Israel: What ‘coexistence’ looks like in a segregated city

February 8, 2016

The knife found in the backpack of one of the 13-year-old girl’s backpack following last week’s stabbing attack in Ramle.
(photo: Israel Police)

‘Coexistence’ in one of Israel’s major mixed cities means Palestinian citizens must forget who they are, where they were born, and whom they were born to

Two eighth grade girls from Ramle’s Juwarish neighborhood stabbed a security guard at the central bus station last Thursday (February 4, 2016). Following the incident, I thought a lot of about Ramle. I was born and raised there, and many of my family members still live in the city. Ramle is, for better or for worse, the landscape of my childhood, the place I always go back to. As a child, I participated in various “coexistence” activities with local Arab children. We met at the pool, at summer camp, at school. But I did not live in a “mixed city” — I lived in a segregated city: I did not know their language, and it took me time to understand why our neighbors put up a Christmas tree in their living room, or why fireworks lit up the sky on Christmas Eve.

And though I lived in a segregated city, Haaretz recently published a list of education experts and local leaders who praised the city for its coexistence, among them was Mayor Yoel Lavi, who said: “Ramle is a multicultural city where Jews coexist alongside Arabs as neighbors. We will continue to be good neighbors with no difference between sectors.”

In an interview in 2005, Lavi said: “There are homes in Juwarish that are nicer than those in Kfar Shmaryahu. How can people call it a refugee camp? There is an excellent school there…and houses that are reminiscent of the Loire Valley.” In that same interview, Lavi talked about the local elections and his relations with the Arab population of the city:

“I come crawling on all fours, begging that they vote for me. Someone gets up and says: ‘How can we vote for you when you have a sign that says ‘The people are with the Golan?’ I did not let him continue. I told him, ‘Listen. I don’t like your wisecracks. I didn’t come to talk about national issues. I came to deal with the fact that you don’t have water or sewage infrastructure, that you don’t have roads and sidewalks. If the Arab sector wants to talk to me about national issues, I will be the first to shoot you. I have a lot of life experience. Every time I shot at Arabs I stayed alive and they didn’t. Fuck off.’ So I left. I solved all the infrastructural problems in Juwarish. There is a reason they vote for me. Whenever they break the law I strike. But I am the first to defend them when it comes to their rights.”

Palestinian citizens of Israel are part and parcel of this place. Infrastructure, water, sewage, education, professional opportunities, cultural budgets — these are all rightfully theirs. Talk of acting “for them” or “in their name” is nothing but a patronizing distraction from this truth.

In those same years, Lavi refused to give Arab names to the streets in Ramle, saying that those who don’t like the decision can either move to Arab towns or “change their Allah.” He later apologized, although two years later Israel’s attorney general decided not to appoint him to head the Israel Land Administration (ILA). Even the chairman of the ILA, one of the most discriminatory and problematic bodies in Israel, cannot stand Lavi’s remarks and policies.

Lavi’s remarks show exactly what kind of “coexistence” is acceptable to him: the kind in which people are made to forget who they are, where they were born, and whom they were born to. The kind where people are made to forget their language, their culture, and their god. People will talk endlessly about brainwashing or fanatical identification with the Palestinian struggle, while forgetting one simple fact: Palestinian citizens of Israel are part and parcel of this place. Infrastructure, water, sewage, education, professional opportunities, cultural budgets — these are all rightfully theirs. Talk of acting “for them” or “in their name” is nothing but a patronizing distraction from this truth.

As usual, words of wisdom come directly from those we refuse to listen to — those we prefer to forget. At the end of the Haaretz article, the children of Juwarish say, “On the bus ride here we felt that everyone was staring at us and was afraid of us. It’s frightening to be children in this city because everyone suspects you.” I don’t know which city Yoel Lavi lives in. Probably a different one altogether.

(Courtesy: +972 Magazine. Zohar Elmakias is an editor for Haokets, where this article was first published in Hebrew).

How Chhatisgarh’s Contract Workers Overcame the Odds

February 8, 2016

A deep commitment to collective rights from the local union, international solidarity and grit ensured that the contract workers of Chhattisgarh inked a remarkable settlement, this January

January 22, 2016 marks a watershed in a 25 year long struggle for contract workers in the ACC Jamul Cement Works (now Lafarge Holcim plant),Chhattisgarh when their union the Pragatisheel Cement Shramik Sangh (PCSS) signed a settlement that is exceptional, on many counts.

For the past quarter of a century, the Pragatisheel Cement Shramik Sangh (PCSS), a union affiliated to the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Mazdoor Karyakarta Committee), has been fighting a long battle on the streets and within the courts. The protests and legal action(s) have been against the hard conditions of work for the contract workers in the cement plant of ACC Jamul that violate both fundamental rights and the law. The ACC Jamul plant has kept its contract workers in dismal conditions in violation of the industry-wide Cement Wage Board Agreement.

In 2006 the Union won an order for the regularisation of hundreds of contract workers, which was partially upheld by the High Court in 2011, limiting the relief to approximately 120 workers who were still in service. Even this High Court Order could not be implemented. The reasons:an intransigent management that refused to even recognise, far from negotiate with the PCSS, and which grew even more powerful as it was incorporated into Holcim andthen LafargeHolcim, a multinational; a callous and toothless labour department; and a hostile, pro-corporate right wing state government.

Strikes and dharnas followed until the matter was dragged back into court. This dispute lay pending before a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

In the year 2012, two things happened. First, the PCSS got support from the Global Federation IndustriALL and solidarity from Solifonds and Unia—international global solidarity organistaions for workers working in multinationals. The solidarity organisations filed a complaint against Holcim before the Swiss National Contact Point (NCP) of the OECD in Berne, Switzerland,pointing out that Holcim was disobeying the guidelines for multinationals by violating Indian labour standards and court orders, by refusing collective bargaining in good faith, and by violating the rights of the surrounding farming communities.

Second, and simulataneously, Holcim began constructing a huge, highly mechanised, state-of-the-art new expansion plant in Jamul, aimed for several times more capacity. It fondly imagined that after closing down the old plant and getting rid of its 1200 odd workers (and of course their Union too!) it would run this plant with some 90 highly trained workmen from outside. Right from the inception of this plant, PCSS began agitating for local employment and intervened several times for the rights of the thousands of construction labour engaged there.

After many delays and much procrastination, discussions actually began between the top management of Lafarge Holcim and the PCSS, following directions of the Swiss NCP, first in Berne and then, from 2014 onwards, in India. The negotoations threw up a difficult choice for the Union –(to push for )the benefits of regularisation and arrears to a small group of workers as directed by the High Court versus (negotiating for) minimising the retrenchment that was being proposed.

At this point the workers who were among the beneficiaries of the High Court order, showed a remarkable collective union spirit in giving up those benefits to push for maximum deployment of existing workers in the new and old plants with better working conditions; and the maximum compensation package with alternative livelihood support to those who were to lose jobs.

Despite some discouraging rounds and many heated discussions, the PCSS team, led by its chief negotiator Ashim Roy of the NTUI, and the management, led by Behram Shirdewala, Chief People Officer, were able to persist and finally arrive at a settlement. This was despite the opposition of the local political class and vested interests, especially the 22 contractors and their 60 supervisors who were also to be rendered irrelevant in the whole process.
The settlement (the copy of the settlement can be read) provides the following:
Of the 932 contract workers, 536 of them would be deployed in the new and old plants – 212 of them at Cement Wage Board rates (about 4 times the minimum wage), 196 at 50% of the Cement Wage Board rates (twice the minimum wage) to be enhanced to full wage board rates in 2 years; and the remaining at 25% above minimum wages – to be enhanced to 30% above minimum wages after a year. (These workers were selected through a skill assessment process by the management which the union tried to keep as fair and transparent as possible.)
The remaining surplus workers have been awarded 3 months of wage for every year they worked as compensation (in addition to their gratuity and other legal dues), thus getting packages ranging from over 20,000 for a worker who has worked for a year right up to around 4.5 lakh rupees for older workers.
About 200 of these workers have put in less than 5 years, and another around 75 workers are over 55 years of age. Each such unmapped worker would be entitled to nominate one person from his family to get industrial training from the company’s training centre and support in placement.

For contract workers this marks an unprecedented breakthrough.

Neither the Union nor the workers can be happy about losing jobs. Particularly when it means venturing out of the protective umbrella of the Union into the ‘market’ where dignified employment is a far cry for the average working class Indian given the den of labour law violations that our industrial areas have become.

But, the painful and protracted consultations confirmed that the alternative of legal retrenchment with just one month’s pay –that too after further, endless legal battles –was probably the more painful choice.

The larger political issue of whether such labour – displacing technology is really needed, or should be our priority, needs to be fought for by the larger working class movement of which this union is only a tiny and not very powerful part.

For PCSS, this is the beginning of another round of struggle. To organise contract workers in other units of the cement industry and in other industrial areas; to give these workers a place to come to for solidarity when faced with multiple hardships– slum evictions, agrarian crises, atrocities against women or communal and targeted violence — and to develop a centre for a broader political education. Most of all to establish a co-operative society to save workers from the tentacles of money-lenders, these are the formidable tasks ahead. A detailed Timeline of the struggle in ACC Jamul can be read here:

This is the time to recall all those who helped us through long years. The struggle has not been ours alone. The women and men of the working class bastis of Bhilai and Raipur and villages of Baloda Bazar of who stood in solidarity with us to brave lathis (stick blows) and share the trauma of confinement within jails and lockups; our friends amongst unionists, lawyers, journalists, students, social activists, film makers, and intellectuals in Chhattisgarh and all over the country, who supported us morally and materially; our comrades of IndustriALL, NTUI and Solifonds who through international solidarity made negotiations possible – to all of you, we say a very big thank you.

We also remember, humbly, those who are no longer with us –Comrade Shankar Guha Niyogi and the martyr workers of Bhilai – who remind us of larger political goals and dreams, still a very long and way away. We hope that today’s gains strengthen our resolve to fight the narrow gains of 'economism' and to move towards these wider goals.

Duniya ke Mazdooron Ek Ho!
Looteron ki Jageer Nahi, Chhattisgarh Hamara Hai!
Inquilab Zindabad!

(This has been jointly issued by Bansi, Lakhan, Ramakant, Rajkumar, Kaladas, Saraswati, Kaushal, Neera,Shalini, Rinchin, Shreya, Mahesh, Sudha, Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Mazdoor Karyakarta Committee)

It pays to advertise values

February 8, 2016

Research shows a good corporate citizen supports revenue growth, increases profits and offers cost savings

The Super Bowl is not just the biggest and most-watched event of the year in the United States, it’s also one of the most important for advertisers, who shell out an estimated US$5 million for every half-minute of air time.

Indeed, the ads are almost as well watched as the game itself, offering companies spending an estimated $377 million altogether a chance to get a laugh, burnish their brands and reach more than 100 million people with their corporate message.

