Archives: Articles

By DW

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who died on Sunday [26 Dec] aged 90, was one of South Africa’s most important Nobel Laureates and a tireless opponent of apartheid.

In April 1993, South Africa was a powder keg. Three years earlier, after decades of oppression of the black population, President Frederik Willem de Klerk had announced reforms. Many political prisoners, among them Nelson Mandela, were released, and their parties and organizations were no longer outlawed. But negotiations on a new democracy had stalled.

Then, a white right-wing radical murdered prominent politician and freedom fighter Chris Hani, pushing the country to the brink of civil war. At Hani’s funeral, which was attended by over 100,000 people, Desmond Tutu defused a tense situation by leading the crowd in a chant: “We will be free! All of us — black and white together!”

It was in these difficult moments in South Africa’s history that Desmond Tutu showed his strength. Throughout his life, he followed his ideals without wavering and fought for the Rainbow Nation — a term for South Africa he coined himself — in the name of peace and nonviolence.

Nobel Peace Prize for struggle against apartheid

Born in the mining town of Klerksdorp in 1931, Tutu first job was as a teacher, but he quit after the government implemented policies that undermined the education of black students.

Tutu opted for a new career in the church, becoming the first black Anglican bishop of Johannesburg and, later, the Archbishop of Cape Town.

He never stopped fighting for the abolition of racial segregation. He sympathized openly with the goals of Nelson Mandela’s party, the African National Congress (ANC), which wanted to build a democratic South Africa, undivided by race. In 1984, Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent efforts against the apartheid regime.

‘An incredible day’

But a different event proved much more important to him: The day in April 1994, when he cast his vote in South Africa’s first free, democratic elections.

“It’s an incredible day for all of our people,” a visibly jubilant Tutu told members of the press outside the polling station. “And I mean all of our people — black and white. Because as of now, we won’t be able to say ‘that illegal regime.’ It will be our government.”

His cheerful, lighthearted nature — which he retained throughout the often frustrating years of the struggle for justice — endeared the archbishop to many South Africans. He had originally planned to retire to the US after the election to spend more time with his grandchildren there. But after President Nelson Mandela asked him to head the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was set up to come to terms with the crimes of apartheid, he decided to stay.

Pleas for reconciliation

Tutu and the commission tried to find a middle ground between victors’ justice and amnesty, appealing for reconciliation and forgiveness. Over the next three years, thousands of victims were given the chance to describe their suffering. Perpetrators asked for forgiveness.

Clad in a purple robe, Tutu often struggled to hold back tears. But he always directed attention away from himself, emphasizing that the focus had to be on the victims.

Once the commission was over, Tutu continued to speak out against injustice in the world, from the war in Iraq, to autocratic regimes. He didn’t spare South Africa’s neighbors. “He is an angry, even embittered little bishop,” Zimbabwe’s longtime ruler Robert Mugabe once said following Tutu’s remarks on his leadership.

The archbishop wasn’t always popular among many in South Africa’s ruling ANC party either — especially when he railed against the government’s relationship with Mugabe, its hesitancy in the fight against AIDS, and what overpaid political elites.

Disillusioned with South African politics, he later said it was no longer a given to vote ANC: “People are asking questions, which is a good thing. That’s what a democracy is.”

Retreat into privacy

In 1997, Desmond Tutu was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Three years later, on his 79th birthday, he officially withdrew from all public duties. In his typical upbeat way, he explained he simply wanted more time to drink rooibos tea with his wife.

But he wouldn’t — or couldn’t — stay completely out of politics. In 2014, he called for a boycott of mining and oil companies. Climate change, he said, should be fought with the same vigor that apartheid was fought in the 1980s. An ardent supporter of gay rights, he said he would rather go to hell than worship a homophobic god.

His daughter Mpho Tutu van Furth married a woman in the Netherlands in December 2015. As a priest in the Anglican Church of South Africa, she was forbidden to continue her duties in the church. Already in failing health, her father attended her second wedding ceremony in South Africa in May 2016, when same-sex marriage was legalized.

Cancer treatment left Desmond Tutu vulnerable to persistent infections. In recent years, South Africa often worried about its “Arch” — as Tutu was nicknamed. But the civil rights activist continued to make appearances in public life.

In 2020, during the Black Lives Matter protests in the US, Tutu said it was an “inconvenient truth” that the lives of certain groups in society were considered more valuable than those of others. Tutu’s words of caution followed the violent death of African-American George Floyd during a police operation in the US.

27 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Pepe Escobar

Between the complex internal dynamics of the Taliban and the western trick of conditional aid, it is the Muslim world that must act to save Afghanistan.

21 Dec 2021 – Afghanistan was at the heart of the 17th Extraordinary Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers representing 57 nations at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

It was up to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to deliver the keynote address to the session, held on 19 December at the Parliament House in Islamabad.

And he rose to the occasion: “If the world doesn’t act, this will be the biggest man-made crisis which is unfolding in front of us.”

Imran Khan was addressing not only representatives of the lands of Islam, but also UN officials, the proverbial “global financial institutions,” scores of NGOs, a smattering of US, EU and Japanese bureaucrats and, crucially, Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.

No nation or organization has yet formally recognized the Taliban as the new, legitimate Afghan government. And quite a few are frankly more interested in engaging in an elaborate kabuki, pretending to deliver some sort of aid to the devastated Afghan economy after 20 years of US/NATO occupation instead of actually coordinating aid packages with Kabul.

The numbers are dire, and barely tell the full extent of the drama.

According to the UNDP, 22.8 million Afghan citizens – over half of Afghanistan – are facing food shortages, and soon, acute hunger; while no less than 97 percent of Afghans could soon fall under the poverty line. In addition, the World Food Programme stresses that 3.2 million Afghan children risk acute malnutrition.

Imran Khan emphasized that the OIC had a “religious duty” to help Afghanistan. As for the ‘hyperpower’ that stunned the world with its humiliating withdrawal show after 20 years of occupation, he was adamant: Washington must “delink” whatever grudges it may hold against the Taliban government from the destiny of 40 million Afghan citizens.

Imran Khan did ruffle a few Afghan feathers – starting with former President Hamid Karzai, when he observed that “the idea of human rights is different in every society,” referring to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which borders Afghanistan.

“The city culture is completely different from the culture in rural areas …,” he said. “We give stipends to the parents of the girls so that they send them to school. But in districts bordering Afghanistan, if we are not sensitive to the cultural norms, then they won’t send them to school despite receiving double the amount. We have to be sensitive about human rights and women rights.”

This was interpreted in a few quarters as Pakistani interference – part of a secret, devious strategic narrative. Not really. The prime minister was stating a fact, as anyone familiar with the tribal areas knows. Even Afghan Foreign Minister Muttaqi said the prime minister’s words were not “insulting”.

Imran Khan also observed that there are already over three million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Moreover, Islamabad is sheltering more than 200,000 refugees who overstayed their visas. “They can’t go back. We are already suffering from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. We are not in a position to deal with an influx of refugees.”

Would you ever trust NATO?

Then there’s the ultimate nut to crack: internal Taliban dynamics.

Diplomatic sources confirm off the record that it’s a non-stop struggle to convince different layers of the Taliban leadership to allow for some concessions.

Discussions with the NATO block are for, all practical purposes, dead: bluntly, there will be no help without visible concessions on girls’ education, women’s rights and the heart of the matter – on which everyone agrees, including the Russians, the Chinese and the Central Asians – a more inclusive government in Kabul.

So far, Taliban pragmatists – led by the Doha political office – have been on the losing end.

The OIC meeting at least came up with practical suggestions involving Islamic development banks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was keen to emphasize the necessity of getting Kabul to access banking services.

This is the heart of the problem: there are no solid banking channels after NATO departed. So it’s technically impossible to transfer financial aid into the system and then distribute it across hard-hit provinces. Yet, once again, this is ultimately linked to those lofty western humanitarian aid pledges crammed with conditionalities.

In the end, Qureshi, together with the OIC Secretary-General Hissein Brahim Taha, announced that a ‘humanitarian trust fund’ will be established as soon as possible, under the aegis of the Islamic Development Bank. The fund should be able to incorporate international partners, non-politicized westerners included.

Qureshi put out his bravest face, emphasizing that “the need is felt to forge a partnership between the OIC and the UN.”

Taha, for his part, was quite realistic. No funds whatsoever have been pledged so far for this new OIC humanitarian operation.

As Qureshi mentioned, there is one thing which Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and other actors may decisively help with: investment “in the people of Afghanistan, bilaterally or through the OIC, in areas such as education, health and technical and vocational skills to the Afghan youth.”

So now it comes to the crunch – and fast. It’s up to the OIC to play the leading role in terms of alleviating Afghanistan’s dire humanitarian drama.

The official declaration calling on all OIC member states, Islamic financial institutions, donors, and unnamed ‘international partners’ to announce pledges to the humanitarian trust fund for Afghanistan will have to go way beyond rhetorical flourish.

At least, it’s all but certain that from now on, it will be up to the lands of Islam to decisively help Afghanistan. A bitter, defeated, vengeful, internally corroded NATO simply cannot be trusted.

Nobody today remembers that the Empire had concocted its own version of the New Silk Road over 10 years ago, announced by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Chennai in July 2001.

That was no ‘community of shared future for mankind,’ but a very narrow obsession on capturing energy resources – in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan; ‘stabilizing’ Afghanistan, as in perpetuating the occupation; giving a boost to India; and ‘isolating’ Iran.

The energy supply routes to the west should have gone through the Caspian Sea, and then across Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey – the three actors of the BTC pipeline – thus bypassing Russia, which was already then being depicted in the west as a ‘threat’.

All this is dead and buried – as post-occupation Afghanistan alongside the five Central Asian ‘stans’ are now back as one of the key foci of interest of the Russia–China strategic partnership: the heart of a Greater Eurasia spanning from Shanghai in the east to St. Petersburg in the west.

Yet to make it happen, it’s imperative that the OIC helps Afghanistan as much as the Taliban must help themselves.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow.

27 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Richard Falk

23 Dec 2021 – There has in recent months many discussions centering around the proper characterization of China from an ideological point of view. The Chinese leadership has its own reasons for doing this, seeking to present what it deems a glorious self-image. In contrast, the West, especially the United States has wanted to offer an ideological explanation of its confrontational stance with China. Part of the ideological confusion is whether or not China can be considered to be a type of ‘democratic’ state, which it sometimes claims to be. China was not invited to take part in Biden’s Summit of Democracies, but questionable democracies as Israel, India, and the Philippines received invitations. What the United States has refrained from doing is to attribute China’s success to its mastery of and reliance upon maket-managed economic policy.

In my judgement, China’s self-identification as ‘a Communist state’ in certain contexts is no more misleading than the U.S. assumption that it possesses all the credentials to be claimed the world’s leading ‘democracy.’ There are features of both political systems that defy such labels from a descriptive perspective. China accelerated its amazing development process of the last 50 years by sometimes defining its system of governance as ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ which was a coded way of expressing its participation at home and internationally in the capitalist world economy guided by a perspective usually described as ‘neoliberal globalization.’ Such an identity was underscored by Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), widely accepted as an institutional body entrusted with overseeing and promoting global capitalism in its neoliberal phase. It is became common for economists to describe China after the market friendly reforms to attract foreign investment and promoted trade associated with Deng Xiaoping leadership in 1991 as establishing a ‘socialist market economy.’ To ideological militants in the West to be ‘socialist’ amounts to being ‘communist,’ a negative characterization applicable not only to China but also to social democracy in Scandinavia or liberal tendencies of the Democratic Party in the United States.

It is obvious that invoking the label ‘Communist’ by a party leader in Beijing is quite different than its use as a political slur by right-wing politics in Europe and North America. When Chinese officials insist on ascribing a Communist identity to China it functions as a claim of legitimacy, confirming fidelity to its founding ideology and recalling its revolutionary struggle. When agitators inside and outside of government in the West call China ‘Communist,’ or even ‘Socialist’ it is meant as both as an insult and a warning about an alien ideology that poses a domestic threat by way of leftist and even left liberal politics.

Looked at differently, China exemplifies the Communist political tradition after the Cold War associated with Marx and Lenin, and later Mao, in certain crucial respects. The Communist Party provides authoritative ideological guidance in relation to its own governing process, overseees one-party rule, provides guidance for political education and citizenship, and entrusts leadership to a single person essentially for lifetime. The current leader, Xi Jinping exemplifies this tradition in all respects. No political alternatives are accepted as legitimate challengers to Communist rule. In periodic five-year high-level conferences of the Chinese Communist Party leadership ideological articles of faith are reaffirmed and adjustments made by expressions of consensus seemingly shaped by the leader. The Chinese government from the moment of its takeover of the Chinese mainland in 1949 has suppressed dissent, and insisted on an extreme form of secularism that has regulated religious movements strictly, sometimes harshly, particularly if they dare to exhibit political ambitions.

Despite some superficial resemblances to the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, it would be deeply misleading to view China through a Soviet lens or by way of post-World War II geopolitics. Two extraordinary differences highlight the gaps between the Cold War era and the present confrontation with China: first, in contrast to the Soviet Union, China has compiled a remarkable record of administrative competence, which has overseen the greatest economic and geopolitical ascent of any country in all of history, a story confirmed by spectacular growth, alleviation of extreme poverty, and increasing dominance of the most significant technological frontiers of 21st innovation; secondly, China’s expansionist foreign policy has been completely reliant on soft power instruments of influence, producing many win/win solutions, including its hyper-ambitious Belt and Road Project, and contrasting dramatically with the Western rise and Soviet attainment of superpower status which were based on military conquest and imperial forms of coercive control. It is the U.S. hostile reaction that confronts China rather than cooperates that seems mainly responsible for

inducing China to place an ever greater emphasis on military capabilities to maintain its national interests by discouraging U.S. provocations. The West should be learning from China rather than treating China as the second coming of the USSR, necessitating an ideological and militarizing mobilization for a new cold war that the world cannot afford, diverting attention and resources from a series of urgent global challenges posed by climate change, pandemics, global migration, gross inequalities that did not seriously impact on international relations.

Only the costly arms race, especially its nuclear dimension, made the last half of the 20th century vulnerable to catastrophe on a global scale, threatening species survival, prepared the public sphere for its present policy agenda.

Xi Jinping has been claiming that he is adapting Marxism to contemporary condition under the banner of ‘Marxism for the 21st Century.’ As near I can tell this terminology is used mainly as a way to identify and highlight the charismatic relevance of Xi Jinping personal leadership, and in the process elevate him to the status of the most eminent of revolutionary leaders, above all as the equal of Mao Zedong. Xi’s ideological viewpoint has been also associated with explaining what is meant by the phrase ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ In ideological discourse, especially internationally, Xi commonly refers to the ‘socialist’ nature of the Chinese approach rather than to claim its ‘communist’ character.’ Xi clearly wants his various audiences to believe that Marxist thought remains as dynamic and relevant as ever, being ‘full of vitality,’ and thus the key to future human happiness.

The Chinese references to 21sst century Marxism is also a way of entering dialogue with Marxist political parties in other societies and creating a common global discourse. It also seems a way to be faithful to Markist-Leninis traditions of thought without having to comment critically upon the Soviet-led interval as a departure from Marxism. Put in positive terms Marxism in the 21st century calls for dedication to ‘human progress’ focused on building ‘a shared future for humanity’ in collaboration with congenial forces around the world

Whether China is viewed as a Communist center of power or not is less important than for the West to relate to China in a manner that is mutually beneficial for world peace and multilateralism. The policy emphasis on the West should be on not only learning from China but on bringing out the most constructive responses in relation to China’s potential indispensable contributions to world order. Such a view is not blind to Chinese violations of human rights or the excesses of Han nationalism, but it views these undeniable blemishes as best left to dynamics of internal reform and to the pressures mounted by global civil society, rather than as presently, a form of geopolitical harassment and anti-Chinese mobilization.

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 60 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs.

27 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Dr Ram Puniyani

After Suraj Pal Amu made derogatory and hate speech, he was made the spokesman for BJP state unit. After the murder of Akhlaq in the beef-cow issue, one of the murder accused died, one central minister (Mahesh Sharma) arrived to put tricolor on the body of the deceased. When 8 lynching accused got bail, Jayant Sinha another Central Minister garlanded them. Not too long ago, when a central minster made the audience give the slogan “Goli maro“ he was promoted to the Cabinet rank. In this background if one sees the present disturbing events of spreading hate and inciting violence, the lack of action on the part of authorities can be easily understood. We do recall that our PM, prompt at speaking when not needed generally either kept quite or spoke after a painfully long delay in the aftermath of murders of Juanid or Rohith Vemula.

Today (24th December, 2021), 5 days after the two disturbing events took place; our PM’s silence on these issues is very loud and clear. In the first incident on 19th December Suresh Chavhanke, the Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan TV administered an oath to young boys and girls. The event was organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini (Founded by UP Chief Minster and Mahant of Gorakhnath Peeth, Adityanath Yogi), it was “. “We take an oath and make a resolution that till our last breath, we shall fight, die for and if need be, kill, to make this country a Hindu rashtra,”

In another event organized in Hardwar hundreds of saffron clad Sadhus and Sadhvi’s had assembled for a meeting on the theme “Islamic Terrorism and our Responsibilities”. It was Dharma Sansad organized by Yati Narsinghanand, Head Priest of Ghaziabad temple. He himself set the tone by stating “‘Economic boycott (against the Muslims) will not work… No community can survive without picking up weapons…And swords won’t work, they look good only on stages. You need to update your weapons…more and more offspring and better weapons can protect you.” He gave a clarion call, Shastra Mev Jayate for inciting armed violence against Muslims.” “In another video, Narsinghanand is seen to be offering Rs 1 crore to Hindu youth for becoming like LTTE leader Prabhakaran as he called upon Hindu youth to become “Prabhakaran” and “Bhindranwale”

Annapurna Maa, (earlier, Poonam Shakun Pandey) general secretary of Hindu Mahasabha said, we need 100 soldiers who can kill 20 lakh of them (Muslims). She added ‘Matr shakti ke sher se panje hain. Phaad kar rakh denge’. (mother power has claws like lion, will tear apart). She is the one who couple of years ago reenacted Gandhi murder in Meerut and distributed sweets after that.

Dharam Das Maharaj from Bihar said “If I was present in Parliament when PM Manmohan Singh said that minorities have right over national resources, I would have followed Nathuram Godse and shot him six times with a revolver”

These are few samples from what happened in Dharma Sansad. Such meetings have been set into action by VHP, which began these meetings in the wake of Babri demolition. The surprise is that most of the videos are circulating and police have access to them. No arrest so far.

Those making such statements which are criminal as per our law are very much reassured that no action will be taken against them. They know those in power quietly appreciate their speeches or such speeches or incitement may be a part of planning in the wake of elections. What is surprising is that all this is taking place at a time when Munwar Faruqui was arrested for a joke which he had not cracked. His shows have been cancelled times and over again.

What will be the impact of these uttering’s on our minorities, who are equal citizens of the country. The fear and intimidation will reach the peak. Economic boycott, threat to life and intimidations will further intensify the ghettoization, already existing as serious problem. Disturbed by all these Jamiat-E-Ulema a Hindu, Mahmood Madnai has written to Home minster. Can Minorities commission take cognizance of this and take action? Can the police take proper action apart from just filing FIR against the recent convert to Hinduism, Jitendra Tyagi (earlier Wasim Rizvi)? And why is Supreme not waking up to take suo moto action?

The World is aghast at this level of hate and open incitement of violence. Martina Navratilova tweeted that she is aghast. The trends were caught by global media right some time ago when The Daily Guardian in a 2020 article states that “since achieving every single public interest is cumbersome; pointing towards the flaws of ruling party which may or may not have a religious back up and flaming the emotions of the public at large through continuous hate speech was a trend in early ’90s and the immediate years of second millennium. Hate speech was therefore procuring a wide scope with respect to democracy in India.” There is a turmoil world over on these incidents in India.

The Hate against minorities is reaching dangerous proportions. What began as a project of communal politics, Hindu and Muslim in undivided India is now focusing on Muslim minorities. Every occasion is being used to demonize them and the global trends set by American media in coining the phrase “Islamic Terrorism” has put salt on the wounds of the targeted community. During last seven years with the patronage of BJP government at the center; the process has taken ghastly proportions.

What is needed is that the civil society wakes up to the dastardly phenomenon. The Hate and violence which is directed against the ‘others’ takes a turn to consume the same community in whose name all this takes place, rather all this is orchestrated by the communal stream. All non BJP parties need to come together to raise their voice and call for action against the Hate mongers. It is welcome that Rahul Gandhi and many other leaders have tweeted and condemned these utterences.

Nothing short of a social movement directed against hate and promoting of love will help the matters. It is time that we to work on the lines of Bhakti-Sufi traditions; and the path of Mahatma Gandhi-Maulana Azad to keep the society and country in peace and harmony.

25 December 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Press Release

Statement Released on December 24, 2021 at a press conference organized by Anhad. Dr Syeda Hameed, prof Ram Puniyani, Prashant Bhushan, Gauhar Raza, Anjali Bhardwaj, Dev Desai and Shabnam Hashmi addressed the press conference.

From December 17 to 19, the ‘Dharma Sansad’ or ‘Religious Parliament’ was organized in Haridwar wherein several religious leaders and those associated with Hindutva extremist organisations gave an open call for Hindus to arm themselves and eliminate Muslims from the country. Sadhvi Annapurna, general secretary of Hindu Mahasabha gave a direct call for the mass murder of Muslims. She said, we need 100 soldiers who can kill 20 lakh of them ( Muslims) . She added ‘Matr shakti ke sher se panje hain. Phaad kar rakh denge’ .

Dharam Sansad was organized by Swami Yati Narsinghanand, who has been spewing venom against Muslims for months. He said at the Dharam Sansad, ‘Economic boycott (against the Muslims) will not work. No community can survive without picking up weapons. And swords won’t work, they look good only on stages. You need to update your weapons…more and more offspring and better weapons can protect you.” He promised Rs.1 crore to anyone who is ready to become a Prabhakaran or a Bhindranwale for Muslims. He gave a clarion call, Shastra Mev Jayate for inciting armed violence against Muslims.

‘If I was present in Parliament when PM Manmohan Singh said that minorities have right over national resources, I would have followed Nathuram Godse and shot him six times with a revolver’ said Dharam Das Maharaj from Bihar. Anand Swarup Maharaj threatened to wage a war ‘more scarier’ than 1857 if the government does not concede the demand of creating a Hindu Rashtra through violence against the minorities. He said that in Uttarakhand he will not allow Christians to celebrate Christmas or Muslims to celebrate their festivals since the state belongs only to Hindus. Ashwini Upadhyay known for his anti Muslim vitriol at Jantar Mantar in October, also a BJP spokesperson; stood before the gathering and presented Bhagwa Constitution to his Gurudev Yati Narsinghanand. Swami Prabodhanand Giri, president of the Hindu Raksha Sena, a right-wing organisation based out of Uttarakhand said, “get ready to kill, there’s no other way. This is why, like in Myanmar, the police here, the politicians here, the army and every Hindu must pick up weapons and we will have to conduct this cleanliness drive (safai abhiyan). There is no solution apart from this.”

All this is an open violation of provisions of India’s Constitution and various provisions of the law which prohibit spreading of Hate. This is not just spreading of Hate; this is a call for violence against Muslims.

It’s been a week since the Haridwar Sansad began and 5 days since it ended; all under the state government’s watch. While poison was disseminated from here to the country and indeed all over the globe via social and other media the administration looked on. We all heard one sentence repeated ad nauseam by a police spokesman ‘Hum nazar banayen hain… uchit karavahi hogi’. (We are keeping an eye, will take suitable steps) It’s the mother of all banalities!

This Sansad has been held under the benign gaze of CM Uttrarakhad Pushkar Singh Dhami who has recently been seen paying respects to Yati Maharaj.

It is time when every sane Indian must think where the country is heading? Will the present regime uphold the Constitution of India or will they allow Bhagwa Constitution to be forced on them? This Sansad, permitted to be held on the eve of Elections in several states including Uttarakhand and UP, smashes to smithereens the ‘Idea of India’ held by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad and Bhimrao Ambedkar. When a state remains silent while hate speech and poison shards are flung at its citizens it bodes the worst evil for us the people who love this land, who are citizens of this country.

We strongly condemn the hate speeches, the calls for a genocide and demand immediate legal action and arrest of Swami Yati Narsinghanand, Swami Prabodhanand Giri , Annapurna Maa, Dharam Das Maharaj , Anand Swarup Maharaj and all others who organized the event and are indulging in hate mongering .

We demand an immediate stop to such gatherings which are organized to vitiate the atmosphere and polarize the people of India.

24 December 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

The result of a vote, on December 14, in the US House of Representatives regarding the combating of Islamophobia, may, possibly, appear to be a positive sign of change, that Washington is finally confronting this socio-political evil. However, conclusions must not be too hasty.

Disquietingly, Congress was nearly split on the vote. While 219 voted in favor of the resolution, 212 voted against it. What is so objectionable about the resolution, which was introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar, that prompted a ‘nay’ vote by such a large number of American representatives?

The resolution – ‘Combating International Islamophobia Act’ – merely called for establishing the position of a “Special Envoy for monitoring and combating Islamophobia”. Arguably, HR 5665 would have not passed, were it not for the embarrassing episode last September, when Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado mouthed off such obscene and racist language, in which she suggested that Rep. Omar was a terrorist.

“So the other night on the House floor was not my first jihad squad moment,” Boebert told a crowd during a campaign event in Staten Island. The other moment, according to Boebert, was when she met Ilhan Omar on an elevator. “What’s happening? I look to my left and there she is, Ilhan Omar, and I said, ‘Well she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine,’” suggesting that Omar was a potential bomber.

The fact that Boebert would make such racist references publicly, while being aware of the particular cultural sensitivity that exists in her country at the moment, speaks volumes about the complete disregard that many Americans, whether in power, in the media or on the street, have towards their fellow US Muslim citizens.

However, the disparaging and racist comments, thanks to the tireless efforts of numerous activists throughout the country, made enough impact that helped register a semi-official indictment of such despicable behavior. Of course, much more work would have to be done to convince the 212 objecting representatives that degrading and discriminating against their own people because of religion, culture or attire must not be tolerated.

Whether HR 5665 would prove decisive in condemning Islamophobia or holding Islamophobes accountable, is a different story. Hence, we must not hesitate to confront the term itself, the misleading reference that what Muslims in the US and throughout the world are experiencing is some kind of a pathological phenomenon, that of fear, itself instigated, as some suggest, by Muslims themselves.

Anti-Muslims are outright racists. Though Islam is a religion, in the mind of these racists, Islam is affiliated with brown and black-skinned people and, therefore, the hate of Islam and Muslims is part of the anti-black racism that continues to define many parts of the world, especially the US and Europe.

Anti-Muslims are also capable of being criminals, as numbers have shown that the so-called Islamophobia has resulted in mass killing, as was the case in Canada, New Zealand and the UK.

Less reported than these horrific massacres are thousands of incidents where Muslims are targeted because of their religion, cultural symbols and values.

According to a report released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last July, hundreds of Anti-Muslim incidents have been reported throughout the country in the first half of 2021. These incidents range from hate crimes, hate speech, targeting mosques and Muslim children being bullied at school.

The US is not the only Western country where Anti-Muslim bias and hate crimes are on the rise. Canada, too, which has witnessed the horrific January 2017 attack on the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec – in which six Muslims were killed and 19 others wounded – is equally culpable.

According to a report by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) in September, Anti-Muslim incidents in Canada are growing exponentially. Fatema Abdalla, NCCM’s communication coordinator, described Anti-Muslim hate in Canada as “systemic”. “Not only is it growing, but it’s also evolving,” she told Global News, following the release of the report.

Like in the US, Anti-Muslim hate is also fueled by politicians, but not just any politician. In 2015, for example, Canada’s then Prime Minister Stephen Harper pushed to establish a “barbaric cultural practices hotline” where Canadians would be able to call the police to report the ‘disturbing rituals’ of their neighbors. The reference was widely understood to be targeting Muslims, especially as equally disturbing Anti-Muslim measures were proposed, or enacted, in Canada during that period.

Similarly, in the UK and the rest of Europe, Anti-Muslim bias and hate crimes were reported, based on extensive studies and research as well as experiences of ordinary Muslims on a daily basis.

While the vote in Congress to ‘monitor and combat Islamophobia’ is a positive step, the urgency of the situation demands not just symbolic gestures, but the outright criminalization and prosecution of Anti-Muslim hate crimes.

It is time that we stop perceiving ‘Islamophobes’ as people with irrational or, in the mind of some, rational, fear of Muslims – similar to ‘claustrophobia’, ‘arachnophobia’, or ‘agoraphobia’. Indeed, rarely do people in the latter categories gun down innocent people in the street to overcome their fears. Anti-Muslim hate is real and the racists behind it must be punished for their words and actions, as all racists surely deserve.

 Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

24 December 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Murtaza Hussain

More than 70 percent of the Israeli attacks that killed civilians in Gaza had no corresponding reports of militants hit alongside them.

9 Dec 2021 – A new report by the independent monitoring group Airwars found that the 2021 conflict between Israel and Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip killed up to 192 Palestinian civilians and injured hundreds more over 11 days of intense fighting. Rockets fired by Palestinian militants into Israel are also estimated to have killed 10 civilians inside Israel during the brief but intense conflict first triggered by tensions between Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem.

Among the key findings of the report — titled “Why Did They Bomb Us?” — are the age breakdowns of Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza. Of the total number of civilian deaths, roughly one-third were children, most of whom died in attacks that killed or wounded multiple members of the same family. More than 70 percent of the reported attacks that killed civilians had no corresponding reports of militants hit alongside them, meaning that civilians were the only victims.

One attack documented in the report took place the night of May 15, when an Israeli airstrike hit a house in the Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza. Two mothers, sisters-in-law, were reportedly killed in the attack, along with eight children between the ages of 5 and 14. One 5-month-old boy was found by rescuers in the rubble from the attack still alive in his dead mother’s arms. The families had gathered together to celebrate the long weekend after the Eid holiday.

Alaa Abu Hattab, whose wife, children, sister, and sister’s children were all killed in the attack, recounted to Airwars what took place.

“I left my house on foot at about 1:30AM to go to some of the local shops that were open late during the run-up to Eid to buy toys and snacks for the kids for the Eid festival and to buy some food, as we were hungry,” Abu Hattab said in the report. Fifteen minutes later, an explosion hit the area he had just left. He ran back to find that it was his own home that had been struck. Seeing the rubble where his family house once stood, he fainted in shock. “When I regained consciousness, I saw rescue workers looking for bodies under the rubble and recovering body parts. The attack had shredded the bodies. Other parts remained under the rubble because they could not find them.”

No militants were reported killed in the strike, one of many that hit the strip during the brief fighting. “There were no militants in or near my house and no rockets or rocket launchers there,” Abu Hattab told Airwars. “I still don’t know why they bombed my house and killed my wife and children and my sister and her children.”

In addition to providing details on the civilian impact of the last war in Gaza, the Airwars report also provides the first comprehensive review of the long-running Israeli air campaign in Syria. Civilian casualties in Israel’s air campaign in Syria, mostly targeting alleged Iranian and Hezbollah assets, have been light, particularly in comparison with U.S., Russian, and Syrian government aerial attacks there that have killed tens of thousands of people. An estimated 14 to 40 civilians have been killed across hundreds of Israeli strikes against air bases, troop convoys, and weapons stores since 2013, according to Airwars findings.

“I still don’t know why they bombed my house and killed my wife and children and my sister and her children.”

The relative precision of Israel’s attacks in Syria stands in stark contrast to the toll of its operations in Gaza. According to the report, more civilians were killed in Gaza during the fighting this summer than in all of the attacks that have been carried out in Syria over the past eight years. The staggering difference between civilian harm in the two campaigns raises “fundamental questions about targeting policies,” according to the report. Israeli strikes in Syria have largely taken place away from built-up civilian areas, whereas the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet — making the nature of the Israeli campaign there something closer to counterinsurgency carried out from the skies.

In response to questions about its targeting practices during the 11-day Gaza conflict, an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson told Airwars that “terror organizations in the Gaza Strip deliberately embed their military assets in densely populated civilian areas,” adding that the IDF conducted internal operational reviews of its strikes and that the findings from those reports were classified. In response to similar questions about its attacks on Israel, a Hamas spokesperson stated that “[Israeli] military compounds and security facilities are built inside big cities and near universities and near hospitals,” claiming that the group similarly issued warnings in the hours before it carried out its attacks and took steps to ensure that its operations complied with international law.

Civilian Casualties in Gaza May 10–20, 2021 – An interactive map laying out the locations and extent of the civilian death toll.

The Airwars report is only the latest in a series from the monitoring organization on the civilian toll of various air campaigns in the Middle East and North Africa, including the U.S.-led coalition war against the Islamic State, Russian and Turkish airstrikes in Syria, and international operations in Libya. The study on Israeli and Palestinian militant activity is the first of its kind from the group.

“Our latest study corroborates what we have found with other large-scale conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere: Even technologically advanced militaries kill large numbers of civilians when attacks focus on urban centers,” Airwars Director Chris Woods said about the report. “Stark differences in civilian deaths and injuries from Israeli actions in Syria and in the Gaza Strip clearly illustrate that the most significant driver of civilian harm remains the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The single most effective way to reduce the number of civilians dying in warfare would be to restrict the use of such dangerous wide-area effect weapons.”

Murtaza Hussain – murtaza.hussain@​theintercept.com

20 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org