This article tries to examine what one of the most pivotal international frameworks on climate change has achieved in the last 5 years. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)f is the parent treaty of the Paris Agreement with 198 parties i.e., a universal membership. It also is the parent treaty of Kyoto protocol-a treaty on reduction in emissions.

The Paris Agreement signed in 2015 is a legally binding international treaty on climate change with the main aim of holding the global average temperature increase to well below 2° C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. There are Nationally Determined Contributions under the agreement which the countries submit and are reviewed. The Conference of Parties (COP) is the supreme decision-making body of the convention and all state parties i.e., countries are represented here; it meets on a yearly basis.

The COP 29 climate meeting in Baku concluded in November 2024 with a disappointing deal on climate finance. Developed nations agreed to mobilize a “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) of only $300 billion per year for developing nations by 2035. This was criticized by developing countries as a “paltry sum” since it represents only a three-times increase over their current mandate of $100 billion and falls significantly short of the estimated $1 trillion, or even $1.3 trillion, that developing countries need to effectively address climate change. Some even viewed it as a “betrayal” and a continuation of the trend of developed countries “taking apart the climate system” over the years. The 2022 Adaptation Gap Report had noted that the international adaptation finance flows to developing countries are five to ten times below estimated needs and will need over US $300 Billion per year by 2030.

Outcomes of the Last Five COPs

The last five COPs have each sought to advance the goals of the Paris Agreement, but they have met with varying levels of success:

COP 25, Madrid

COP 25 in Madrid (2019) focused on finalizing the “Katowice Rulebook,” the guidelines for implementing the Paris Agreement. However, countries failed to reach a consensus on critical issues like the rules for international carbon markets (Article 6). Despite the setbacks, COP25 made some progress on other issues. For example, it strengthened the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage by establishing the Santiago Network to offer technical assistance to vulnerable developing countries. It also adopted an enhanced gender action plan to promote gender-responsive climate action and climate finance.

COP 26, Glasgow

COP 26 in Glasgow (2021) was considered a pivotal moment for raising climate ambition and finalizing the Paris Rulebook. It achieved several notable outcomes, including the Glasgow Climate Pact, which called for countries to revisit and strengthen their emission reduction targets and accelerate the phase-down of unabated coal power and the phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. COP26 also finally completed the Paris Rulebook, including agreement on Article 6. Another key focus was adaptation. The Glasgow Pact called for doubling the amount of finance to support developing countries in adapting to climate impacts. COP26 also saw the launch of several significant initiatives, including the Global Methane Pledge and a pledge by over 100 countries to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.

COP 27, Sharm El-Sheikh

COP 27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (2022) was dubbed the “implementation COP”. There was some progress on mitigation, adaptation, and finance, but many issues remained unresolved. A major breakthrough was the agreement to establish a fund to address loss and damage caused by climate change in developing countries. This was a long-standing demand from vulnerable nations and was widely seen as a significant step towards climate justice. However, the final agreement lacked strong commitments on phasing out all fossil fuels, including oil and gas. It also included weak language regarding “transitioning away from fossil fuels” that was at odds with the official global stocktake. COP27 also saw developed countries fail to deliver on their $100 billion per year climate finance pledge, which was due to be met by 2020.

COP 28, Dubai

COP 28 in Dubai (2023) was the biggest COP yet and marked the conclusion of the first ‘global stocktake’ of the world’s collective progress towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The key outcome of COP 28 was an agreement signalling the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. This agreement called for a transition away from fossil fuels in a just and equitable manner. It also called for tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and doubling the average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements over the same period. However, much of the language surrounding these commitments remained vague and non-binding. COP28 also made progress on operationalizing the Loss and Damage fund established at COP27. This fund will support developing nations experiencing the worst effects of climate change, like severe flooding and prolonged drought. COP28 also saw unprecedented recognition of the need to link efforts to address climate change with nature conservation. By the time COP 28 ended, the commitments to the Loss and Damage Fund totalled to US$ 661 Million.

COP, Baku

COP 29 in Baku (2024) focused on finance and aimed to set a new climate finance goal to replace the $100 billion goal set in 2009. The meeting ended with developed nations agreeing to mobilize a new NCQG of $300 billion per year for developing nations by 2035. While this trebled the previous goal, it was widely criticized as being inadequate to address the needs of developing countries, especially given that previous goals were not met. It was also criticized for offering “false hope” to vulnerable communities and nations and essentially “abandoning” them.

Unresolved Issues

Several critical issues remain unaddressed or inadequately dealt with during recent COPs. The most prominent of these is the continued insufficiency of climate finance. The financial commitments agreed upon at COP29 fall far short of what developing countries need to mitigate emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and address loss and damage. This funding gap undermines trust and hinders progress, leaving vulnerable communities and nations struggling to cope with the effects of climate change. The lack of a clear roadmap for achieving the new finance goal also raises concerns about accountability and implementation. Another unresolved issue is the ambiguity surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels. While COP28 saw an agreement to “transition away from fossil fuels”, much of the language surrounding this agreement is vague and non-binding. The lack of a firm commitment to a rapid and complete phase-out of all fossil fuels, including oil and gas, remains a major concern. Finally, adaptation measures have not received the same level of attention and financial support as mitigation efforts, even though developing countries are facing increasingly severe climate impacts. This imbalance needs to be addressed to ensure a more comprehensive and equitable approach to climate action.

Challenges faced by developing countries

Developing countries are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change impacts, even though they have contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions. This is largely due to their geographic locations and limited financial and technological resources, which often make it difficult for them to adapt to climate impacts. As a result, developing countries rely heavily on financial support from developed countries to achieve their climate goals. These challenges are further exacerbated by the historical inequity of climate change. Developed countries have historically emitted the vast majority of greenhouse gases, contributing to the current climate crisis. This historical responsibility creates an ethical obligation for developed countries to provide financial and technological support to developing countries.

Balancing the scales and avoiding a Climate Black Swan

A “Climate Black Swan” event refers to a catastrophic and unpredictable climate-related event with severe global consequences. To avoid such an event, the international community must take urgent and ambitious action. This requires going beyond incremental steps and embracing transformative changes in our energy systems, economies, and lifestyles. It is essential to recognize that climate change is a global issue that requires a collective and coordinated response, one that prioritizes equity, justice, and the needs of the most vulnerable.

To address the imbalance between developed and developing countries and to effectively combat climate change, several actions are crucial. First and foremost, developed countries must fulfill their existing climate finance commitments and significantly scale up their financial support to developing countries. This includes providing grants and concessional loans for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Technology transfer and capacity-building are also essential. Developed countries should facilitate the transfer of clean technologies and provide capacity-building support to developing countries, empowering them to implement their climate plans and transition to sustainable development pathways. To ensure a just and equitable transition, the shift to a low-carbon economy must also consider the needs of workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels. This includes providing retraining opportunities, creating green jobs, and ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits and costs of the transition. Finally, all countries, especially major emitters, must set ambitious emission reduction targets aligned with the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. This requires a rapid phase-out of all fossil fuels and a swift transition to renewable energy sources.

(The author is part of the legal research team)

Related:

SC: The right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change is a fundamental right

Adverse impact of climate change? 43% of farmers found half of their standing crops damaged

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21…

The post From Madrid to Baku: A chronicle of inadequate climate action at UN Conferences appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is famous for his forthright statements to other world leaders. In March 1989, Mahathir wrote a letter to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that was blunt even by his standards. Unlike a lot of his angry letters, this one wasn’t published.

Mahathir’s letter was about Salman Rushdie’s controversial book, The Satanic Verses. He wrote:

I do not think I am a Muslim fanatic. Yet I find I cannot condone the writings of Salman Rushdie in his book […] And I find the attitude of the “Western Democracies” most patronising, arrogant and insensitive.

In 2019, the UK government declassified many of its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) files on the diplomatic upheaval over the novel. Mahathir’s letter to Thatcher is one of hundreds of unpublished diplomatic documents I have seen in visits to the UK National Archives since then.

My full analysis of this letter, and Thatcher’s response to it, has just been published in the Review of International Studies. It is part of a larger project I am working on about The Satanic Verses crisis and what it tells us about the place of religion in international relations.

Interested in understandings of religion in global order?

David T Smith has a new article in @RISjnl ‘Religion and responsibility in international relations: Thatcher, Mahathir, and The Satanic Verses’

Watch a video summary and read the article here: https://t.co/ZuIVlBEyA6 pic.twitter.com/wK0MJ0ciNV

— BISA – British International Studies Association (@MYBISA) October 31, 2024

‘The strangest and rarest crisis in history’

The Satanic Verses, published in late 1988, was met with protests throughout the Muslim world, beginning in South Asian communities in Britain. Many Muslims felt Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad for the entertainment of Western audiences.

In early 1989, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued an extraordinary fatwa (or religious edict) calling for the death of Rushdie, a British citizen living in London. This led to a diplomatic standoff that the speaker of Iran’s legislature called “the strangest and rarest crisis in history”.

Khomeini, who was seeking to strengthen Islamic hardliners in Iran, urged “all zealous Muslims” to carry out his fatwa.

No other leader of a majority Muslim country supported the death sentence, which blatantly violated Britain’s sovereignty and international law. But Mahathir and others felt Western powers should ban The Satanic Verses to maintain good relations with the Muslim world.

The British government saw no reason to ban it. Rushdie and his publishers had broken no British law, as the country’s centuries-old blasphemy laws applied only to the defamation of Christianity.

Defending Rushdie’s life was, as Thatcher put it, “a simple matter”. Her government would not tolerate an Iranian incitement to murder a British citizen on British soil.

Defending his book, however, was more complicated. The British government would not ban it, but also wanted nothing to do with it.

An unusually strong and personal letter

On March 15 1989, Thatcher and Mahathir met in London to discuss matters such as arms deals and airport privatisation. The Satanic Verses issue came up only briefly, when Thatcher thanked Mahathir for his government’s “moderate” stance on the book. She explained that while she could understand the offence the book had caused, the “great religions” could withstand such attacks.

Mahathir reassured Thatcher his government would take no action beyond banning the book. He said he had set out his personal views on the affair in a letter, which he handed to Thatcher.

When her private secretary opened the letter later that day, he found it was “cast in exceptionally strong language that was not reflected in Dr Mahathir’s demeanour at the meeting itself”, according to another archival letter.

Mahathir was having none of the argument that Muslims should behave more like Christians when it came to tolerating insults to their faith. He wrote:

It is well to remember that Islam has been around only 1,400 years. The faith and fervour of the Muslims are as strong as the faith and fanaticism of the Christians of the 15th century.

Of course, our behaviour is also influenced by the mores of the time. We are more tolerant than the 15th century Christians. We do not have inquisitions, we do not burn heretics at the stake, we do not torture those who blaspheme, we do not hound the new Muslim sects as you did the Protestants, and we do not indulge in pogroms. Our behaviour is more civilised than Christians when Christianity was 1,400 years old.

Mahathir’s letter was very unusual for a diplomatic correspondence in that it did not mention either Malaysia or Britain. The “we” of his letter referred to Muslims, while the “you” referred to the West.

And the West, for Mahathir, was a Christian world, though he believed Christianity was enfeebled and decaying within it. He did not want Islam to suffer the same fate.

The West controls the world media and denies others access to it. The power is, of course, abused. […] The Muslims are a particular target. They are made out to be cruel brutes given to all kinds of savagery.

While the West claimed to believe in freedom of expression, according to Mahathir, it did not allow Muslims to defend themselves against what they considered “scurrilous misrepresentation”. Rushdie’s book was the final straw.

Your belief in this so-called ‘freedom of expression’ for one disillusioned and misguided man is stronger than your belief in the value of good relations with 1 billion souls.

In that case, he reasoned, the West could hardly blame Muslims for defending their own principles.

“Prime Minister,” he concluded, “I am much saddened.”

A disconnect between two world views

In another archival letter, Thatcher’s private secretary noted that British officials were “rather rocked by the severity” of Mahathir’s letter.

Thatcher instructed FCO officers to draft a “reasoned response” on her behalf. David Gillmore, former high commissioner to Malaysia, warned they must try to address Mahathir’s points or the reply would sound “condescending and supercilious”.

Written in Thatcher’s voice, the letter said she was “well aware of the distress” the book had caused Mahathir and many in the Islamic world. The reply avoided creating a perception the government was responsible for it.

I must emphasise that the British Government do not in any way condone or endorse Mr Rushdie or the content of this book.

Although freedom of speech was a principle of major importance, Thatcher insisted Britain was not seeking to impose its values on the Muslim world. The issue had “nothing to do with relations between Christians and Muslims”. Rather, it was one of national sovereignty and international law.

When it came to the heart of Mahathir’s complaint, Thatcher’s response resorted to language that was polite, firm and vague:

I was especially saddened to hear you suggest that the Western-controlled media made a particular target of the Muslim world. I cannot agree that this is the case. I believe that this century has seen a growing understanding between the nations, cultures and religions of the world. We must continue to work to improve that understanding.

The British government’s view was that states in the modern age could overcome differences once caused by religion. As such, Thatcher’s response would only represent Britain, not Christendom, despite the many symbolic and even legal ways the British state was still tied to Christianity.

This was one of the reasons Thatcher and Mahathir were doomed to talk past each other. For Western leaders, political authority had superseded religious authority in the 17th century. In diplomacy today, the things that mattered were sovereign states.

The leaders of Muslim countries also viewed sovereign states as important –they were the basis of their own legitimacy. And they had to defend the state against religious radicals who wanted to remake the world along classical Islamic lines.

But for leaders like Mahathir, who grew up in a British colony, religion was still a vital force in diplomatic relations. He viewed the Western insistence on a secular world order as a continuation of colonial dominance over the Muslim world.

The legacy of The Satanic Verses

We can see from this exchange how the British government wanted to distance itself from The Satanic Verses, even as it sought to protect Rushdie.

While many fellow writers, including Muslims like Naguib Mahfouz, leapt to the defence of Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, the book had few defenders in the British government. (One exception was Rushdie’s local MP, the future Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.)

In his recent memoir, Knife, Rushdie notes that he got a far more sympathetic response when he was nearly murdered in 2022 than when the fatwa was issued in 1989.

Despite the British government’s notable lack of support for Rushdie’s book, Muslims in Britain and around the world felt the political and cultural power of the West was aligned against them.

This continues to be important for understanding controversies around derogatory images of the Prophet Muhammad in the West. They are never just about the images. They are also about a global imbalance of power that goes back to colonialism.

Mahathir and Thatcher were mutual admirers of each other – and both can claim to have been their countries’ most transformative leaders of the past 50 years. Mahathir, now 99, is still active in Malaysian politics despite recurring health issues.

Mahathir’s anger in this letter did not reflect personal animus against Thatcher. It foreshadowed his future emergence as a global advocate of Islamist causes. His modernist brand of Islamism may well outlast Khomeini’s, despite the violent legacy of Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie.

David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post 35 years after The Satanic Verses controversy, newly unearthed letters reveal some uncomfortable truths appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid this gloomy and dark time, the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court based in The Hague, on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), offers a small window of hope to Palestinians and others who still have faith in a right and law- based international order and attempt to use international law to restrain Israel. The ICJ declared Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory—comprising the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as illegal under international law.

Israel occupied almost all the territories of Palestine under the British Mandate during the 1967 war and this area still remains almost entirely under its control. Notwithstanding the Security Council’s unanimous resolution passed on November 22, 1967, calling Israel to withdraw its armed forces from territories it occupied during the war, Israel systematically planned and executed a policy designed to confiscate the lands it conquered while simultaneously expelling Palestinians, demolishing their homes and building and expanding Jewish settlements to finally covert the conquest into annexation. On September 25, 1971, the Security Council (SC), once again reiterated that “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of lands and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status,” Israel, like in the past, turned a deaf ear to this call by the SC.

A recent United Nations (UN) report has acknowledged the rapid and exponential rise in Israeli settlements and settlers in the occupied areas, including Jerusalem. The report states that during the period from November 1, 2022 to October 31, 2023, about 24,300 new Israeli housing units were built in the occupied West Bank, which is the highest on record since UN monitoring began in 2017. In East Jerusalem alone, approximately 9,670 units of Israeli settlement were reportedly built during this period. By 2023, there were approximately 465,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, spread across around 300 settlements and outposts, while some 230,000 settlers in East Jerusalem.

It must be noted that Israeli policy of annexations, expulsions and the creation of settlements are specifically prohibited by international law. For example, article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 clearly proscribes the annexation of occupied territory, and article 49 prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of residents from an occupied area. In July 2001, Israel also constructed a wall along the Green Line and in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a security barrier against violence from Palestinians, which the ICJ, in its advisory opinion rendered in 2004, found contrary to international law.

The Israeli policy has resulted in continuous displacement of Palestinians, creating a source of tension and conflict. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, the ever expanding Israeli settlements in the OPT risk eliminating any practical possibility of a Palestinian state.

It must be noted that, in addition to a contentious jurisdiction, which the ICJ exercises to decide legal disputes between states, it has an advisory jurisdiction that allows it to provide non-binding opinions on legal questions at the written request of the UN organs, its specialized agencies or related organisations authorized to make such a request. Accordingly, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on December 30, 2022, requested the ICJ, pursuant to Article 65 of its Statute, to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, as well as its denial of the rights of Palestinian people to self-determination, its discriminatory legislation, and its efforts to alter the demographic composition, character and status of the areas it occupies, including the Holy City of Jerusalem.

In accordance with Article 66(1) and (2) of the ICJ Statute, 52 countries and three international organisations submitted written statements before the court in July and August 2023. Interestingly, almost all written submissions were on behalf of Palestine. The court heard oral arguments in February 2024. Israel boycotted the court’s proceedings. The ICJ in its 78-year long history has not witnessed such a huge response from states.

The 83-page advisory opinion of the ICJ offers a detailed response to the questions presented to it by the UNGA.  Vindicating the Palestinian cause, the ICJ in no uncertain terms declared that Israel’s continued occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful and ordered it to end its presence there, including all its settlements and settlers, “as rapidly as possible.” The court declared that, the sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the OPT and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.

In the opinion of the court, Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the OPT and make reparation for the damage caused to all concerned. The ICJ also obliged Israel to pay reparations to the population of the OPT and called on third states and international organizations, including the UN, to refrain from helping Israel maintain its presence there. The court asked the UNGA, which requested the opinion, and the SC, to consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT.

Consequent to this remarkable opinion by the world court, the UNGA adopted a momentous resolution on September 13, 2024, by a two-thirds majority in a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 14 against, and with 43 abstentions. The resolution demanded that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the OPT, no later than 12 months from the adoption of the resolution. The UNGA resolution outlines the obligation of states and international organizations not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT.

Though the ICJ ruling is unlikely to change the course of the ongoing war in Gaza and end its occupation, it will have profound political implications and can be leveraged to mobilise meaningful international pressure against Israeli misdeeds in the OPT and for the cause of Palestinian statehood. The ruling has woken up the world to the crying need for justice for the Palestinians, who have endured decades of cruelty and systematic human rights violations and have long, been struggling to hold Israel accountable. The ruling offers much needed succour to Palestinians at a dire moment in history.

(The author teaches international law at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme)

The post Illegality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For American Muslims the choice today is between the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris and the Republican, Donald Trump: both ‘khula dushmans’ of Muslims. There is, of course, a difference between the Indian and American Muslim contexts. The Indian Muslim response has been based on their own bitter experience as citizens of India. On the other hand, uppermost in the mind of many American Muslims today is not so much their personal experience as citizens of USA, but the hypocrisy and the blatant complicity of the Biden administration in the year-long ongoing Israeli genocide of fellow-Muslims in Palestine and now Lebanon too.

The Democratic Presidential aspirant, Harris unreservedly defends the Biden administration’s unstinted support to the immoral, illegal, outrageous massacre of Palestinian men, women and children. She has even asserted that the biggest enemy of the US is not Russia or China but Iran. Several steps ahead of her, Trump is goading mass murderer Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza and Lebanon and even launch a full-scale war against Iran.

 So who should or will American Muslims vote for come November 5? Democrat Harris, Republican Trump, a third candidate with no chance of winning, or simply stay home on V-day?

Several influential voices among American Muslims are urging the community to go for Trump in order to teach Harris and the Democratic Party a lesson. Included among them, is a group of Imams in the US who an open letter quote the Quran while asking Muslims to shun Harris. A non-American analyst, Sami Hamdani has declared it is the “religious duty” of American Muslims to deny Harris their vote even if means victory for Trump.

The most brazen appeal to religion however has been made by the Green Party’s vice-presidential candidate in the coming polls, Buch Ware. Ware, a Muslim, has tweeted this dire warning: “The ‘Muslims’ that have come out in support of Harris, have inscribed their names on the tablets of eternity alongside that of Nimrod, Pharaoh, Caesar and Yazid. Every soul slain in Gaza has a claim against them on Judgement day. They better dress light – been hearing Hell is hot.”

The ‘Muslims’ in quotes clearly implies that Muslims who support Harris are nothing but fake Muslims who must await their fate come the Day of Judgement. Presumably Allah’s angels are keeping a close watch right now of what American Muslims are thinking and will record their deed on November 5.

Fortunately, there are saner voices too. The most compelling among them is that of the well-known journalist Mehdi Hasan. He ran his weekly ‘Mehdi Hasan Show’ on the American TV channel MSNBC until November 2023 when it was abruptly discontinued for his bosses could not stomach his bold coverage and commentary on the American complicity in the Palestinian genocide. He has since launched his own channel, Zeteo.

In a 9-minute long episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vOzUmqv-s)

, Hasan challenges those who are asking fellow-Muslims to abandon Harris. He clarifies that as a journalist it is neither his job nor intention to canvass support for Harris. He is only asking Muslims not to succumb to pressure from fellow-Muslims, and think clearly of what is at stake in the coming elections before casting their votes. He questions the wisdom behind the three main propositions and assumptions of the no-to-Harris camp.

Proposition One: Weaponising of faith, introducing religion in essentially secular political disputes. “The increasing invocation of the Quran to tell people to vote the right way, (is) emotionally blackmailing them into not voting for the Democrats and the accompanying insinuation that you are not a good Muslim, or not a Muslim at all, if you think of voting the candidate who is the lesser of two evils”. Hasan rightly asks: who can claim knowledge of what is in another person’s heart, who has the right to judge another person’s faith? While he does not mention it, there is also this to consider: Will such weaponisation of Islam hinder or help Islamophobia not only in the US but globally?

Proposition Two: Humbling of Harris will compel the Democrats to introspect and American Muslims will emerge a force to reckon with. Hasan questions the sheer naiveté and ignorance of how American politics works. He points to the 2000 US polls when American Muslims voted en masse for George W Bush. What happened next was the invasion of Iraq and the killing of half-a-million Iraqi Muslims. He next refers to the 2020 elections when having seen four years of Trump, Muslims voted for Biden. This, of course, has not come in the way of Biden’s unstinted support to Netanyahu.

Proposition Three: Underestimating the implications of Trump’s victory. Hasan asks: If Biden is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine and Lebanon, what about Trump’s complicity with the Saudis in the genocide of Yemeni Muslims during his first term as president?

In his new book, War, the Watergate reporter Bob Woodward maintains that Trump is far worse than Nixon and, ‘the most reckless and impulsive president in American history.’

American Muslims who have endured four years of Trump earlier will survive one more term of his presidency, argues the non-American Samdani. That begs the question: should American Muslims be thinking only as members of a particular faith community? Should they not also be thinking as American Citizens, ponder over what another four years of the pro-genocide, pro-Netanyahu, racist, anti-Muslim, sexual abuse and felony convict, increasingly unhinged Trump mean would mean for all Americans and the rest of the world?

The post American Muslims’ dilemma: Harris or Trump? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 17, 2024, at around 15.30 hours local time, thousands of pagers were simultaneously detonated in Lebanon, killing 12 people and inflicting injuries on about 3,000 others. Outside of Lebanon, 14 people were injured in similar blasts in neighbouring Syria.

Although the attacks appeared to be a complex Israeli operation targeting Hezbollah, “an enormous amount of civilian casualties were also reported, as the detonations occurred wherever members’ pagers happened to be — including homes, cars, grocery stores and cafes.”

That was not all. The following day, at around 17.00 hrs local time, several other hand-held devices were targeted, including walkie-talkie radios, mobile phones, laptops, etc., killing 20 more people and injuring about 450 others. The indelible marks of Israel’s dirty tricks departments were very much discernable behind these terrorist attacks, as is evident from the following report from CNN:

“…CNN has learned that the explosions were the result of a joint operation by Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military. Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, tacitly acknowledged his country’s role the day after the pager attack, praising “excellent achievements, together with the Shin Bet, together with Mossad.”

Shell Company

Apparently about five months ago, Hezbollah had procured about 5,000 new pagers from a Taiwanese company ‘Gold Apollo’ that were actually manufactured and sold by a company based in Budapest, Hungary, which had a license to use its brand on the pagers. However, the New York Times [‘How Israel Built a Modern-Day Trojan Horse: Exploding Pagers’, 20.09.2024] has uncovered that, for all intents and purposes, the Hungarian company was just a shell company:

“By all appearances, B.A.C. Consulting was a Hungary-based company that was under contract to produce the devices on behalf of a Taiwanese company, Gold Apollo. In fact, it was part of an Israeli front, according to three intelligence officers briefed on the operation. They said at least two other shell companies were created as well to mask the real identities of the people creating the pagers: Israeli intelligence officers.

B.A.C. did take on ordinary clients, for which it produced a range of ordinary pagers. But the only client that really mattered was Hezbollah, and its pagers were far from ordinary. Produced separately, they contained batteries laced with the explosive PETN, according to the three intelligence officers.

The pagers began shipping to Lebanon in the summer of 2022 in small numbers, but production was quickly ramped up after Mr. Nasrallah denounced cellphones.”

Implanting and exploding as little as 3 grams of PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate – a stable high explosive chemical compound) in each device was sufficient to cause havoc. Similarly, the handheld radio sets were also recently procured purportedly from a company with logos of the Japanese manufacturer ‘Icom’.

According to the Associated Press (AP): “A sales executive at the U.S. subsidiary of Japanese walkie-talkie maker Icom told the AP that the exploded radio devices in Lebanon appear to be a knock-off product and not made by Icom.” Apparently, Israeli intelligence agencies had succeeded in implanting the explosive devices into the walkie-talkie sets and other electronic items before they reached Lebanon.

Attacks Condemned

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati condemned the attack as “a serious violation of Lebanese sovereignty and a crime by all standards”, according to the state-run NNA news outlet. UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), through a statement issued on September 19, 2024, also condemned the blasts in no uncertain terms:

 “UN human rights experts today condemned the malicious manipulation of thousands of electronic pagers and radios to explode simultaneously across Lebanon and Syria as “terrifying” violations of international law….

‘To the extent that international humanitarian law applies, at the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,’ the experts said.

‘Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices would inevitably violate humanitarian law, by failing to verify each target, and distinguish between protected civilians and those who could potentially be attacked for taking a direct part in hostilities.’

‘Such attacks could constitute war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks, in addition to violating the right to life,’ the experts said.”

Humanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects where specifically designed and constructed with explosives – and this could include a modified civilian pager, the experts said.”

‘Masterstroke’

On the contrary, India’s Chief of the Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi, in a TV interview with Firstpost’s Managing Editor, Palki Sharma, has expressed views that are shocking. General Dwivedi has actually praised the methods adopted by Israel to carry out its terrorist attacks as a “masterstroke”. This is clear from the text of the relevant excerpts from the video clip of the said TV interview that is reproduced below. Palki Sharma did ask a very pertinent question to the General.

Q: Palki Sharma [at 0.15 seconds of the video clip]:

“It seems some disturbing precedence being set in this conflict [in West Asia], including the use of everyday gadgets and turning pagers and walkie-talkies into bombs and it makes people think everywhere in the world that we are all carrying some gadgets or the other at all points and we are all sitting ducks. So does India share this concern about these methods and what are we doing to ensure that we are not at the receiving end of something like this?”

A: Army Chief [at 01.36 minutes of the clip]:

“In this case Israel has decided very clearly that Hamas is primarily focus, which I must maintain. So what is done is completely firstly wipeout Hamas opposition. Thereafter, it said okay let us see on the other side. And if you see the pager what you are talking about it is a Taiwan company being supplied to a Hungarian company. Hungarian company thereafter giving it to them. The shell company, which has been created, is something, which is a masterstroke by the Israelis. And for that it requires years and years of preparation. So it means they were prepared for it. And that is what it counts. That the war does not start the way you start fighting; it starts the day you start planning. And that is what is most important. So they had planned all these activities and what they did firstly they made sure that the pagers get blasted people get injured people died. Okay, now what happens? Perforce now you have to shift to mobile. The movement you shift to mobile what happens your signals are getting triangulated…. [At 02.58 minute] Coming to our side, yes the same threat arises. So supply chain interruption, interception, is something we have to be very watchful. So we have to have various levels of inspection on all these issues whether at the technological level or as well as manual level also to make sure that such things do not get repeated in our case.”

Shocking Views

The interviewer had asked a pointed question: “So does India share this concern about these methods?” She was referring specifically to “some disturbing precedence being set in this conflict [in West Asia]”. However, the Army Chief desisted from responding to this specific query. Instead, he went on to praise the methods Israel had adopted to execute its terrorist attacks:

“The shell company, which has been created [to carry out the terrorist attacks], is something, which is a masterstroke by the Israelis. And for that it requires years and years of preparation. So it means they were prepared for it. And that is what counts. That the war does not start the day you start fighting; it starts the day you start planning. And that is what is most important. So they had planned all these activities and what they did firstly they made sure that the pagers get blasted people get injured people died.”

The Army Chief did not express any “concern” about the methods used; the General remained totally unmoved by the “disturbing precedence being set”! He chose to eulogise not condemn Israel’s terrorist acts. However, the General did dwell on the precautionary steps that India should take to safeguard its security and ward off such threats.

India’s Principled Stand

How could the Army Chief have been oblivious to the fact that India was a ‘High Contracting Party’ to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1981, which prohibits the use of booby-trap weapons, and had ratified the same on March 1, 1984?

How is it possible that the Ministry of External Affairs had never briefed the General regarding India’s considered position as a ‘High Contracting Party’ on the matter, which India reiterates before the UN every year? For example, in 2007, India’s position regarding Protocol–II to the CCW was as follows:

“In stipulating that mines, booby traps or other devices must not be targeted against civilians or civilian objects or used indiscriminately, the Protocol effectively applies the core principles of the CCW Convention concerning the prohibition on the use of weapons that are indiscriminate and the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature that cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.”

UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs had made it very clear that:

“By ratifying the CCW, States commit to the: …Prohibition and regulation of the use and transfer of non-detectable anti-personnel mines, boobytraps, and other devices;…”

Apparently, the General was also unaware that Israel had carried out the terrorist attacks despite having acceded to the CCW on March 22, 1995, which is nothing but display of utter contempt for even the treaties that Israel professes to abide by.

GoI Should Explain

It is amply clear that the Army Chief had made pronouncements that are wholly contrary to the principled stand adopted by the Government of India before the United Nations for the last 53 years. Or has the Government of India reversed its principled stand and decided to tacitly support the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Israeli regime?

Anyway, the Government of India is not only duty bound to explain why it has refrained from condemning the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Israeli regime on Lebanon on September 17 and 18, 2024 but also clarify how the Army Chief could have made statements that are wholly contrary to India’s principled stand against use of booby-trap weapons.

Booby Trap Attacks in India

The Army Chief’s admiration for methods used by Israel to perpetrate booby-trap attacks is all the more bizarre because India itself has been a victim of such terrorist acts on numerous occasions for the past several decades and is continuing to face such threats. The most infamous of such attacks include: (a) the serial ‘transistor bomb blasts’ of May 10/11,1985 in Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh that killed 85 people and injured another 150; (b) the Mumbai serial blasts of 1993 that killed 257 people and inflicted injuries on 1,400 others; and the serial train blasts of July 11, 2006 in Mumbai that killed 189 people and injured over 800 others. Furthermore, ‘Maoist’ groups in India have been regularly using booby-trap weapons with telling effect.  Under these circumstances, how has the Army Chief gone on to justify the methods chosen by Israel to use booby-trap weapons? The Army Chief has a lot to explain.

        Adverse Consequences

The concerned global community has suddenly woken up to the ramifications of the misuse of mass-consumed electronic gadgets for terrorist activities. In the opinion of Subimal Bhattacharjee, a defence and cyber security analyst, there are three aspects to this massive impending threat:

“First, the usage of digital technology to levels that force multiple physical attacks and as a combination, lead to concerns over creating a larger havoc. With artificial intelligence becoming a major factor in enhancing kinetic weapons capabilities, the horizon is more complex.

Second, is the use of such techniques a harbinger for more deadly forms of cyber attacks? Can nations be allowed to go to such an extent of causing violence and death using digital techniques?

Third, how will the supply chain ecosystem deal with such attacks? Modern technology supply chains are incredibly complex, with components and software often sourced from multiple countries and suppliers. This complexity creates ample opportunities for malicious actors to introduce compromised hardware or software at various points in the supply chain. These compromises can be extremely difficult to detect and may lie dormant until activated for an attack.”

Until and unless concrete steps are promptly initiated to prevent gross misuse of mass-consumed electronic gadgets for terrorist purposes – especially by States such as Israel – the adverse consequences that the entire human society would be compelled to face would be unimaginable.

N.D.Jayaprakash (jaypdsf@gmail.com) is Joint Secretary, Delhi Science Forum and Member, National Coordinating Committee, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace. The views are personal.

First Published on newsclick.in

The post Booby Trap Attacks on Lebanon: Indian Army Chief’s Shocking Views appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Harriet McCulloch, Reprieve’s deputy director, noted that as global attention focuses on crises elsewhere in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is intensifying its use of the death penalty. McCulloch stated that, “As the world’s attention fixates on horror elsewhere in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is clearing death row with a bloodbath.”  As reported the Middle East Eye.

The rapid increase in executions reflects a troubling trend

As per the Middle East Eye report, McCulloch states that the Kingdom smashed its own grim record for most people executed in a year in the first nine months of 2024. She added that “With 213 executions and counting, death row prisoners are at greater risk than ever before, their families desperately awaiting news of their fate in the news.”

Link:

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of an execution crisis.

At least 213 people have been executed in 2024 so far.

This makes 2024 a record-breaking execution year for the Kingdom.

4/5

— Reprieve (@Reprieve) October 9, 2024

The rise in executions is occurring under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has held the titles of Prime Minister and de facto leader of the kingdom. Despite his 2018 vow to reduce capital punishment, the kingdom remains one of the most prolific executioners globally. Since Mohammed bin Salman assumed power on June 21, 2017, at least 1,115 executions have been documented.

A joint report released in 2023 by the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) and Reprieve found that the execution rate in Saudi Arabia has nearly doubled since King Salman and his son took the reins in 2015. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of executions surged by 82%.

Reprieve has also accused Saudi Arabia of misleading the UN about its use of the death penalty. During a recent meeting with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Saudi officials claimed that the death penalty is only applied in the most serious cases and that laws protect minors from capital punishment. This statement contradicts the kingdom’s history of executing individuals for crimes allegedly committed as minors.

For example, three clients of Reprieve and ESOHR—Abdullah al-Derazi, Youssef al-Manasif, and Abdullah al-Howaiti—were convicted based on confessions obtained under torture for crimes committed before they turned 18. The Saudi Human Rights Commission also inaccurately reported that Mustafa al-Darwish, sentenced to death for protest-related offenses, was over 19 at the time of his alleged crimes. However, evidence provided by Reprieve and ESOHR proved he was under 18. Darwish was executed on June 15, 2021, despite the evidence.

Saudi Arabia fails to win seat at top UN Human Rights Body

On October 9, 2024, Saudi Arabia has failed to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) after a vote for membership in the 2025-27 term. This is the second time in a row for the Persian Gulf kingdom to lose the elections.

According to the Middle East Eye, HRC voted on October 9, 2024 to elect 18 new members from 19 candidates running on five separate regional slates. The Asia-Pacific slate had six candidates competing for five seats. Saudi Arabia came in sixth with 117 votes, behind the Marshall Islands (124), the Republic of Korea (161), Cyprus (167), Qatar (167) and Thailand (177).

In Wednesday’s election, it received 117 votes, the least among six Asia-Pacific countries competing for five seats on a regional slate.  Saudi Arabia was one of 19 candidates who were in the race of membership for HRC body. McCulloch was also urged UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s bid, stating, “Today, UN member states should vote no—no to Saudi Arabia securing a seat on the council, and no to rising executions carried out with impunity.”

However, earlier Human rights activists strongly urged that Saudi Arabia’s push for a seat on the HRC contradicts the council’s mission. Members are expected to uphold high standards of human rights and fully cooperate with the council. UN Watch, a group that monitors the UN’s adherence to its own principles, has called for changes to the HRC’s election process, which currently allows countries with poor human rights records to become members.

Rights groups have welcomed the news, stating that it underscores Riyadh’s failure to make meaningful progress in improving its human rights record.

Crackdown on Dissent and Notable Cases

Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty extends beyond ordinary crimes to encompass political repression. In 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrested around 70 members of the political elite, including members of the royal family, as part of his strategy to consolidate power. High-profile incidents, such as the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, have sparked worldwide outrage. While Prince Mohammed has denied any personal involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, a U.S. investigation has implicated him in the assassination.

Related:

Saudi Funding of Intolerance: The Other Face of the Indian Sufi’s Angst

Saudi Arabia: A Dark Stain on Islam

How Saudi Wahhabism spread hatred of non-Muslims in Egypt

The post Saudi Arabia executes 213 persons in less than 10 months appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signatories have also stated that they “rage against Hamas and other Islamist forces that on 7 October brutally killed nearly 800 civilians and took 253 hostages in pursuit of fundamentalist, anti-democratic and inhuman goals.” Hamas, say the signatories, has used the war to extend control over the Palestinian people and to clamp down on any form of dissent through threats, violence, and terror.

The expansion of war between the religious-Right will not bring peace or justice to the people of the Middle East, rather it only serves to strengthen these extremist forces that demonise, terrorise and kill with impunity. We unequivocally oppose these powers and demand an end to war, occupation, rape, sexual violence and terrorism and an end to the genocidal and theocratic politics that they represent, adds the statement. They have called for the release of hostages and political prisoners.

Besides, they have stated that they stand firmly with the peoples of Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Iran, and the region for peace, universal rights, Laïcité and freedoms for all.

Signatories

Ahmedur Chowdhury, Exile Publisher, Editor, and Author

Ali A. Rizvi, Author and Physician

Ali Malik, Co-Spokesperson of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Apostate Aladdin, Youtuber and Activist

Ex-Muslims of Toronto

Fariborz Pooya, Bread and Roses TV

Haram Doodles, ExMuslim Artist and Activist

Ibtissame Betty Lachgar, Clinical Psychologist and Feminist Activist

Marieme Helie Lucas, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue Founder

Maryam Namazie, Co-Spokesperson of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Milad Resaeimanesh, Activist

Mouhammad El Jabbari, Podcaster and co-founder of Laïques Sans Frontières

Nahla Mahmoud, Activist and Environmental Campaigner

Secretary, Council of Ex-Muslims of Sri Lanka

Siyavash Shahabi, Writer and Activist

Sohail Ahmad (‘Reason on Faith’), Activist and Community Organiser

Taha Siddiqui, Founder of the DISSIDENT club

Wissam Charafeddine, Author and Activist

Yasmine Elbaramawy, Artist and Activist

The post Ex-Muslims demand an end to war, occupation, rape and terrorism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to the proposed display of Ram Janmabhoomi temple float during the August 18 India Day Parade planned by the Federation of Indian Associations NY-NJ-CT-NE, group of civil society organisations including Hindus for Human Rights, Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) have sent a joint letter to New York Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul, urging them “take immediate and decisive measures to prevent the inclusion of a polarizing and divisive float in the parade” and demanded immediate removal of the float.

Notably, the Federation hosted a curtain-raising event in New York on July 8 at the Consulate General of India in the presence of Consul General Binaya S Pradhan, during which it announced that “This year, a grand replica of the newly inaugurated Ayodhya Ram Mandir will be featured, measuring 18x9x8 feet as a powerful symbol of cultural significance and a historic moment for the global Indian community.” It was also announced that acclaimed actor Pankaj Tripathi would serve as the Guest of Honour for the event, which passes through New York’s Madison Avenue.

In the letter, the civil society groups termed the tableau “anti-Muslim” and said “The proposed float for the parade is a blatant attempt to glorify the illegal demolition of the historical Babri Mosque and celebrate ongoing violence and terror against 200 million Indian Muslims. This is not merely a cultural display but a vulgar celebration of anti-Muslim hate, bigotry, and religious supremacy”.

The epistolary address further mentions the involvement of far-right elements in the event and said that the event is organised by “far-right Hindu group Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA), in collaboration with the Indian consulate, alongside Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS) and the Federation of Indian Associations (FIA)”. The letter emphasised that VHPA is an offshoot of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which is designated as a “militant religious organization” by the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) World Factbook. The civil society members also highlighted the FBI investigation against BAPS regarding its involvement in “forced labour and exploitation of low-caste labourers from India.”

The civil society organisations noted that the right-wing elements had in the past tried to foment the trouble and said that during India Day Parade in August 2022, the far-right Hindu groups transformed the parade into a “hate event” by displaying a bulldozer “alongside pictures of Prime Minister Modi and other Hindu supremacist leaders”, “symbolizing the demolition of Muslim homes in India”. The letter notes that allowing “such a hateful and bigoted celebration in NYC is an affront to American values and to harmony and peaceful coexistence among our diverse communities. It further said that the event emboldens Hindu extremists to glory acts of “violent injustice and discrimination against Muslims.”

The collective observed that the commemoration of Ram Temple was culmination of “decade-long hate campaign” and the destruction of Babri Masjid was a step towards reshaping India into Hindu-Rashtra or ethnoreligious state. The civil society groups demanded immediate removal of the float, maintaining that India is a secular state and its strength lies in diversity.

The letter was signed by the following groups: Indian American Muslim Council, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on American-Islamic Relations – New York, Hindus for Human Rights, The Federation of Indian American Churches of North America (FIACONA), New York State Council of Churches, Genocide Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Association of Indian Muslims of America, Center for Pluralism, India’s Civil Watch International, American Muslim Institution, Crescent School, Islamic Circle of North America, The Sikh Coalition, Dalit Solidarity Forum, Great Truth, Justice For All, Asian Children’s Education Fellowship, CAIR-NJ, Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus, and Ambedkar King Study Circle.

The letter can be found here:

Related:

Assam CM compares districts of Assam with Bangladesh; calls some of the districts ‘tiny Bangladesh’ | SabrangIndia

Hindus worldwide denounce hate | SabrangIndia

Your silence, in the face of this enormous societal threat, is deafening: CCG to PM | SabrangIndia

The post American civil society groups register protest against proposed “anti-Muslim” Ram Janmabhoomi temple float during India Day Parade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The outcome of result might sound music to many who might dance on hearing the word ‘labour’ as in most of the world, the term is almost deleted in the ‘vocabulary’ of political discourse. In the United States, there is no Labour. There is the fight between two parties of white ruling elite dominated by the corporate interest with little interest for the common person. Now, Labour party returned to power after 14 years and with massive majority but are the Conservatives decimated in UK?  Has the Labour anything to do with the left politics? What brought Labour to power in UK?

The fact is that the historical route of Conservative Party does not indicate the growth of ‘left wing’ political forces in Britain. The fact is this landslide to Labour party is more to do with the faulty electoral system that UK has been following termed as First Past the Post System which result in huge gap between the vote share and the number of seat got. FPTP can be useful if there are only two to three parties as well as a high voter turnout. In the absence of it, the mandate can always be haunting though at the end of the day, it does not matter, how much is the vote share, it is the number of seats that matter.

The fact of the matter is that out of 650 seats, Labour Party has won 412 seats which is almost 65% of seats though the vote share was merely 34%. Its rival Conservative Party with 24% vote share acquired 121 seats. Liberals got 71 seats with 12% votes. Another right wing under the name Reformist Party, though, only got 4 seats but with 14% vote share. Led by Nigel Farage, Reformists are being blamed for the route of the Tory government. Conservative, Liberals and Reformists mostly hail from the same variety of political ideology of right wing. Their combine vote share is much powerful than that of Labour. The left leaning groups are mostly independent and Green Party.  Interestingly, Labour could only increase its vote share of about 2% from 2019 when it fought under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn who contested as an independent candidate and won from Islington North constituency by over 7,000 votes defeating the nearest Labour Party rival. Corbyn has been representing this constituency since 1983 and has won for a record 11 times.

Many people might be happy to see return of a ‘Labour’ government after one and a half decade but is it really so. Leave aside the ‘vote share and seat got’ issue, the fact is most of the western electoral system particularly influence by British and American models are already captured by the right-wing capitalist forces. The quality of the ‘western democratic model’ is in its propaganda and comparison with the Russian and Chinese system despite the fact that both the countries are today a power house and rising high economically. Look at the rise of other powerful groups in UK like Liberal Democrats and Reformists both ideologically close to Conservatives but is ‘Labour’ truly dedicated to left or the working classes. The problem with the ‘liberal democracies’ in the world is their hypocrisy on human rights issues. If Labour Party was truly dedicated to the idea as its name suggest then how come powerful leaders like Jeremy Corbyn thrown away from the party. Is it because he was considered more radical and a threat to the Empire and its elite. How is the current leadership of Labour different than the Conservative? The brazen shamelessness of Kier Stramer in refusing to condemn the Israeli brutalities and assault on Gaza shocked all those who filled the Streets of United Kingdom demanding a complete ceasefire in Gaza. It was Kier responsible for humiliating and ousting Jeremy Corbyn and other left leaning leaders from Labour Party. Most of these leaders fought independently won with a handsome margin and defeated their nearest Labour rivals. The poll result suggest that British electorate are swinging between different conservative forces and Labour got acceptability because it threw away radical left forces led by Jeremy Corbyn. So essentially, British political system is highly dominated and controlled by the Conservatives who may not be Conservative Party but also Labour, Liberal and Reformists.

The Crisis of Electoral System

The British model of electoral system or simply FPTP is not reflective of the real verdict of the people. It is basically manipulative of the power elite and therefore most of the time legitimize a ‘minority’ government as ‘majority. All the colonies of the ‘Empire’ has this system which is used by the power elite of those countries using or misusing the contradiction among different groups. The difference between vote share and seat won is too high. The Labour got nearly 34% of total vote polled out of 60% votes that were polled during these elections. Which simply mean 40% people did not vote during the election. Now, in terms of seat, the party got 412 seats out of 650 which is nearly 64%. Under the Proportional Electorate System, Labour with 34% vote share would have just got 221 seats much below the majority mark. Conservatives with 21% vote share would have got 156 instead of 121 which they have at the moment. Liberal with 12% vote share got 71 seats while Reformists with 14% vote share got just 4 seats. Under the Proportionate system, Liberals could have got 78 and Reformists 91. Even a 4 seat Green Party with 7% vote would have got nearly 46 seats.

How credible is the electoral system where party getting 34% votes which also mean 66% votes that were polled did vote against you. Interestingly, a party with 14% vote share get just 4seat while that with 12% vote share 71 seats. Now, how can such a system be justified as ‘democratic’. We all have the same crisis and the result is that the ruling parties and government actually rarely listen to people’s’ voices. The amount of massive street protests that London witnessed in support of Palestine was always looked down upon by the power elite and the media. The governments these days speak through the power elite and opposition leader spoke the language of the prime minister when he openly supported the previous government’s stand on Palestine.

No change in Foreign Policy

Actually, western democracies are liberal to the large extent related to individual freedom, right to faith, criticism of the government and allowing protests in the streets but at the same point of time we need to understand why a leader like Jeremy Corbyn was ousted from Labour? Why he has been a persona non grata for the ‘liberal’ circles. A similar thing happened in United States where Bernie Sanders is despised by the ruling elite. The liberal democracies can’t accept Julian Assange and felt him the biggest threat. It needs to be understood why these democracies do not listen to the voices of protests in the streets.

Broadly, the western democracy will remain pro capitalist and market driven and nothing much is expected to change on the foreign policy matters though the new Prime Minister as already rescinded the Rwanda policy for refugees which is a great step in right direction. The Tory government wanted to privatise the prestigious National Health Services but could not do so. The railway network is already in distress. Will the new government take initiatives to strengthen these services or will it be the same government that was headed by Tony Blair?

The issue of minorities and immigrants are extremely important and resulted in victory of four independent candidates who defeated Labour candidates. The party has to see whether it will follow the ‘right tilt of Tony Blair or really work differently particularly on the issue of Palestine. It needs to understand that the combine vote share of the right-wing parties is much higher than it and if it ignore wider concern of minorities and immigrants then it might loses the support of progressive forces as well as ethnic minorities then Britain might see rise of radical left forces in the coming years. Unlike the United States, Britain still has got space for minorities and immigrants in the political structure. Will Jeremy Corbyn and other leaders emerge more powerful in the coming years or the pressure of capitalist?

Lesson for India

A democracy is successful when its institutions are robust. Britain has a powerful legacy in that regard. The election process is extremely simple and voting opens at 7 am and continue till 10 pm. The parliament still is responsible and debates there are worth watching. Prime Minister’s Question hour with leader of opposition is extremely fascinating but then we can’t have that in India.

The New Parliament has 23 Muslim members (A big country like India has just 24) and over 60% of the members belong to ethnic minorities reflecting Britain’s diversity. One thing need to be clarified. A criticism of the British system does not mean we are better than them. They have a robust system and more over basic curtsies among the political class there remain far superior than us. The swiftness with which the new government took charge with in a day remain remarkable. Everything was done without any chest thumping or ‘victory’ speeches. It is also important to understand the difference of ‘right wing’ or Conservatives in Britain, Europe and India. The Conservatives or Right Wing there are mostly against immigration policies of the government but none of them have ventured inside the personal lives of people. Right wing in India and its neighbours are basically religious fanatics who have issues with your personal choices whether food, faith or marriage. There are no hate speeches and diversity of representation is always a plus point for political parties.

Britain’s elections have big lessons for us and our political class. That elections in vibrant democracies today is on ballot paper and not through EVMs is a reality. Secondly, we did not hear any complaints of electoral malfunctioning or fraud. The counting and declaration process was simple and Prepoll surveys or Exit polls were not hyped. The prime minister did not take time in vacating his official bungalow and gone to submit his resignation to the King when results were just coming in and he conceded his defeat gracefully. The transfer of power was so swift and meticulous that there was no time for any confusion and uncertainty.  Yes, electoral system has issues of representation\ and vibrant democracies find their own solution. Britain will certainly have to look into it as this might become a major issue in the coming days.

Let us hope new government will fulfil the aspirations of the people but expecting a different perspective on Ukraine and Israel will be next to impossible as foreign policy matters in these countries are mostly static and fixed with United States. A change in its Ukraine or Palestine policy will need Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of affair which does not seem a possibility in the near future.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post The crisis of British model of Democracy: A landslide without majority vote share appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sunita in Al Jazeera, Apr 2, 2021: “All these organizations are sympathetic to the Hindu supremacist ideology. Their parent organizations continue to spread hatred in Hindu communities towards Muslims and Christians,” and “Any American non-profit that perpetuates Islamophobia and other forms of hate should not receive federal relief funds in any form.”

Raju in Al Jazeera, Apr 8, 2021: “The rise of HAF and other organizations linked with Hindutva has emboldened Hindu supremacist organizations in India, while also stifling the moderate Hindu voices here in the US.”

Nearly twenty months after the HAF filed its complaint, Judge Amit P Mehta of the U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the case on all counts: “…the court has reviewed the allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Defendants Viswanath, Rajagopal, Ahmed, and Truschke, and finds that HAF fails to plausibly plead that any statement made by any defendant is verifiably false. Most of the statements are clearly statements of opinion …[Also] Because the underlying defamation claim against Prabhudoss fails, Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim fails.” [p 26]

A Lawsuit with Zero Evidence

Earlier, on March 15, 2022, the judge issued an order questioning whether HAF had lost any donations at all on account of our statements, “much less an amount in excess of $75,000.” [But] “rather than dismiss the complaint outright, the court will…stay the motions to dismiss and allow for a limited period of jurisdictional discovery as to the amount in controversy.”

This meant that our attorneys had an opportunity to look into the veracity of HAF’s claimed financial losses by examining granular details of donations received by HAF in recent years. This was the primary purpose of the virtual deposition by Suhag Shukla of HAF on May 16, 2022. The deposition remained sealed from public view until recently, when the court ordered 385 pages of unredacted evidence unsealed, including 45 pages of Shukla’s deposition (p 268+).

Shukla’s day-long deposition with attorneys from both sides was nothing short of a disaster. She was unable to back up any of HAF’s allegations in its complaint with evidence – not one! The result was a deposition peppered with evasive and intransigent responses by Shukla before she would finally admit the truth: See highlights of the deposition.

Our Supplemental Brief

Based on Shukla’s deposition, the defendants submitted a Supplemental Brief on June 10, 2022: “discovery…confirms the Court’s suspicions: Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence of economic harm, let alone damages meeting the jurisdictional minimum. Indeed, discovery has established that not a single existing or potential donor ever told HAF it was reducing, eliminating, or not making initial contributions due to the challenged statements.”

The brief also dismissed assertions of “reputational damage” to HAF as a result of our statements: “HAF has no one but itself to blame for its expulsion” from the Alliance Against Genocide. It referred to some of the other assertions by HAF as “fanciful” “speculative,” “without foundation,” etc.

To make a long story short, Shukla had failed to support with evidence any of HAF’s claims: NO evidence of defamation, NO evidence of a conspiracy, and NO evidence of financial losses. Not surprisingly, HAF did not refute any of the conclusions in our Supplemental Brief, thanks to the terrific work of our pro bono lawyers who came to our aid because of their commitment to the First Amendment.

So, when the final judgment to dismiss the case came down on December 20, 2022, HAF was left scraping the bottom to find some “good news” for its donors and supporters: see SuhagShuklaOnLinkedin.

So they quickly jumped on a footnote by the judge, which explained that only one statement by Sunita and another by Audrey had the potential (“plausibly”) to be proven false, [i.e., had the case proceeded.] They maliciously modified the judge’s legalistic phrase, “plausibly verifiably false,” into “verifiably false” on social media posts, thus implying that the judge had made a determination that Sunita and Audrey had lied. The judge did no such thing!

HAF later added back the word “plausibly” in their posts, but some of their earlier doctored posts were not deleted, hence perpetuating the impression that Sunita and Audrey had lied.  In our view, HAF has done itself and its supporters great disservice by attempting subterfuge to eke out a “silver lining” out of an ignominious defeat.

What Were They Thinking?

As one of our attorneys observed during our debriefing following the dismissal of the lawsuit, “Even a first-year law student can differentiate between statements of opinion and defamation.” With two senior attorneys on their Executive Team, is it possible that HAF really thought that they had a winnable case? If not, what were they really thinking when they chose to spend several hundred thousand dollars of donated money on a foolhardy defamation lawsuit?

Perhaps, HAF felt threatened by our progressive Hindu voice –  which does not seek to divide the world into haters and the hated — challenging them from within the community and in D.C. spaces. And they decided to scare us through a high-profile SLAPP lawsuit, with expensive Trump family attorneys to boot. If that was their thinking, they have failed miserably. Instead, HfHR and our allies have together only gotten stronger, bolder, and wiser in our work of resisting Hindutva and casteism.

But it’s also entirely possible, knowing the litigious track record of HAF, that their ultimate goal was to create enough hype and narratives of victimhood around the lawsuit to help raise funds. That would explain their surprising fundraiser just months after filing the lawsuit, provocatively titled, How to sue your haters. In a classic case of projection, those who sued had become the victims, and the victims had become the haters! Sadly, the tactic seems to have worked: Looking at the list of donations in the days following the event (from the unsealed deposition), HAF appears to have collected over $ 70,000 within a day and close to $300,000 in a week! Total donations to HAF went up from $1,580,784 in 2021 to $2,583,102 in 2022! Clearly, their claim that our statements had led to financial losses was an outright lie and Shukla’s deposition was the clinching proof.

Whatever may have been HAF’s intent, we know from their history of lawsuits (mostly ending in defeat), that they have successfully leveraged them to raise funds – sometimes both before and after the case. An important lesson to take home for those opposing Hindutva: Legal failures do not necessarily lead to loss of donors and donations.

Therein lies the opposition’s challenge: If we’re to dislodge the caustic presence of Hindutva in the diaspora, for every dollar of donation received by Hindu supremacists, we must raise at least one dollar to counter their divisive hate politics. Moral successes aren’t enough anymore; we must aim for equally successful fundraising programs.

The good news is that with an outpouring of support from our donors, activists, academics, allies, our families, and our super-energized team, HfHR has already made a headstart in increasing our national and regional presence, in forming new alliances, and taking on more projects in 2023 and 2024. And now, we are appealing to you, all Indian Americans who are concerned about democracy and minority rights in India, to help us on an emergency footing so we can ramp up our efforts to propagate a progressive and pluralistic Hindu voice as a counter to the divisive voices of Hindutva. You can do so by becoming a member of the HfHR community today and by making a financial contribution.

Sunita Viswanath and Raju Rajagopal are co-founders of Hindus for Human Rights USA.

Courtesy: https://americankahani.com

The post Unsealed: Suhag Shukla’s Deposition in Hindu American Foundation’s Failed Defamation Case Against Us appeared first on SabrangIndia.