But what if a brand took that large chunk of cash and bought something else with it? Is there a better way to spend it that could both be good marketing and do more for humanity?

Audi, which along with its parent company Volkswagen is accused of using software to allow its vehicles to emit excess emissions, for example, bought 60 seconds in the first quarter. Is a minute of product-oriented advertising really the best way it has to restore its image when the essence of its brand is in question?

This is not to say that the 40-some advertisers that have already bought ad time need a new message to repair their brands. Rather, the question for me – with one foot in sport marketing research and the other in public policy – is whether they could do more for society and for their own reputations (typically the purpose of advertising) if they were to take a different tack.

In other words, be brave advertisers! Here’s how.

Branded benefits
This isn’t a novel idea, of course. There are plenty of examples of brand-sport relationships diverting their advertising value to society and benefiting in the process.

This sweeping gesture had a ripple effect as other teams, sponsors and federations took on the social responsibility message. Moreover, it was a meaningful and positive gesture for the watchmaker as well.

More recently, BNY Mellon and Newton Investment Management announced that they would donate their title sponsorship of the Oxford versus Cambridge boat race to Cancer Research UK. As a result, the race to be held on the River Thames in late March will be known as “The Cancer Research UK Boat Races.”

The societal benefits of these actions are clear, but importantly, brands that do good things also benefit.

Research in the U.S. by the Economist Intelligence Unit found in 2008 that being a good corporate citizen supports revenue growth, increases profits and offers cost savings.

Hublot, a Geneva-based luxury watchmaker, did just that after it signed on as a sponsor of UEFA’s Euro 2008 soccer tournament. Rather than use its allocated stadium advertising space to trumpet its brand, it promoted its values instead by donating all of this valuable space to Unite Against Racism, a program that seeks to counter discrimination in European football. This sweeping gesture had a ripple effect as other teams, sponsors and federations took on the social responsibility message. Moreover, it was a meaningful and positive gesture for the watchmaker as well.

Similarly, a research review by RBC Global Asset Management concluded investments in companies with high social responsibility rankings perform just as well as their peers and can even do better.

The Super Bowl itself has already seen some calls for action and delivery of cause-related messages.

At Super Bowl XLVIII, for example, U2, Product (RED) and Bank of America collaborated to benefit the Global Fund, which aims to eliminate AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Also in 2014, Chevrolet used its ad time to support cancer survivors and raise awareness for World Cancer Day.

Consumers, however, seem to want more than just words (and ads). Research by public relations firm Cone Communications shows that 82 percent of those surveyed are more likely to purchase a product from a company that clearly demonstrates results from its CSR initiatives.

A thought experiment
What we need to do, then, is imagine profound social investments. My list may not be the same as others, these are issues I think deserve more attention, but that’s the point: to think freshly about how we spend and invest.

In one thought experiment, I imagined that the $5 million slated for a 30-second ad was instead invested in cookstoves. Yes, stoves for cooking. Small three-stone fires are used by nearly half the world’s population to cook meals, according to InStove, a nonprofit dedicated to relieving suffering by developing renewable technologies.

It doesn’t get a lot of attention, but the firewood harvested for cooking by this method is a major contributor to deforestation and its burning indoors results in 4.3 million premature deaths annually.

A clean-burning cookstove able to use wood and biomass costs only about $1,000 and can serve the needs of an extended family or even a small village. Its high efficiency reduces fuel use by 75 percent to 90 percent and health-harming emissions by 90 percent. Easy math says that $5 million could buy 500,000 cookstoves – enough to supply dozens of countries in Africa and Asia.

This is a trifecta win for the environment, human health and the reputation of a company.

Alternatively, Super Bowl advertisers might band together and – in partnership with a nonprofit – buy a vast tract of old growth forest along the coast in the Pacific Northwest. At an estimated $2,000 per acre, 25 minutes of advertising time (at a cost of about $250 million) could purchase 125,000 acres in Elliott State Forest.

Oregon, which owns the land and allows some logging, is considering selling it. Helping a conservation group to buy it would preserve habitat for species that most of us have read about as children such as the Great Horned Owl, save less known endangered species such as the marbled murrelet that prefers to nest in old growth forest and seed stock for plants we have not even named.

Another idea close to my heart: $5 million would go a long way in limiting the trade of elephant tusks. Poachers reportedly slaughter as many as 35,000 African elephants every year, with only 500,000 estimated to remain alive. One 30-second ad forgone could double the total grant contributions toward elephant conservation administered by the African Elephant Conservation Fund in 2014.

Better for brands and society
The purpose of this article is not to denigrate the Super Bowl, football, advertising, brands or anything else as American as apple pie.

This is about how wealth might be mobilized to do some of the things we know need doing and some of the things that may not have occurred to us.

It’s also about understanding the relative cost of actions with long-term implications for society and environment and how corporations as “citizens” can communicate and validate their social responsibility record. Corporate social responsibility activities are related to economic performance of firms but claims must ring true.

Socially responsible behavior must be validating and observable in order to influence stakeholder actions and have the positive effect on revenues research shows can happen.

Brave corporate decisions, paired with clever communications, need not cost more for the firm than the millions they freely spend on Super Bowl advertising, but it does require that we think creatively.

Any company needing inspiration or an idea of how to back up their CSR words with actions need look no further than the new United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. For the next 15 years, these goals aim to transform our world. After reading the facts there, only a cold soul would be unable to find a CSR project that deserves a $5 million infusion.

This article was first published in The Conversation

Julian Assange verdict: how this curious episode might be brought to an end

February 6, 2016

Reuters/Toby Melville

UN body puts UK and Sweden on trial

The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has decided that Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily held” by a concert of powers – so how might this curious situation play out?

The Working Group finds that Assange is not only entitled to his freedom of movement, but that he has a right to compensation.

This is of course a major PR victory for Assange. And whatever one thinks of the underlying story, the UN Report is a fascinating analysis of the susceptibility of national criminal processes (including on extradition) to international legal review.

So far, there have been no winners in this unique diplomatic quagmire, which has been stagnant since Assange claimed diplomatic asylum in 2012. Both Sweden and the UK have nothing to gain by becoming vicariously liable for his “arbitrary detention”, even if only in the court of international public opinion. Expect angry voices on both sides to raise the matter at this year’s UN General Assembly.

In a sense, the finding of the UN panel is binding mostly as a matter of international moral authority. Should the UK and Sweden choose to ignore the ruling, it could compromise their ability to boldly denounce other perhaps more repressive states in the future – particularly on the basis of any finding by the same UN panel. Both states have appeared over the years at the UN as champions of human rights and dissident cases, and neither has any urge to lose that cachet.

So what now? Despite the chagrin of the British and Swedish governments, there are a few ways forward.

Breaking the deadlock

Swedish officers could visit the Ecuadorian embassy to question Assange and take depositions. Maybe even an extraterritorial trial by an extraordinary Swedish court within the embassy can be arranged. Nothing is impossible in the world of diplomacy.

Assange’s lawyers have urged the charges to be dropped, although this is unlikely to happen before he is formally questioned. Either way, keeping him under what’s now deemed to be “arbitrary constructive detention” will only increase his political martyrdom.

The continuance of diplomatic asylum within the territory of a state hostile towards the accused is always very tricky. The course of events and end game scenarios tend towards the bizarre. US marines blasted hard rock music at deafening levels to flush Manuel Noriega out of the Vatican’s embassy in Panama. Peruvian politician Haya De la Torre was holed up in an embassy for at least three years while Colombia and Peru fought over the matter at the International Court of Justice.

And then there was Umaru Dikko. Dikko, a Nigerian politician who fled a huge corruption investigation at home in 1984, was kidnapped on the streets of London. He was then drugged and crated in what was described as “diplomatic baggage” for export back to Nigeria, accompanied by Israeli agents and doctors tasked with keeping him alive in the crate.It need not come to that. The panel’s conclusions could possibly inject some pragmatism into the whole affair. Assange could capitulate and walk out into the waiting hands of the UK law and be extradited, or perhaps an English court could refuse to allow his extradition based on the UN ruling. Both Assange and Ecuador could drop their claims for compensation for housing and inconveniences.

Now that the decision, however contentious, has been committed to paper and made public, all the concerned parties might finally have an impetus to find the necessary political will to reach some workable compromise to melt this excruciatingly slow-moving diplomatic glacier.

In the meantime, perhaps agents at British, Swedish and American airports should watch out for unusually large diplomatic baggage.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation

Turkey: Crushing the dissenting voice

February 6, 2016

Umit Bektas/Reuters

USA and EU blind to Turkish government’s brutal clampdown in Kurdish regions

While the EU and the US have turned a blind eye to the Turkish government’s brutal clampdown in Kurdish regions, Turkish academics who have spoken out about the regime’s increasingly dictatorial policies have faced punishment and even imprisonment.

A petition published in early January by the Academicians for Peace initiative, criticising the Turkish state’s political and military attacks against the Kurdish people, raised a red flag with its signatories stating: “We will not be a party to this crime.” They wrote:“The Turkish state has effectively condemned its citizens in Sur, Silvan, Nusaybin, Cizre, Silopi, and many other towns and neighborhoods in the Kurdish provinces to hunger through its use of curfews that have been ongoing for weeks. It has attacked these settlements with heavy weapons and equipment that would only be mobilized in wartime. As a result, the right to life, liberty, and security, and in particular the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment protected by the constitution and international conventions have been violated”.

In response, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan immediately demanded that all institutions in Turkey take action: “Everyone who benefits from this state but is now an enemy of the state must be punished without further delay.”

Academics targeted

Following this, Turkish federal prosecutors have investigated 1,128 of the signatories with 33 academics from three Turkish universities in Bolu, Kocaeli and Bursa being detained because of their alleged propaganda for a terrorist organisation and insulting the Turkish nation, state, government and institutions.

Turkey’s top higher education body, the Higher Education Board (YÖK), has called for university administrators to impose disciplinary sanctions against the academics. Subsequently, 109 academics from 42 Turkish universities were subjected to dismissal, discharge, suspension, termination and forced resignation.

A government-backed counter-petition, Academics Against Terror, has also been organised. The Grey Wolves, also known as Idealist Hearts, a formal youth organisation of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in the Turkish parliament, has even marked the office doors of signatories and left written threats.
Despite this, immediately after the government’s response, the number of academics participating in the campaign increased from 1,128 to 4,491. There has also been a public reaction against the government’s tactics.

Within just two weeks, independent petition campaigns organised by a variety of civic and professional organisations have collected more than 60,000 signatories, and supporting statements have been released by 65 organisations that have millions of members across the country.

The original petition has also created much-needed international solidarity with more than 60 international institutions, organisations, leading academics and politicians issuing messages of support and ten international petition campaigns being organised worldwide.

The recent clampdown on academics characterises the scope of the new “counterterrorism” strategy of the Turkish state. This “new” doctrine is again promoting a military solution to the Kurdish question by concentrating state violence against the Kurds and supporters of Kurdish rights.

Political plotting

After a period of fragile negotiations with the hope of ending the decades-long conflict, the new doctrine has emerged since the June 2015 Turkish general elections, when Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) failed to win a majority in parliament for a single-party government.

The government introduced the strategy after the June elections in an attempt to win back the votes of Turkish nationalists in the MHP, a long standing ultra-nationalist political party, and the “borrowed votes” of Turkish dissidents who temporarily collaborated with the HDP, a pro-Kurdish and pro-minority political party.

The Turkish state has effectively condemned its citizens in Sur, Silvan, Nusaybin, Cizre, Silopi, and many other towns and neighborhoods in the Kurdish provinces to hunger through its use of curfews that have been ongoing for weeks. It has attacked these settlements with heavy weapons and equipment that would only be mobilized in wartime.

The Turkish state is also using the Syrian refugee crisis and military intervention against the so-called Islamic State to gain international support from the EU and the US.
In line with the “new” doctrine, the ongoing ceasefire agreement and peace negotiations between the Turkish state and the PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) were officially suspended in July, with a state of emergency and curfew declared in Kurdish territories by the AKP government.

According to a report in Turkish by the Human Rights Association in Turkey, between June and November, 602 people (including 41 children) were killed, 1,300 people were injured, 1,004 people were jailed and 5,713 people were taken into custody during the military operations in Kurdish towns. There were also 134 people killed and 564 injured in two suicide bombings in Suruç and Ankara.

This campaign seemed to pay off for the AKP, with a significant increase in support within the six-month period. The AKP won 49.50% in a second parliamentary election called on November 1 2015, returning their single party majority.

Entrenching positions

It seems that Turkey’s “new” anti-Kurdish doctrine is a strategic, precautionary manoeuvre to maintain the popularity of Erdoğan’s regime. The government is aiming to avoid potential resistance, such as that experienced in the Gezi Park uprising in 2013, which unified a wide range of dissidents including leftists, Turkish nationalists, capitalists from the upper classes and religious groups.
Through its anti-Kurd strategy, the government is simultaneously deepening localised political and social tensions in Kurdish regions and reunifying right-wing nationalist civil society and political organisations under the flag of Turkish chauvinism.

In this light, the petition by Academicians for Peace is not only a revolt against the government’s Kurdish policy, but also a very effective swipe at the crucial point of the “new” strategy. It draws academics, students, intellectuals and other urban professionals together throughout the country, sending a wake-up call to the international public that Erdoğan’s new political and military strategy cannot be tolerated.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation

Explain termination of Dr Sandeep Pandey, High Court orders BHU

February 5, 2016

In a major setback to its summary and unilateral decision to terminate the services of renowned Gandhian, professor and Magsaysay award winner, Dr Sandeep Pandey on January 6, 2016, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to explain the Board of Governor (BOG) decision that led to the termination.

It was in pursuance of Resolution No 3.59 passed at the meeting of the Board of Governors held on December 21, 2015 that the decision to terminate the services was taken. The BOG, of the IIT BHU will now have to defend its resolution, which has been passed, casting stigma and making serious allegations against Dr Pandey. Dr Sandeep Pandey was called 'anti-national', without providing any opportunity for him to be heard, or giving him a chance to respond or explain. The BOG simply took cognisance of a letter from a student of M.A. IInd year Political Science (who never attended the IIT classes), even without taking any pains to verify the correctness of the allegations leveled. Dr Pandey was Visiting faculty at the IIT, BHU.

This action had drawn widespread condemnation across the country and was seen to be not just arbitrary but a manifestation of the machinations of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sway on the everyday functionings of the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).(See story below). The termination of the services of Dr. Sandeep Pandey as visiting faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT BHU was challenged by him in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5323 of 2016, Sandeep Pandey Vs. Union of India and others.

The matter was taken up before the High Court at Allahabad on Friday, February 5, 2016 before the bench consisting of Justices V.K. Shukla and M.C. Tripathi. The High Court under its order has asked the counsel appearing for IIT BHU to seek instructions in the matter as to how he defends the termination order and has posted the matter for hearing on February 11, 2016. Advocate Rahul Mishra, appeared for Dr Pandey and Ajeet Kumar Singh for IIT BHU.

Dr Pandey in his petition has argued that his removal is an open abuse of power on ideological and non-academic grounds and it has its roots somewhere else. Besides he has argued that
the Vice Chancellor-Professor G.C. Tripathi was appointed as the Chairman of IIT Board of Governors by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India, bypassing the panel of five names recommended by the resolution of the Board. Professor G.C. Tripathi and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT (BHU), Professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen are associated with RSS, who has primarily forced the decision.

-The decision taken by the Board for terminating the services of Dr Pandey sans any academic considerations and it is merely on account of conflict of ideologies and therefore if such a decision stands vindicated, it will surely pose a threat to the basic fundamental freedoms granted in the Indian Constitution.

-The decision of the Board at the instance of the Chairman is in fact a step further to saffronisation of the IIT (BHU) and the University and in our democratic state such an attempt which is aimed at suppressing the ideologies is required to be nipped in bud as otherwise it will have serious effects.

-The framers of our Constitution have given to us the fundamental right in the shape of freedoms as detailed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly freedom to speak under Article 19 (1) (a), which includes professing even different ideologies and State is prohibited from curbing such freedoms which are subject only to some reasonable restrictions (in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence) and the IIT (BHU) by means of the resolution and the consequent termination order has made a dent upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

-The BOG resolution and order under challenge in the petition, has nothing to do with the academic performance of Dr Sandeep Pandey and he has been simply punished by the dictates of the Chairman of the Board. The Board was guided in its decision with the complaint of Avinash Pandey which appears to have been procured, without any verification. The truthfulness of the contents of the complaint were not verified through any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It was a rushed and un-thought through decision. .

-The branding of Dr Pandey as anti-national under the opinion formed by the Board has very serious effects as he is being sought to be permanently non-suited for any appointment/ engagement by any academic institute and that too without any enquiry or opportunity for him to be heard.

-The resolution and termination order under challenge in the High Court, which is stigmatic and passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner, Dr Pandey, and without even any fact finding enquiry-(i) goes to infringe fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16, 19 (1) (a) & 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice & (iii) is wholly without jurisdiction because it was passed in the absence of any agenda on the board.

See also
Intolerance Strikes, Sandeep Pandey is out of BHU

https://sabrangindia.in/article/intolerance-strikes-sandeep-pandey-out-bhu

RSS hardliners ensured the premature termination, says Pandey

My contract at the IIT, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi as a visiting faculty has prematurely ended after teaching there for two-and-a-half years. This decision was prematurely taken by the Board of Governors (BOG). In a recent Board meeting the Vice Chancellor of BHU, who was made the Chairman of the IIT Board of Governors by the Minister of HRD, government of India, Smriti Irani, after by-passing the panel of five names recommended by a resolution of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, professor G.C. Tripathi, and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT, BHU and professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), primarily forced the decision.

The charges levelled against me are that I am a Naxalite, showed a banned documentary on Nirbhaya case and am also involved in anti-national activities.

I wish to clarify that I'm not a Naxalite. The ideology that I would consider myself closest to is Gandhian.

But I do identify with the causes taken up by Naxalites even though I may not agree with their methods.

The banned documentary on Nirbhaya made by BBC was to be screened in my Development Studies class during the even semester of academic year 2014-15 but the decision was withdrawn after intervention of Chief Proctor of the BHU and officer of the Lanka Police Station just before the class. However, a discussion on the issue of violence against women in our society was conducted after screening a different documentary.

I do not believe in the idea of a nation or national boundaries, which I think are responsible for artificial divisions among human beings similar to the ones on the basis of caste or religion. Hence I cannot be anti or pro-nation. I am pro-people. I'm not a nationalist but am a universalist. I have no regrets as the decision to terminate my contract has not been taken based on my academic performance but it is because of my political views and activities. I've enjoyed my stay at IIT, BHU and wish the Institute and the University the best.

(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-founder of Aasha)

Dying for Knowledge

February 5, 2016

Amel Zenoune-Zouani’s watch stopped at 5:17.

That is the moment she fell in the street on January 26, 1997, an instant after a member of the Armed Islamic Group cut her throat on the outskirts of Sidi Moussa.

In November 2012, when I am finally able to locate them in a quartier populaire east of Algiers, I spend several hours talking with Amel’s mother, Houria, and her surviving daughters. Sitting on the couch in front of her TV, Khalti Houria (Auntie Houria) as everyone calls her, wears a long blue dress and glasses that hang around her neck. Both stalwart and shattered, she shows me Amel’s watch, which was returned by the gendarmes. Its white face features small green flower buds just under the spot where the glass is broken. The second hand still aims optimistically upward, frozen fifty-seven seconds after 5:17, approaching a 5:18 that will not come.

Twenty-two years old and a third-year law student at the University of Algiers, Amel lived in the dorm. She wanted to visit her family on that seventeenth day of Ramadan, a day known as Ghazwat Badr in commemoration of a historic Muslim victory. So she boarded the bus for Sidi Moussa, and would never finish law school.

Amel’s mother tells me everything she had heard about what happened on the bus. Just outside the town, the vehicle was stopped at a faux barrage. Amel occupied a seat behind the driver, who was a neighbor, and held her schoolbag. Though she did not cover her head in Algiers, and wore makeup, she had a friend’s shawl wrapped around her hair when the men from the Armed Islamic Group climbed aboard. One came to Amel, hit her on the shoulder, and said, “Ahl al houkouma” (partisans of the government). “Get up. Kill her.” They grabbed the law student by the arm. Still, she dared to say, “Don’t touch me.” According to Khalti Houria, Amel then “turned and looked at everyone.” Even now the mother appeals to her daughter’s fellow passengers as she weeps: “Amel did not speak but begged you with her eyes and asked you to save her.” No one could. “When they got out of the bus, one armed man had a knife and was rubbing it on the pavement, preparing to kill her.”

There are two versions of what happened next. Some said Amel was kicked as she was getting out of the bus and fell to the ground; others remembered that she had her throat cut while still standing. Her death was an atrocity. It was also meant as a warning. In the moment after
Amel’s watch stopped, the GIA men told all the other passengers: “If you go to school, if you go to the university, the day will come when we will kill all of you like this.”

The terrorists had posted placards all over Sidi Moussa saying that young people must stop studying and stay home. As a law professor, I want to understand why a young woman with her whole life ahead of her would continue her legal education when she could be murdered as a result. Apparently, Amel had said to her father, “I will study law and you will always have your head high. I am a girl, and you will always be proud of me. I will do the work of a man.” Mrs. Zenoune, herself a housewife, had long dreamed of her children studying. All six did.

Amel’s sister Amena explains: “Our mother inculcated in us the idea that studying means you are a free woman. Mom said, ‘I am ready to lose all four of them. I will sacrifice them for knowledge.’ When people remember ‘Amel Zenoune who was assassinated by the terrorists,’ they say, ‘The girl who was killed for studying law.’ People say, ‘She was the example for us.’ ”

While still cherishing the values Amel died for, her death was an agony for her family. And so was the way they found out about it. Sidi Moussa, as the sewing teachers had recalled, was then a wasteland of terror. Its people had no running water, no electricity after the terrorists attacked the power station, and no telephone service. So the family was never sure when to expect Amel or their other daughters home.

Finally, twenty policemen showed up at the door, but, faced with the mother and her younger children, the policemen found themselves unable to deliver the news they had come to give. One asked Houria how many of her daughters studied in Algiers, then told her enigmatically that she and her husband had been ordered to meet the prosecutor in Blida the next day. Their work undone, the cops drove off and left the family wondering in the dark. Khalti Houria had a bad feeling. Any of her college-student daughters, or all three, could have been headed home that night.

When the police left, a group of neighbors came to the apartment, including the bus driver’s wife. Everyone assumed that the family now knew the news. Khalti Houria begged the driver’s wife, “Fatiha, tell me.” So the driver’s wife shared as much as she could: “They cut your daughter’s throat.” This answer only left terrible questions for Khalti Houria. “I said, ‘Which one?’ One neighbor said, ‘The one who wore glasses.’ ” No one seemed to know the precise facts.

With no one able to give her a definite answer, and no working phone, Khalti Houria ignored the evening curfew and took off with her young son, running through the perilous streets of Sidi Moussa until she got to the gendarmerie. When she finally found herself face-to-face with a gendarme, Khalti Houria remembers saying, “ ‘My son, tell me how many of my daughters.’ He said, ‘Madame, one only. The one who was at the law school. She was wearing jeans and a coat.’” The bereaved mother insisted: “Swear to me.” He swore. So, in the most awful moment of her life, she actually felt gratitude. “I prayed and I sat and kissed the earth and I said, ‘God give me strength.’ They were all three at the university. It was a little less painful that it was one rather than two, or three.” Even as she found out she had not lost three daughters, the reality that one was gone, and how, sank in.

But Khalti Houria’s agony gave way to rage. “I sat on the ground and said everything that came into my mind. That hour my struggle began.” Her daughter Amena describes the mother’s long walk home through the desolation of Sidi Moussa. “The commissariat was far from where we lived. All along the road, Mama insulted the terrorists. She didn’t stop. The police said, ‘If we had ten mothers who had lost their child who did what Mme. Zenoune did, the terrorists would never have won in Sidi Moussa. Never.’ There are many who died before Amel, God have mercy on her soul. No one had done what Mom did. It was enormous to make that journey. Not to have fear. For her, it might have been in her head, ‘Who cares anymore?’ ” In the dark streets of the martyred town, Mrs. Zenoune taunted those who had taken her child. “You killed Amel. Come and kill me.”

Eye-to-eye with the terror she had felt over the previous terrible years, that night she defied it. When she got home, she threw open her door that was always bolted shut. “Let them enter.” Khalti Houria continued denouncing the murderers on the balcony of the family home well into the early morning hours when the neighbors got up for Zuhour, or Ramadan breakfast. “Ya haggar.” (You who are unjust.)

“You killed her because she was studying. She was beautiful. She was better than you. Amel, Amel, Amel.” After her jeremiad, the gendarmes came and told her husband that the rest of the family should leave Sidi Moussa immediately.
They buried Amel and left their lives behind them.

One of Amel’s younger sisters, Lamia, later overcame her own despair and went to law school in Amel’s memory, practicing today in Algiers, as her older sister hoped to. “Fundamentalism will not win, even if they say, ‘Allahu Akbar’ all day long,” Khalti Houria swears.

Lamia the lawyer takes me into the small, neat living room to see Amel’s framed portrait, which hangs on the wall. The law student had pitch-black hair that fell just below her shoulders, and luminous dark eyes that are now the centerpiece of this room. She was not smiling when the picture was taken, but her determined expression displays what her classmate Adnane Bouchaïb had told me about her: that she had both the eloquence and the lively personality needed to be a successful lawyer. “She had a big future in front of her,” Adnane recollected.

Somehow, in the portrait on the living-room wall, Amel looks both serene and entirely aware of what her future might actually hold. Her face captures perfectly something she said to her mother not long before her murder. “Mom, please put this in your head. Nothing will happen to us, Inshallah. But if something happens to us, you and Dad, you must know that we are dead for knowledge. You and Father must keep your heads high.”

Amel’s watch stopped at 5:17, but she lives on in Algeria and everywhere else women and men continue to fight fundamentalism, by striving for knowledge, and by keeping their heads held high.

(This book excerpt is from Karima Bennoune, Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism (www.karimabennoune.com) and that is was published by W.W. Norton and Company.)

Why Ambedkar rejected, outright Gandhi’s views on Temple entry

February 5, 2016

Image: Ram Rahman

Gandhi’s refusal to accept that caste was at the core of both inequality and untouchability within Hinduism lay at the heart of their difference

At a historic meeting that marked 83 years ago yesterday, February 4, Ambedkar and Gandhi met at the Yeravada prison in 1933.

Gandhi requested Dr. Ambedkar to lend his support to Dr. Subbarayan’s Temple entry Bill and that of Ranga Iyer. Dr. Ambedkar declined in person. Ten days later, he issued a statement on February 14, 1933. He outlined the impracticability of the bill, crticised it for not making Untouchability illegal and outlined why he would not prefer just temple entry.

Ambedkar in his own detailed arguments, on why he did not support Gandhi on Temple Entry

The main question is: Do the Depressed Classes desire Temple Entry or do they not? This main question is viewed by the Depressed Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it, the Depressed Classes think that the surest way of elevation lies in education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well placed in the scale of social life, they would become respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change, and even if it didn’t happen, it can do no injury to their material interest. Proceeding on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their resources on such an empty things as Temple Entry. There is another reason why they do not care to fight for it. Their argument is the argument of self-respect.

Not very long ago there used to be boards on club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which said “Dogs and Indians” are not allowed. The temples of Hindus carry similar boards today; the only difference is that the boards on the Hindu temples practically say: “All Hindus and all animals including gods are admitted; only Untouchables are not admitted”. The situation in both cases is of parity. But Hindus never begged for admission in those places form which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them.

Why should an Untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by the the arrogance of the Hindus? This is the reason of the Depressed Class man who is interested in material welfare. He is prepared to say the Hindus, “to open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality, open your temple and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than a gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself for I don’t care to come.”

What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry ? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support.

I found it necessary to put the argument in this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men like Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya of their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward for their patronage.

The second point of view is the spiritual one. As religiously minded people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not? That is the question. From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to temple entry as they would be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But their final answer must depend upon the reply which Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus give to the questions namely: What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support.

Indeed they will not only reject it, but they would then regard themselves rejected by Hindu Society and free to find their own destiny elsewhere. On the other hand, if is only to be a first step they may be inclined to support it. The position would then be analogous to what is happening in India today. All Indians have claimed dominion status for India. The actual constitution will fall short of Dominion status and many Indians will accept it. Why? The answer is that as the goal is defined, it does not matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in one jump. But if the British had not accepted the goal of Dominion status, no one would have accepted the partial reforms which many are now willing to accept.

In the same way, if Mahatma Gandhi and the reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they have set before themselves is for the advancement of the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold, it would be easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards Temple entry.

The goal of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the information and consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a religion, which will give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding, I would like to elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils are which are the result of secular causes and social evils which are founded upon doctrine of religion. Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequalities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequalities.

If the Hindu religion is to be their religion, then it must become a religion of Social Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of equality of social status. All that it can do is to recognize as nationals not aliens, if I may use the common terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal. , without being above and below anyone else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the principle of equality of social status : on the other hand it fosters inequality by insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatrias, Vaishyas and Shudras, which now stand toward one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt.

If the Hindu Religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the Caste system and Untouchability, which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is done not only will the Depressed Classes reject the temple entry, they will also reject the Hindu faith. Chaturvarna and the Caste system are incompatible with the self-respect of the Depressed Classes. So long as they stand to be its cardinal doctrine, the depressed classes must continue to be looked upon as low.

The Depressed Classes can say that they are Hindus only if the theory of Chaturvarna and Caste system is abandoned and expunged from the Hindu shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will they show the courage to work for it? I shall look forward to their pronouncements on this issue, before I decide upon my final attitude. But whether Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not, let it be known once and for all that nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes and make them accept temple entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it, is to temporise with evil and barter away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in them.

There is, however, one more argument which Mahatma Gandhi and the reforming Hindu may advance against the position I have taken. They may say: “acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple entry now, will not prevent them from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste. If that is the view, I like to meet the argument right at this stage so as to clinch the issue and clear the road for future developments. My reply is that it is true that my right to agitate for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste system will not be lost, if I accept Temple entry now. But the question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be when the question is put. If he will be in the camp of my opponents, I must tell him I can’t be in his camp now. If he will be in my camp he ought to be in it now.

(Almost all the Depressed Classes leaders of Dr. Ambedkar’s persuasions, endorsed the view of their leader. Srinivasan, Permtai and Malik upheld views of their leader.

Gandhi issued a statement in reply in which he stated : “I am a Hindu, not merely because I am born in the Hindu fold, but I am one by conviction and choice. There is no superiority or inferiority in Hinduism of my conception. But when Dr. Ambedkar wants to fight Varnashram itself, I cannot be in his camp, because I believe Varnashram to be an integral part of Hinduism. )

(Source: SECTION- IV Kalaram Temple entry Satryagraha, Nasik and Temple entry movement, Volume-XVII. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches)

1...2,6052,6062,607...2,697 Page 2,606 of 2,697

Israel: What ‘coexistence’ looks like in a segregated city

‘Coexistence’ in one of Israel’s major mixed cities means Palestinian citizens must forget who they are, where they were born, and whom they were born to

How Chhatisgarh’s Contract Workers Overcame the Odds

A deep commitment to collective rights from the local union, international solidarity and grit ensured that the contract workers of Chhattisgarh inked a remarkable settlement, this January

Julian Assange verdict: how this curious episode might be brought to an end

UN body puts UK and Sweden on trial

Turkey: Crushing the dissenting voice

USA and EU blind to Turkish government’s brutal clampdown in Kurdish regions

Explain termination of Dr Sandeep Pandey, High Court orders BHU

Dying for Knowledge

Why Ambedkar rejected, outright Gandhi’s views on Temple entry

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT