Email: sabrangind@gmail.com
NTUI supports Sudha Bharadwaj in her fight against Arnab and Republic TV
Gautam Mody, the general secretary of The New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) condemned the allegations on human rights lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj by Arnab Goswami and Republic TV and promised support for the lawyer.
Gautam Mody, the general secretary of The New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) condemned the allegations on human rights lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj by Arnab Goswami and Republic TV. “A large section of the media, which should above all be the defender of democracy, has placed itself at the disposal of rightwing political forces, the ruling BJP government and agencies of state to serve an agenda that goes against the interest of the many and serves the interest of the few,” said a statement released by NTUI. They urged to stop the witch-hunting of trade unionists and human rights defenders.
The statement added that “The references to Sudha are part of an ongoing campaign both in government and through regressive forces in civil society to create an atmosphere of fear amongst those speaking up and standing against the attack on democracy, justice and equality.”
“The New Trade Union Initiative condemns the baseless allegations, that are fabricated and defamatory, made against Comrade Sudha Bharadwaj leader of the Pragatisheel Cement Shramik Sangh and Jan Aadharit Engineering Mazdoor Union in Chhattisgarh of having ‘Maoist’ links, receiving funds from ‘Maoists’ and creating a ‘Kashmir like situation’ by Republic TV Managing Director and anchor, Arnab Goswami,” it said.
“Sudha, inspired by Sankar Guha Niyogi, joined the trade union movement three decades ago in the difficult terrain of Dalli Rajhara and Bhilai. She has also been an active human rights defender who recently spoke against the arrest of human rights activist and General Secretary of Indian Association of Peoples’ Lawyers, Surendra Gadling, for his alleged link with the Bhima Koregaon violence in Nagpur. Gadling has been unremittingly fighting cases against human rights violations and false UAPA cases imposed upon Dalits and Adivasis while providing legal aid to Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and Dalit rights activist Sudhir Dhawale. Sudha also has been vocal against the arrest of Damodar Turi from Ranchi allegedly as an activist connected to the unlawfully banned trade union Mazdoor Sangathan Samity (MSS). Comrade Sudha has also challenged the ban of MSS is trade union organisation, registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1926 since 1989 unionising contract workers and other workers in the informal sector who are amongst the most exploited section of the country’s working people. The ban on MSS is not just in violation of the Trade Unions Act but also an attack on the fundamental rights of MSS’ members in so far as the Government of Jharkhand’s action denies them their right to freedom of association as provided under Article 19(1) c of the Indian Constitution,” the release stated.
“The NTUI joins with all progressive forces in fighting this attack as it stands in solidarity with Comrade Sudha Bharadwaj and the members of the Pragatisheel Cement Shramik Sangh and Jan Aadharit Engineering Mazdoor Union who continue to face the gravest attack on their rights and workers and citizens. Their fight is our fight and a fight we must win,” they added.
Read also
Human rights lawyer sends legal notice to Arnab Goswami over ‘fake news’
Statement condemning the attack on Advocate Sudha Bhardwaj
Opinion: Tharoor’s book rests between Hinduism and Modi’s political Hinduism
Why I am a Hindu comes at a time when attacks on religious minorities continue to grow under the BJP government.
If you really want to know how different real Hinduism is from political Hinduism of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in India, Shashi Tharoor’s latest book has the answer.
Why I am a Hindu comes at a time when attacks on religious minorities continue to grow under the BJP government. The Hindu extremists who have been targeting Muslims and Christians, besides Dalits or so-called untouchables with impunity, want to turn India into a Hindu theocracy. Though it is a matter of time when the Indian constitution is amended to make that happen, the calls for Hindu India are being made shamelessly under a hawkish Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat during 2002 when anti-Muslim massacre was organized by the BJP supporters following the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims. More than 50 people had died in the incident that was blamed on Muslim extremists. The human rights activists and survivors continue to allege Modi’s complicity in the violence against Muslims. There is a spike in religious violence ever since Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014.
Tharoor, who is a practicing Hindu, belongs to the opposition Congress party that describes itself as secular alternative to the BJP. He throws light on the history of Hinduism which is a great religion that has always been liberal and tolerant. He writes how Hinduism gave refuge to the Jews and Parsis in India over the years and allowed Christianity and Islam to grow as Hinduism itself is very diverse and eclectic. He points out that Hinduism has no one scripture or deity to follow and allows self-criticism and even agnosticism. He takes a critical look at the brutal caste system that is practiced among the Hindus for centuries and emphasises on breaking the caste barriers.
He goes into great details of the narrow brand of Hinduism practiced by the BJP supporters in a section titled; Political Hinduism. Based on his understanding of Hinduism he counters their divisive politics and misinterpretation of Hinduism. He repeatedly writes how the political Hinduism or Hindutva – based on the idea of Hindu theocracy can divide the soul of India that has always been known for its pluralism and diversity.
However, he has glossed over the inconvenient truth of his party’s culpability in the growth of Hindutva forces. After all, it was the Congress leader and the former Prime Minister late Rajiv Gandhi who had started hobnobbing with the Hindutva forces during mid-1980s.
Gandhi was responsible for the anti-Sikh massacre of 1984 that followed the assassination of his mother and the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. This had helped him win the general election with brute majority and set a precedent for future pogroms, including the one that happened in Gujarat.
Although Tharoor briefly mentions that, he does not show courage to go into the details of the pogrom to reveal how Hindutva forces were used as foot soldiers in the crime. So much so, he tries to rationalize Gandhi’s decision to allow the public broadcast of Hindu epics that actually helped the BJP. For instance, several stars in the TV serial of Ramayana ended up becoming BJP MPs.
That Gandhi was also responsible for opening the doors of disputed site of Ayodhya to let Hindu priests perform rituals finds no mention in the book. The Hindus claim that an ancient Babri mosque that stood at Ayodhya was built by the Muslim ruler after demolishing a temple that was originally built at the birthplace of Lord Rama, a revered Hindu god. The BJP had started a campaign to rebuild the Ram temple at the disputed site. Once the access was granted, it had emboldened the Hindutva brigade. On December 6, 1992 when the BJP supporters pulled down the structure, the late Congress leader PV Narsimha Rao was the Prime Minister. Tharoor obviously knows all this and yet he chose to overlook these facts in his book that essentially deals with the Hindutva politics. By simply pointing fingers at the BJP, he cannot exonerate the Congress party that has to take blame for majoritarian intolerant society India has become. This only creates more doubts about the sincerity and honesty of the Congress in the eyes of those who are looking for an alternative to Modi in the 2019 elections.
Despite all these disagreements, Tharoor has undoubtedly done an important work that helps people in understanding key difference between Hinduism and Hindutva and gives hope to ordinary Hindus to reclaim their faith from the self-styled gate keepers of their religion and are giving it a bad name worldwide. In a fight against such forces, we do need allies from within the Hindu community who can show mirror to Modi and his supporters and for that reason Tharoor’s narrative comes handy in educating the masses.
Ex VC Lucknow University, RoopRekha Verma targeted for extending support to protesting students
The Lucknow University administration and the UP police are now blaming the ex VC of the university, Professor RoopRekha Verma for the violence that occurred in the campus earlier in the week. It was alleged that the students attacked the current VC, SP Singh, as a protest was going on regarding the issue of denial of admission of students.
RoopRekha Verma taught in Lucknow University for over four decades. She broke past academic records at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. She gained eminence as an academic early on in life, having published papers in some of the most prestigious journals. She has been passionate about social activism and is recognized as a strong voice against religious fundamentalism and conflict, violence against women and other human rights issues.
It is well known that Verma is a staunch critic of the right while the current VC, Singh is said to be closely associated with the RSS. The university administration ordered a probe into the supposed role played by Verma. After the high court took suo moto cognisance of the violence, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) told the court thatshe encouraged the agitating students to resort to violence.
Denying any such possibility, Verma said, “I was many miles away. Not present at the protest site at all when the violence took place,” She also added that she extended her support to the protesting students and visited the site but that was two days before the incident of suggested violence took place. She said, “..in no way did I or anyone else at the protest encourage violence”
Verma believes that she is being targeted, “They are trying to target me because I have been an outspoken critic of the university administration and how some of the steps taken by it go against the ethos of secularism,”
Former Vice Chancellor of Lucknow University Professor RoopRekha Verma and litterateurs Naresh Saxena and Virendra Yadav had gone to the University campus and sat on a stir with students who were on a hunger strike since July 2.
Students sat on a strike because as many as 25 students were denied admission to postgraduate courses by LU on grounds that they were involved in ‘indiscipline’
On July 4, apparently, an incident of violence broke out when some students tried to block the path of the VC passing the site in his car. It was unclear who attacked the VC but the blame was put on the students who were, in fact, engaged in a peaceful demonstration.
Seemingly, innocent students who merely sat for the hunger strike, were beaten mercilessly by the police. Afterwards, student leader Pooja Shukla was arrested for three days as she was leading the hunger strike. She was badly beaten up and had fainted due to hypotension and dehydration on July 5.
The High Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the violence, reprimanded the UP police for not acting on the complaint of the LU administration. It has asked the state police to file an affidavit informing the court about its investigations into the violence and the next hearing is on July 16.
Related
Student leaders express anger over beating and arrest of Pooja Shukla and others
June Agreement on Rohingya Crisis Misses the central issue of citizenship
On June 6, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) signed an agreement with the government of Myanmar for the repatriation of some 700,000 Rohingya refugees now living in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. This minority ethnic group had been forcibly displaced from their homeland in Myanmar’s Rakhine State between August and December last year, when the country’s armed forces unleashed a reign of terror killing and raping hundreds of men and women and burning down village after village under the guise of counter-insurgency operations against a small armed group. To be clear, Rohingya insurgency is a much smaller movement compared to the other ethnic rebellions going on in Myanmar’s other regions. Yet the government had undertaken this massive terror campaign primarily to drive almost the entire ethnic group from the land of their birth and across the border into Bangladesh.
Rohingya refugees walk towards the Balukhali refugee camp after crossing the border in Ukhia. PHOTO: Dibyangshu Sarkar/AFP
The UN has not made the terms of the agreement public. It didn’t reportedly hold any consultation with the representative organisations before signing the agreement. On June 27, during a presentation at the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Yanghee Lee, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said, “I note the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recently signed between the Myanmar Government, UNHCR and UNDP in early June to assist the process of repatriation from Bangladesh. It is disconcerting that the MoU remains not publicly available and there has not been transparency about its terms.” There is no provision in the agreement that would oblige Myanmar government to ensure security and dignity of the Rohingyas after they return to Myanmar. There is nothing in the agreement about accountability for the horrific crimes committed against them by Myanmar’s generals and other members of the armed forces.
This is not the first time that the international community has decided to “betray” the Rohingyas. The “Slow Burning Genocide” of the Rohingyas has been going on for decades. But the West that controls the UN was not really concerned. Yes, there was a steady outflow of refugees. But this was limited within the region of South and South East Asia. Unlike the hundreds of thousands of Syrian, Iraqi and Libyan refugees, the Rohingyas were not swarming across the borders of the European countries. Europe was not threatened by the Rohingya influx.
The West had imposed “sanctions” on Myanmar. It was for the lofty ideals of “democracy”. It did not demand an end to the systematic ill-treatment of the Rohingyas and other minority communities of Myanmar. There can be no democracy without all citizens being able to participate equally in the governance of the country. This is the foundation of liberal democracy which the West boasts of having established. Yet, no Western leader had thought of including the restoration of equal rights to citizenship for all people of Myanmar in the agenda for negotiations for lifting the sanctions.
President Macron of France accused Myanmar government of committing genocide against the Rohingyas. Yet, France’s business community, including its oil and gas giant TOTAL, continues to do business in Myanmar. The EU talked about imposing sanctions, but the truth is that even today, there are about 300 EU investors with the combined portfolio of more than USD 6 billion in Myanmar, some in collaboration with private partners and others with various government departments. These companies are working in diverse areas including health care, energy, construction, automotive industries and digital innovation. Two military conglomerates and cronies of the generals have total control over Myanmar’s business interests even after the so-called “democratic reforms”. As we know, these generals are mainly responsible for spreading anti-Muslim hatred and whipping up mass hysteria among the Buddhist majority in the country.
The Myanmar Times on June 28 reported that the “EU is exercising more caution when making investment decisions involving Myanmar. This is due to recent instability at the country’s borders, including the ongoing refugee problems in Rakhine.” Nevertheless, Myanmar remains an important trade partner to the EU, and the latter’s interest to expand into the country remains robust.
The EuroCham-Myanmar, which is funded by the European Union, was formally launched in Yangon in December 2014, when Myanmar army was busy killing Rohingya men, raping their women and putting them in concentration camps. EuroCham-Myanmar promotes the business interests of European companies in Myanmar. Switzerland, Sweden and Norway are equally involved. While the Swiss are selling passenger aircrafts, Sweden’s Volvo is selling cars and commercial vehicles and Germany’s Mercedes Benz and BMW are providing luxury vehicles to Myanmar’s generals and the rich. Norway’s Telenor owns the biggest telecom network in Myanmar. Thanks to the efforts of Norway’s ambassador, Telenor was able to beat the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean companies in securing the contract from Myanmar army. Statsoil, a Norwegian oil exploration giant, has a stake in the natural gas exploration off the coast of Rakhine. In fact, Norway’s gigantic Pension Fund had led the opening of the floodgate of investments in Myanmar after the so-called “democratic reforms”, which have since been proven to be a charade.
There is also a host of American companies—about 130—doing business in Myanmar. The list includes Caterpillar, Coca-Cola, Ford, Pepsi, KFC and others engaged in diverse areas like oil and gas, insurance and information technology. About two weeks before the Myanmar army began its massacre of Rohingyas in Rakhine, Aung Naing Oo, director general at the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration and secretary of Myanmar Investment Commission, said, “We are in active discussions with Amcham Myanmar [American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar] to facilitate trade and investment with the United States. We do hope the entry of US insurance companies in the near future, which will lead to millions of dollars surge in our list of FDI [foreign direct investment].” (The Nation, Bangkok, August 08, 2017)
Under the neo-liberal system, where promoting the private interests of the business community has become the primary responsibility of the governments, the lure of the “thirteen pieces of silver” will guide the policies of states. As long as the West continues to control the United Nations, with Russia and China aiding and abetting them, there is little chance that the United Nations will be able to live up to its charter.
In recent months, the human rights situation in Kachin and northern Shan States has worsened. Mass atrocity crimes continue to be reported. Over 120,000 Kachin and Shan civilians have been displaced since 2011. Thousands of people in Kachin State are trapped in conflict zones while access to humanitarian aid remains blocked in many conflict-affected areas. There is no mention in the UNHCR/UNDP/Myanmar agreement of the approximate 120,000 Rohingyas who are still languishing in concentration-camp-like situations inside Myanmar. Whatever may be said about the status of Rohingya refugees in refugee camps in Bangladesh, there is no doubt that they feel safe there. The question is how safe they will be once they are forced to go back under this agreement.
Tapan Bose is a writer and documentary filmmaker. He is a member of the Free Rohingya Coalition and is actively associated with the campaign “Protected return to protected homeland” for the Rohingya people.
First Published on https://www.thedailystar.net
The Migrant Quilt: re-stitching the fabric of community
Memory is the first form of resistance.
Part of the Migrant Quilt, photographed at the opening of What the Eye Doesn’t See Doesn’t Move the Heart: Migrant Quilts of the Southern Arizona Borderlands” in Nogales, Arizona. Credit: Valarie Lee James. All rights reserved.
In the late 1990s in Northern California, we placed a photo of Liz (my late wife) and me, taken by the renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz, onto a quilt. Friends and family members gathered around and hand-sewed keepsakes of their lives with Liz into the cloth: bits of jewelry, ribbons, and personal messages.
By the time the black and white photograph, created for a national “Be Here for the Cure” AIDS campaign could be seen in magazines and writ large on subway walls, many of the people Leibovitz photographed would be dead: the cute guy, the sparky little kid, the strong transgender woman and the straight teenage girl. Few would make it for the cure.
People died by the thousands while the government turned a blind eye. Families mourned, shrouded in secrecy. The closest friends I will ever have grieved for each other even as they, too, prepared to die.
America as a whole seemed to shake itself awake only when thousands of AIDS Names Project Quilts were laid end-to-end on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., forming a master quilt strewn with names as far as the eye could manage—a seemingly endless landscape of unspeakable loss and undeniable love. Visitors dropped to their knees, humbled by such terrible beauty.
Now in my backyard, another quilt—the Migrant Quilt Project—continues to take shape. Now on show at the Pimeria Alta Museum in the border town of Nogales, Arizona, it is inspired in large part by the AIDS Quilt. The Migrant Quilt panels are traveling across the country and the artist/activist Jody Ipsen (the quilt’s originator) and Peggy Hazard (the project’s curator), along with many volunteer makers, hope for a similar impact on hearts and minds.
Women on the border often have a different take on immigration issues: more of a ‘tend and befriend’ approach, a kind of common sense, needle-to-fabric mend. The responses of women to the Migrant Quilt exhibit define the soft heart of what it means to be human. The day we visited, we watched female visitors leaving in tears.
“Docents had to go out and buy boxes of tissues” said Ipsen, “you cannot walk away from this without being moved.”
The 17 quilts in the project bear the names of people who have died each year crossing the desert in the Tucson Sector since 2000—the year the county medical examiner’s office began documenting the names of the dead, including unidentified remains. Patched together with denim, work shirts, embroidered cloth, and bandanas left behind on the desert floor, the quilts are scrappy in design and raw with truth.
Many of the bordados (embroidered cloths) stitched into the Migrant Quilts are inscribed with endearments. Contigo en la Distancia (With You Far Away) or Duerme Amor Mio (Sleep My Love) shock the viewer with familial intimacy. These personal embroideries, sometimes used as servilletas to carry food across the desert, are often blessed then sent along with a traveling family member. The embroideries have come a long way. Now they rest alongside the names of the deceased.
Each quilt represents countless lives lost on border ground, a hundred-mile strip of geography spanning two countries. The interstitial border region has morphed into a distinct culture of its own, and the quilts, with their binational contributors, fly its flag.
On the US side of the border, volunteers create each piece according to their own inspiration. Worn material migrates through the quilts and melds in the viewer’s eye. Names of the dead rise off the surface in bas-relief like rogue wildflowers pushing up through the desert floor, commanding the same kind of attention as the white crosses we see strung with wire in and around the slats of the border wall.
“Quilts have traditionally been made to memorialize loved ones who died,” said Curator Hazard, “and also, to raise consciousness.” In the Nineteenth century, women used quilts not only to raise funds for the anti-slavery movement, but to express their feelings about slavery.
Memory is the first form of resistance, and quilt-making—a primary tool of resistance and remembrance—stands the test of time. At QuiltCon 2018, the Modern Quilt Guild’s annual convention, the exhibits were honeycombed with activist quilts. The resurgence in “truth textiles” also carries on at the Social Justice Sewing Academy, which empowers youth activists for social change.
The humblest materials can communicate what cannot be said in dangerous times, can comfort the family, and can mourn the dead. Quilting, embroidery, and applique—arts of hearth and home—remain a language shared.
Two decades ago in Northern California, our fragile but fierce community took turns stitching Liz’s favorite piece of mud cloth onto a quilt. I remember the silence that day as we worked together, united in the province of memory. Craig, Liz’s long-time brother-in-arms, his large brown eyes brimming with tears, leaned over and carefully sewed a cowrie shell onto the fabric. Craig would be the next to die.
Now, on our southern border, our neighbors continue to die crossing cultures. The personal is political and the political is spiritual. Rather than ask “How do we build higher walls?” we are best served as people to ask, “How do we meet?” and “How do we mourn?”
The root of the word ‘memory’ stems from the word ‘mourn.’ The devotional art of making quilts in the service of others allows us on the US side of the border wall to touch the essence of the Other, to offer witness, and to mourn.
The Migrant Quilt Project succeeds where rhetoric fails. Pinning and stitching, working the cloth to make sure the dead are not forgotten, these quilt-makers trust that no one turns a blind eye.
This article was first published in Kosmos Journal.
The Migrant Quilts are on exhibit at the New England Quilt Museum in Lowell, Massachusetts, through July 15. After that, they will travel to Michigan and Illinois. See here for the exhibit schedule and more information.
Valarie Lee James is an Artist, Writer and Benedictine Oblate on the AZ-MX Border called to contemplative arts, activism, and ecology. Her website is here.
Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net
Whither Wahhabism?
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could well dash expectations that he is gunning for a break with Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism rather than a shaving off of the rough edges of Wahhabi ideology that has been woven into the kingdom’s fabric since its founding more than eighty years ago.
Credit: Muslimpress
Prince Mohammed has fuelled expectations by fostering Islamic scholars who advocate a revision of Wahhabism as well as by lifting a ban on women’s driving and creating space for entertainment, including music, theatre, film, and, for conservatives, controversial sports events like wrestling.
The expectations were reinforced by the fact that King Salman and Prince Mohammed have called into question the degree to which the rule of the Al Sauds remains dependent on religious legitimization following the crown prince’s power grab that moved the kingdom from consensual family to two-man rule in which the monarch and his son’s legitimacy are anchored in their image as reformers.
To cement his power, Prince Mohammed has in the past year marginalized establishment religious scholars, detained critics and neutralized members of the elite by arresting relatives, prominent businessmen, and officials and stripping them of much of their assets.
In doing so, Prince Mohammed has subjugated the kingdom’s ultra-conservative religious leaders through a combination of intimidation, coercion and exploitation of religious dogma particular to a Saudi strain of ultra-conservatism that stipulates that Muslims should obey their ruler even if he is unjust. Islam “dictates that we should obey and hear the ruler,” Prince Mohammed said.
In an optimistic projection of Prince Mohammed’s changes, Saudi researcher Eman Alhussein argued that the crown prince’s embrace of more free-thinking scholars has encouraged the emergence of more “enlightened sheikhs,” allowed some ultra-conservatives to rethink their positions, enabled a greater diversity of opinion, and fundamentally altered the standing of members of the religious establishment.
“The conflicting and different opinions presented by these scholars helps demolish the aura of ‘holiness’ some of them enjoyed for years… The supposed holiness of religious scholars has elevated them beyond the point where they can be questioned or criticized. Ending this immunity will allow the population to regain trust in their own reasoning, refrain from being fully reliant on scholarly justifications, and bring scholars back to Earth,” Ms. Alhussein said.
The crown prince’s approach also involves a combination of rewriting the kingdom’s religious-political history rather than owning up to responsibility and suppression of religious and secular voices who link religious and social change to political reform.
Some Saudi scholars argue that the degree of change in the kingdom will depend on the range of opinion among religious scholars. They suggest that change will occur when scholars are divided and stall when they speak with one voice. The wide range of opinion among Islamic scholars coupled with Prince Mohammed’s autocratic approach would appear, according to the argument of these scholars, to largely give him a free hand. Reality, however, suggests there may be other limits.
“Prince Mohammed is unlikely to pull off a break with the Wahhabi religious establishment because the clerics have proved to be resilient and have displayed a great capacity to adapt to transitions and vagaries of power… The crown prince’s public denunciations of extremist ideas and promises to promote moderate Islam have been interpreted as a renewed desire to break with Wahhabism. A closer reading shows that Prince Mohammed primarily condemns the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists and exonerates Wahhabism,” said Nabil Mouline, a historian of Saudi religious scholars and the monarchy.
Mr. Mouline went on to say that “the historical pact between the monarchy and the religious establishment has never been seriously challenged. It has been reinterpreted and redesigned during times of transition or crisis to better reflect changing power relations and enable partners to deal with challenges efficiently.”
Predicting that Wahhabism would likely remain a pillar of the kingdom in the medium term, Mr. Mouline cautioned that “any confrontation between the children of Saud and the heirs of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab will be destructive for both.”
Prince Mohammed has indeed in word and deed indicated that his reforms may not entail a clean break with Wahhabism and has been ambiguous about the degree of social change that he envisions.
He has yet to say a clear word about lifting Saudi Arabia’s system of male guardianship that gives male relatives control of women’s lives. Asked about guardianship, Prince Mohammed noted that “we want to move on it and figure out a way to treat this that doesn’t harm families and doesn’t harm the culture.”
Similarly, there is no indication that gender segregation in restaurants and other public places will be formally lifted any time soon. “Today, Saudi women still have not received their full rights. There are rights stipulated in Islam that they still don’t have. We have come a very long way and have a short way to go,” Prince Mohammed said.
Multiple incidents that illustrate contradictory attitudes in government policy as well as among the public suggest that liberalization and the restructuring of the elite’s relationship to Wahhabism could be a process that has only just begun. The incidents, moreover, suggest that Prince Mohammed’s top-down approach may rest on shaky ground.
Prince Mohammed last month sacked Ahmad al-Khatib, the head of the entertainment authority he had established after a controversial Russian circus performance in Riyadh, which included women wearing “indecent clothes,” sparked online protests.
Complaints of creeping immorality have in the last year returned the religious police, who have been barred by Prince Mohammed from making arrests or questioning people, to caution unrelated men and women from mixing.
The police, officially known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, said in a statement in 2017 that it was starting “to develop and strengthen fieldwork.” It said its officers would have a greater presence on “occasions that require it,” such as school holidays.
Saudi sports authorities in April shut down a female fitness centre in Riyadh over a contentious promotional video that appeared to show a woman in figure-hugging workout attire. “We are not going to tolerate this,” Saudi sports authority chief Turki al-Sheikh tweeted as he ordered that the centre’s license be withdrawn.
A Saudi beauty queen withdrew last December from a Miss Arab World contest after being attacked and threatened online.
Holders of tickets for a concert in Jeddah by Egyptian pop sensation Tamer Hosny were surprised to receive vouchers that warned that “no dancing or swaying” would be allowed at the event. “No dancing or swaying in a concert! It’s like putting ice under the sun and asking it not to melt,” quipped a critic on Twitter.
Shireen al-Rifaie, a female television, was believed to have fled the kingdom in June after the General Commission for Audio-visual Media said she was being investigated for wearing “indecent” clothes during a report on the lifting of the driving ban for women. Ms. Al-Rifaie’s abaya, the garment that fully cloaks a woman’s body, was blown open as she was filming on a street a report on what the lifting of the ban meant for women.
While women celebrated last month’s lifting of the ban, many appeared apprehensive after activists who had campaign for an end to the ban were arrested calling into question Mohammed’s concept of liberalization. Many said they would stay off the streets and monitor reactions.
Police in Mecca said barely two weeks after the lifting of the ban that they were hunting for arsonists who had torched a woman’s car. Salma al-Sherif, a 31-year-old cashier, said the men were “opposed to women drivers.”
Ms. Al-Sherif said she faced abuse from men in her neighbourhood soon after she began driving in a bid to ease her financial pressures. “From the first day of driving I was subjected to insults from men,” she said. Ms. Al-Sherif was showered with messages of support on social media once the incident became public.
“While the lack of concerted resistance thus far towards women driving may in part speak to a more progressive and younger Saudi society, it would be remiss to assume that those opposing such policies have disappeared from view altogether,” cautioned Sara Masry, a Middle East analyst who attracted attention in 2015 for her blog detailing her experience as a Saudi woman living in Iran.
In adding speed and drama to the Al Saud and the government’s gradual restructuring of its relationship to Wahhabism, Prince Mohammed was building on a process that had been started in 2003 by then Crown Prince Abdullah.
At the time, Prince Abdullah organized the kingdom’s first national dialogue conference that brought together 30 religious scholars representing Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi Sunnis, Sufis, Ismaili, and Shiites.
Remarkably, the Wahhabi representatives did not include prominent members of the kingdom’s official religious establishment. Moreover, the presence of non-Wahhabis challenged Wahhabism’s principle of takfir or excommunication of those deemed to be apostates or non-Muslims that they often apply to Sufis and Shiites.
The conference adopted a charter that countered Wahhabi exclusivity by recognizing the kingdom’s intellectual and religious diversity and countering the principle of sadd al-dharai (the blocking of the means),a pillar of Wahhabism that stipulates that actions that could lead to the committing of a sin should be prohibited. Sadd al-dharai served as a justification for the ban on women’s driving.
Saudi Arabia scholar Stephane Lacroix sounded at the time a cautionary note that remains valid today.
“It…seems that part of the ruling elite now acknowledges the necessity for a revision of Wahhabism. It has indeed become clear that only such a move would permit the creation of a true Saudi nation, based on the modern and inclusive value of citizenship—a reality still missing and much needed in times of crisis. However, the sticking point is that this ideological shift must go hand in hand with a radical reformulation of old political alliances both at home and abroad. And therein lies the problem,” Mr. Lacroix said.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario, Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.
Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
BJP MP uses British ‘divide and rule’ strategy, calls Christians ‘angrez’ at Muslim gathering
BJP MP Gopal Shetty has stirred up a huge controversy with his ignorant and malicious remarks against India’s Christians. Addressing a gathering of Muslims in the north Mumbai suburb of Malad, Shetty is reported to have claimed that Christians were “angrez” (British) and did not play a role in India’s freedom struggle. Shetty’s remarks attracted scathing criticism from not just Christian community leaders but also civil society members and other political parties.
Though Shetty dramatically offered to resign subsequently, he didn’t actually tender his resignation. In fact, he continued to insist that his remarks were taken out of context! One wonders what the context was, given how comments against Christians were made at a gathering of Muslims. Is this a ploy to pit one minority against other? Isn’t ‘divide and rule’ a British strategy, Mr. Shetty?
Meanwhile, the Aam Admi Party that has filed a complaint with the State Minorities Commission and demanded Shetty’s resignation. In a strongly worded statement AAP’s Maharashtra Unit calls out the absence of facts in Shetty’s diatribe against Christians. The statement says, “This is both factually incorrect, provocative and a deliberate attempt to breach peace and harmony in society by using divisive politics.”
The statement then goes on to give examples of prominent Christian freedom fighters such as JC Kumarappa (Mahatma Gandhi’s economist), Kali Charan Banerjee from Bengal, Bishop Thevarthundiyil Titus (who is depicted in Gandhi’s Dandi March sculpture), Pandita Ramabai, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (India’s first health minister), Joseph Baptista (Lokmanya Tilak’s lawyer and co-founder of the home rule movement who is also credited with coining the term ‘Swaraj is my birth-right and I shall have it’) among others.
In a delicious irony, AAP notes, “MP Gopal Shetty himself went to a convent school- Our lady of Remedies, Poinsur, Kandivali-West.”