhi or in this case Raja Mahendra Pratap, they are being presented in the light which suits the communal politics. In case of Mahedra Pratap, who was a Marxist internationalist; is being presented as a mere Jat leader. He was a person who opposed the politics in the name of religion, as is evident by his electoral fight against BJP’s previous avatar, Bhartiya Jan Sanghs’ Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Secondly BJP associates are manipulating people’s identity as primarily being religious identity, Hindu or Muslim. In case of Muzzafarnagar, the Jats who were instigated in the name of ‘love Jihad’ came to stand more for Hindu identity. This identity is then made to stand opposed to the ‘other’ religious identity in particular, the Muslim identity and sometimes Christian identity. Same game is also being experimented in parts of Delhi, where Dalits are being made to pitch against Muslims, in a way two deprived communities being made to fight for’ their’ religion’ on the pretext of some issues related to faith.

The communal politics not only manipulates the identity of the people but also that of the icons, as is clear in the case of Raja Mahendra Pratap. The third major lesson for society to learn is that the search is on to find more and more issues to pitch one religious community against the other to strengthen the politics of a particular type. While the top leadership will talk of moratorium on violence, the associates of the same leadership will stoke the processes which will lead to the process of violence in due course.

A great amount of restraint is needed to ensure that we learn the values of the icons, e.g. the likes of Mahendra Pratap teach us the basic lessons of love and amity, peace and universal humanism. To use the techniques of conflicting religious identities is a gross violation of human morality, irrespective of the religion in whose name it is done.