About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2510

Nice attack: how vulnerable are we to ‘low-tech terror’?

By
-
0

Image: abc.net.au

France has again been the scene of a lethal terrorist attack. At least one attacker drove through and then opened fire on crowds of French and foreign citizens enjoying Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, killing at least 80 people and injuring scores more.

Though there is as yet little solid information on who conducted this attack and whether any particular terrorist group can claim responsibility, it has shown what dreadful impact can be caused by the use of an innocuous and familiar part of modern life – a motor vehicle.
 

A long history

Though this attack included the use of firearms and hand grenades, it would seem the great mass of casualties was caused by the deliberate driving of the vehicle at high speed into clusters of people.

Though eventually shot dead, the attacker managed to exact a dreadful toll primarily through use of a vehicle.

The use of vehicles to deliver catastrophic destruction has a long history. Timothy McVeigh’s truck-borne bombing in April 1995 killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in the US. And just a few weeks ago, a truck packed with explosives killed more than 200 and injured hundreds more Iraqi people innocently undertaking their Eid shopping in Baghdad.

All manner of transportation methods have been used as a means of destruction. Vehicles from the motor car to trucks, motorbikes, bicycles and before that even horse-drawn carriages have been used to conduct terrorist attacks against governments and civilians alike in countries as diverse as Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.
 

How can people be protected?

What’s concerning about the Nice attack is that a low-technology pervasive tool of modern society was used as the primary weapon with such dreadful success.

If this attack has been inspired by Islamic State’s exhortations to attack the West with whatever implement is at hand, there are new implications for the security of social spaces.

In 2014, a radicalised individual deliberately drove over two Canadian soldiers. One soldier died. So, do we now have to fear a new “low-tech terrorism”?

We are already aware in modern societies of the risks of irresponsibly driven vehicles. The accidental and deliberate use of vehicles to kill and maim has also been a factor in trying to create secure spaces for pedestrians in malls and kerbside dining venues. In 1983, Douglas Crabbe deliberately drove his 20-tonne truck into a crowded bar in the Northern Territory in Australia, killing five and seriously injuring 16.

In this regard we are all familiar with the installation of bollards and other large immovable devices at the entrances to malls, government buildings and even adjacent al-fresco dining places.

As is the case with any high-tech threats, what’s key is whether those individuals who plot such activities have come to the notice of government security and policing agencies. While such agencies can monitor the plots of those extremists it has knowledge of, it is regrettably entirely possible there are individuals whom the government is not aware of.

The motor vehicle is such an everyday part of our society. And it is possible there are individuals who may be motivated to copy this attack.

Similarly, it is possible there could simply be other individuals who have become thoroughly radicalised who now see this as a low-tech option to plot in their home countries. The Nice attack will have consequences for how those spaces where people enjoy recreation and events are planned.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The Truth Behind Hindu Exodus in Kandhla

By
-
0

What is the truth behind claims of exodus in Kandhla? Newsclick team visited the area and spoke to the residents. With UP elections coming near, the team also spoke to the residents of 2013 riots resettlement camps. Watch to know more.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

Hindu Nationalists bent on Deletion of Word ‘Dalit’ from Textbooks in California Schools

By
-
0

Similar to those from the 2005-6 campaign, the Sangh’s recommendations this time include: excising the word “Dalit” (formerly “Untouchable” persons); devaluing the Aryan Migration Theory; de-linking caste oppression from religion/Hinduism.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak once asked us to consider that the histories of people at the margins are constantly in competition with dominant histories– that when a marginal woman speaks in dissent, the narratives of more powerful social groups can silence or supplant others.[1] This concept is at the heart of controversies around the revision of history textbooks throughout the world. It’s at the heart of the current debates on South Asian history in the California public school curriculum, up for revision this year.

In 2005-6, U.S. wings of Hindu nationalist groups named together as the Sangh Parivar[2] (the Sangh) attempted to insert changes into California’s 6th grade history textbooks. Rewriting history is one of the Sangh’s political projects toward the realization of a Hindu nation, where upper-caste Hindus dominate and benefit from all aspects of society to the exclusion and subordination of all other groups. The 2005-6 effort follows another in India in 2002-2003, when the successful insertion of Hindu nationalist histories into Indian textbooks resulted in a protest walkout by education ministers from 16 states and a scholar-led suit filed before India’s Supreme Court to block the new textbooks. In 2006, South Asian scholars and minority and other progressive activists defeated the U.S. Sangh in a public clash.[3] The California State Board of Education (SBE) rejected most of the Sangh’s edits, leading the Sangh to file two lawsuits against the SBE, both of which lost on claims of discrimination against Hindus.

Since 2006, Sangh groups have led anti-minority mass violence in India—against Christians in the state of Orissa (now Odisha)[4] in 2007-2008, and against Muslims in Uttar Pradesh (Muzaffarnagar) in 2013. These violent events echo the state- and police-supported pogroms[5]against Muslims in 2002 in Gujarat, where scholars and activists documented Hindu chauvinist and Nazi-inspired content in educational materials in the time period leading up to the mass sexual violence and killings. The concerns regarding textbook histories are transnational, linked to identity, belonging, and marginalization connected to gender, class, race, and caste.

This year, the SBE is updating the California History-Social Science Framework, a government-produced curriculum guidebook for educators and textbook publishers. Several Sangh groups have participated in the government’s public input process to suggest changes to Framework content. Similar to those from the 2005-6 campaign,[6]the Sangh’s recommendations this time include: excising the word “Dalit” (formerly “Untouchable” persons); devaluing the Aryan Migration Theory[7]; de-linking caste oppression from religion/Hinduism; diluting or erasing birth as the defining criterion of caste; removing the word “patriarchy” to describe ancient realities of South Asia;inserting the Saraswati River in connection with the Indus Valley Civilization; erasing Ravidassi and Sikh resistance to caste oppression; and inserting changes to support a historical narrative of foreign Muslim invaders vs. Hindu victims, among others.

People unfamiliar with India’s discursive and cultural worlds have expressed bewilderment at the tumult these suggestions sparked in South Asian diasporic communities. Many of the U.S. Sangh’s edit suggestions are coded to assert a Hindu nationalist version of South Asian history, energizing bigotries and anti-minority targeting. In addition to being historically inaccurate, many Sangh suggestions are also painful to those who have suffered and resisted Hindu nationalist and caste-based violence, including Christians, Dalits, Muslims, Ravidassias, Sikhs, progressive Hindus, and others opposing the Sangh’s nativist and supremacist politics.This explains the rise of South Asia scholars and the interfaith and inter-caste group South Asian Histories for All (SAHFA), composed of members from these communities,in opposition to the Sangh.

The U.S. Sangh made numerous changes in the first round of input in 2014, including the removal of the term “Dalit,” the self-chosen identity of those most intensely targeted by caste oppression.In the second round (December 2015-February 2016), a South Asia Faculty Group (SAFG)– comprising of academics from well-respected U.S. universities, mostly scholars of South Asian heritage– suggested changes to remove inaccurate information and nationalism-coded language from the Framework. The SAFG’s edits are supported by SAHFA and are consonant with the recommendations of an independent Dalit-Bahujan faculty group.These groups and their allies are now facing off against the U.S. Sangh.

The Sangh’s Many Faces

As the Sangh does in India, the U.S. Sangh seeks to represent all Hindus, taking form as multiple organizations that work in a coordinated fashion.In the Framework controversy, the Sangh groups include:the California Parents for the Equalization of Education Materials (CAPEEM), the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), and Uberoi Foundation.

All of them have made recommendations to revise the Framework to the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), the curriculum advisory body to the SBE, and all of them are linked to the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), the U.S. wing of the India-based Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The RSS is known outside of India for its affiliation with Nathuram Godse, the assassin of M.K. Gandhi. It and its affiliates have been reported by the U.S. Commission on International Freedom, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,India-based citizens groups, and Indian governmental bodies to have carried out mass and targeted physical and sexualized violence against their opponents and religious minorities. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has characterized the India-based Sangh as “extremist.” Sangh violence, including the use of rape against minority communities, is discursively underpinned by Hindu nationalist histories.

The Sangh’s political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rules India at this time. Shortly after coming to power in 2014, the BJP government appointed an RSS leader as the chair of a prestigious historical research institution, and in late 2015, 53 leading Indian scholars issued a public statement against the chilled atmosphere for intellectual freedom in India, where “differences of opinion are being sought to be settled by using physical violence” and “the [BJP] regime seems to want… a kind of legislated history, a manufactured image of the past, glorifying certain aspects of it and denigrating others.”In May 2016, it was reported that a newly revised textbook in the Indian state of Rajasthan omitted the assassination of M.K. Gandhi by Nathuram Godse.In the U.S., media attention has been directed away from such trajectories in India and toward the Sangh-led outcry over the replacement of a minority of the instances of the term “India” in the Framework with a selection of geographical terms, such as “South Asia.”

In the context of the California curriculum controversy, CAPEEM, HAF, HEF, and Uberoi Foundation submitted separate and overlapping recommendations, possibly giving the impression of multiple parties coming to similar ideas independently. Their overlapping suggestions include the deletion of the words “Dalit” and “patriarchy,” and the erasure of Sikhism’s challenge to caste authority.

These groups’  alignment with the HSS can also be inferred by examining their funding and leadership.The HEF is the education project of the HSS,[8] and CAPEEM received funding from the HSS in 2007.[9] The Uberoi Foundation’s Chair is Ved Nanda, the President of HSS.[10] And though in May 2016 Hindu American Foundation’s Samir Kalra stated on Diya TV that HAF is an “independent organization”[11] from other groups in the Framework controversy, Uberoi Foundation’s tax returns and annual reports from 2012-2014show that HAF has applied for and received at least$82,000 from the Uberoi Foundation in those three years.

In addition to submitting suggestions to the Framework, the Uberoi  to have connections at the California Department of Education. In this year’s March 24 and May 19 public IQC meetings, the IQC commissioners used the Uberoi Foundation’s documents as a reference for decision-making, a commissioner at times giving voice to Uberoi’s challenges to SAFG recommendations while SAFG members or progressive activists sat in the audience, their voices muted by procedure.

In contrast to the Uberoi Foundation, the presence of CAPEEM and HAF, the two groups that sued the SBE in the past, likely reminds the SBE of the possibility of legal action. In early May 2016, the law firm Olson, Hagel, and  pressure.

These U.S.-based ideological allies of the RSS are further supported by a network of others that conduct social and charitable work in the United States (see the 2014 report “Hindu Nationalism in the United States: A Report on Nonprofit Groups”), aided by online activists who harass or threaten scholars and activists critical of their work. These coordinated groups will continue to play a large role in the debates over California curriculum content in the coming years.

The next site of contention: Textbooks

On May 19, close to 100 SAHFA activists attended a public meeting on the Framework revision process before the IQC. Dozens of SAHFA activists gave public comments in opposition to the Sangh’s many edits, winning several changes: the word “Dalit” has been reinserted into the Framework, and sections on caste and patriarchy have remained. Due to the work of the U.S. Sangh, references to Indo-Aryans and many references to the term “South Asia” were removed, and the remaining text states that caste provided “social stability”—notions in alignment with Hindu nationalism and caste oppression. As well, there remains some historically inaccurate and polemical content regarding Islam and Muslims, making more difficult any intelligent and respectful engagements between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Framework will now go to the State Board of Education for final approval on July 14. If the Framework is approved, the update process for California history textbooks will begin, and the next phase of contestations will come. The State Board of Education, whose procedures help to produce the “official history” of Californian classrooms, is no doubt preparing for a long fight, as this struggle over South Asian history is unlikely to dissipate very soon. Even if it did, there will always be other conflicts between marginal and dominant histories. This is a perennial issue of textbook writing in inequitable worlds, and one that needs careful reflection and structural response.

(Pepper Chongh is a member of 'South Asia Histories for All').

[1] Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory : A Reader, edited by Patrick Williamsand Laura Chrisman, 66–111. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Pg. 104.
[2] The Sangh Parivar is a set of sectarian groups committed to a Hindu nationalist worldview, all affiliated in varying waysto the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Groups include Bajrang Dal, Bharatiya Janata Party, Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, Sewa International, Vidya Bharti, and Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
[3]Visweswaran, Kamala, Michael Witzel, Nandini Manjrekar, Dipta Bhog, and Uma Chakravarti. “The Hindutva View of History: Rewriting Textbooks in India and the United States.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 10, no. 2 (2009): 101–12.
[4] Chatterji, Angana. Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India’s Present/Narratives from Orissa. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective, 2009. Pp. 288-339.
[5] Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis. Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti- Muslim Violence in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.
[6] Bose, Purnima. “Hindutva abroad: The California Textbook Controversy.” The Global South2, no. 1 (2008): 11-34.
[7] Edits 1312, 1342, 1343 from the first round of public comments.
[8]HEF’s website registration information is the same as the contact information on the HSS tax return for 2014.  The HSS’s 2014 tax return indicates that it is also “doing business as” Hindu Education Foundation.
[9] According to HSS’s 2007 tax return, pg. 19.
[10]According to the HSS’s 2014 tax return page 7.
[11] DiyaTV. “Hindu American Foundation’s Samir Kalra & South Asian Histories for All’s Anirvan Chatterjee.” May 19, 2016. https://www.facebook.com/DiyaTVusa/videos/10154204595788252/. @6:06.

This article was first published on Kafila.org.

The Word ‘Rashtra’

By
-
0

Eminent historian K.M. Shrimali critiques the concept of a timeless Hindu Rashtra as an abuse of history at a conclave on the idea of India. Excerpts from his talk:
 
Via the Idea of India Conclave Youtube channel Courtesy

Newsclick. See here for Mridula Mukherjee’s talk at the same event.
 

Did Ashoka’s embracing of Buddhism and Promoting Ahimsa Weaken India?

By
-
0


Image credit: bmmsa.org

The sangh parivar's denigration of Emperor Ashoka is an attempt to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

Past is used by communal politics for their present political agenda. In India on one hand we have the use of medieval history where Muslim kings are presented as "aggressors due to whom Hindu society had to suffer", on the other now we are witnessing the distortion of ancient history being marshaled to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

The figure chosen to make this point by communal forces is that of Emperor Ashoka. Incidentally Noble Laureate Amartya Sen regards Ashoka and Akbar as the two greatest emperors to have ruled India. A publication from RSS progeny, Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad claims that it was due to Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism and his promotion of ahimsa that India’s borders opened up to foreign invaders. It also goes on to say the followers of Buddhism under Ashoka played a seditious role. They assisted Greek invaders with the goal that they would destroy “Vedic religion” and restore Buddhism. Here, what is being referred to as Vedic religion is Brahmanism as such.

Interestingly the article regards Ashoka to be a great ruler till he embraced Buddhism, while most of the thinkers show that his humane policies that made him a great emperor were brought in after he embraced Buddhism. There are many components of this formulation which are concocted as per the political requirement of Brahmanical Hinduism. One of these concoctions is the very notion of India being the state from times immemorial. One understands that India as a nation state emerged during freedom struggle. The earlier formations were kingdoms and empires. The boundaries of these kingdoms were not fixed and depending on the bravery and other associated factors kings were expanding their area of rule, or had to retreat into smaller areas, or even getting decimated at times. Even before Ashoka came to power Alexander had attacked India. Such forays of kings into other territories are not unknown. Mauryan Empire was a major empire the sub-continent has seen.

So many dynasties have ruled large parts of the subcontinent, no single ruler has ruled whole of what is India today. So why is Ashoka being targeted today? Ashoka was successor to Bindusar, from Maurya lineage. Chandragupta Maurya had built the empire and Ashok’s annexed Kalinga (modern Odisha) into his kingdom. This battle was very bloody and as is famously known the bloodshed shook Ashoka and he decided to embrace Buddhism. From this point on the transformation of an aggressive, insensitive king to a very humane person began with the embracing of Buddhism. He undertook measures for welfare of the people, opposed the Brahmanical rituals and opened the gates of his palace for listening to woes of people of his empire. Inspired by the teachings of Buddhism he took steps towards building a compassionate state, a guardian state.

His ideas and polices are deciphered from the number of edicts carved on pillars and stones which are vast in number. What emerge from these edicts are very compassionate and impressive norms being propagated as far back as in the third century BC. What is remarkable is that though he embraced Buddhism he accepted diversity as the norm for society. One of his edicts says that a ruler must accept the diversity of his subjects’ beliefs. He did transform Buddhism into a world religion. The spread of his ideas was not through force but through moral appeal and persuasion. His message was to reduce suffering and to pursue peace, openness and tolerance. This is why he is regarded as great contrary to the said article's claim that he was great till he embraced Buddhism.

Ashoka’s was the largest empire in the history of the sub-continent. His Dhamma was a moral code for the ruler as well as for the subjects who were exhorted to follow the moral path. His Rock Edict XII is something which we need to remember in current times as well as it has great relevance even today. It is a call for religious tolerance and civility in public life or as he puts it, "restraint in speech",  “not praising one’s own religion or condemning the religion of the others without good cause… Contact between religions is good.” (Sunil Khilanani, Incarnations, ‘India in 50 Lives’ page 52). "He did not foist his faith, Buddhism on his subjects…He is important in history for his policy of peace, non-aggression and cultural conquest". (R.S. Sharma, Ancient India, NCERT, 1995, 104).

Ashoka inspired the leaders of freedom movement with his principles of justice and non-violence. He did represent the agenda which symbolised cultural and religious pluralism which were central to the ideology of Gandhi and Nehru in particular. His symbols of four lions adorn Indian currency and the wheel has become part of the Indian flag.

The problem with Ashoka’s rule was not a military one. His empire continued till 50 more years. In 205 BC Greek emperor Antiocus attacked from north-west and established his rule in some parts (North-West: Punjab, Afghanistan). The bigger problem was from within the empire. This is related to Brahminical counter-reaction to the spread of Buddhism. Ashoka had put a ban on slaughter for rituals. This led to reduction in the income of Brahmans. The spread of Buddhism led to the erosion of Varna-caste system. What the communal forces are calling as Vedic religion is as such the dominant stream which was prevalent then: Brahmanism.

These factors led to the counter revolution. Pushyamitra Shung, a Brahman, the chief commander of Brihadrath, who was Ashok’s grandson, led the counter revolution. He killed the emperor and founded the Shunga dynasty in Sindh part of Ashoka’s empire. The counter-revolution led to the disappearance of Buddhism from this land. Ambedkar writes: “Emperor Ashoka proclaimed complete ban on killing animals. So nobody engaged Brahmans to perform rites and rituals. The Brahman priests were rendered jobless. They also lost their former importance and glory. So the Brahmans revolted against the Mauryan emperor Brihadrath under the leadership of Pushyamitra Shung, a samvedi Brahmin and the army chief of Brihadrath.” (Writings and Speeches, Vol 3 P 167).

Eighth century onwards Shankara led the ideological battle against the philosophy of Buddhism. Buddhism urged the people to focus on life in this world. The Shankara’s philosophy called this world as illusion and restored Brahmanism here in full glory. Due to ideological and social counter-revolution Buddhism disappeared from this land around 1200 AD.

So why is Ashoka’s reign coming under criticism now? Ashoka embraced Buddhism and this was a setback to the Brahmanical system. Brahmanism is the dominant part of Hindu religion as understood today. Ashoka talked of non-violence and promoted pluralism. All these stand totally against the Hindu nationalist agenda of sectarian nationalism where violence is part of politics. Hindutva wants to promote neo-Brahmanical values. So on one hand there is the attempt to co-opt Dalits and other hand the aim is to keep the ideological message of social hierarchy loud and clear and so Buddhism is attacked.

The casteless ideology of Buddhism and the accompanying respect for pluralism and peace are being attacked as a part of Hindu nationalist agenda. The garb in which it is being presented is "weakening of India" due to non-violence. As such Mauryan was an empire, not a nation state, empires rise and fall due to social political factors of the time. Despite adopting non-violence Ashoka's empire continued well till 50 more years. The weakness starts coming in due to Brahmanical counter-revolution. The forays of communalists in the ancient Indian history are an attempt more to denigrate the Buddhist values under the garb of attacking Ashoka.   

Stand With Kashmir: Stop the Killings, Protest in Delhi

By
-
0

Several hundred people from all walks of life (Civil Rights Activists, Labour Activists,  Peace Activists, Feminists, Queer Activists, Advocates, Students, Workers, Artists, Writers, Academics, Filmmakers,Independent Left Activists, and unaffiliated individuals across generations, from Jammu & Kashmir, from Delhi, and from other parts of India) gathered this afternoon (July 13, 2016) for a silent protest march and meeting at Jantar Mantar, to protest against the last three days of allegedly brutal assault by police and security forces  in the Kashmir valley that have left 35 dead, several blinded (especially due to the indiscrimnate use of pellet guns) and scores of people critically injured over the last three days.

The protestors at Jantar Mantar wore black bands, and carried signs condemning the state’s violence. The protestors carried signs with the names of each of the thirty six individuals who have been identified as having died over the last three days. Each sign identified a deceased person by name, the town or village they were from, and asserted that they “will not be forgotten“. In this way, this corner of India’s capital bore witness to each person, man, woman or child killed by the Indian state since troops began firing into protests that began to mourn the extra-judicial killing of Burhan Wani three days ago.

These citizens of Delhi, without qualification or hesitation, marched to say that they were with the people of Kashmir in this hour of their trials and grief. There was a brief attempt made by a motley group of right wing ‘nationalists’ to heckle and abuse the protestors, while shouting slogans in favour of the Indian Army’s conduct in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the handful of noisy, counter-protesting ‘Patriots’ who had assembled to gloat over the killings in Kashmir were outnumbered by the silent protestors. Their powerful silent resolve to stand their ground and refusal to be provoked by the hate filled and abusive sloganeering of the counter-protestors ensured that after a brief and noisy interregnum the apologists of state violence found it advisable to melt away into the humid afternoon heat of Jantar Mantar. The silent protest against the killings in Kashmir continued, unabated.

At the conclusion of the silent protests, some of those who had come in solidarity with the people of Kashmir made brief statements. We are presenting abbreviated highlights from three of these statements – by Shabnam Hashmi, Kavita Krishnan and Shehla Rashid.

Shabnam Hashmi, an activist committed to peace between communities, spoke of the urgent need to put an end to the climate of impunity that makes the state become a murderer in Kashmir. She pointed out the contrast between the way in which violent, armed mobs have been dealt with in Haryana and Gujarat recently and the way in which troops open fire into unarmed protestors in Kashmir.

Kavita Krishnan, politburo member of CPI (ML-Liberation) and secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association, spoke about the need to do away with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the urgent necessity to initiate dialogue without preconditions with all sections of society in Jammu and Kashmir. She stressed the need for all Indian citizens to come out and say that the Indian state cannot continue to butcher the people of Kashmir in their name.

Shehla Rashid, an activist of the All India Students’ Association and Vice-President of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union,  who is from Kashmir, spoke about how the violence of the Indian State, it’s ongoing humiliation of the population, gives rise to a whole generation of young people that is completely alienated. She strongly condemned the way in which the mainstream media demonizes young Kashmiris whose every protest, even if peaceful or unarmed, is seen as support for ‘terrorism’ while choosing to ignore the hate-speech of those who take on the mantle of ‘nationalism’ and keep screaming ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’.

She also said that no Indian soldier should have to die in Kashmir, and that this can be ensured by a comprehensive de-militarization of Jammu and Kashmir, which can be achieved only when all the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can feel that really are the shapers of their destiny in a peaceful, just and democratic manner.

This meeting in Delhi sent out a strong signal to the suffering people of Kashmir that not every Indian citizen is brainwashed by the tired narrative of the state and the relentless propaganda about Kashmir by sections of the mainstream Indian media.

More protests are being planned in different cities, starting with one in Kolkata tomorrow. We at Kafila urge our readers and contributors to send in reports, photo-narratives,first person accounts of protests that they may be involved in as participants or organizers, whether in Kashmir, or in any Indian city, town, campus, settlement or workplace. Let’s work together to compel an end to the violence in Kashmir and to ensure that it does not carry on.

Not in our name!   In solidarity with the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

Statement Issued by Indian Citizens

We write this in anguish at another alarming spiral of violence in Kashmir, when a discredited old playbook has yet again been deployed to wreak havoc with civilian life.

Kashmir’s escalating violence follows a familiar pattern: a killing, a funeral where rage is vented through slogans and stones, and volleys of lethal gunfire in response. In 2010, this cycle rolled on repeatedly through four months, claiming over 110 lives, mostly of Kashmiri youth, including a number who were too young to know.

Nothing has been learnt from that year of catastrophe. The trigger for the current surge of unrest in Kashmir was the killing on July 8 of Burhan Wani, a militant of the Hizbul Mujahedin. The circumstances of Wani’s killing are yet to be fully explained. It is nonetheless ironic that it occurred on the very day the Indian Supreme Court issued a far-reaching judgment in the context of fake encounters in the state of Manipur, emphasising the illegality of the use of excessive and retaliatory force by the army, security forces and police. These strictures apply even in disturbed areas under AFSPA. Kashmir is an arena where the Supreme Court’s observations that the rule of law would apply “even when dealing with the enemy”, and that indeed, whatever the challenges, “the country’s commitment to the rule of law remains steadfast”, are breached on a daily basis.

Available accounts of Burhan Wani’s life in militancy indicate that he was as a 16-year old, embittered and radicalised during the 2010 turmoil by the casual humiliations heaped on ordinary Kashmiris by the mass deployments of security personnel. He witnessed repeated violent incursions into his home and the harassment of near relations in what are called “crackdowns”, in terminology that has entered the youth argot of the valley. The death of his brother in a police encounter,when he had nothing to do with the militancy, is believed to have further hardened his resolve.

Burhan Wani’s life story should be cautionary warning that the heavy-handed, militaristic Indian approach to Kashmir, has only led to a quarter century of siege and growing alienation.

Wani’s funeral on July 9 in the southern Kashmir town of Tral witnessed a gathering of several tens of thousands. As protests broke out in this and other locations, security forces responded with maximum force. The death toll of thirty in a matter of three days, tells its own grim story.
Excessive and indiscriminate lethal force continues to be used for purposes of law enforcement. This is in brazen contempt of the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which do not allow for departure even in exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or public emergency. Pellet guns, introduced in 2010 for crowd control, purportedly on the ground that it injures and does not kill, have caused permanent injuries and irreversible loss of eyesight to at least 92 young men.
The upsurge of civil unrest comes after a long sequence of intelligence reports that flagged rising discontent at the new political arrangements in Jammu and Kashmir. The BJP’s arrival in the portals of power and its determined pursuit of a majoritarian agenda, have much to do with this.

Curiously, the intelligence warnings have focused on widening access to the internet and social media as a disruptive influence. This diagnosis which focuses on the symptoms rather than underlying realities, has fed directly into the shutdown of internet services in Kashmir, the thirteenth such closure in three years.

Certain recent observations of the Supreme Court, though made in reference to Manipur, bear repetition as general principles. Mass deployment of the army and security forces in aid of civil authorities always is predicated on the premise that “normalcy would be restored within a reasonable period”. If normalcy is not restored for a “prolonged or indeterminate period”, it would be firm evidence of the “failure” of the civil administration or of the armed forces, or both.

Whatever the case, an unending state of unrest could not “be a fig leaf for prolonged, permanent or indefinite deployment of the armed forces as it would mock at our democratic process”.

The time is long past, if ever there was one, when a solution to the Kashmir problem could be achieved through force. Continuing recourse to this option and the prolonged and bloody stalemate that has ensued, have fuelled a mood of anger and despair in Kashmir. But with firmer iterations of the military option from the highest political leadership, a dark mood has taken hold in the rest of the country, a doubling down on the current strategy and a tendency to brush off every manifestation of failure with hateful and intemperate rhetoric directed at the people of Kashmir.

We recall the statesmanship shown by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in 2003, when he went to Srinagar during a particularly dark time, held out a “hand of friendship” to Pakistan  and said that the dialogue on Kashmir would be held within the paradigm of humanity (insaaniyat ke daayre mein). It is particularly unfortunate that no Union Minister has visited Kashmir in this crisis and that the state leadership and elected legislators are reportedly too insecure to venture out among the people.

We call for urgent steps from the Central and State government to prevent civilians being killed and injured, and immediate steps towards demilitarisation of the Valley and an inclusive political initiative. This has to go along with an urgent review of AFSPA, leading to its repeal alongside the entire constellation of special security laws that reward atrocities on civilians and encourage impunity. We urge all political parties to pressure the Government to open a political dialogue in good faith with all relevant parties to ensure that the bleeding wounds of Kashmir are staunched.
   
Abdulhafiz Lakhani. Editor Gujarat Siyasat. Ahmedabad
Abha Bhaiya, Founder And Director, Jagori Rural
Ali Javed, Pwa
Amar Kanwar
Ambarish Rai, National Convenor, Rte Forum
Amir Rizvi, Communication Designer, Mumbai
Amitadyuti Kumar, Working President, Association For Protection Of Democratic Rights (Apdr)
Anamika Priyadarshini, Phd, Assistant Professor, Council For Social Development
Angana Chatterji
Anita Ghai, Prof In Ambedkar University Delhi
Anjali Monteiro Prof. Tiss, Mumble
Anjuman Ara Begum, Human Rights Activist, Guwahati, Assam
Annie Namala – Social Activist
Anuradha Chenoy, Prof. Jnu
Anuradha Kapoor, Social Activist
Apoorvanand, Prof. Delhi University
Aruna Roy
Arundhati Dhuru- Napm
Asad Ashraf, Journalist
Ashish Kothari, Pune.
Ayesha Kidwai, Prof Jnu
Azima, Social Activist, Gujarat
Babloo Loitongbam
Biraj Patnaik   
Brp Bhaskar
Chaman Lal, Retired Prof. Jnu
Chayanika Shah
Clifton D' Rozario, Manthan Law, Bengaluru
Dhruva Narayan, Managing Editor, Samajik
Dinesh Mohan
Dr. Aftab Alam, Du, Academic
Dr. S. Anandhi
Dr. Sandeep Pandey
Dr. Umakant, Independent Scholar, New Delhi
Dr. Walter Fernandes, Senior Fellow, North Eastern Social Research Centre
Dunu Roy, Engineer
Fr Cedric Prakash, Human Rights Activist
Gautam Chaudhuri
Gautam Mody, General Secretary, New Trade Union Initiative
Harsh Kapoor
Hasina Khan
Henri Tiphagne Hrda _ India
Indira Jaising
James Dabhi, Social Activist, Gujarat
Jashodhara Dasgupta, Social Activist, New Delhi
Javed Malick
Jaya Menon, Archaeologist
Jayati Ghosh, Prof Jnu
Johanna Lokhande – Independent
K. M. Shrimali, Former Professor, Delhi University
K.P. Jayasankar Prof. Tiss, Mumbai
Kamal Chenoy, Prof. Jnu
Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Feminist And Human Rights Activist
Karthik Bittu, University Of Hyderabad
Karuna Dietrich Wielenga, Researcher, Chennai
Kavita Panjabi, Prof. Jadavpur University
Ketaki Chowkhani, Phd Student, Tiss, Mumbai.
Kumar Sundaram, Cndp
Madhuresh, Napm
Madhusree Dutta, Filmmaker, Mumbai
Maitreyi Krishnan, Manthan Law, Bengaluru
Malini Subramaniam
Manisha Sethi, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
Mannika Chopra, Managing Editor, Social Change
Manoranjan Mohanty, Retired Professor, University Of Delhi
Mansi Sharma, Delhi
Mazin Khan, Pharos Media & Publishing
Meena Gopal Prof. Tiss
Mihira Sood, Lawyer
Mohan Rao
Mohd Azam, Entrepreneur, Hyderabad
Monisha Behal
Muniza Khan, Researcher Cum Activist, Gandhian Institute Of Studies
Nagmani Rao, Pune
Nandini Rao, Women's Rights Activist, New Delhi
Nandini Sundar, Professor, Department Of Sociology
Navaid Hamid, President All India Muslim Majlis E Mushawarat
Neelanjana Mukhia, Feminist Activist
Neeraj Malik
Nivedita Menon
Ovais Sultan Khan, Anhad
Preetha Nair, Journalist Ians
Prof Rooprekha Verma, Lucknow
Rahul Roy
Rajni Arora, Social Activist
Ravi Nair, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre
Roop Rekha Verma (Saajhi Duniya)
Rudolf C. Heredia, Indian Social Institute
Saba Dewan
Shabnam Hashmi, Social Activist, Anhad
Shashank Kela, Writer, Chennai
Shehla Rashid Shora, Jnu
Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Artist, Raqs Media Collective, Delhi
Sudhir Pattnaik
Sujata Patel, President, Indian Sociological Society (2016-17)
Sukhirat Anand, Publisher, Punjab
Sukumar Muralidharan, Journalist
Suranjan Sinha, Sociologist
Tapan Bose, Documentary Filmmaker
Teesta Setalvad
Thomas Palliithanam
Uma Chakravarti
Vahida Nainar
Vani Subramanian, Saheli
Vidya Bhushan Rawat, Social Activist
Vineet Tiwari, Writer, Pwa
Virginia Saldanha
Vrinda Grover, Lawyer
Zoya Hasan, Professor Emeritus Jnu

/sites/s/2(1)jpg

Independent Versus the Hawk: Indian Commercial Television debates

By
-
0

The ongoing unrest in Kashmir, where 23 people including policeman have lost their lives after Indian security forces killed Hizbul commander, Burhan Wani, has also ignited a raging debate on whether some channels in Indian media have resorted to playing patriot games over a militant’s death.

And once again, two big names of Indian TV industry have locked horns with no holds barred attack against each other.

It all started with the veteran journalist, Rajdeep Sardesai, taking to his blog questioning the ‘patriotic’/nationalistic credentials of Indian journalists particularly during the coverage of Wani’s killing and the subsequent protests.

In his well articulated blog, Rajdeep recounted the role of the BBC during the Falklands War in 1983 when the British national broadcaster was criticised by the then UK prime minister, Margret Thatcher, for not taking side with the British forces in its coverage.

To which, the then Director General of the BBC, John Birt, was reported to have reminded Thatcher that the journalistic organisation was not an ‘extension of the political authority’; its first commitment was to the truth, not to the nation state.

Many felt that Rajdeep’s anguish was targeted at his former colleague, Arnab Goswami, and his channel Times Now, which has become notorious for whipping up often unnecessary nationalistic fervour, thereby throwing objectivity out of the window.

Hours later, a visibly agitated Arnab launched a blistering attack understandably against Rajdeep to counter the latter’s ‘patriot games’ jibe with his own headline, ‘Don’t Romanticise Terror.’ Arnab resorted to name calling and frequently used terms such as ‘pseudo-liberals’ for his critics while describing their criticism as a shameful act.

Many felt that Arnab’s reply pretty much confirmed what his former boss had highlighted in his blog.

You can read both Rajdeep’s blog and Arnab’s response during his Newshour debate below and decide for yourself who’s right on the issue of media ethics.

Rajdeep Sardesai:

‘BURHAN WANI AND PATRIOT GAMES’

During the 1983 Falklands war, a member of the Margaret Thatcher government angrily described the BBC as the ‘Stateless People’s Broadcasting Corporation’ because it referred to the forces as ‘British’ and ‘Argentinian’ forces instead of ‘our’ and ‘enemy’ forces. When an Argentinian ship was sunk, an incensed Thatcher responded, ‘only the BBC would ask a British prime minister why she took action against an enemy ship that was a danger to our boys’. That is when the BBC director general John Birt is said to have reminded the British prime minister that the journalistic organisation was not an ‘extension of the political authority’; its first commitment was to the truth, not to the nation state.

The Thatcher story is instructive at a time when the ‘patriotic’/nationalistic credentials of Indian journalists and news organisations are under the scanner for their coverage of the violence in the Kashmir valley. The newly minted I and B minister has already warned that he expects ‘responsible’ coverage from the media; army information teams have red flagged any attempt to send out any ‘negative’ news; the social media army of ‘proud Indians’ on Twitter has abusively accused journalists (including this writer) of being ‘terrorist sympathisers’, ‘anti national’ and questioned ones parentage.

Who is to tell my outraged friends in the Twitter world that journalism in its purest form doesn’t wear the tricolour on its sleeve. Yes, I am a very proud Indian, but my journalism demands that I tell the story of Kashmir, not as a soldier in army fatigues but as a mike pusher who reports different realities in a complex situation. Burhan Wani is a terrorist who has been ‘neutralised’ in the eyes of majority of Indians; he is a victim who has been ‘martyred’ for the thousands of Kashmiris who lined up for his funeral. A propagandist would only broadcast the narrative that suits the agenda of one side but a journalist must necessarily explore both stories: that of Wani the Hizbul terrorist who took to the gun and used social media as a weapon AND Wani as the posterboy for a localised militancy which feeds on tales of alleged oppression and injustice. A journalist must speak to the army which is trying to quell the protests on the street, but must also listen to the youth who have chosen to their vent their anger with stones. And he must then dispassionately and accurately report the ground reality without glamourising violence or terrorism but also without becoming a spokesperson for the Indian state.

It is maintaining this delicate balance that defines good journalism. Sadly, there are few takers it appears for this challenging task. Instead, in a polarised, toxic environment, journalists are being asked to take sides, to state their preferences, to place opinion ahead of facts, to show off their macho ‘nationalism’, to be part of a ‘them’ versus ‘us’ battleground in tv studios and beyond. Which is why I wish to highlight the BBC role in the Falklands war. Here is a genuine public service broadcaster that is able to ensure that its commitment is to the British people, not to the government, even in a war between countries. The philosophy is clear: the truth, however inconvenient it might be for the power apparatus, must be told.

In Kashmir too, we need to tell truth to power: the truth of disaffected youth with limited opportunities for growth, of failed, corrupted politics, of an unshaken ‘azaadi’ sentiment, of army excesses, of a neighbouring country which sponsors terror, of a nostalgic notion of Kashmiriyat which was eroded when Pandits were driven out of their homes, of radicalised youth seeking to romanticise violence, of hard working twenty somethings topping the civil service exams, of an unacceptable distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. As a vibrant democracy, we must be able to look into the mirror with confidence and face these competing ‘truths’. Too many of the stakeholders in Kashmir, Delhi and beyond have lived in denial for too long. Wani’s killing and its aftermath must end this mood of denial even as we in the media must learn to stop playing patriot games.

Post script: Many years ago, while reporting a story on Kashmir, I described those who had targeted a bus as terrorists. That evening, a local colleague in Srinagar suggested that I might be better off calling the perpetrators as ‘militants’. I asked him why. “Sir, they maybe terrorists, but here it is safer to use the word ‘militant’.” When even simple wordplay can get tangled in the minefield of Kashmir’s bloody politics, you realise the complicated nature of the journalistic challenge.

Arnab Goswami on Newshour

“For over 72 hours now since the SUCCESSFUL killing and MUCH WANTED killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani, a section of misguided pseudo liberals have gone on and on about how the Indian State must be more responsible. About how the Indian security forces must be more sensible. Now, some of these highly confused elements, who are in journalism say that they are in a dilemma today about how to report a terrorist’s death. They say they are in a dilemma about how to report the fallout of a terrorist’s death with mobs breaking out of control and attacking a police station.

I feel sorry for these people, because they don’t realise that when it comes to right or wrong, black and white, nationalist and anti-national, for the Indian army, which protects us, and against the Indian army, for the tricolour and against the tricolour, for the sovereignty of the Indian State and against the sovereignty of the Indian State. there can be no prevarication, no grey area, no confusion and certainly no dilemma. Ladies and Gentlemen, this terrorist, Burhan Wani, had declared the Indian army as his biggest enemy. Burhan Wani was an identified and armed threat to the sovereignty of the Indian State. And just because he was KASHMIRI, does not make it ok for the pseudo liberals to build a case against his killing. He was a terrorist.

Today the self-proclaimed pseudo liberals, the same who speak of injustice to Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon have most unfortunately and SHAMELESSLY, come together to shy away from calling a known Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist a terrorist. To use the guise of human rights and peddle it to bestow martyrdom to slain terrorist and today we watch these pseudo intellectual brigade sitting in their high-armchairs refusing to call the killing of Burhan Wani, for what it is a FANTASTIC SUCCESS.

A GLORIOUS success of our brave security personnel. Viewers, let’s come together tonight and let us junk this group and junk their bluff.. Let us not romanticise or confuse terror…And if you agree with me because this rubbish has been going on for three days now, then join me as we together take on the pseudo liberals and the Pakistanis after that in debate number one and debate number 2 of the Newshour.”

This story originally appeared on Janta Ka Reporter.

Investigate Use of Lethal Force in Kashmir: India Told

By
-
0

India: Investigate Use of Lethal Force in Kashmir

Response to Violent Protests Leaves More Than 30 Dead, Hundreds Injured
 
(New York) – Indian authorities should credibly and impartially investigate police use of force during violent protests in Jammu and Kashmir state that have killed more than 30 people and injured hundreds, Human Rights Watch said today.Since the killing of Burhan Wani and two other Hizb-ul-Mujahedin militants in an armed exchange with government forces on July 8, 2016, demonstrations have occurred in various parts of the state in which protesters have hurled rocks. State security forces have responded by firing pellet guns, teargas, and live ammunition.

“Rock-throwing at demonstrations is serious but does not provide police a free pass to use force against protesters,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Indian authorities need to send a clear message that lethal force is only an option when a life is at imminent risk, and those misusing force will be held accountable.”

“The Indian authorities need to send a clear message that lethal force is only an option when a life is at imminent risk, and those misusing force will be held accountable. “ Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director
While law enforcement officials have a duty to protect lives and property, they should use nonviolent means as far as possible, only use force when unavoidable and in a proportionate manner, and use lethal force only when absolutely necessary to save lives, Human Rights Watch said.

​Wani, 22, had a large following among Muslim Kashmiris who shared his demands for secession and an end to abuses by government security forces. After his death, thousands attended his funeral. The protests started soon after, and the government ordered a curfew and blocked the Internet in some places.

The Indian Express reported that hospitals were packed with injured protesters. One ophthalmology ward said that doctors had performed nearly 100 eye surgeries on people with pellet gun injuries. Indian security forces have been using pellet guns as a nonlethal option for crowd control after nearly 120 people were killed during weeks of protests in 2010. The use of pellet guns since 2010 has reportedly resulted in at least 300 hospitalizations in Srinagar, including 16 cases in which the patient lost their sight completely.

The Indian government should publicly order the security forces to abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Human Rights Watch said. The Basic Principles state that security forces shall “apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms,” and that “whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life.” Furthermore, “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The Basic Principles further provide that, “[i]n cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences, a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the competent authorities.” The authorities should not only investigate the use of firearms that resulted in death and injury, but also the use of pellet guns, which can cause serious injury when fired at close range or at an individual’s eyes. The findings of the investigation should be public and result in appropriate disciplinary action or prosecution. Past lack of accountability for serious human rights violations has been a driving force in the protests.

Indian officials have called for restraint and calm by all sides. Security forces have said that they are exercising restraint to disperse protesters. They reported that 110 security personnel have also been injured in the protests and that one police official drowned when protesters pushed his vehicle into a river. Protest organizers should take steps to deter supporters from engaging in violence, including attacks on law enforcement officers, Human Rights Watch said.

“A major grievance of those protesting in Kashmir is the failure of authorities to respect basic human rights,” Ganguly said. “Ensuring that rights are protected and prosecuting those responsible for abuses would be an important first step.”
 
Image Courtesy: 2016@ Reuters
 

1...2,5092,5102,511...2,697Page 2,510 of 2,697

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved