This is what happened several months ago. A teenager living in the housing society where I reside was sent to Australia to study at a university in Sydney with much fanfare. The parents, whom I often met as part of a group, would tell us how easily the boy got his admission with the help of “some well-meaning friends,” adding that they had obtained an education loan to ensure he could study at a graduate school.

On reaching Sydney, the boy’s parents—especially the father—would tell us how a place to stay had been arranged by a “very close friend” at virtually no cost, and that the boy was “extremely happy.” We would be shown photos of the boy at various spots in the city as evidence of his happiness.

But as time passed, the father began to complain that his son had to “walk a lot” from where he stayed in order to catch public transport. “He gets tired on return,” he would tell us, adding that food was another problem. “He has to prepare his own food, which he has never done. Besides, while we can afford outside food, since he is a pure vegetarian, he isn’t very comfortable with what’s available on the counter.”

A month or so later, we found that the boy had returned. The reason? He was “unable to adjust,” and his mother was quite worried about him. “She advised him to return,” the father said, adding, “We have been promised by the university to return the advance fees deposited for his studies… Good that he is back…” Ironically, the parents never revealed which agent, if any, had organized the boy’s student visa.

While this boy returned after failing to adjust to a foreign environment, a news item published in the Times of India, authored by my ex-colleague Bharat Yagnik, suggests that Australia has now clamped down on Indian students, with the country joining the US and Canada in tightening immigration norms for Indian students, and several universities halting applications from six states, including Gujarat. The universities which have cracked the whip are Federation University, Western Sydney University, Victoria University, and Southern Cross University. Apart from Gujarat, the affected students are from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The news item quotes what it calls visa consultants and foreign education experts—especially from Gujarat—pointing out that they are “rattled.” In their estimate, “20% of students from the state heading abroad typically choose Australia, a figure likely to drop with these new restrictions.”

Foreign education consultant Bhavin Thaker is quoted as saying, “This has dramatically reduced the number of opportunities available to students. Of every 100 students who plan to study overseas, at least 20 are directly impacted. With Canada and the US already tightening immigration policies, and now Australia going the same way, the list of accessible countries is shrinking. While there’s no official government statement yet, the message is quite clear.”

Visa consultant Lalit Advani is cited as claiming, “The decision by Australian universities to restrict applications from certain regions within India will impact genuine students. The majority of applicants are sincere, and they can be easily identified based on their academic scores, background, and intent. Blanket bans only add to the frustration.”

No sooner had I read the news item than I forwarded it to my college friend Neeraj Nanda, who runs South Asia Times, an online periodical in Melbourne, and phoned him up to find out what was happening, and what the Australian side of the story was. Nanda, who was my colleague at Link Newsweekly in Delhi in the early 1980s, told me that this is an “old story,” pointing out that the authorities in Australia have discovered how Indian students submit fake documents to study in Australia.

The post Why’s Australian crackdown rattling Indian students? Whopping 25% fake visa applications appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the death of Pope Francis, the world has lost one of the greatest personalities of modern times! We are saddened that he is no longer in our midst!

He was truly a compassionate pastor with a warm, loving heart for the poor and marginalised, the excluded and the exploited, the refugees and the migrants, the LGBTGIA+ community, the victims of war and human trafficking and in fact, with all sub-alterns and those who live on the peripheries of society.

Pope Francis transcended boundaries and exclusiveness, divisions and discrimination of every kind. He was convinced that humans should build bridges and not walls, to reach out to others, particularly the lost, the last and the least. His Encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’ speaks strongly about this.

Pope Francis was deeply troubled by what is happening to the environment. He cared for our common home and wished that all take responsibility to ensure that our planet earth is liveable for all. His writings ‘Laudato Si’ and ‘Laudate Deum’ on the environment, bear testimony to his concern.

Pope Francis was a man of peace! He spoke out unequivocally against every war and the industrial military complex; he took a strong stand against the ‘culture of death’. He spoke directly to the most powerful people on earth reminding them of what they should be doing. His last tweet on 20 April evening began with “I would like us to renew our hope that peace is possible…”

Above all, Pope Francis was a man of God, sent to be a pilgrim on earth; to motivate all of us with a newer, deeper and more meaningful hope! He was a complete human being who left no stone unturned to make our world a more just, peaceful and humane place for all! He was and is a SAINT!

Millions all over will miss him! In his death the world is orphaned!    

(The author is a human rights, justice, reconciliation & peace activist/writer)

The post In Pope Francis’ death the world has lost a visionary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Vatican said in a statement that that the pope died at 7.35 AM (local time). Pope Francis had the reputation of an outspoken reformer a radical voice from the church. He was the first to occupy the highest position of the Catholic Church from Latin America. The Vatican News noted that in the 12 years of his pontificate, Pope Francis visited as many as 68 countries “giving life to a tireless mission to take the Word of God and the comfort of His love to the whole human family.” Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis was the son of Italian immigrants in Argentina.

The pope’s last message to the world through his official account on X was to observe Easter. “Christ is risen! These words capture the entire meaning of our existence, for we were not made for death but for life,” he had written. Even during his last full address, the pope, who was known for speaking on the marginalised, had said spoken against violence.

“What a great thirst for death, for killing, we witness each day in the many conflicts raging in different parts of our world! How much violence we see, often even within families, directed at women and children! How much contempt is stirred up at times towards the vulnerable, the marginalized, and migrants!”

Pope Francis was also aware of and spoke against ecological damage done to the earth by humans. In 2015, his letter to Roman Catholic bishops took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles.

Stop the killings in Gaza: Pope Francis

One commentator on X, formerly twitter quoted from his tenure as the pontiff of the Catholic Church. “𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙄 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙤𝙧𝙨, 𝙄 𝙖𝙨𝙠 𝙢𝙮𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, “𝙒𝙝𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚?” – The Pope after his Good Friday visit to Rome’s Regina Coeli jail. An unfailing support for a lasting peace in Gaza, he had publicly commented, and strongly against Israeli bombings:
“Yesterday, children were bombed. This is cruelty. This is not war.”

Against Ecocide: Pope Francis

A piece on Conversation says: “For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.”

2018: Sharp comments on child abuse in the Church

Though long overdue, but Pope Francis’s letter of condemnation and apology regarding the abuse of children by Catholic priests did sent a few ripples of comfort and reckoning.  He conceded that the Church “showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them”.  He acknowledged the “heart-wrenching pain” of the victims who had been assaulted by the clerical class, and the cries “long ignored, kept quiet or silenced”. Sabrangindia had reported on this: “With shame and repentance,” went the Pope’s grave words, “we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives.”

Related:

The Tree of Life affirmed by Pope Francis in Bahrain

The post Pope Francis passes away at 88 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This Statement has been issued by Madhav Deshpande with 40 plus years of experience in the field of Computer Science and its Applications and Architecture of Unique Software apart from being a consultant to the Obama administration, Prof Harish Karnick, Retd. Prof. Dept. of Comp. Sc. and Engg., IIT, Kanpur, Kaushik Majumdar, Professor Indian Statistical Institute, Sarbendu Guha, Principal Product Engineer, Digital Infrastructure For India.

Last week, April 11, US Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, also Director, US National Intelligence clearly and publicly stated that, she had told a Cabinet Meeting in her country that “her office has solid evidence of massive security flaws in the EVMs enabling hackers to manipulate and flip votes,” and was therefore demanding a return to paper ballots. Fast on the heels of this much publicised statement, the Election Commission of India (ECI) that has –of late been questioned on the vulnerability of aspects of the Electronic Voting System (EVS)—made what is being viewed a far-reaching statement that Indian EVMs not connected to Internet, Wi-Fi, says Election Commission amid Tulsi Gabbard’s comments.

The statement now issued by experts, states that “at the outset we would like to state that it is shocking that the ECI responds so promptly to an official of a foreign government, even as it is obdurate and non-responsive to legitimate queries by citizens, experts and the political opposition.” Elaborating further, this team of experts enumerates, in the statement on why it “strongly disagrees” with the ECI for the following reasons:

“Manipulation of an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) is the set of actions to make the EVM perform in the way it is not supposed to behave. Such manipulation can be effected by providing additional data to the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) using the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU). The SLU acquires its data when connected to the ECI website after the candidate list is finalized, which only a few days before the voting day.

“While it is very difficult to alter the program instruction set in the one-time write locked EEPROM, it is entirely possible to:

1. Push a Trojan software through the USB drive when it is connected to the VVPAT for purpose of uploading the candidate list. Such Trojan software will modify the firmware as if the firmware is being “updated”. The “updated” firmware will then perform manipulated malfunction to deliver manipulated results. It is important to note that ISP (In-System Programming) is an established way of updating the firmware of a microcontroller and as such is a ubiquitously accessible technique
2. Supply additional data to the already burnt-in program. The program existing in the VVPAT must be already written to recognise the additional data and decision making branches already must exist in the program code to deliver manipulated functionality

The experts, in this statement, that the earlier version of EVMs used before 2014 Lok Sabha elections were intended to be stand-alone and therefore not open to manipulation. This earlier EVS system did not have the VVPAT unit nor the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) and moreover, did not need data (mapping candidate/party symbol to buttons of the Ballot Unit-BU) nor any additional instruction set to be loaded into EVM-VVPAT through a physical communication port. However this is not the case since and therefore, “the ECI’s bald statement, without answering concerns by Indian Computer Science experts does not inspire confidence”.

The other issue raised by these experts is that it should be a matter of concern for citizens that “the ECI has never demonstrated publicly and opened any operational CU, BU, and VVPAT in public presence. The ECI has never allowed any open door controlled testing of any working EVM in the presence of independent experts or voters. Moreover, these EVMs are not certified by any third party, nor any neutral experts committee that can state that ‘the EVM does not emit or receive any Radio Frequency (RF) signal.’’

Demands made by this team of experts:

Indian citizens should be allowed to conduct non-invasive and non-destructive tests on the powered-on, working EVMs at three locations in every state to satisfy themselves that EVM does not respond to or create any RF communication channel. These EVMs must not be from the spare EVMs stored, but must be from those that were actually used in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

In addition, they demand that the ECI publishes the steps and processes followed to establish and prove data integrity across the entire Electronic Voting System or Electronic Election System: that is the ECI publishes every step taken and the process at every step to establish and prove data integrity across the BU, CU (including the procedure to establish that both copies of electronic vote stored in the CU are identical), VVPAT (the data exchange between the VVPAT and the CU) and finally the values received by the counting unit (as applicable).

Under the constitutional obligation under Article 324-326 of the Constitution, the ECI must publish the detailed protocol it follows on the day of voting and the day of counting to establish that none of the above data has been changed. “The ECI’s blanket statements that Indian EVMs are not connected to internet wirelessly /wired fashion (read external radio wave or microwave communication signals) without giving out details of the circuits is tantamount to official propaganda bereft of scientific or rational enquiry,” reads the statement.

Finally, the Symbol-Loading Unit (SLU) of the VVPAT unit is connected to the ECI’s website for a brief while – after the list of candidates and their symbols are finalised and before the date of polling. All details about the final list of candidates including their symbols are downloaded from the ECI’s website on to the VVPAT unit. There is an electronic security loophole here because it is possible to introduce a vote-stealing Trojan into the ECI’s website, with or without the ECI’s knowledge, and this Trojan can get downloaded into the VVPAT unit.

The vote-stealing Trojan can be so programmed as to get activated after a certain number of votes (say, 200 votes) have been cast, and to convert, say, every 5th vote cast thereafter to a vote for a certain political party, when the signal is transmitted from the VVPAT unit to the Control unit. The vote-stealing Trojan can also be programmed to self-destruct, say, 6 hours after the last vote has been cast, leaving no trace of its nefarious deed. The Trojan can be programmed to act only on a certain date and that too after a certain time of the day.

Further, the Trojan or the original program itself can be written to respond to additional data uploaded via SLU. Such program will (or can) display different behaviour in every constituency, based on the data uploaded from the SLU. Therefore, experts have demanded that from each constituency, at least 3 randomly selected SLUs, (selected by public), should be given to open scrutiny by a committee of experts. This scrutiny should be carried out in full public view.

On April 11, 2025 a group of over 80 Citizens including Experts had submitted a Detailed Memorandum to the Election Commission of India. This can be read here.

Related:

Memo to ECI: Make Voter’s Form 17Cs list accessible on Commission website, clean up existing, technologically messy EVS structure, say citizens

Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024

SEC M’tra agrees to make weekly reports to CEC public, assures action on hate speech, urges every citizen to become alert voter: Vote For…

The post Computer science experts question ECI’s rebuttal of Tulsi Gabbard on Indian EVMs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian government’s response to Trump’s tariff war has been, at best, muted. A recent meeting between the U.S. President and the Indian Prime Minister epitomised this submissiveness. Even as the U.S. government was forcibly deporting Indian nationals; shackled, blindfolded, and transported in military aircraft in a manner starkly violative of human dignity. The Indian government chose denial over protest, publicly insisting that the deportees had not been ill-treated. Further, when Ananda Vikatan, a Tamil-language magazine, published a satirical cartoon critiquing the government’s silence on these humiliations, it was summarily censored under India’s draconian information technology legislation.

Such episodes highlight a broader incapacity to mount even a symbolic defence of Indian sovereignty when affronts originate from hegemonic global powers like the United States. This inability to respond meaningfully to external provocations, whether on trade, diplomacy, or the treatment of Indian citizens, raises important questions about the ideological and structural orientation of the Indian state.

Two interrelated factors underlie this posture of passivity. First, India’s ruling classes and their political apparatus remain deeply beholden to international finance capital, which is largely centred in the United States. Second, this dependency is compounded by a fundamental misreading of contemporary global political economy. These material realities are expressed ideologically through two distinct, yet convergent, wings of India’s neoliberal project: the neo-fascists and the cosmopolitan neoliberals. While the former deploy a pseudo-nationalist rhetoric and the latter a pseudo-internationalist one, both ultimately converge in their reluctance to challenge U.S. imperialist hegemony. Their divergence lies only in the rhetorical justifications they offer for this subservience. These arguments merit closer scrutiny.

One strand of cosmopolitan neoliberal thought argues, somewhat brazenly, that Trump’s tariff war offers India an opportunity to unilaterally reduce its own tariffs. They claim that such a reduction would boost domestic competition and thereby improve economic efficiency. However, this argument is logically inconsistent: if lowering tariffs unconditionally leads to better outcomes, why does the U.S., the world’s most powerful economy, choose to increase them?

Other cosmopolitan neoliberals argue that India is a small open economy while the US is a large open economy, implying that world prices are given as far as the Indian economy is concerned while the US is capable of at least partially influencing world prices. Therefore, it would be unwise for India to engage in retaliation vis-à-vis the the imposition of tariffs by the US. On the face of it, this argument seems somewhat logical and therefore let us examine this further. While it is true that the Indian economy is smaller than the U.S. economy in terms of share of world income, for a number of commodities that India does import and export, the respective share of India’s imports and exports in the total world trade is non-negligible. Therefore, the ability of India to partially determine the pricing of its imports and exports can be an element in its trade policy including tariff retaliation.

Moreover, the very structure of Trump’s tariff war, which involves differential tariffs on different countries, is a tactic designed to try and prevent coordinated opposition to Trump’s trade policy. Therefore, it would be relevant for India to work in multilateral forums such as the BRICS to prepare strong and coordinated responses to Trump’s tariff war. However, whenever there emerges a debate around working in multilateral forums such as BRICS to counter Trump’s tariff force, both cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as the neo-fascists might immediately argue that BRICS is dominated by China and that the interests of China and India diverge. Therefore, joint action against US hegemonic actions such as Trump’s trade war is not possible. However, this is a self-defeating argument and actually amounts to creating non-tariff barriers in the trade between China and India which weakens India’s bargaining power with respect to US imperialist hegemony.

For example, cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as neo-fascists often claim that software semiconductor chips made in China could be hacked by the Chinese government and therefore would be inappropriate for use in the Indian economy.  Let us assume for the sake of argument that this claim is true. Is there any reason to claim, on the contrary, that semiconductor chips that are designed or produced using US technology cannot be or will not be hacked by the US government? After Edward Snowden’s revelations even those working outside governments know the facts about global surveillance by the US government. Under these circumstances, a prudent option available to India would to diversify its chip demand between two or more sources so that no one foreign government can exercise undue leverage in matters of security vis-à-vis India. While this would be the short-run course that would be appropriate in the case of countries like India, over the long run, efforts should be made to develop an indigenous semiconductor industry.

Another common claim by both ideological segments of the Indian neoliberal project is that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods provide Indian industry with a relative advantage, potentially encouraging multinational corporations to shift production from China to India. However, this argument too is completely disconnected from the concrete situation concerning global production networks. China exercises a leading position in almost all reaches of the technological ladder that pertains to global production networks due to its advantages in infrastructure, skilled labour with respect to wages, domestic demand, the role of the public sector, state support to innovation, and industrial policy (which involves among other things a euthanising of finance capital and the political neutering of enterprise capital). Most of these conditions are incompatible with contemporary Indian political economy and therefore cannot be replicated here without relevant political changes. Therefore, multinational corporations are unlikely to significantly relocate production capacity to India due to Trump’s trade war.

Moreover, any process of industrialisation in any country of the world would require for its continuance some Chinese inputs and/or some access to Chinese markets to be sustainable. Under these circumstances, the question before any country, including India, is not whether to engage or disengage from China, but how best to engage with China. The Economic Survey of 2023-2024 had pointed out that India should explore the option of involving itself in global production networks centered in China. However, progress in this respect has been slow and expectedly subject to counter-pressures from cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as sections of the neo-fascist dispensation in India.

Vietnam offers a valuable lesson in strategic diplomacy. Its ability to maintain productive relationships with multiple great powers, without being beholden to any, demonstrates an autonomous balancing strategy. For India, the path to greater sovereignty lies in rejecting the binary of alignment with either the U.S. or China, and instead adopting a policy framework driven by authentic national interests (which is centred around the working people). In order to understand this proposition, let us examine the actual leverage that foreign countries exercise over India.

The fundamental leverage that U.S. monopoly capital exercises over India is through the hegemony of international finance capital that is centered in the U.S. Since India does not have effective capital controls, this allows U.S. monopoly capital to exercise effective power over Indian policymaking. One exception to this trend was when the Biden administration tried to pressure Indian government to cut relations with Russia. The Indian government could not accede to this US demand because the Chinese-Russian strategic concord that would have emerged may have been directed against India. This strategic concord could not have been counterbalanced by the strategic proximity that may have emerged between India and the USA. But in most other matters, the U.S. monopoly capital has been able to influence, to a very significant extent, the contours of policymaking in India. Consider, for instance the examples of India’s relations with Iran, with Venezuela, on the question of the conflict in Palestine, and so on. The contrast with US attempts to exercise similar leverage over China or Russia is readily evident.

In the absence of effective capital controls, international finance capital, primarily centred in the United States, continues to serve as a conduit through which U.S. monopoly capital exercises considerable influence over Indian economic policymaking. This structural dependence finds its ideological expression in the distinct yet convergent narratives of cosmopolitan neoliberals and the neo-fascist dispensation.

On the one hand, neo-fascists have intensified a differential squeeze on the socially oppressed (such as Indian Muslims) under the guise of cultural nationalism and security. This project is part of a broader attempt to erase what remains of India’s anti-imperialist legacy from the freedom struggle. On the other hand, cosmopolitan neoliberals, while cloaked in liberal internationalism, contribute to the same erasure by sanitising colonial history and glorifying imperialist globalisation. Though their methods differ, both ideological strands ultimately function to sustain the hegemony of metropolitan capital.

At the core of any meaningful anti-imperialist position lies the understanding that broad-based economic progress in the Global South is not possible without directly confronting the hegemony of metropolitan capital. The recent efforts of U.S. monopoly capital and its state apparatus to drive a wedge between China and Russia is a tactic aimed at forestalling the emergence of a multipolar economic order indicating the waning strength of U.S. imperialist dominance. Against this backdrop, restoring policy autonomy for India must begin with the imposition of robust capital controls on international finance. Once this critical step is taken, several policy options become viable to counter the effects of Trump’s tariff war:

One, India must reduce its excessive reliance on the U.S. market for specific commodity exports. While the U.S. may currently offer higher returns for certain export goods, this concentration increases India’s vulnerability to external leverage. A geographically diversified export strategy will enhance India’s bargaining position across all markets. Such a strategic reorientation, especially one that considers long-term national interest is best undertaken through initiatives involving the public sector, which operates with a longer policy horizon than private actors driven by short-term profitability.

Two, India should actively attract greenfield foreign direct investment (FDI), from both the U.S. and China, in carefully selected sectors and regions. These choices must be guided by a coherent industrial policy aimed at enabling India to appropriately ascend the technological ladder of global production networks while not compromising the objective of full employment. Simultaneously, this policy should aim to reduce regional disparities within India by dispersing industrial development beyond existing hubs.

Three, Resist Pressure to Reduce Import Tariffs, Especially in Agriculture and Key Inputs as succumbing to U.S. demands for reducing import tariffs, particularly on agricultural products would further pauperise India’s already vulnerable peasantry and agricultural labour force. A related argument advanced by cosmopolitan neoliberals claims that high-priced inputs supplied by large domestic firms disadvantage micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and that reducing import tariffs would level the playing field and boost MSME exports. However, such logic is deeply flawed. Lowering tariffs on critical inputs may indeed reduce costs for MSMEs in the short run, but it is likely to trigger an import surge that undermines domestic production, employment, profits, and investment in import-competing sectors.

In the current global environment, where export prospects are weakening this would have contractionary effects across the economy. Furthermore, once domestic competitors are displaced, foreign suppliers may increase input prices, thereby nullifying any temporary advantage gained by MSMEs. The structural disadvantage faced by Indian MSMEs in relation to monopoly capital cannot be addressed by import liberalisation. Instead, it demands active policy intervention that redistributes resources away from monopoly capital towards MSMEs. This may include public sector production of essential inputs at regulated prices to mitigate cost pressures faced by MSMEs.

Reviving the Anti-Imperialist Legacy

The ideological currents that dominate Indian policy discourse, be they cosmopolitan neoliberals or neo-fascists, seek to suppress the anti-imperialist ethos that once animated India’s freedom movement. The former sanitise colonial history; the latter attack marginalised communities within the country. Both ultimately serve the interests of metropolitan capital. Genuine anti-imperialism today must recognise that sustainable development in the Global South requires breaking free from the grip of metropolitan capital. The growing strategic anxieties of U.S. monopoly capital, exemplified by attempts to isolate China and Russia signal a waning imperialist order. For India, this moment demands bold and thoughtful policy shifts aimed at recovering national sovereignty, economic justice, and strategic autonomy.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. C Saratchand is Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Rethinking the Indian Response to Trump’s Tariff War appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Initially there were some indications of not just some changes for the better but even of the possibility of a few big breakthroughs. However by and large these hopes have been belied.

The ceasefire in Gaza in January, while certainly welcome, appeared too fragile vulnerable to raise high or durable hopes, and the enduring aggressiveness of Netanyahu-led Israel, this leader’s own close identity and comfort with highly aggressive policy as well as the continuing support for this from leading western countries has led to the Palestinians again being faced with almost the same extremely high risks as before.

In the case of Ukraine-Russia war, the hopes that arose earlier this year for peace were of great significance as these also involved the increasing possibilities of more friendly and peaceful relations emerging at a wider level between the USA and Russia, as the Ukraine war had started against the background of the USA and some of its important NATO allies using Ukraine as a proxy against Russia to weaken Russia. However, at the time of writing this, these peace prospects have weakened somewhat although some hopes still remain. Ending this war as early as possible, preferably on a note of durable peace and goodwill, must remain one of the highest priorities of our deeply troubled world.

The overall humanitarian crisis in the world, which was a deeply worrying one at the end of 2024, appears to be worsening with the situation being particularly grim in the Democratic Republic of Congo and some neighbouring areas, Myanmar, Sudan and its neighbourhood.

In several countries in several important contexts the situation is deteriorating. However it is important to emphasize that often the change is not from good to bad, but from bad to worse. In the USA, for instance, criticism of ongoing onslaught on public welfare and civil liberties reflects a worsening situation, but the situation had been highly unsatisfactory and deteriorating for years or decades earlier too. The arbitrary and unjust resort to tariffs should be condemned, but we should not forget that the international trading system and the WTO regime as well as several bilateral and free trade agreements had been unjust earlier too. Germany’s resort to increasing militarism is deeply worrying but some of the country’s earlier policies too had raised troubling questions. Britain’s stand on international issues has been reflecting a growing distance from real needs, and this has increased further. The President of France likes to speak of things grand and great without having roots in reality, a tendency that has increased further in recent times.

Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that the big changes that we have been seeing in recent times are in any way taking us closer to resolving the most serious and significant problems of our world. These changes reflect the narrow thinking of world leadership based on narrow agendas. These have no vision of resolving the most important and threatening problems while there is still time to do so. If anything, the world appears to be moving further away from the most important objective of resolving the most serious, life-threatening problems in time.

The overwhelming and most important reality of the word today is that the basic life-nurturing conditions of the world are threatened at two levels—firstly the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and secondly, a dozen or so serious environmental problems that, on their own and together with each other, can be very threatening.

Resolving these life-threatening problems in time requires increased cooperation of all the world’s people and nations for according top priority to this and then working together to resolve these as early as possible within a framework of justice, peace and democracy. Unfortunately the world as it is structured and governed today appears to be more and more incapable of achieving this highest priority task of great urgency for saving this and future generations, our children and grandchildren. Hence today a great mobilization of the world’s people who are committed to justice, peace, safety and environment protection is needed more than at any other point of history to save life on earth while working within a framework of justice, peace and democracy.

(The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders)

The post 2025: While the world experiences cataclysmic changes, it remains far away from substantial solutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1. The Constitution of Pakistan forbids its citizens from taking part in the religious occasions of others.

2.19 per cent of children, mainly girls, remain out of schools.

3. