By Simon Speakman Cordall and Awad Joumaa
9 Jun 2026 – Former detainees detail systematic torture and sexual violence, including rape, while in Israeli custody.
Warning: This story contains descriptions of sexual assault that some readers may find disturbing.
Muhammad al-Bakri specifically remembers the date of his rape.
TO WATCH FULL VIDEO Go to Original – aljazeera.com
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By Nuvpreet Kalra
4 Jun 2026 – Last week, the Cuban Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM) announced a major health breakthrough with VAXIRA, a vaccine treatment for lung cancer. This is a remarkable achievement, made only more impressive by the fact that this is Cuba’s second lung cancer vaccine.
The vaccine stops the progression of cancer by developing the patient’s immune system to fight off cancer cells. This has proven to significantly prolong people’s survival. Since 2013, the vaccine has been monitored, trialled, and tested on more than 1,300 patients. Over a ten-year period, patients survived a median of 76.6 months, with 20% of all patients who were given VAXIRA experiencing unexpected long-term survival. Last year, VAXIRA was awarded the Technological Innovation Prize in Cuba for its contribution to healthcare in Cuba. This is an incredible feat for humanity and the battle against cancer – and it is being done by a country facing the longest and most severe blockade in history.
In 2011, Cuba developed CIMAvax, which remains the world’s only approved lung cancer vaccine. This vaccine works to induce the immune system to stop the growth of cancer cells and slow the progression of tumors. This vaccine has already treated more than 5,000 people across the world and many more thousands in Cuba itself. Given the immense significance of the vaccine, the United States agreed to a special arrangement to trial the vaccine in the US. The Roswell Park Cancer Institute in New York has been running clinical trials with CIM since 2018. They have run the first clinical trials of CIMAvax in the United States. The very same nation that is imposing a genocidal blockade on Cuba is also benefiting from the historic breakthroughs in healthcare.
These major developments in medicine to treat cancer are not Cuba’s only awe-inspiring health achievements.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Cuba produced five vaccines: Ablada, Soberana 01, Soberana 02, Soberana Plus, and Mambisa. Cuba had one of the lowest COVID deaths in the Western Hemisphere – and by 2021, Cuba’s fatality rate was just 0.59% compared to the 2.2% worldwide average. The vaccines were produced without the need for specialist refrigeration, which meant they could be easily transported and also distributed across the world to places where accessing such infrastructure would be impossible. Quickly, Venezuela, Iran, Vietnam, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mexico all picked up the vaccine to protect their population.
By 2023, Cuba had the third-highest rate of vaccinations per 100,000 people. Despite the fact that the U.S. banned the country from importing the syringes necessary to immunize its own population. In this context, Cuba was the first country in the world to vaccinate toddlers and children, as part of their push to reopen schools safely.
Cuba, like the United States, offered its COVID vaccines to the world. While Cuba donated vaccines to St Vincent and the Grenadines and sold them as cheaply as they could, the U.S. bullied countries into putting up their assets, like embassy buildings and military bases, in order to access vaccines. This was to “protect” against future legal challenges that vaccine recipients might file against the manufacturer of the vaccine. This profit motive was a major cause for the vaccine apartheid in the distribution of COVID protection across the world. As of August 2024, in high-income countries, more than 222 doses had been distributed per 100 people. While in low-income countries, this was less than 46. In 2021, US pharmaceutical companies that produced COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson) collected an eye-watering revenue of $31 billion. The concept that companies and shareholders should make money from a pandemic should be utterly outrageous.
Biotechnology
Cuba leads the world in its vaccine breakthroughs. But, how is this all possible? It is not by accident that Cuba is able to develop world-leading health breakthroughs in medicine. Cuba has developed a world-class biotechnological sector that is state-owned and operates in the interests of the people, not profit. There are no profit motives to producing vaccines; research and development are for the collective benefit, and resources are shared to better the process of scientific development. This is quite the opposite situation in capitalist countries, where biotechnology is a major competition dominated by pharmaceutical companies motivated entirely by profits, which often means that when there are major developments in health, they are not accessible to people.
In 1981, Cuba opened the Biological Research Center, despite the blockade stopping the entry of equipment, materials, access to research journals, and medicines. In the first 9 years, the Center produced three products. Between 1990 and 2000, it produced 18, and between 2001 and 2010, it produced more than 40. Today, that figure continues to grow. The Center flourished into a world-class biotechnological sector that has made major health breakthroughs. Cuba produced the world’s first human vaccine to contain a synthetic antigen for Haemophilus influenzae type B.
In 1989, Cuba produced the world’s first Meningitis B vaccine during a severe outbreak of the disease in the country. This was the first ever vaccine produced to protect against Meningitis B and was exported to protect people in countries across Latin America. The U.S. approved its first vaccine for Meningitis B in 2014.
The following year, Cuba produced a vaccine for Hepatitis B. They joined just five other countries as a manufacturer of Hep B vaccines: France, South Korea, the United States, Indonesia, and Britain. As the US blockade made it virtually impossible and far too expensive to import the vaccine, Cuba produced their own and eliminated Hepatitis B in under 15 years.
In 2006, Cuba developed Heberprot-P, the only medicine in the world to reduce the amputation rate of patients with diabetic foot ulcers by 75%. Within 10 years, it was used in 23 countries. It has treated more than 400,000 people with foot ulcers. In 2024, the United States even broke its own blockade and approved it for trials and use. The very thought that Americans who suffer from diabetes might be treated by Cuban medicine while being fed propaganda against Cuba and funding a war against the very Cuban researchers and scientists helping them reveals how inhumane this blockade is.
By 2015, Cuba became the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis. Cuba managed this because of its socialist model, which is the same reason why it is not celebrated in mainstream media and looked to as a center for health advances in the U.S. This world historical achievement came as a result of Cuba’s universal health system that integrated maternal and child health programs with HIV and STI treatment. Cuba has one of the lowest rates of AIDS in the world and the lowest in the Americas, thanks to the free provision of antiretroviral treatment it has been distributing since 2001. Its vaccination programs have eradicated diseases that continue to cause death and suffering around the world, including diphtheria in 1979, measles in 1993, whooping cough in 1994, and rubella in 1995. Cuba has also developed the highest control of blood pressure in the world.
The same principles that led Cuba to produce world-leading medical breakthroughs are similar to its success in eliminating diseases. Cuba’s vaccination model is motivated by protecting its people. The National Immunization Program, which began in 1962, has saved the lives of at least 560,000 children who would have otherwise contracted diseases if it weren’t for the program. This is motivated by four directives: equity of vaccine distribution; integration of vaccination in primary healthcare; the inclusion of active community participation; and providing vaccines free of charge. These guiding principles indicate how central the health of all society is, not corporate interests or greed.
Cuba’s approach to providing healthcare is indicative of the nature of the revolution: to serve Cubans and the oppressed across the world. Before the revolution in 1959, 300 children were paralyzed by polio each year. One of the first measures by the revolutionary government was immunization for Cuban society. In 1962, the polio campaign launched through mobilizing 100,000 members of newly founded revolutionary committees to conduct a population census and vaccinate all children. Within months, polio was eradicated in Cuba, making it one of the first countries in the world to do so. Polio is still a leading cause of paralysis and death across the world.
These health achievements have massively benefited people across the world through access to new treatments and cures, affordable and accessible vaccines and medicines, and models for healthcare. But another awe-inspiring element of Cuba’s healthcare is its international solidarity.
Cuba has restored the eyesight for more than four million people with its joint program with Venezuela, Operation Miracle. They have sent more than 600,000 health workers on medical missions to 160 countries in response to pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and other crises where no other country would act. They have and continue to train doctors from the Global South for free so they go back to their home countries to practice medicine.
Cuba makes these miraculous achievements for humanity while facing a blockade that causes shortages of medicines in pharmacies across Cuba, blocks researchers from accessing health journals, and prevents the entry of equipment, spare parts, and laboratory materials that could make it easier and faster to conduct research. The U.S. blockade should be seen as an attack on humanity itself. This is a genocidal act of war against a population that exports doctors across the world by an empire that exports bombs, fighter jets, and invading soldiers.
Cuba once had among the lowest rates of infant mortality in the world. But since 2019, with the increase of more than 250 additional sanctions on Cuba, the rates of infant mortality have risen by 148%. It is estimated that this has cost 1,800 lives of infants. This is the material result of a blockade that intends to kill, punish, and destroy a country for asserting its own sovereignty. Yet, even still, Cuba’s infant mortality rate is lower than that in the United States. The U.S. enforces its blockade on Cuba so that it can try to claim Cuba is a “failed state”, which also means its universal, free healthcare system “fails”; all so it can maintain its abysmal healthcare system that operates purely for profit, despite the level of death, bankruptcy, and suffering it causes to poor Americans.
The truth is that even with this genocidal blockade, Cuba maintains the principles of its revolution and the motivation to better the world.
Like Fidel Castro said in 2003:
“Our country does not drop bombs on other peoples, nor does it send thousands of planes to bomb cities; our country does not possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Our country’s tens of thousands of scientists and doctors have been educated in the idea of saving lives. It would absolutely contradict this concept to put a scientist or a doctor to work to produce substances, bacteria or viruses to kill other human beings.”
Nuvpreet Kalra is CODEPINK’s Digital Content Producer and co-ordinator for the international Bases off Cyprus campaign.
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By Nate Bear
9 Jun 2026 – The Soccer World Cup starts this Thursday [11 Jun] and the US regime has already guaranteed that it will be the most racist in history.
FIFA-appointed Somalian referee Omar Artan, voted the best referee in Africa last year and travelling on a diplomatic passport, was denied entry to the US when he landed at Miami and forced to fly back home.
The Iranian national team have been forced to relocate their training base from Arizona to Mexico, and the manager of the team, as well as various technical support staff, have been denied US visas. The US is also demanding that the Iranian playing squad enter and leave the US on the day of their games, a condition clearly meant to harm their ability to perform well in matches. Iran’s fan ticket allocation has also just been withdrawn, meaning there will be no fans from Iran in the stadiums.
Iraqi national team vice-captain Ayman Hussein was detained, searched and interrogated at Chicago’s O’Hare airport for seven hours while Iraq’s national team photographer was denied entry and turned back on landing.
The Senegalese team were treated like criminals on landing, with security not allowing them to enter the terminal and strip-searching them on the tarmac. The Uzbekistan team were similarly searched after stepping off the coach outside the Icahn stadium in New York prior to a friendly match against The Netherlands.
At least 90 fans from two major supporter groups in Morocco have also been denied visas ahead of the tournament, most under a clause citing doubts about their intention to return home, despite their documented travel histories to Russia 2018, Qatar 2022, and the Paris Olympics. Some have lost thousands of dollars in non-refundable hotel bookings.
These refusals followed the initial refusal of a visa for the Moroccan player Zakaria El Ouahdi, who plays in Europe, after US embassy staff flagged him as a risk because his father was deemed to have a suspicious beard.
The South African team waited months for US visas to be issued, leading to a public complaint from the country’s minister of sport who said they’d been “made to look like fools,” and as of this week were still waiting for four visas to be processed.
The International Sports Press Association says that many Iranian and African journalists have been denied visas needed to enter the US and report on the tournament.
All of this is making people compare this World Cup to the 1936 Nazi Olympics, but that’s really unfair. By 1936 Nazi Germany hadn’t attacked any sovereign countries, assassinated any heads of state or committed any holocausts.
Some on Twitter didn’t get this, but I expect my readers understand this as an absurdist quip intended to make a deadly serious point about the barbarity of US empire.
The truth is the US regime has committed all of these criminal acts in just the last few months, from the kidnap of a head of state, to the assassination of a head of state (and his family), to an attack on a sovereign nation because it refused to submit to empire. And the Gaza holocaust, sponsored by the US and committed by its colonial proxy using regime arms and technology, is ongoing.
So yes, the argument is sound. The World Cup is being hosted by a white supremacist regime, a regime that has outright bans on citizens of numerous global south countries whose national teams have qualified for the World Cup, including Iran, Haiti, Senegal, and the Ivory Coast. A regime which has concentration-camp like facilities into which people routinely disappear, or die. A regime which constantly talks in overtly racist terms about the need to save western civilisation from non-white people and is therefore clearly not fit to host one of the world’s most preeminent, multicultural global sporting events.
Yet despite all this, compare the media focus on US crimes in the context of hosting the World Cup with the attention given to Qatar, Russia or Brazil. Where is the reporting about US human rights abuses? Where are the televised news specials about US repression and policies of mass murder? Where are the anguished op-eds about inner city gun violence? Where are the protests by national teams against the politics of the host nation?
The clear hypocrisy on show is just another indictment of valueless liberals and demonstrates how subjects of empire, whether journalists or athletes, give a pass to empire for its crimes. It’s easy to speak out from the guts of the imperial core against outsiders when you know there’ll be no consequences for doing so. It’s much harder to possess genuine principles which put you into conflict with your rulers and paymasters.
But it’s probably in many cases a lot simpler and more horrifying than this. It’s probably more likely that many in the imperial core simply agree with and support imperial violence. For many people, Qatar and Russia having draconian policies against gay people is worse than a holocaust when the victims are Palestinians, the wretched of the Earth, an essentially sub-human population in the eyes of imperialists.
The World Cup is a perfect encapsulation of the impunity with which imperialists are able to commit their crimes.
In 2017, when concerns about the US as a potential host were raised, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said “any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. It’s obvious. The requirements will be clear.” But now, with accredited FIFA referees and team staff being banned from attending, the cowardly Infantino says these issues are all a matter for the host nation.
No consequences or condemnation. Just the pure impunity of empire.
FIFA demanded previous World Cup hosts introduce special laws to bypass all kinds of regulations to ensure the smooth running of past events. South Africa passed a Special Measures Act demanded by FIFA, while Brazil’s parliament in 2013 passed and codified a 900-page General Law of The World Cup covering everything from criminal provisions to visa processes to press freedom. But no such demands were made of the US, with the regime able to ban anyone it wants, including FIFA referees and team staff.
The empire is granted impunity for its actions by other imperialists like Infantino who possess essentially the same politics. In their minds there is no need for white empire to pass special World Cup laws, because the governance is not just already fit-for-purpose, but infinitely superior. When empire executes power and authority, that power and authority, unlike that wielded by the periphery, is, by definition, legitimate.
Perhaps this will all be a wake-up call for the sport, but it’s unlikely, because this isn’t just about FIFA or about football. What we’re seeing with this World Cup cuts to the heart of empire and the value system which underpins it.
What we’re seeing is the racism, hypocrisy and double standards that always surface when professed liberal principles clash with imperial realities.
No, this fiasco won’t change FIFA, but it should be a reminder to us that empire is an illegitimate construct and a bankrupt project that, when ended, will end FIFA by default as well.
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By Diran Noubar
14 Jun 2026 – In the grand arena of international affairs, where narratives are often more vigorously contested than battlefields themselves, certain outcomes emerge not with fanfare but with the inexorable weight of reality. After more than four years of conflict, the contours of the Russia-Ukraine war have clarified in a manner that many in Western capitals might prefer to obscure with rhetorical flourishes. Russia has, in essence, prevailed against the collective machinery of NATO—not through mythic blitzkrieg, but through strategic resilience, industrial adaptation, and a willingness to endure where others faltered. This is not a declaration of glee, but a sober observation of facts on the ground and in the ledgers of power.
One need not endorse every aspect of the campaign to acknowledge its broader success. Moscow’s forces, despite facing an array of advanced Western weaponry and intelligence support funneled through Kiev, maintain control over approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, including critical regions in the east and south. Gains may have slowed in the attritional grind of 2026, yet Russian positions have consolidated in key areas like much of Donetsk and Luhansk, with incremental advances continuing amid fierce resistance. Ukrainian counter-efforts, though tactically impressive in places, have not reversed the fundamental territorial and strategic realities established since 2022.
Consider the economic front, where the West wagered heavily on sanctions as a decisive weapon. Here, the irony is particularly piquant. Russia, long caricatured as a gas station masquerading as a nation, reoriented its economy with remarkable agility. Trade pivoted eastward, parallel import networks flourished, and defense production surged despite export controls. European economies, by contrast, grappled with energy shocks, inflation, and deindustrialization—self-inflicted wounds from their own decoupling fervor. The ruble did not collapse; reserves were mobilized; and the “arsenal of democracy” found itself outproduced in shells and drones by a nation supposedly on the brink of ruin. NATO’s proxy strategy, intended to bleed Russia dry, instead highlighted the limits of financial warfare against a determined adversary with vast resources and autarkic tendencies.
Militarily, the mismatch between expectations and outcomes is equally telling. Initial Western predictions of a swift Russian collapse gave way to months, then years, of incremental Russian pressure. Factories in the Urals and beyond churned out materiel at a pace that outstripped Ukraine’s ability to absorb Western aid, however generous. High-tech donations—tanks, HIMARS, Patriots—provided tactical boosts but could not alter the demographic and logistical arithmetic favoring the side fighting on its declared existential terms. Ukraine, for all its valor and innovation in drone warfare, has been hollowed by casualties and manpower shortages, while Russia has sustained a war of attrition that plays to its strengths. The much-vaunted “spring offensives” and counteroffensives have largely settled into a grinding stalemate where Moscow holds the initiative in key sectors.
And then there is the political dimension. NATO expanded its rhetorical and material commitment, welcoming new members eager for a share of the spoils in a putative Russian defeat. Yet the alliance’s unity has frayed under the strain of indefinite support. Billions—hundreds of billions—have flowed into Ukraine, yet victory remains elusive, and fatigue sets in. The spectacle of endless summits and pledges contrasts sharply with battlefield realities, where the “strategic advantage” tilts toward the side that refused to blink.
No figure embodies the Western response more eloquently than French President Emmanuel Macron. With characteristic flair, he has orchestrated diplomatic initiatives, security guarantees, and calls for European “strategic autonomy,” all while championing unwavering support for Kiev. One admires the elegance of the performance: joint statements, reassurance forces, and eloquent appeals to European solidarity. Yet these communication masterstrokes, however artful, cannot conjure away the central truth. They are theater—polished, well-intentioned perhaps, but ultimately insufficient to rewrite the script written in blood and resolve on the steppes.
For amid the cacophony of Western declarations, one stubborn reality persists: it is Russia that has repeatedly signaled openness to peace on terms reflecting the new facts on the ground—neutrality for Ukraine, recognition of territorial realities, and security arrangements addressing Moscow’s longstanding concerns about NATO encroachment. Proposals have been tabled, compromises floated, even as the Kremlin insists on protecting its vital interests. The West, by contrast, has often framed any settlement short of maximalist Ukrainian victory as capitulation, pouring more resources into prolongation rather than resolution. This is not to paint Russia as purely altruistic—great powers pursue interests—but to note the asymmetry: one side seeks an off-ramp calibrated to its achievements; the other risks exhaustion in pursuit of an increasingly distant ideal.
Sarcasm aside, there is tragedy here. The human cost on all sides has been immense, and the European continent bears scars that will linger for generations. The West’s intentions—defending sovereignty and international norms—were noble in principle. Yet the execution, marked by hubris, underestimation of Russian resilience, and over-reliance on narrative control, has yielded a different verdict. Russia has not been broken. It has adapted, advanced where it mattered, and stood firm against a coalition far wealthier and more populous.
History, as ever, favors the patient and the pragmatic over the performative. Whatever elegant communiqués emerge from Paris or Brussels, they cannot eclipse this: the war against NATO’s proxy has reached a point where Russia dictates the tempo, holds the territorial cards, and extends the hand of negotiation—on its terms, to be sure, but a hand nonetheless. True statesmanship would recognize this reality rather than delay it with further illusions. The path to peace lies not in more sophisticated messaging, but in confronting the facts as they stand. Only then can the guns fall silent, and Europe begin the arduous work of reconciliation.
Diran Noubar, an Italian-Armenian born in France, has lived in 11 countries until he moved to Armenia.
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By Partnership for Civil Justice Fund PCJF
Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism
9 Jun 2026 — In an important victory for free speech, a federal court has dismissed with prejudice all civil rights conspiracy claims brought against The People’s Forum and other individual defendants arising from the April 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall — Hind’s Hall — at Columbia University.
The ruling is a vindication of the right of The People’s Forum (TPF) and others to engage in political speech condemning U.S.-backed Israeli war crimes and genocide, and to call for support of encamped student activists demanding divestment. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) represented The People’s Forum in the litigation.
In a ruling issued June 1, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and §1986. The now dismissed lawsuit was brought by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Torridon Law on behalf of two Columbia University employees. The Brandeis Center argued that it constituted anti-Semitic hatred for the TPF to engage in free speech to support encamped students, call for divestment from Israel, and condemn Israeli violence. The PCJF argued that the Brandeis Center was conflating anti-Zionism, a protected political viewpoint, with anti-Judaism in an effort to repress and suppress those who oppose Zionism or who condemn Israeli crimes and genocide.
The Court squarely rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, ruling that they failed to state a claim on every theory advanced against TPF.
Critically, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ central contention that opposition to Zionism or to Israeli government policy constitutes evidence of anti-Semitic animus. Adopting precedent from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge McMahon held that,
“The choice to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza does not necessarily manifest antisemitism,” and noted that opinions on Israel’s policies differ “even among Jews and Israelis.” The Court aptly noted, even “the Jewish community itself is divided over whether anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.”
“The conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is a political tactic to shut down and penalize those who, like The Peoples Forum, stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza and Palestine. This ruling makes clear: The TPF is well within its protected rights to stand up for human rights and civil rights and to oppose genocide. This is a ringing victory for freedom of speech,” said PCJF Legal Director Carl Messineo and counsel to TPF.
“The Court’s rejection of this act of ideological lawfare intended to silence pro-Palestine viewpoints is a decisive victory for the freedom of speech. As the Court recognized, criticism of Israel and its war on Gaza is political speech entitled to First Amendment protection. There is no Palestine exception to the First Amendment.” said PCJF Staff Attorney Sarah Taitz and counsel on the litigation.
“This lawsuit is part of an organized ideological attack on the movement for justice for the Palestinian people including opposition to U.S.-backed genocide. We have seen a steady stream of these types of politically driven and meritless lawsuits across the country,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the PCJF and counsel on the litigation. “We are very glad to see that this assault on free speech through the abuse of the court system was ultimately dismissed. We will continue to litigate in defense of the First Amendment and against this politically motivated onslaught.”
The People’s Forum stated:
“We welcome the court’s decision, which affirms a core First Amendment principle: organizations cannot be penalized for engaging in protected free speech activity. Lawsuits like this one are intended to silence organizations like ours by draining the resources of those who speak out, and we hope this ruling discourages others from using the legal system to suppress the movement in solidarity with Palestine. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, and no lawsuit can change that. The People’s Forum is grateful to our legal team and to everyone who stands on the right side of history.”
All claims against The Peoples Forum were dismissed with prejudice, with the Court denying leave to amend as “futile.”
________________________________
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) is a free speech, constitutional rights, and civil rights organization that has represented thousands of individuals and organizations in defense of constitutional rights for more than 30 years across the U.S. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a West Coast office in Oakland, CA. For more information visit www.justiceonline.
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By Prof. Jan Oberg
Nuclear weapons are undemocratic, useless, criminal, terrorist, and unethical – they cannot serve deterrence without being used, and their development steals the resources that should be used to solve real problems and secure humanity’s better future.
Here you have the essential arguments that people who cannot or will not think freely never mention.
9 Jun 2026 – Global nuclear weapons spending reached an unprecedented 119 billion USD in 2025, according to the latest analysis by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This represents a 19 per cent increase over the previous year and continues a five‑year trend of accelerating investment in nuclear arsenals. In total, nuclear‑armed states have spent 471 billion USD on these weapons since 2021.
The United States alone accounted for 69.2 billion USD, more than all other nuclear‑armed states combined. China (13.5 billion USD) and the United Kingdom (12.6 billion USD) followed as the next largest spenders. All nine nuclear‑armed states increased their budgets, many by double‑digit percentages.
These investments are not short‑term. Current modernisation programmes will keep nuclear weapons operational for decades. Several systems now under development or deployment are expected to remain in service into the 2060s, 2090s, or even beyond 2100. These include the US Sentinel ICBM, the UK’s Dreadnought‑class submarines, France’s next‑generation ballistic missile submarines, and China’s JL‑3 submarine‑launched ballistic missile.
Nuclearism – the thinking and tbe weapons – is not fading; it is being entrenched for the next century.
The nuclear weapons industry is a major beneficiary. At least 25 private companies earned 38 billion USD from nuclear weapons–related contracts in 2025 and collectively hold 401 billion USD in outstanding contracts. Lobbying is extensive: 138 million USD in the United States and France, and 226 documented meetings between contractors and senior UK officials. Nuclear weapons are not only political instruments; they are commercial products with powerful institutional defenders.
The opportunity costs are staggering.
The 2025 nuclear total equals 32 years of the UN regular budget. It exceeds the cost of ending world hunger for multiple years. One day of nuclear spending could fund 17,000 solar‑powered home transitions or plant two billion trees. Nuclear weapons do not merely threaten humanity; they drain resources from the very things that could secure its future.
Anti-democracy, Terrorism, Illegality, Deterrence, Accidents and Unethical: The Pillars of the Nuclear Delusion
Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most destructive and undemocratic curse. No population has ever been asked whether it wants these weapons in its name. Decisions about devices capable of killing millions of civilians are made without public consent, democratic debate, or moral accountability. No opinion polls show that any nation’s majority wants them or would accept their use on their own territory.
The defining feature of nuclear weapons is that they are designed to kill innocent people who are not participants in any conflict. That principle — the deliberate targeting of civilians — is universally condemned in international humanitarian law. It is incompatible with any claim to civilisation, ethics, or responsible statehood.
The core definition of terrorism is the threat or use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends. Nuclear weapons embody this principle completely. Their destructive power is aimed not at military targets but at cities, populations, and the fabric of human life itself. The strategic value of nuclear weapons lies precisely in their ability to inflict mass civilian casualties. This is not a side effect; it is the doctrine.
Nuclear deterrence depends on making entire societies fear annihilation. If non‑state actors used this logic, we would call it terrorism. When states use it, we call it security policy. The moral distinction is nonexistent.
Nuclear weapons are also illegal under international law. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017, prohibits the development, possession, threat of use, and use of nuclear weapons. It entered into force in January 2021 and is now supported by 93 signatory states and 70 states parties. The treaty expresses the will of the global majority: most of humanity lives in countries that reject nuclear weapons outright. Nuclear‑armed states stand outside this legal and moral framework, isolated from the norms they claim to defend.
Supporters of nuclear weapons often claim that deterrence prevents war because nuclear weapons will never be used. But this argument collapses instantly.
If both sides know the weapons will never be used, there is no deterrence. Deterrence only functions if leaders are willing to carry out the threat — that is, to commit mass murder when the strategy fails. The credibility of deterrence rests on the declared readiness to slaughter civilians on a scale that violates every principle of international humanitarian law. A doctrine that requires the willingness to commit a crime against humanity cannot be defended as a peace strategy.
Nukes are also unethical and illogic. There can be no political goal that legitimises their use and the automatic killing of millions of people, huge cities, and causes irreparable environmental damage. No human being or government anywhere can or should have the power to decide about humanity’s future. No government would use them on their own territory, they are by definition non-defensive is more than one sense. And who could conquer and use a territory after it has been nuked – a nuclear desert for what? They are, therefore, military useless.
Even if one were to accept this perverse-grotesque logic, deterrence still fails on practical grounds. Too many accidents – that you have probably never heard of.
It assumes perfect rationality, perfect information, perfect technology, and perfect political stability — conditions that have never existed in human history. The record of nuclear near‑misses exposes the fragility of the system: false alarms at NORAD, malfunctioning early‑warning satellites, misinterpreted radar signals, lost bombs, accidental arming events, and human errors that brought the world within minutes of catastrophe. The Petrov incident alone — in which a single Soviet officer chose not to report what appeared to be a US nuclear launch — demonstrates that deterrence has survived not because it works, but because individuals have disobeyed it.
A security system that depends on luck, secrecy, and the hope that no one ever makes a mistake is not a security system at all. It is a permanent hostage situation in which the lives of billions depend on the flawless functioning of machines and the flawless judgment of leaders.
No other policy area would tolerate such risk. No society would accept a transportation system, an energy system, or a medical system that fails even once in a century with civilisation‑ending consequences. Yet this is exactly what nuclear deterrence demands.
Nuclear weapons are not stabilising. They are not civilised. They are not compatible with democracy, law, human dignity, not to mention military efficiency.
Nukes are the last great superstition of the modern world — a belief that terror can produce safety. The world has abolished slavery, child labour, rape as a means of war, and absolute monarchy. It can abolish nuclear weapons too.
There is a convention against genocide. Were nuclear weapons to be used, it would not only lead to a genocide, it would be omni- and eco-cide.
The ICAN report shows that nuclear‑armed states are choosing long‑term nuclear rearmament over global public goods. The political argument shows that nuclearism is indistinguishable from the logic of terrorism. The historical record shows that deterrence is a myth sustained by luck and delusion.
Together, these realities point to a single conclusion: nuclear weapons have no place in a civilised world.
Nuclear abolition is not an idealistic dream. It is the only rational, ethical, and human response to a system built on the – unacceptable – threat of mass murder.
We need only one critical mass – explosion: Humanity’s mobilisation for the most important issue:
NUCLEAR ABOLITION NOW!
Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the independent Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research-TFF in Sweden and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. CV: https://transnational.live/jan-oberg
https://transnational.live.
15 Jun 2026
Source: transcend.org
By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof
In the contemporary global discourse, Islamophobia is often operationalised through the manipulation of history. By framing the Islamic presence in various regions—particularly South Asia—as a period of perpetual conflict and “alien” imposition, communalist actors seek to delegitimise the Muslim identity. However, academic research reveals that the “communal character” of politics is a modern construct, largely manufactured during the colonial era to serve the interests of the British Raj. It is essential to distinguish between religious identity, which has existed for centuries, and communalism, which is the modern political use of that identity for sectarian mobilization. Pre-colonial conflicts, such as those between the Mughals and Marathas, were fundamentally political and dynastic rather than communal, dictated by the exigencies of empire-building rather than theology.
The First War of Independence in 1857: A Case Study in Unity
The First War of Independence in 1857 serves as the primary empirical evidence against the narrative of inherent religious antagonism. Bipan Chandra and his colleagues, in the authoritative text Freedom Struggle, document the profound unity of the period:
A pivotal factor that lent strength to the Revolt of 1857 was Hindu-Muslim unity. Complete cooperation existed between the soldiers, the people, and the leaders, just as it did between Hindus and Muslims. Bahadur Shah, a Muslim, was accepted as the Emperor by everyone who participated in the revolt. Both the Hindu and Muslim insurgents and sepoys were careful not to wound the religious sentiments of the other side. For instance, in all places where the rebellion succeeded, orders were issued banning cow slaughter in order to respect the religious sentiments of Hindus. Furthermore, there was equal representation for Hindus and Muslims at all levels of leadership. A high-ranking British official later complained: ‘This time we were unable to incite the Muhammadans against the Hindus.’ The events of 1857 clearly prove that during the medieval period and prior to 1858, the Indian people and Indian politics did not possess a fundamentally communal character (Chandra et al., p.50).
This documentation is vital for researchers because it highlights that the political legitimacy of the Mughal Emperor was not contingent upon his religion, but upon his status as a symbol of Indian sovereignty. This unity was formalised in documents like the Azamgarh Proclamation of 1857, which explicitly called for Hindus and Muslims to unite to protect their “Dharma” and “Deen” against a common colonial oppressor. The mutual respect for religious sentiments—institutionalised through the ban on cow slaughter—demonstrates a sophisticated pluralism that predates Western secular models.
The Colonial Gaze and the Victimisation of Muslims
The British response to this unity was the systematic targeting of the Muslim community, identifying them as the “primary instigators.” This period marked the beginning of state-sponsored Islamophobia in the subcontinent. Chandra notes:
“Having reached the conclusion that Muslims led the revolt and were fundamentally responsible for it, the British, after suppressing the rebellion, took revenge primarily against the Muslims. Records show that in Delhi alone, during the revolt and in the brief period immediately following it, 27,000 Muslims were sentenced to death. For years, the British viewed Muslims with a gaze of suspicion” (Chandra et al., p.112).
The execution of 27,000 Muslims in Delhi—a demographic purge documented by nationalist historians—underscores the roots of the “suspicious gaze” that persists in modern securitisation narratives. By decimating the Muslim urban elite and peasantry alike, the British ensured a socio-economic setback that would later be used to fuel communal insecurities.
Historiographical Distortions: The “Muslim Period” Myth
The intellectual infrastructure of Islamophobia was built by British historians who introduced a sectarian periodisation of Indian history. This framework was unfortunately adopted by later Indian historians, leading to the dissemination of “historical knowledge in a manner that stirred and provoked communal passions.” Chandra provides a scathing critique of this methodology:
“British historians were the first to write Indian history… Naming the ancient period as the ‘Hindu Period’ is an example of this. In the medieval period, Turk, Afghan, and Mughal dynasties ruled the country. Instead of explaining their administrative systems and merits, they were all lumped together in a single word as ‘Muslim rule,’ and that period itself was characterised as the ‘Muslim Period.’ When one hears the term ‘Muslim rule,’ doesn’t it imply that all the rulers were Muslims and all the subjects were Hindus? But the truth is that—whether they were Hindus or Muslims—the feudal lords, nobles, chieftains, and zamindars behaved toward the common people (both Hindu and Muslim) in the same manner—that is, with the same contempt and negligence…” (Chandra et al. p.117-18).
The “Muslim rule” did not mean a rule for Muslims. The Muslim masses suffered equally under feudalism. Furthermore, the myth that Islam was spread primarily by the sword is debunked by historical demographics: the heartlands of Muslim imperial power (Delhi, Agra, Lucknow) remained Hindu-majority for centuries, while the regions where Islam became the majority (East Bengal, West Punjab) were on the peripheries, where the faith was spread through Sufi syncretism and the promise of social liberation from the caste hierarchy.
The Rise of Militant Nationalism and the “Hindu Facade”
The later stages of the independence movement saw a departure from secular principles, as some leaders utilised religious symbols to mobilise the masses, inadvertently providing a “Hindu facade” to the national movement. While the primary goal of these leaders was anti-colonial resistance and not anti-Muslim sentiment, the unintended consequence was the alienation of the Muslim minority:
“Militant nationalists infused the national movement with a new vitality… However, some of their actions not only allowed communalism to rear its head again but also led to a step backward in the growth of national unity… For example, the Shivaji festivals and Ganapati festivals organized by Tilak; the approach of Aurobindo—which was tinged with mysticism and spirituality—considering India as the Mother and nationalism as religion… might not have pleased all Indians everywhere. They possessed a dominant religious colouring, and that too, a bias based on the Hindu upper-caste” (Chandra et al. p.120).
Bertrand Russell: Debunking the Myth of Intolerance
The myth of inherent Islamic intolerance is not merely a regional distortion of Indian history, but a global one, often debunked by the most rigorous of Western thinkers. The philosopher Bertrand Russell provides a rigorous academic rebuttal to these claims. In Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954), Russell addresses the “false stories” of history:
“Christian propaganda has invented stories of Mohammedan intolerance, but these are wholly false as applied to the early centuries of Islam. Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library of Alexandria… As a matter of fact, this Library was frequently destroyed and frequently re-created. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar… The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called ‘people of the Book’, provided they paid tribute. In contrast to the Christians, who persecuted not only pagans but each other, the Mohammedans were welcomed for their broadmindedness… Proficiency in science is very difficult to combine with fanaticism” (Russell, Human Society, p.217-18).
Russell’s observation provides a philosophical framework for understanding the Islamic Golden Age. It suggests that the scientific advancements of the era were not despite the faith, but a product of its then-inherent intellectual pluralism. In A History of Western Philosophy (1945), he adds:
“Christian heretics in the early days of Islam were much more kindly treated by the Mohammedans than by the orthodox Byzantine Emperors… It is not what it has become common to call ‘Western values’ that the East regards as typical of the West, for in such matters the record of the East is, if anything, better than that of the West” (Russell, History, p.347).
Swami Vivekananda: Islam as a Social Necessity
The modernization of Hinduism through figures like Swami Vivekananda provides another layer of documentation against Islamophobia. Vivekananda’s appraisal of Islam was remarkably positive. Radice documents:
“He admired Rammohan Ray’s foresight… Vivekananda’s quest was for the underlying unity of all the diversities… To him the Muslims were a race as generous and human, and at heart as Indian, as the Hindus… The distinction between them by reason of their different beliefs was subordinate to their identity as fellow countrymen” (Radice, p.289).
Vivekananda famously advocated for a “junction” of the two faiths: “For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam—Vedanta brain and Islam body—is the only hope” (Radice, p.290). Most crucially, he recognized the emancipatory power of Islam for the lower castes of India: “The Muhammadan conquest of India came as a salvation to the downtrodden, to the poor. That is why one-fifth of our people have become Muhammadans” (Radice, p.294).
Rajmohan Gandhi: The Non-Theocratic Nature of Muslim Rule
Rajmohan Gandhi argues that the Mughal state was not a theocracy, evidenced by the fact that even its opponents understood the universal nature of the ruler’s faith:
“Because it was not [a theocracy], Shivaji could, in that letter to Aurangzeb in which he defied the Emperor, speak warmly of Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjehan, and add: Well, your majesty! If you believe in the true Heavenly Book and word of God (i.e., the Quran), you will find there Rabb-ul-alamin (God of all men) and not Rabb-ul-Musalmin (God of Muslims)” (R. Gandhi, p.12).
The Intellectual Legacies of Sir Sayyid, Iqbal, and Azad:
The intellectual response of Muslims to colonial rule was marked by reform and the theology of unity. Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan famously stated: “I have frequently said that India is a beautiful bride and Hindus and Muslims are her two eyes; If one of them is lost, this beautiful bride will become ugly” (R. Gandhi, p.45).
Maulana Azad provided the definitive nationalist theology, stating that when the Prophet migrated to Medina, he prepared a covenant (the Covenant of Medina) stating that Muslims and non-Muslims would become one nation (ummah vahidah). Azad’s devotion was absolute: “No my friend, I shall give up Swaraj, but not Hindu-Muslim unity… for if Hindu-Muslim unity is lost, it will be a loss for the whole of mankind” (R. Gandhi, p.230).
Global Tributes to the Prophet Muhammad
To counter the “impure” caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad used in hate campaigns, this paper presents the scholarly appraisals of world leaders and historians:
Mahatma Gandhi: “I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days, in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle” (Young India, 1924; CWMG Vol. 25, p.127).
Jawaharlal Nehru: “They must have derived their vast energy from the dynamic and revolutionary character of their Prophet and his message of human brotherhood” (The Discovery of India, p.243).
Washington Irving: “In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity” (The Life of Mahomet, p.193).
William Montgomery Watt: “It is my hope that this study of his life may contribute to a fresh appraisal and appreciation of one of the greatest of the sons of Adam” (Muhammad at Medina, p.335).
John William Draper: “He preached a monotheism which quickly scattered to the winds the empty disputes of the Arians and Catholics… Mohammed possessed that combination of qualities which more than once has decided the fate of empires” (History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, p.244).
Hendrik van Loon: “The creed which Mohammed taught to his followers was very simple… The average Mohammedan carried his religion with him and never felt himself hemmed in by the restrictions and regulations of an established church” (The Story of Mankind, p.141).
This paper, by adhering to the rigorous documentation of Bipan Chandra, Bertrand Russell, and Rajmohan Gandhi and other luminaries, provides an unassailable archive for dispelling Islamophobia. It proves that the history of Islam is a history of social equality, scientific progress, and political synthesis. As Maulana Azad stated, the unity of Hindus and Muslims is a “noble edifice” without which the structure of India is incomplete.
Bibliography
Chandra, Bipan, et al. Svatantryasamaram [Freedom Struggle]. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1996.
Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals. New Delhi: Har-Anand, 2007.
Draper, John William. A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. London: Bell and Daldy, 1863.
Gandhi, Mahatma. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol. 25. Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1924.
Gandhi, Rajmohan. Understanding Muslim Mind. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2000.
Irving, Washington. The Life of Mahomet. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2012.
Radice, William, ed. Swami Vivekananda and the modernisation of Hinduism. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945.
Russell, Bertrand. Human Society in Ethics and Politics. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954.
Van Loon, Hendrik. The Story of Mankind. New York: Boni & Liveright, 1926.
Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 4. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2016.
Watt, William Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence.
15 Jun 2026
Source: countercurrents.org
By Vikas Parashram Meshram
When the word “farmer” is spoken, what image comes to mind? For most people, it is a man holding a plough and gazing hopefully at the sky. This image is so deeply ingrained that even when women toil in the fields day and night, they are rarely recognised as farmers. They sow seeds, pull weeds, pick cotton, tend livestock, and store grain, yet their identity remains confined to that of a “labourer” or a “helper.” This is not merely a social oversight; it is a long-standing injustice, and the price is being paid by the nation’s food security.
Anthropologists tell us that the origins of agriculture can be traced to women. Thousands of years ago, women identified, preserved, sowed, and nurtured seeds, laying the foundations of agricultural civilisation. Today, millions of women in India carry forward that legacy. Nearly 80 percent of rural women are engaged in agriculture, performing around 70 percent of all agricultural tasks. Their contribution accounts for 75 percent of crop production, 79 percent of horticulture, and as much as 95 percent of animal husbandry and fisheries.
According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2024, women now constitute more than 42 percent of India’s agricultural workforce. In 2017, the figure was only 24.8 percent, meaning that the number of women working in agriculture has nearly doubled in less than a decade. Yet this growing participation has not translated into recognition. Responsibilities have increased, but identity has remained elusive.
Only 12.8 percent of landholdings in India are registered in women’s names, while nearly half of all women working in agriculture receive no remuneration. Over the past eight years, the number of unpaid women workers in agriculture has risen from 2.36 crore to 5.91 crore. This is not merely alarming; it reflects a profound national failure.
The situation in Maharashtra is particularly stark. As many as 88.46 percent of rural women in the state work in agriculture—the highest proportion in the country. Yet more than 90 percent of them do not own any agricultural land.
A survey conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) across nine states found that women perform nearly 75 percent of agricultural activities, including sowing, weeding, harvesting, livestock care, grain processing, and seed preservation. Yet they hold less than 14 percent of agricultural land. According to the Agricultural Census 2015–16, women owned 13.87 percent of landholdings, and a decade later, the figure has barely changed. Policies come and go, speeches are made, and announcements are issued, but land rights remain largely beyond women’s reach.
Even in Telangana, which records the highest share of women landholders in southern India, women own only 21.5 percent of agricultural land. In western, central, and eastern India, the proportion falls below 13 percent.
Without land ownership, there is no 7/12 extract, and without a 7/12 extract, access to government schemes becomes difficult. This vicious cycle traps millions of women. Of the 9.35 crore beneficiaries registered under PM-KISAN, only 2.15 crore are women. Crop insurance requires land records, bank loans demand proof of ownership, and access to many forms of government assistance depends on official registration. Women are often excluded at the very first stage.
Banks frequently insist on a man’s signature for loans, insurance schemes require land certificates, and access to market information depends on networks and resources from which women are systematically excluded.
The wage gap adds another layer of inequality. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), women agricultural labourers earn only 78 paise for every rupee earned by men. In India, women agricultural workers often receive barely ₹200 per day. Whether under the scorching summer sun, in the monsoon mud, or during freezing winter mornings, women remain constantly at work, yet their labour is consistently undervalued.
Even among the 13–14 percent of women who own land, only about half derive income from farming. For many others, their labour is effectively assigned no value.
Social anthropologist A.R. Vasavi of Karnataka has described the gendered division of agricultural labour with clarity. Men generally perform tasks such as ploughing, sowing, and spraying, while women undertake labour-intensive work such as harvesting and livestock care. Since Independence, technological innovations—tractors, irrigation systems, and mechanisation—have largely focused on reducing men’s labour. Little attention has been paid to easing the burden of tasks traditionally assigned to women, such as weeding, transplanting, and cotton picking. Women’s labour has long been treated as if it does not exist.
Soma K.P., founder of the Mahila Kisan Adhikar Manch (MAKAAM), points out that even when men migrate to cities for employment, ownership and decision-making powers over agricultural land often remain with them. Women may single-handedly manage farms, but they are still denied recognition as farmers. When crops fail or drought strikes, compensation is often paid in the name of men who may no longer even reside in the village. Widows who continue farming after the death of their husbands frequently struggle to access government support.
Women spend an average of 14 hours each day combining agricultural work with household responsibilities. During harvest seasons, this rises to 16 hours. Much of this labour remains invisible in economic calculations. Globally, unpaid domestic labour performed by women and girls contributes an estimated $10.8 trillion to the economy, yet it receives neither wages nor recognition. Because agricultural work is intertwined with household and care responsibilities, surveys often fail to capture women’s actual contribution accurately.
Climate change has added another burden. Women-led farming households lose an estimated $37 billion annually due to heat stress and another $16 billion because of floods. For every one-degree Celsius increase in temperature, the income of women-headed households declines by 34 percent compared with male-headed households.
Research among paddy farmers in Kerala’s Palakkad district found that women face skin diseases, heat stress, and waterborne illnesses because of prolonged exposure to harsh working conditions. The impacts of climate change fall disproportionately on women because they often lack access to protective technologies, insurance, and institutional support.
According to the World Bank, women farmers are 20 to 30 percent less productive than men. However, this difference reflects unequal access to irrigation, technology, and extension services rather than differences in ability or skill.
India’s Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 granted daughters equal rights in ancestral property. But laws on paper do not automatically translate into rights in practice. Social pressure, family expectations, and fears that land may pass to “outsiders” often compel women to surrender their claims. Even when land is registered in women’s names, the holdings are generally smaller and of poorer quality than those owned by men.
In 2012, Prof. M.S. Swaminathan introduced the Women Farmers’ Rights Bill in the Rajya Sabha, proposing the issuance of Women Farmer Certificates. However, the bill lapsed in April 2013. Organisations such as the Mahila Kisan Adhikar Manch and the Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group campaigned for years, but their demands received little attention from policymakers.
The United Nations has declared 2026 the International Year of Women Farmers. According to Máximo Torero, Chief Economist of the FAO, progress in women’s empowerment has stalled, and the cost of inaction is immense. The initiative focuses on four pillars: land ownership, access to credit, technology, and training.
Against this backdrop, Maharashtra has offered a measure of hope. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has announced that the Maharashtra Women Farmer Empowerment Bill, 2026, will be introduced during the monsoon session of the state legislature. The proposed legislation seeks to provide women with independent legal recognition as farmers and improve their access to credit, technology, markets, and government services.
Fadnavis noted that women contribute more than 81 percent of agricultural labour in Maharashtra, yet most policies remain male-centric and many welfare benefits are tied to land ownership. The bill is expected to cover landless women farmers, tenant farmers, agricultural labourers, livestock keepers, and migrant workers.
If enacted effectively, the legislation could represent a historic shift. For the first time, women could obtain legal recognition as farmers even without possessing a 7/12 extract. Such recognition would improve their access to institutional credit, water rights, insurance, and government support. In households devastated by farmer suicides, women often shoulder the entire burden of survival. For them, a farmer certificate would not merely signify justice; it would be a necessity.
Yet legislation alone will not be enough. The distance between laws and implementation remains wide. Women’s names must find their place in land records, gram panchayats, banks, and agricultural offices. At the heart of the problem lies a persistent assumption—that women’s labour is auxiliary rather than primary.
This assumption must be rejected. The mother, sister, and wife who works in the fields is not merely helping a farmer; she is a farmer. She deserves the same rights, recognition, and dignity accorded to any male cultivator. Only then can the immense value of her labour finally be acknowledged.
Vikas Parashram Meshram is a journalist
15 Jun 2026
Source: countercurrents.org
By Quds News Network
Occupied Palestine (QNN)- Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the forces will remain in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza “indefinitely” following the announcement of a ceasefire between the US and Iran, adding that the areas under Israeli control will be “cleared of local residents” and that “houses will be destroyed”.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I are leading a clear policy that determines that the Israeli forces will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, without any time limit,” Katz said in a statement.
He added the “security zones” will be “cleared of local residents” and the “houses in the contact-line villages.. will be destroyed.”
Katz said Israel opposes the “withdrawal from Lebanon, despite all the existing pressures and those that will still come.”
“Prime Minister Netanyahu made these points clear to US President Trump and to other senior American officials, and I also made this clear yesterday to US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth,” he said.
Katz confirmed that the ceasefire between Israel and Iran does not include Lebanon, saying “if Iran attacks Israel because of events in Lebanon, we will strike it with full force.”
Israeli deadly strikes and threats of forced displacement have continued across Lebanon despite a newly announced US-brokered ceasefire between Lebanese and Israeli officials.
The Israeli attacks have pushed the number of casualties higher, with Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reporting that at least 3,526 people have been killed and 10,733 wounded in Israeli attacks since March 2.
Israel is also deepening its invasion of south Lebanon and threatening to resume large scale attacks in Beirut.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu two weeks ago ordered the Israeli military to expand “its ground manoeuvre in Lebanon”. Hezbollah said Israel violated the ceasefire and declared the right to resist Israeli occupation.
He also announced that Israeli forces had advanced beyond the Litani River, which runs around 30km north of the Lebanon-Israel border.
“Our forces have crossed the Litani and advanced to controlling positions,” he said.
More than 1 million people have been displaced by Israel’s assault in Lebanon, which has flattened entire towns, caused extensive damage to infrastructure and worsened the humanitarian situation.
Lebanon was drawn into the US-Israeli assault, which started on February 18, on March 2 after Hezbollah launched attacks on Israel in retaliation for Israel’s killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of the war, on February 28, as well as Israel’s near-daily violations of a ceasefire it agreed to in Lebanon in November 2024.
Countries across the world have slammed Israel’s escalation of its offensive on Lebanon. French President Emmanuel Macron said “nothing justifies” it.
Iranian officials had warned that Israel’s escalating attacks on Lebanon and ongoing attacks in Gaza threaten to derail the ceasefire negotiations with the US.
Last night, the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding to end the Israeli-US assault on Tehran, and the document is to be signed in Switzerland on Friday.
The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of attacks on all fronts, including Lebanon.
“Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight.”
Pakistan’s Sharif also said on X that both sides have declared the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”.
[https://twitter.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810]
The US president, speaking with The New York Times after announcing the deal with Iran, has slammed Netanyahu for mounting attacks on Lebanon.
“He’s a very difficult guy,” Trump said of Netanyahu. “And to be honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.”
Israeli officials have also slammed the US-Iran ceasefire
Yair Golan, the leader of the centre-left Democrats, called the deal “the culmination of many years of failure,” adding that Netanyahu is “ending his tenure with Israel’s enemies stronger, Israel weaker, and the deterrence built with the blood of our fighters eroding before our eyes.”
Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel is
“We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way.. we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured.”
Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the US-Iran agreement “is bad for Israel and for the entire free world”.
15 Jun 2026
Source: countercurrents.org
By Andre Damon
The United States and Iran announced a ceasefire agreement Sunday, suspending, for now, a war that the Trump administration began on February 28 and that has killed thousands of people. “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social, ordering the lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. “Ships of the World, start your engines,” he wrote. “Let the oil flow!”
While the terms of the settlement remain undisclosed, this much is already clear: The Trump administration achieved none of the aims for which it went to war. It set out to overthrow the Iranian government, destroy its nuclear program, break its military and seize the Strait of Hormuz. It accomplished none of this.
Trump responded to the failure by denying he had ever sought to overthrow the Iranian government. “As far as regime change, I never cared about regime change,” he told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
In reality, his administration had spent the entire year trying to bring the government down. Early on, it funded and armed protesters inside Iran. “We sent guns to the protesters, a lot of them,” Trump said in April.
When this failed, the United States and Israel turned to assassination. The opening strikes on February 28 killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammad Pakpour and Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, along with much of the military command. The government did not collapse. Khamenei’s son Mojtaba succeeded him, and it was the younger Khamenei’s national security council that approved Sunday’s deal.
There followed a bombing campaign across Iran that has killed at least 3,468 people, by the Iranian health ministry’s count, and a naval blockade imposed on April 13. American warplanes destroyed water reservoirs in Sirik that supplied more than 20,000 people and fired on oil tankers running through the blockade, killing three Indian sailors aboard the Settebello this week. After two months, the blockade failed to force Iran’s surrender, and the Strait of Hormuz remained shut by Tehran’s decree until Sunday.
No agreement with American imperialism is worth the paper it is written on. In 2015, the Obama administration signed the nuclear accord known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran accepted strict limits on enrichment and intrusive inspections. Iran kept to its terms—the International Atomic Energy Agency certified as much in report after report—but in May 2018 Trump tore the agreement up anyway, calling it a “horrible, one-sided deal.” Obama, who signed that accord, said Sunday it was “doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place… before we, the United States, pulled out of it.”
The pattern was repeated last year. Trump announced a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” in June 2025 to end the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran. That truce held until February 28, when the United States and Israel broke it, launching the war that has now been paused.
Even as he proclaimed peace on Sunday, Trump threatened to resume the war. The New York Times reported that in a phone call he said he would “restart military attacks on Tehran” if Iran failed to reach a final nuclear accord, or else make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for 20 percent of the region’s revenues.
The agreement is a 60-day ceasefire, to be signed Friday in Geneva by Vice President JD Vance and Iranian officials. The future of Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of US sanctions are left to negotiations over those 60 days, and the text has not been released.
Trump’s claims about the settlement were as hollow as his account of the war. He boasted that the Strait of Hormuz would be “permanently toll free,” but the memorandum suspends tolls for only 60 days. Iran charged no tolls before the war—the deal restores the prewar status quo. Trump said the inspection of Iran’s nuclear material could wait: “We’ll get the nuclear dust later on when we’re ready to go in and do it… there’s no rush.”
The agreement nominally covers Lebanon, where Israel has waged a parallel war that has killed more than 3,700 people. Hours before the announcement, Israel bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing three, in a strike that nearly wrecked the deal. Trump said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had shown “no judgment” and told all sides to “stand down.” Israel, which was not a party to the talks, has not endorsed the agreement, and Israeli politicians across the spectrum denounced it.
The Democrats’ response to Trump’s moves toward an agreement with Iran centered on the accusation that he had failed to secure the interests of US imperialism. Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts called the emerging terms “basically a surrender document from Donald Trump to the supreme leader of Iran.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” complained that the war had left the United States worse off: “Things aren’t better for us. They’re worse. In fact, Iran is stronger right now.”
A warning must be made. Whatever the failures and setbacks of the past four months, American imperialism will only redouble its efforts to dominate the Middle East and the world by military force.
Originally published in WSWS.ORG
15 Jun 2026
Source: countercurrents.org