In a strongly worded statement of commemoration on August 6, 2025, the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) states that, ‘as we mark eight decades of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must confront the fact that this template of misinformation crafted in 1945 remains largely intact. Today, we live in an era where media monopolies and concentrated information power have reached unprecedented levels. Social and mainstream media alike often serve more as instruments of propaganda rather than as platforms for critical analysis. As a result, the global public remains dangerously uninformed about what a nuclear war would actually mean for humanity and the planet.

‘We are witnessing an alarming resurgence of militarism and nuclear brinkmanship. Nations are modernising their arsenals, dismantling arms control frameworks, and inflating defence budgets. Today, from South Asia to West Asia, nuclear tensions simmer dangerously. Recent escalations from the near-war between India and Pakistan to Israeli-US strikes in Iran underline how quickly the threat of nuclear confrontation can re-enter our reality.

‘But perhaps the most insidious threat lies in how these issues are reported or rather, misreported. Public fear is stoked without accompanying understanding. The voices of peace, disarmament, and justice are routinely marginalised, while the dominant narratives reinforce inequality, nationalism, and the illusion of “strategic deterrence.”’

On this occasion, says the statement, the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) and PEACE has also organised a special lecture by senior journalist and founder of the People’s Archive of Rural India, P. Sainath entitled The Media and the Bomb- The Big Lie template for reporting nuclear issues was set in Hiroshima-Nagasaki. The lecture will be chaired by Prof. Anuradha Chenoy (Academician) and is being held at HKS Surjeet Bhawan, New Delhi on Saturday August 9 at 5 p.m.

Related:

Anti-nuclear activist raise alarm over India’s ASAT missile testing

Keyboard commandos, here’s one simple reason why nuclear war is a bad, bad thing

The post Militaristic nationalism, pushed by complicit big media have blurred dangers of nuclear war to the planet: CNDP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report of Al Jalzeera states that the killer, Yinon Levi, a settler from the nearby illegal outpost of Carmel, opened fire indiscriminately after tensions flared over a bulldozer damaging Palestinian infrastructure. The bullet struck Hathaleen in the chest as he stood near the community centre yard—a space he helped build, and where he taught children the English language.

According to the report of The Guardian, despite his critical injury, Israeli forces did not allow a Palestinian ambulance to take him. Instead, a military ambulance from the Carmel settlement transported him. Later that night, Israeli authorities informed his family of his death—without returning his body. To date, Israeli officials continue to withhold the body, in violation of Islamic customs that require immediate burial.

Sequence of events leading to the killing

The violence began the day prior, when a settler-operated bulldozer entered Umm al-Kheir and began destroying agricultural land and vital infrastructure, including a water pipe. Villagers had attempted to coordinate its passage to avoid such destruction, but their warnings were ignored. According to witnesses, the bulldozer operator used the vehicle’s claw to strike a villager in the head, leaving him semi-conscious.

As villagers gathered to protest, according to AP News, Levi reportedly emerged with a gun and began firing toward the crowd. Hathaleen was standing at a distance of about 10–15 metres, observing the unfolding situation. One eyewitness, Israeli activist Mattan Berner-Kadish, recounted to Al Jalzeera that Levi showed no remorse and was overheard saying: “I’m glad I did it.”

Berner-Kadish also stated that Israeli soldiers who arrived at the scene expressed sympathy with Levi, with at least three soldiers allegedly saying they wished they had shot Awdah themselves.

Aftermath and military crackdown

Following the killing, the Israeli army sealed off the village, declaring it a closed military zone, and arrested at least five members of the Hathaleen family. Among the detainees were relatives of the deceased and two international solidarity activists. Soldiers stormed the mourning tent, evicted mourners, and threw stun grenades at journalists and residents who resisted dispersal.

According to Vulture, despite the declared military closure, video footage later emerged showing a settler operating a bulldozer within the village, highlighting the disparity between military restrictions on Palestinians and impunity for settler activity.

Meanwhile, Israeli authorities charged Levi with negligent homicide, not murder. He was released to house arrest within three days. Levi had previously been sanctioned by the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States under President Joe Biden for violent settler attacks—but was delisted by Donald Trump on his first day in office.

A legacy of peace and education

Awdah was deeply embedded in the cultural and resistance life of Masafer Yatta. A teacher by profession and an activist by necessity, he taught English to grades 1 through 9 in the local school, believing language could be a tool to amplify Palestinian voices globally.

He was also a co-producer and on-screen voice in the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land,” directed by Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, which captured Israel’s systemic efforts to evict Palestinian communities from their homes in the firing zones of Masafer Yatta.

Beyond activism, Awdah was remembered as a devoted father to three young children—Watan (5), Muhammad (4), and Kinan (7 months)—and a vibrant presence in the community. He was known for his love of football, often playing with children on the makeshift pitch outside the community centre, and for his affection for Real Madrid. He was also described as a coffee connoisseur, regularly gifted Italian coffee by international allies.

“There was nobody who contributed as much to the community in Umm al-Kheir as Awdah,” said his cousin and brother-in-law, Alaa Hathaleen, as reported by Al Jalzeera.

“He was a radical humanist,” said Micol Hassan to Al Jalzeera, an Italian-Jewish activist and close friend who has been barred by Israel from reentering the West Bank.

Final message and global response

In a message sent just hours before his death, Awdah warned: “The settlers are working behind our houses… they tried to cut the main water pipe… If you can reach people like the Congress, courts, whatever, please do everything.”

His killing has drawn international condemnation. The French Foreign Ministry called it “a form of terrorism,” urging Israel to ensure accountability. Human rights lawyer Michael Sfard called settler violence “state violence” in Israel, citing widespread legal and military backing for settlers.

As reported by Al Jalzeera, Basel Adra, his colleague and co-director of No Other Land, wrote in mourning: “My dear friend Awdah was slaughtered this evening. This is how Israel erases us—one life at a time.”

Settler violence in context

The killing of Hathaleen is part of a broader pattern of increasing settler violence in the West Bank. Since October 2023, at least 1,009 Palestinians have been killed and over 7,000 injured, many in attacks involving armed settlers under the protection of Israeli military units. According to international law, all Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are illegal.

Umm al-Kheir, like many villages in Masafer Yatta, lies within Area C, a zone where Israel maintains full civil and military control. The entire region has been designated a “firing zone” by Israel, a status Palestinians say is used as a pretext to forcibly evict communities. Awdah had been documenting and resisting this very policy until the last day of his life.

Related:

Gaza: 700 citizens demand release of detained Madleen activists, call upon UK to fix Israel’s accountability for genocide, blockade, war crimes in Palestine

Illegality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Former DU Professor, Achin Vanaik, stands by his lecture on Palestine despite pressure

Mumbai police’s FIR against individuals at prayer gathering commemorating children killed in Palestine condemned: PUCL

“Don’t pray for Palestine,” Delhi Police reportedly warns mosque imams

The post Palestinian peace activist Awdah Hathaleen shot dead by Israeli settler in occupied West Bank appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of California in its ruling on July 18 in response to an allegation by the Hindu American Foundation that had claimed that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans,” dismissed HAF’s contention.

While dealing with the allegations, the court dismissed the allegation, stating that HAF had neither standing nor any valid arguments to pursue the case. The judge also said that HAF was being hypocritical in claiming that caste is not integral to Hinduism, while also claiming caste-based protections infringe on Hindu religious rights.

The Ambedkar King Study Circle, USA (AKSC) – a California-based anti-caste and social justice organisation – has called the ruling is not only a legal win, but “a major victory for civil rights and social justice.”

The AKSC, in its statement on behalf of the Savera coalition in the US – a platform bringing together a multiracial, interfaith, anti-caste organisations and activists – writes that the ruling has four visible outcomes:

1. It affirms the California civil rights department’s constitutional power to take legal action on behalf of caste-oppressed individuals facing discrimination.
2. The court stated that the civil rights department’s litigation – such as in the Cisco case – is legitimate state action.
3. The court ruled that the civil rights department’s actions do not violate the religious rights, equal protection, or due process of Hindu Americans and said that the HAF’s argument was “entirely unpersuasive.”
4. The court rejected HAF’s claim to represent “all Hindu Americans,” noting the organisation failed to demonstrate any actual activities, funding mechanisms, or engagement with the broader Hindu American community that would grant it standing in this case.

The judgement dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed by HAF and eight individuals in September 2024 against California civil rights department director Kevin Kish.

“The court’s judgment makes it clear that enforcing civil rights laws does not infringe on religious liberty. This decision sends a strong message: caste-based exclusion and abuse have no place in our institutions, and those impacted can seek justice under the law in the USA,” Karthikeyan Shanmugam, convenor of the AKSC, said.

Roja Singh, who is president of the Dalit Solidarity Forum, stated that the judgement shows that “the decades-long campaign of caste-based oppression in the US is finally being confronted.”

Related:

Unsealed: Suhag Shukla’s Deposition in Hindu American Foundation’s Failed Defamation Case Against Us

Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative

The post In a ‘major win’ for anti-caste activists, a US Federal Court upholds California Govt’s authority to act against caste oppression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Access to the camp would be through strict security screening to ensure entrants were not Hamas operatives. Once inside, the perimeter would be sealed off by the Israeli military. Palestinians would not be allowed to leave.

Eventually the camp would house the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza.

Camp construction would begin during the proposed 60-day ceasefire being negotiated by Israel and Hamas

‘Illegal and inhumane’

The plan is illegal, inhumane and risks worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The forced displacement and containment of any civilian population in an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law.

Done on this scale would constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have all condemned instances of forced transfer in armed conflicts.

So too, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which have stressed the fundamental prohibition of forced displacement of a civilian population and the need for all parties to respect this prohibition.

For their own protection?

Katz is describing the camp as a “humanitarian city”. The Israeli military says Palestinians would only be contained for their own protection.

As we have seen, civilian displacement is prohibited. But there is an exception if a case can be made either for military reasons or the protection of the population.

However, this exception only exists for as long as the conditions warrant for it to exist. Anyone subject to such an evacuation must be transferred back to their homes as soon as possible.

Imperative military reasons never justify the removal of a civilian population in order to persecute it. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement entrenches the duty of international actors to avoid creating the conditions that might lead to the displacement of people.

Aid dilemma

Katz has indicated international organisations would be responsible for managing aid and services inside the area.

But Israel has a history of defying even orders from the International Court of Justice to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians in Gaza.

If international humanitarian agencies were called upon to service the camp, they would face a dilemma.

They would need to decide whether to cooperate in managing aid under conditions that compromise their neutrality and ethical standards, deny basic human rights and are built on violations of international law.

Aid groups would risk being complicit in a process that sets up a transit camp for Palestinians before possibly expelling them from Gaza altogether.

This “humanitarian city” would essentially become an open-air prison. Palestinians would be reliant on international aid under strict Israeli military control.

Mass expulsion?

Could the Rafah camp be a precursor to mass expulsion from Gaza and what does international law say about that?

Katz has been quoted saying Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen” – meaning Gazans will eventually be forced to leave for other countries.

Changing the demographic composition of a territory – ethnic cleansing – achieved through the displacement of the civilian population of a territory is strictly prohibited under international law.

The idea of displacing Palestinians has long been part of Israeli strategic thinking, but this announcement signals a dangerous escalation and intention to permanently alter Gaza’s demographic landscape through displacement and containment.

Voluntary exodus?

According to Katz, Gazans would have the option of “voluntary” emigration.

Indeed, speaking at the White House this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there would be no forced exodus from Gaza:

If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.

But the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is incomprehensible.

The population has been displaced multiple times and 90% of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed. The healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed.

On average 100 Palestinians are killed daily as they try to access food.

These crisis circumstances negate the voluntary nature of any person’s consent to either the transfer to the Rafah camp or ultimately, the departure from Gaza.

According to Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, what the defence minister laid out was clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:

[it is] a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them. It is neither humanitarian nor a city.

Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

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

The post Israel’s Rafah camp – ‘humanitarian city’ or crime against humanity? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Every design choice that social media platforms make nudges users toward certain actions, values and emotional states.

It is a design choice to offer a news feed that combines verified news sources with conspiracy blogs – interspersed with photos of a family picnic – with no distinction between these very different types of information. It is a design choice to use algorithms that find the most emotional or outrageous content to show users, hoping it keeps them online. And it is a design choice to send bright red notifications, keeping people in a state of expectation for the next photo or juicy piece of gossip.

Platform design is a silent pilot steering human behavior.

Social media platforms are bringing massive changes to how people get their news and how they communicate and behave. For example, the “endless scroll” is a design feature that aims to keep users scrolling and never reaching the bottom of a page where they might decide to pause.

I’m a political scientist who researches aspects of technology that support democracy and social cohesion, and I’ve observed how the design of social media platforms affects them.

Democracy is in crisis globally, and technology is playing a role. Most large platforms optimize their designs for profit, not community or democracy. Increasingly, Big Tech is siding with autocrats, and the platforms’ designs help keep society under control.

There are alternatives, however. Some companies design online platforms to defend democratic values.

Optimized for profit

A handful of tech billionaires dominate the global information ecosystem. Without public accountability or oversight, they determine what news shows up on your feed and what data they collect and share.

Social media companies say they are in the business of connecting people, but they make most of their money as data brokers and advertising firms. Time spent on platforms translates to profit. The more time you spend online, the more ads you see and the more data they can collect from you.

This ad-based business model demands designs that encourage endless scrolling, social comparison and emotional engagement. Platforms routinely claim they merely reflect user behavior, yet internal documents and whistleblower accounts have shown that toxic content often gets a boost because it captures people’s attention.

Tech companies design platforms based on extensive psychological research. Examples include flashing notifications that make your phone jump and squeak, colorful rewards when others like your posts, and algorithms that push out the most emotional content to stimulate your most base emotions of anger, shame or glee.

Optimizing designs for user engagement undermines mental health and society. Social media sites favor hype and scandal over factual accuracy, and public manipulation over designing for safety, privacy and user agency. The resulting prevalence of polarizing false and deceptive information is corrosive to democracy.

Many analysts identified these problems nearly a decade ago. But now there is a new threat: Some tech executives are looking to capture political power to advance a new era of techno-autocracy.

Optimized for political power

A techno-autocracy is a political system where an authoritarian government uses technology to control its population. Techno-autocrats spread disinformation and propaganda, using fear tactics to demonize others and distract from corruption. They leverage massive amounts of data, artificial intelligence and surveillance to censor opponents.

For example, China uses technology to monitor and surveil its population with public cameras. Chinese platforms like WeChat and Weibo automatically scan, block or delete messages and posts for sensitive words like “freedom of speech.” Russia promotes domestic platforms like VK that are closely monitored and partly owned by state-linked entities that use it to promote political propaganda.

Over a decade ago, tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and now Vice President JD Vance, began aligning with far-right political philosophers like Curtis Yarvin. They argue that democracy impedes innovation, favoring concentrated decision-making in corporate-controlled mini-states governed through surveillance. Embracing this philosophy of techno-autocracy, they moved from funding and designing the internet to reshaping government.

Techno-autocrats weaponize social media platforms as part of their plan to dismantle democratic institutions.

The political capture of both X and Meta also have consequences for global security. At Meta, Mark Zuckerberg removed barriers to right-wing propaganda and openly endorsed President Donald Trump’s agenda. Musk changed X’s algorithm to highlight right-wing content, including Russian propaganda.

Designing tech for democracy

Recognizing the power that platform design has on society, some companies are designing new civic participation platforms that support rather than undermine society’s access to verified information and places for public deliberation. These platforms offer design features that big tech companies could adopt for improving democratic engagement that can help counter techno-autocracy.

In 2014, a group of technologists founded Pol.is, an open-source technology for hosting public deliberation that leverages data science. Pol.is enables participants to propose and vote on policy ideas using what they call “computational democracy.” The Pol.is design avoids personal attacks by having no “reply” button. It offers no flashy newsfeed, and it uses algorithms that identify areas of agreement and disagreement to help people make sense of a diversity of opinions. A prompt question asks for people to offer ideas and vote up or down on other ideas. People participate anonymously, helping to keep the focus on the issues and not the people.

Taiwan used the Pol.is platform to enable mass civic engagement in the 2014 democracy movement. The U.K. government’s Collective Intelligence Lab used the platform to generate public discussion and generate new policy proposals on climate and health care policies. In Finland, a public foundation called Sitra uses Pol.is in its “What do you think, Finland?” public dialogues.

Barcelona, Spain, designed a new participatory democracy platform called Decidim in 2017. Now used throughout Spain and Europe, Decidim enables citizens to collaboratively propose, debate and decide on public policies and budgets through transparent digital processes.

Nobel Peace Laureate Maria Ressa founded Rappler Communities in 2023, a social network in the Philippines that combines journalism, community and technology. It aims to restore trust in institutions by providing safe spaces for exchanging ideas and connecting with neighbors, journalists and civil society groups. Rappler Communities offers the public data privacy and portability, meaning you can take your information – like photos, contacts or messages – from one app or platform and transfer it to another. These design features are not available on the major social media platforms.

Tech designed for improving public dialogue is possible – and can even work in the middle of a war zone. In 2024, the Alliance for Middle East Peace began using Remesh.ai, an AI-based platform, to find areas of common ground between Israelis and Palestinians in order to advance the idea of a public peace process and identify elements of a ceasefire agreement.

Platform designs are a form of social engineering to achieve some sort of goal – because they shape how people behave, think and interact – often invisibly. Designing more and better platforms to support democracy can be an antidote to the wave of global autocracy that is increasingly bolstered by tech platforms that tighten public control.

Lisa Schirch, Professor of the Practice of Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

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

The post Social media can support or undermine democracy – it comes down to how it’s designed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The people had indeed spoken—and they had rejected everything Cuomo represented. The former New York governor, married into the Kennedy dynasty through his union with Kerry Kennedy, had tried to buy his way back to relevance with billionaire money and the weight of two of America’s most storied political families. The political titan who had resigned in disgrace had just been crushed by a nobody. A housing counsellor from Queens. A 33-year-old democratic socialist whom most New Yorkers couldn’t have picked out of a police lineup six months earlier.

Across the city in Astoria, that nobody—Zohran Kwame Mamdani, son of Indo-Ugandan exiles, former rapper, sometime housing advocate – stood before a crowd of volunteers who had just rewritten the rules of American politics. They had not merely defeated a former governor; they had obliterated him, turning Cuomo’s 30-point lead into a seven-point rout that would make their candidate the Democratic nominee for mayor of America’s largest city.

This was not supposed to happen. Not in New York, where money and connections have long determined who gets to compete for City Hall. Not to Andrew Cuomo, scion of political royalty, armed with $33 million and the backing of Wall Street’s finest. And certainly not at the hands of an obscure Assemblyman whose campaign headquarters doubled as a community organizing centre in Queens, whose previous claim to fame was battling foreclosure notices in immigrant neighbourhoods nobody else bothered to visit.

Yet here was Mamdani, with 93 per cent of ballots counted, claiming 43.5 per cent of first-choice votes against Cuomo’s 36.4 per cent. His primary victory, powered by 50,000 volunteers and $8 million in small-dollar donations, represented something unprecedented in American politics: the emergence of a candidate who successfully translated policy prescriptions into cultural resonance, whose “exuberant economic populism” became, in the words of campaign observers, “a love song to a city yearning for change.” His victory positions him as the Democratic nominee who could become New York’s first Muslim, Indian-American, and millennial mayor—a symbolic breakthrough that extends far beyond representation to embody resistance against the nationalist currents of Donald Trump’s second presidential term.

Roots of Rebellion

To understand how Mamdani reached this moment, one must look to the inheritance that shaped him. Born on October 18, 1991, in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian parents, Mamdani grew up carrying the legacies of dislocation and resistance. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a renowned Gujarati Shia Muslim scholar at Columbia University, whose work on decolonisation reshaped how generations understood power and citizenship. His mother, Mira Nair, an acclaimed Punjabi Hindu filmmaker, gave voice to diaspora stories through her cinema.

The middle name Kwame, a tribute to Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, was entirely intentional. It was a signal. Mahmood Mamdani’s own life had been a study in resistance: expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin for being Indian and outspoken, he passed through London refugee camps before returning to a post Amin Kampala. His resignation from the University of Cape Town, after white faculty resisted efforts to decolonise the curriculum, led to his landmark book Citizen and Subject, which reframed Africa’s colonial inheritance as one that divided urban citizens from rural subjects.

That defiant, searching spirit filtered down. Zohran’s undergraduate thesis at Bowdoin, on Uganda’s expulsion of Indians, reflected far more than an academic interest but a personal reckoning. It brought him closer to immigrant communities whose lives echoed his family’s. The narrative of loss and return, of exile and belonging, lived in him.

After arriving in New York at age seven, Mamdani came of age in the city’s multitudes. At Bowdoin, he studied Africana Studies and co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine—his politics expanding beyond borders, his compass set to global justice.

From the Streets to the Statehouse

The path from Bowdoin College to City Hall was anything but conventional for Mamdani. After graduating with a degree in Africana Studies, where he co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, he spent time pursuing an unlikely passion: hip-hop music. Under a stage name he now prefers to keep private, Mamdani briefly tried his hand as a rapper, before concluding that community organizing offered more direct routes to social change.

His transition to housing advocacy proved formative. Working as a foreclosure prevention counsellor in Queens, Mamdani spent his days in cramped apartments with families facing eviction, navigating bureaucratic mazes to keep people housed. The work provided intimate knowledge of the housing crisis that would later inform his policy prescriptions, but more importantly, it connected him to the human cost of policy failures that most politicians encounter only in statistics.

By 2019, Mamdani was organizing tenant unions in Astoria. Renters, once isolated, began to act collectively. They fought back. And in those tight hallways and cramped living rooms, he learned what real power looked like. The power of platforms paled next to the power of listening, of showing up, of helping people see themselves as part of something larger.

His 2020 election to the New York State Assembly at age 29, defeating a four-term incumbent in Astoria’s diverse district, marked his formal entry into electoral politics. The victory, followed by unopposed re-election, established him as a rising star in progressive circles. His legislative record, including securing $100 million for subway service improvements and piloting fare-free bus programmes, demonstrated his ability to navigate Albany’s complex coalition politics while maintaining his progressive credentials.

The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes offered another proving ground. Mamdani stood with the unions. His face became familiar on picket lines. His solidarity went beyond symbolism and built the trust that would carry him through a citywide campaign.

A City Crying Out for Bold Answers

When Mamdani unveiled his mayoral platform, critics immediately branded it “radical.” The label didn’t seem to bother him. “These policies reflect what working people demand,” he argued in response, “not what billionaire donors or real estate speculators prefer.” It was classic Mamdani—turning a potential weakness into a populist rallying cry.

His comprehensive agenda reads like a progressive wish list: freeze rents on over one million stabilised apartments, eliminate fares on city buses, fund universal childcare, raise the minimum wage to $30 by 2030, and establish city-run grocery stores to combat food inflation. The financing mechanism—a $10 billion tax on corporations and the ultra-wealthy—represents perhaps the most controversial aspect of his platform, prompting business elites to threaten a capital strike.

Mamdani’s housing strategy represents a particular departure from conventional wisdom, shifting emphasis from developer incentives to tenant-owned buildings—a approach he describes as informed by his years of tenant organising experience. “We’re not going to build our way out of this crisis by making developers richer,” he said during a campaign debate, a line that became a signature applause generator at his rallies.

His public safety vision, prioritising what he calls a “Department of Community Safety” over militarised policing, reflects progressive thinking on criminal justice reform but has drawn scepticism from centrists like Mayor Eric Adams, whose 2024 corruption indictment was ultimately dismissed. When pressed on specifics during a contentious radio interview, Mamdani argued that “public safety means people feeling safe in their homes from eviction, safe in their neighbourhoods from violence, and safe in their workplaces from exploitation.”

David Slays Goliath: How the Upset Happened

The mechanics of Mamdani’s campaign victory represent a masterclass in modern political organising. Defying 31 of 32 polls that favoured Cuomo, the campaign leveraged New York’s ranked-choice voting system with surgical precision. A strategic cross-endorsement with City Comptroller Brad Lander, who secured 11.4 per cent of first-choice votes, provided the crucial margin in reallocations that secured Mamdani’s seven-point victory margin.

The ground game was unprecedented in its scope and intensity. Fifty thousand volunteers conducted 1.2 million door-knocks, reaching diverse communities across the city’s five boroughs. The campaign’s ability to mobilise South Asians in Richmond Hill, Latinos in Jackson Heights, Chinese voters in Flushing, and even make inroads among Brooklyn gentrifiers demonstrated sophisticated targeting and messaging. Even in conservative Staten Island, traditionally hostile territory for progressive candidates, Mamdani narrowed the gap to just nine points.

The financial contrast between the campaigns tells its own story. Mamdani’s $8 million, raised from 21,000 small-dollar donors—75 per cent contributing under $100—stood against Cuomo’s $33 million war chest, including a $25 million super PAC, Fix the City, backed by billionaire Bill Ackman, a Trump supporter and Israel advocate. This David-versus-Goliath dynamic resonated with voters increasingly cynical about money’s role in politics.

Cuomo’s campaign, by contrast, seemed to embody everything voters found objectionable about contemporary politics. Heir to a political dynasty through his father Mario Cuomo, who served as governor from 1983 to 1994, Andrew Cuomo relied heavily on name recognition but failed to qualify for public matching funds. His record—hiding nursing home deaths during COVID-19, discrediting over a dozen women who accused him of sexual harassment, and cutting a 2022 gerrymandering deal that aided Republican House gains—made him a symbol of status-quo failure, unable to withstand Mamdani’s populist surge.

When Identity Meets Authenticity

Mamdani’s relationship with New York’s 600,000-strong South Asian community exemplifies his sophisticated approach to identity politics. Drawing on his mother Mira Nair’s Sikh heritage, he engaged authentically with community institutions, speaking Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi at gurdwaras and community events. His support for India’s 2020-21 farmer protests and praise for Kerala’s Communist leadership demonstrated his ability to navigate complex subcontinental politics while maintaining progressive credentials.

His critique of Hindu nationalism, including calling Narendra Modi “the butcher of Gujarat” for the 2002 riots and condemning the Ram Temple consecration as majoritarian oppression tied to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, drew predictable criticism from BJP MP Kangana Ranaut but solidified his standing among progressive South Asian groups like DRUM. This willingness to take controversial positions on international issues distinguished him from conventional politicians who avoid diaspora controversies.

Perhaps no issue tested Mamdani’s political courage more than Palestine. His characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” and his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement became a litmus test for progressive authenticity. His pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an indicted war criminal—if elected mayor and Netanyahu visited New York represented a direct challenge to the Democratic establishment’s unwavering support for Israel. During a heated March 2025 confrontation with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, Mamdani demanded the release of detained activist Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American organizer arrested while protesting weapons shipments to Israel. The moment, widely shared on social media, further galvanized his support among pro-Palestinian groups and cemented his stance as a rare voice of solidarity within mainstream American politics.

This stance contrasted sharply with Cuomo’s offer to join Netanyahu’s defence team before the International Criminal Court, aligning him with establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani’s position, amplified through 135 mosque visits during the campaign, mobilised Muslim voters despite drawing antisemitism accusations from Representative Laura Gillen. The defence mounted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, citing his clear condemnation of antisemitism as a “disgusting and dangerous ideology,” helped neutralise these attacks.

The Hard Part: From Nominee to City Hall

The transition from primary winner to governing will test Mamdani’s political skills in new ways. With the November general election looming, he must first survive what promises to be a bruising campaign against the Republican nominee while managing New York’s complex electoral dynamics. Should he win in November, governing the city’s $115 billion budget and 300,000 employees will require executive experience that his critics, led by Cuomo, have questioned. The New York Post and business elites, alarmed by his tax proposals, may support Cuomo’s rumoured independent run, creating additional political complications.

Federal budget cuts under Trump’s second term, combined with potential state resistance to progressive policies, will create fiscal constraints that may limit Mamdani’s ability to implement his agenda. However, some of his key proposals, particularly the rent freeze, appear feasible through existing mechanisms like the Rent Guidelines Board.

His electoral coalition—South Asians, Latinos, progressive young voters—provides a strong foundation for governance, but maintaining unity while making the inevitable compromises required for effective administration will require careful political management. His consultations with technocrats like Maria Torres-Springer suggest preparation for the practical challenges of potential governance, though media scrutiny and a Republican opponent in the general election will test his campaign from now until November. Should he prevail in November, potential opposition from figures like Eric Adams would test his administration from the outset.

If Mamdani reaches City Hall, he may join the lineage of American progressives who governed boldly: Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists,” Bernie Sanders in Burlington.

“It always seems impossible until it is done,” he said, quoting Mandela. Mamdani has done what many thought impossible. What remains is to prove it was entirely intentional.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post New York’s New Equation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A glaring example is Palestine. Since October 2023, Gaza has endured one of the most devastating humanitarian catastrophes in modern times: at least 55,706 Palestinians killed and 130,101 wounded, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. By January 2024, UNICEF reported that 14,500 children had been killed, 17,000 orphaned or separated, and Gaza had the highest percentage of child amputees globally. These are not collateral damages – they are systematic violations of law and humanity.

The international legal framework meant to prevent such atrocities such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, Rome Statute of the ICC, Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been consistently ignored. Article 8 of the Rome Statute explicitly defines deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure as war crimes. Yet, violations by Israel are documented in the OHCHR’s 30 December 2024 press release which includes murder, torture, sexual violence, starvation as a weapon of war, indiscriminate attacks on civilian objects, forced displacement, and collective punishment. These are not allegations. They are evidence-backed determinations by UN-mandated experts.

And yet, the world remains largely silent. Why?

Because power protects itself. Nuclear powers whether economically robust or fragile wield an unspoken immunity. Even countries like Pakistan, despite deep economic instability, are seldom threatened directly due to their nuclear deterrence. Their military posture buys them geopolitical respect that their economy cannot.

One of the most guarded secrets in international politics is Israel’s nuclear policy. For decades, Israel has followed a strategy of deliberate ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons, instead stating: “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.” However, in November 2023, amid the intensifying war on Gaza, Israeli Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu publicly floated the idea of dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza, it was a chilling statement that many interpreted as a tacit admission of nuclear capability. While Prime Minister Netanyahu suspended the minister, the world had already taken note. Silence followed.

This silence also extends to Iran, a state with one of the world’s largest proven oil and gas reserves and control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 – 30% of global oil supply transits. Iran, often vocal on Palestine, has been strategically cautious. Its economic and geopolitical dependencies, especially in global energy trade and its own fragile economic ecosystem, have kept it from direct military involvement, despite the moral and ideological stakes.

Meanwhile, the world bears witness to selective intervention. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Lebanon have all suffered under Western or Israeli military aggression, often framed as anti-terrorism but ending in mass civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction of state institutions. The U.S. alone has used its UNSC veto power 42 times to shield Israel, while continuing to provide $3 billion annually in military aid.

This is not a religious war. It is a militarised geopolitical strategy aimed at maintaining global power hierarchies. It poses a question by the experts that law exists only for the weak. Sovereignty applies only until it offends the interests of the powerful. And accountability is demanded from the powerless, not those with nuclear warheads and strategic alliances.

It seems that the international system is thus not failing but it is functioning exactly as it was designed: As it was established to protect the dominant? What is urgently needed is a transformation of global governance mechanisms – the UN, the International Criminal Court, and international law must be empowered to act independently of hegemonic influence.

If the targeting of Palestine and the neutralisation of Iran’s potential role can continue unchecked, the precedent set is clear: peace is not a right, but a privilege of the powerful and the global community truly seeks a world free of nuclear weapons, disarmament must begin with the nine nuclear-armed states. If these powers retain their arsenals, calls for non-proliferation will remain hypocritical. This imbalance fosters power hegemony, where peace is dictated through threats, not diplomacy. Non-nuclear states are left vulnerable and forced to surrender or suffer devastating consequences, as seen in Gaza. Without equal commitment to disarmament, the world risks continuing cycles of coercion, conflict, and undeclared genocides against those who dare to resist dominant powers.

(The author is an assistant professor of law and a mediator based in Dubai. Her work focuses on international law, gender rights, and conflict resolution) 

The post Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Who Is India’s All-Weather Friend in This World? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat.

The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”

For other, even more radical Israelis – such as the ultra-nationalist assassin Yigal Amir – the answer lay elsewhere. They sought the assassination of Israeli leaders such as Yitzak Rabin who wanted peace with the Palestinians.

Despite Rabin’s long personal history as a famed and often ruthless military commander in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars, Amir stalked and shot Rabin dead in 1995. He believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by signing the Oslo Accords peace deal with Arafat.

It’s been 20 years since Arafat died as possibly the victim of polonium poisoning, and 30 years after the shooting of Rabin. Peace between Israelis and the Palestinians has never been further away.

What Amnesty International and a United Nations Special Committee have called genocidal attacks on Palestinians in Gaza have spilled over into Israeli attacks on the prominent leaders of its enemies in Lebanon and, most recently, Iran.

Since its attacks on Iran began on Friday, Israel has killed numerous military and intelligence leaders, including Iran’s intelligence chief, Mohammad Kazemi; the chief of the armed forces, Mohammad Bagheri; and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami. At least nine Iranian nuclear scientists have also been killed.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said:

We got their chief intelligence officer and his deputy in Tehran.

Iran, predictably, has responded with deadly missile attacks on Israel.

Far from having solved the issue of Middle East peace, assassinations continue to pour oil on the flames.

A long history of extra-judicial killings

Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First argues assassinations have long sat at the heart of Israeli politics.

In the past 75 years, there have been more than 2,700 assassination operations undertaken by Israel. These have, in Bergman’s words, attempted to “stop history” and bypass “statesmanship and political discourse”.

This normalisation of assassinations has been codified in the Israeli expression of “mowing the grass”. This is, as historian Nadim Rouhana has shown, a metaphor for a politics of constant assassination. Enemy “leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak.”

The point is not to solve the underlying political questions at issue. Instead, this approach aims to sow fear, dissent and confusion among enemies.

Thousands of assassination operations have not, however, proved sufficient to resolve the long-running conflict between Israel, its neighbours and the Palestinians. The tactic itself is surely overdue for retirement.

Targeted assassinations elsewhere

Israel has been far from alone in this strategy of assassination and killing.

Former US President Barack Obama oversaw the extra-judicial killing of Osama Bin Laden, for instance.

After what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch denounced as a flawed trial, former US President George W. Bush welcomed the hanging of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy”.

Current US President Donald Trump oversaw the assassination of Iran’s leader of clandestine military operations, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.

More recently, however, Trump appears to have baulked at granting Netanyahu permission to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

And it’s worth noting the US Department of Justice last year brought charges against an Iranian man who said he’d been tasked with killing Trump.

Elsewhere, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it’s common for senior political and media opponents to be shot in the streets. Frequently they also “fall” out of high windows, are killed in plane crashes or succumb to mystery “illnesses”.

A poor record

Extra-judicial killings, however, have a poor record as a mechanism for solving political problems.

Cutting off the hydra’s head has generally led to its often immediate replacement by another equally or more ideologically committed person, as has already happened in Iran. Perhaps they too await the next round of “mowing the grass”.

But as the latest Israeli strikes in Iran and elsewhere show, solving the underlying issue is rarely the point.

In situations where finding a lasting negotiated settlement would mean painful concessions or strategic risks, assassinations prove simply too tempting. They circumvent the difficulties and complexities of diplomacy while avoiding the need to concede power or territory.

As many have concluded, however, assassinations have never killed resistance. They have never killed the ideas and experiences that give birth to resistance in the first place.

Nor have they offered lasting security to those who have ordered the lethal strike.

Enduring security requires that, at some point, someone grasp the nettle and look to the underlying issues.

The alternative is the continuation of the brutal pattern of strike and counter-strike for generations to come.

Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

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

The post Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NGOs such as Amnesty International, Save the Children, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), and Oxfam organized the demonstration, which ran through the city to the International Court of Justice. The protesters were all dressed in red, creating a “red line”.

Organisers described it as the country’s largest demonstration in two decades. Many waving Palestinian flags and some chanting “Stop the Genocide”, the demonstrators turned a central park in the city into a sea of red on a sunny afternoon.

“The Dutch cabinet still refuses to draw a red line. That is why we do it, for as long as necessary,” Marjon Rozema of Amnesty International Netherlands said in a statement.

Protesters walked a 5-kilometer loop around the city center of The Hague to symbolically create the red line that the government has failed to set.

And what a red line it is!!!

The Hague, The Netherlands, now. Protest against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza.

Approximately 200.000 participants. #rodelijn #redline #israel pic.twitter.com/T2s5Mf1wgo

— Whispering (@AnnetinMokum) June 15, 2025

Tienduizenden mensen zijn weer in Den Haag lom een rode lijn te trekken tegen medeplichtigheid in de genocide in Gaza en het oorlogszuchtige politiek van onze politici. pic.twitter.com/OXmgRqyXnc

— DiEM25 in Nederland (@DiEM25_NL) June 15, 2025

The post Hundreds of Thousands form ‘Red Line’ Around the Hague appeared first on SabrangIndia.