See the reality behind the Ramjas clash which happened recently between students of two different ideologies. Many students stood up against the BJP student union ABVP for there hooliganism (gundagiri). One of the was Gurmehar Kaur, the daughter of a Kargil Martyr. She has been harassed, threatened with rape and death and declared an anti-national on social media ever since. I show how these whole anti-national game is merely a political move and nothing else.
Video Courtesy: Dhruv Rathee
The Supreme Court on Monday said that it would not accept dropping of charges of conspiracy in the demolition of 16th century Babri Mosque on 6 December 1992.
“We will not accept the discharge of Advani and others on technical grounds. We will allow you (CBI) to file a supplementary chargesheet against 13 persons by including the conspiracy charges. We will ask the trial court to conduct a joint trial,” the court told CBI.
The apex court’s order, according to NDTV, will reveal on 22 March whether Advani, now 89, and his other party colleagues including Murli Manohar Joshi and Union Minister Uma Bharti will be on trial for conspiracy.
This charge was dropped by lower court before being upheld by Allahabad High Court too.
Two sets of FIRs were filed after the Babri Masjid was demolitions by Hindutva supporters on 6 December 1992. The first FIR was against senior leaders Hindutva leaders including Advanai, Joshi, Bharti and Bal Thackeray, while the second FIR was against unnamed karsevaks.
Thackeray’s name was removed from the accused after his death.
Over one in four or an estimated 1.7 million global deaths of children under five years of age each year are due to polluted or unhealthy environments, the World Health Organisation said in a new report today.
Every year, environmental risks – such as indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation and inadequate hygiene – take the lives of 1.7 million children under five years, the report said.
The report reveals that a large portion of the most common causes of death among children aged one month to five years diarrhoea, malaria and pneumonia are preventable by interventions known to reduce environmental risks, such as access to safe water and clean cooking fuels.
“A polluted environment is a deadly one – particularly for young children,” said Dr Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General.
“Their developing organs and immune systems, and smaller bodies and airways, make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water,” said Chan.
Harmful exposures can start in the mother’s womb and increase the risk of premature birth.
Additionally, when infants and pre-schoolers are exposed to indoor and outdoor air pollution and second-hand smoke they have an increased risk of pneumonia in childhood, and a lifelong increased risk of chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma, according to the WHO report.
Exposure to air pollution may also increase their lifelong risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer.
A companion report provides a comprehensive overview of the environment’s impact on children’s health, illustrating the scale of the challenge.
Every year 570,000 children under five years die from respiratory infections, such as pneumonia, attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution, and second-hand smoke.
As many as 361,000 children under five years die due to diarrhoea, as a result of poor access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene, the report said.
About 270,000 children die during their first month of life from conditions, including prematurity, which could be prevented through access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene in health facilities as well as reducing air pollution.
The report said that 200,000 deaths of children under five years from malaria could be prevented through environmental actions, such as reducing breeding sites of mosquitoes or covering drinking-water storage.
It also found that 200,000 children under five years die from unintentional injuries attributable to the environment, such as poisoning, falls and drowning.
“A polluted environment results in a heavy toll on the health of our children,” said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health.
“Investing in the removal of environmental risks to health, such as improving water quality or using cleaner fuels, will result in massive health benefits,” said Neira.
Watch here for our latest video update by Rifat Jawaid editor-in-chief, Janta ka Reporter.
For two years in a row, February has brought with it violence and protests on college campuses in Delhi, accompanied by a fractious debate over nationalism. In 2016, it was Jawaharlal Nehru University. This year, an invitation to JNU student Umar Khalid – who was accused of sedition in 2016 – turned into protests and violence outside Delhi University’s Ramjas College. When Delhi University student Gurmehar Kaur spoke up against the violence, the focus turned to her and an earlier video she made calling for peace as the daughter of a soldier who had died in action. The conversation became as much about Kaur’s right to advocate peace, as it was about the violence at Ramjas College.
But even so, a few commentators said that the Right-wing student group, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, was wrong to act the way it did at Ramjas College. R Jagannathan, Editorial Director of Swarajya, a magazine that calls itself the “authoritative voice of reason of the liberal centre-right”, said that the Right should pick its battles better.
The real lesson to learn for the Right from this development is to know which battles to fight and which ones to ignore. Taking on a naïve and possibly idealistic young woman is not going to get you any brownie points even if she is 100 per cent wrong. Ignoring it would have been the best option.
JNU professor Makarand Paranjape, who has said on Twitter that he is happy to be called Sanghi, went even further and called the Ramjas incident a “trap.”
Paranjape’s construction goes further than Jagannathan’s pick-your-battles advice, and effectively victim-blames the students of Ramjas College for having “provoked” the ABVP into violence, as if that were the inevitable outcome. Yet even as he embraces that fallacy, Paranjape acknowledges that the ABVP’s violent approach did it no favours. As he writes in the Indian Express,
Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid seem to fit the classic definition of agents provocateurs. Such persons inflame their enemies into making mistakes, committing illegal acts, thus compromising their own cause. The whole organisation – this time, ABVP – ends up discredited.
But does this exonerate ABVP? Clearly not. When will they learn that resorting to fisticuffs or bending the law is the worst possible strategy to win public sympathy? I can think of a hundred other ways to fight such battles: The best would be to take on their political opponents in an open debate.
On Sunday, Tavleen Singh, an Indian Express columnist who has frequently spoken up in support of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, took a different stand from the other two, who had simply suggested the ABVP messed up by getting violent at Ramjas.
Singh instead questioned the very principle being pulled up here: Whether the ABVP has a right to question someone else’s nationalism, and if pride in a country can be enforced by violent means.
Nationalism can never be imposed by fiat. This should be obvious. But, for some reason, it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is not. Since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, the idea of imposing nationalism by force appears to have gripped too many BJP political leaders. Ministers in particular should refrain from labelling people, but almost daily we hear them warning ‘anti-nationals’ that there will be dire consequences for those who speak against India. A particularly foolish statement came from a minister in the Haryana government last week. It is unworthy of being repeated here.
Unfortunately, he is not the only BJP leader to have offered his opinion on the brawl in Delhi University between students who believe they are nationalists and those they have labelled ‘anti-national’. It is my view that nobody has the right to decide who is a nationalist and who is not, but the two can play the game. So let me make it clear that I believe anyone who seeks to crush dissent and free speech on university campuses is anti-national.
This article was first published on Scroll.in
From Brexit to the Trump presidency and Marine le Pen’s campaign-trail successes in France, right-wing populism is sweeping across the West.
U.S. residents in Mexico protest against President Donald Trump’s foreign policy towards Mexico. Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
Analysts and scholars have expressed concerns that this movement could threaten the fate of liberal democracy, and its hard-fought triumph over other contesting political ideologies since the end the Cold War.
In other words, the “End of History”, as described by the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama, may come to an end.
The rise of right-wing populism may also open a Pandora’s box for demagogues to promote a xenophobic agenda, as evident in Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban.
There is deep fear that populist leaders such as Donald Trump – advised by the right-wing ideologue Steve Bannon – will eviscerate democratic checks and balances in the pursuit of consolidated power.
As a response, activists are calling for civil resistance against authoritarianism, and street protests are being staged to remind the enthroned populists of people power.
Safeguarding democracy through civil resistance is necesary. But it is important to acknowledge the fact that many of these leaders are democratically elected and supported by large segments of society.
We may choose to believe that voters for right-wing populist parties share chauvinistic and nationalistic opinions with their strongmen. However, the popular appeal of these leaders has much to do with the socio-economic decline that some constituents in the West have experienced, and this needs to be addressed if we want to efficiently counter authoritarian regimes.
The increasing “oligarchisation” of liberal democratic societies set a stage for a dignity deficit, especially among white, non-urban and working-class population.
In recent decades, the middle class in the West found their lives unprecedentedly precarious due to increasing unemployment and a lack of social security. The post-Cold War era ushered into force neoliberal dominance.
The speed of economic globalisation means that manufacturing jobs have been lost to countries offering cheap labour, while austerity policies – resulting in cutback in social expenditure – imply that most of the time, individuals are left on their own to finance their increasingly expensive healthcare and education, to name a few necessities.
Automation and immigrants looking for high- and low-skilled jobs in economically advanced countries have raised many questions about the future of employment for the American and European middle classes. These were left unanswered.
Against this backdrop, the well-off have reaped the benefit of globalisation. So have the cosmopolitan urbanites who have caught up with changing socio-economic landscape.
Meanwhile, political elites in Washington, Paris and London are perceived as having ignored this crisis of surging inequality, as they continue neoliberal policies that hurt the working class – people who often consider themselves the backbone of their societies.
For instance, a series of free trade deals have been advocated by governments to be a brainchild of liberal democracy. However, rather than improving work conditions and life chances for common people, many of these deals have strengthened global corporations, contributing to greater inequality.
A good example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which potentially radicalises corporate deregulation, challenging states’ judicial sovereignty, and “imposes fiercer standards of intellectual property”.
Think tanks also point out that the signed and ratified TPP can result in job losses and declining wages.
Right-wing populism is a symptom of society polarised by economic injustice and the collapse of liberal democracy, which has enhanced the distance between political elites and their constituents.
Populist figures such as Trump and le Pen can mobilise popular support sufficiently to contest other liberal or centrist candidates because of their anti-establishment rhetoric.
They acknowledge the injustice and humiliation inflicted on their constituents through the loss of jobs and neglect of the political class.
Often popular anger is being diverted toward immigrants, who are portrayed as a threat to economic and cultural security, resulting in the proliferation of xenophobic attacks. Scapegoating immigrants becomes the expression of fear and vulnerability.
The increasingly precarious livelihood of this section of the population has led to a general perception that their idea of a great nation is in danger.
Populist slogans – such as “Make America Great Again” or “Take back our Country” – respond to this perception and collective emotion attached to it.
Lacking other political alternatives, people find hope in right-wing populist discourse, even when the candidates push forward radical agendas.
In this sense, the social divide runs parallel to the crisis of liberal democracy. Tackling right-wing populism requires not only resistance against leaders with authoritarian traits but also comprehension of why a vast number of people view populism as a hopeful alternative to the existing system.
Resistance in the form of street demonstrations and boycotts remains an important tool for defending democracy. Nevertheless, it does little to address ongoing social bifurcation.
It is difficult to imagine that supporters of right wing-populism, who despise the so-called “political correctness” and see the liberal agenda as irrelevant to their livelihood, would participate in progressive demonstrations such as the Women’s March.
Does this mean that protests end up constituting an echo chamber where the progressive agenda circulates among those already convinced by the progressive ideas? Does it imply that while liberals resist Trump with various methods of nonviolent action, they have so far failed to understand the underpinning causes of populist trajectory, and have thereby missed the chance to communicate with those electing populist leaders?
Is it possible that protests can contribute to dividing society even more as protesters at times claim to hold higher moral ground than their populist opponents?
It is high time to rethink how nonviolent resistance can help counter right-wing populism.
Nonviolent resistance is more than taking to the street. It is political activism in the sense that it offers analytic tools to understand pillars of support of the ruling government, which normally include electoral constituents, bureaucratic bodies and the media.
Well crafted messages should convey to the general public the elites’ legitimacy deficit, and at the same time show the availability to political alternatives.
The messages amplified through persistent campaigns should be conducive to the eventual realignment of allies. Shifting alliances – especially the defection of electoral supporters of the government – wil allow activists to increase political momentum in the pursuit of social and political change.
The implication is that those committing to nonviolent resistance not only resist the powers that be – they also analyse how the ruling power’s discourses resonate with popular resentment, which in effect helps galvanise support to sustain its ruling legitimacy.
This understanding allows activists to design campaigns that show empathy to groups across political affiliations.
In the wake of right-wing populism, these campaigns need to address the structural underpinnings of a collapsing political establishment and offer a genuine platform for debating alternatives based on economic redistribution, reconfiguration of power relations between the political class and the people, and political reconciliation of groups with different aspirations.
Communicating with those you disagree with – instead of reinforcing an echo chamber – is the key to achieving all this.
The ideas laid out above are not completely novel.
Examples of communicating across the aisle appeared during US Civil Rights campaigns where African American leaders tried to appeal to “white consciousness”, extending their political messages to convince white priests and white constituents to endorse the course of the black struggle.
In ousting the Slobodan Milošević, the “Butcher of the Balkans”, Serbia’s pro-democracy movements launched campaigns in Milošević’s rural footholds, areas that had initially endorsed his ethno-nationalism.
Their success lived in the campaign’s association of “healthy patriotism” with the downfall of Milošević, and the creation of peaceful and democratic Serbia. The campaign message sought to unite Serbians whose political opinions were once split along the fault line of pro- or anti-Milošević.
Beyond overthrowing a dictator, a well-run campaign can bridge the perception gaps that divide a nation, reminding us of the importance of constructing the future together based on the idea of dignity, justice and inclusiveness.
This article is adapted from a blog originally published on Cafe Dissensus.
Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, Assistant Professor, Thammasat University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Thorsten Vieth from Bangalore via Wikimedia Commons
Cost of ‘improving’ women’s safety and security in Kerala: Rs 34 crore. Cost of setting up Pink Control Rooms: Rs 12 crore. Cost of rehabilitating survivors of sexual abuse: Rs 5 crore. Cost of teaching men how to behave: Clearly, priceless.
And perhaps the Kerala government understands that there is no price tag on reforming men, so they continue to throw money at the issue of ‘women’s safety and security’. Fueled by increasing attention to cases of gender violence, the Kerala government, possibly desperate to show that it is acting, has now incorporated an independent department for women’s safety, as announced by Finance Minister Thomas Isaac in the state Budget.
Among other things, the department will train women in self defence, work on rehabilitation of survivors of sexual violence, and set up a registry of sex offenders. Activists say that such schemes aren’t really ‘healthy’. “They imply that we are welcoming more offenders and victims. It’s frightening that we are institutionalising and in a way justifying crimes,” says Shailaja J, a social activist.
“The number of women police officers are less in Kerala. Even those who are in the force are trained by male officers. Their behavior to a victim as well as accused of a sexual abuse is the same as that of male officers. Unless the system changes, no measure in this direction is going to work out,” she added. A separate department for women’s safety also keeps the gender narrative firmly in the ‘safety and protection’ domain, with little focus on empowerment and dialogue. While it is important to improve safety infrastructure including (sensitive) policing, most ‘solutions’ that the state – or any institution – can offer are often patriarchal in nature.
Take the most recent instance of the film fraternity in Kerala offering a knee-jerk reaction after the abduction and rape of a prominent actor. The Association of Malayalam Movie Artists issued an advisory to all women actors to stop traveling alone, irrespective of the time of the day.
Such advisories – and other ‘good intentions’ over the years from leaders, associations and governments across the country – do little to stop violence. What they do achieve is further restriction of women’s mobility and freedom, and a complete denial of the real problem: Patriarchy.
Should the state, for instance, be focusing on teaching women self defence – or will the resources be better utilised in looking closely at structures and systems that enable violence against women? Can there be women’s safety without a society that treats women with respect? Can a ‘safety’ department provide women with financial and social independence?
Dr N Lakshmi Priya, Assistant professor MG College Thiruvananthapuram says, “The fact is that women are denied opportunities. They should be brought to the forefront by giving more and more opportunities – and it is a welcome move if an independent department for women can achieve that. But the ultimate aim should be to get rid of things like women’s only department, colleges and buses.”
“We need to sensitise people on the need of building a healthy society. More and more rehabilitation centres and measures to protect women imply that women are nor safe. Create awareness among all; men and women, teach them how to become better human beings rather than spending too much money to deal with after-effects of such crimes,” said writer Lakshmi Rajeev.
Courtesy: The News Minute
The excitement in Varanasi was palpable, and the tension visible at pan shops and dhabas long after the event as different political groups argued, debated and insisted that their party was winning not one, but all the eight Assembly seats.
The local voters moved from one rally to the other to see the turnout for themselves. More so, as most persons spoken to in Varanasi before said that they were waiting for Saturday to guage the mood of the silent voters in the city.
PM Modi did not declare his to be a road show, maintaining that he was just going for a darshan at the temple. But a road show it was, leading the Congress party to file a complain with the Election Commission that the PM had not taken permission for the road show, and yet ensured it was one.
The Prime Minister is sufficiently worried about the outcome, to camp in Varanasi for three days, with yet another roadshow planned for Varanasi later today, Sunday. This has provoked many critical comments from within the BJP with workers privately saying that this kind of campaigning does not behove a PM. “Shobha nahin deta hai,” is the refrain in Kashi that has genetically believes in hierarchy and its preservation.
Hundreds of buses ferried people from neighbouring constituencies as the BJP under president Amit Shah pulled out all the plugs to demonstrate that Varanasi remained the PM’s constituency, and the voters determined to vote the BJP into all Assembly segments here. Senior Ministers of the Union Cabinet have been camping here with Shah, as have top functionaries of the RSS from different states, as have MPs and MLAs from other north Indian states.
The show was big, there were young people, and the route taken by the PM was through densely populated gullies with local residents watching. There was enthusiasm, but locals insisted that this was not comparable to 2014 when Varanasi had brought the PM in as its MP. However, most said it was a success, and wondered if this could be equalled by the SP-Congress alliance with their roadshow later in the day.
But to their surprise, it was. And more so, insist many who travelled with both. The youth were out in large numbers for the Akhilesh Yadav-Rahul Gandhi show given a touch of glamour by the CM’s wife Dimple. Many women were visible at points as a result, and only a part of this road show was through dense areas, the beginning and the end particularly on the main roads that did not have a captive crowd of residents. The roads were cramped, with party flags and the people covering every inch of the space.
Those who were looking at the road shows to determine the results of Varanasi came away more confused than before. This was partly because the status of Varanasi as a BJP ‘garh’ was effectively challenged by the Alliance, leading to renewed debate and discussion in this highly political constituency.
Those with the Alliance, however, are jubilant. As they are the challengers in a city claimed by the BJP as its ‘garh’. The road show and the initial response shows that the challenger has effectively penetrated the walls of power, and many insist loudly money, and has sent out the message that it is in the fray giving a fight to the BJP and PM Modi for every seat.
This also reflects the story of the UP elections. As till date Varanasi, despite the consolidated effort, has not responded to the efforts to communalise the vote. Several persons on the road before the show of strength by all today told The Citizen that Kashi was not going to respond to divisive language. Why? “Because we have faced it all, and we have not allowed communal violence here after 1992,” was the refrain.
There are many messages coming out from the two road shows of Varanasi that can be carried across UP. Primary is that the strong effort to communalise the elections has not worked to the extent expected by the BJP, as the crowds drawn to the Alliance roadshow were dominated by the youth and all castes, including of course the minorities.
The speeches by both Akhilesh Yadav and Rahul Gandhi attacked PM Modi for failing to fulfil all the promises he had made in 2014; and laugh away his statement on qabrisatan and shamshan ghat with the poke, “ he is also dividing electricity” along such lines. The focus remained on development, and a new UP led by the two younger leaders who have been promising to personally take the state forward.
PM Modi too spoke of development, attacked the SP and Congress for doing nothing for the people, but in his campaign there was no other, except himself. The candidate of the BJP in Varanasi South is an unknown RSS worker, and the denial of the ticket to the 7 term MLA from here has stoked a rebellion. However, the Prime Minister’s road show did little to project this unknown candidate, the effort being to convince the people to vote for him. It is true that PM Modi is the brand for the BJP, but whether this will work in an Assembly election as it had in the Lok Sabha polls remains to be seen.
Development for the youth who seem to be driving the polls, not just in Varanasi but across UP, seems to be more important than divisiveness. All across the youth chip into conversations with a “we want jobs” refrain. They were present in large numbers in both road shows, but the enthusiasm evident at the Alliance rally was clearly extra-ordinary for Varanasi where voters also describe themselves as residents of a “BJP garh.”
Akhilesh Yadav has struck a chord amongst the youth in particular, and he along with his wife Dimple really turned the Alliance road show around. This despite the fact that the candidates from the city are both from the Congress party. The excitement was all around him, and even in the responses it is the CM who figures. This response extends outside Varanasi and has been visible to those who care to see, albeit in varying degrees ranging from the moderate to the intense.
Interestingly as Varanasi again demonstrated the Alliance is keeping away from caste and religious politics. The appeal is for bhai chara, with promises of a pro-youth, pro-farmer government in Lucknow. The BJP’s over reliance on PM Modi takes the issue of development to New Delhi, but this is being cut into for the past few weeks now with the appeal that a BJP government at both the centre and the state would help PM Modi develop UP at a fast pace. And that the people should repose trust in him.
Whether they vote or they don’t in the final analysis, the Kashi voter has realised that the BJP is worried and the PM has had to devote three days for the campaign. This has become a major issue of sorts in the gullies of Varanasi with the ordinary person referring to this mockingly, even as the BJP workers counter it albeit a little defensively. It was also referred to by the Alliance leaders in their speeches, clearly playing on the local sentiment of a PM now giving up his foreign travel to spend three days in his constituency during an Assembly election.
Image Courtesy: Aswathy Senan
Avinash, a student of DU, who was one of the organizers of the Ramjas College Seminar which had to be cancelled, addressed the gathering. He said that he doesn’t belong to any student political organisation. He expressed his concern for the University space which was being attacked. He called out to the ABVP members to debate with him; not get violent and keep the culture of debate and dissent alive in campus.
Shashwati Majumdar, teacher of the Delhi University talked about the dubious timing of all this. While privatisation of education is taking place, the right wing organisations are trying to create a distraction so that the issue fades in the background. Last year, when the Occupy UGC movement was going on, ABVP created a binary of Nationalism-Antinationalism in JNU. This time, when there is a fight against an attempt to make the colleges autonomous, they have again created the same binary in DU.
Today’s march was joined by more than 3000 citizens. It was a vibrant protest with people singing songs of peace and resistance.
A DU student in the march said that it is not about the left and the right; it is also not just about the university space. There is a much larger question involved; the attack on freedom of speech goes beyond Universities.
A Delhi University faculty member said “There is an environment of fear in Universities now. We are here today because people need to know what is happening in our universities”.
Let’s recapitulate the events that lead to today’s protest:
Today the people spoke loud and clear. They will defend their freedom of speech, in Universities and out and they will always stand up against violence of any form.
Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.
Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.
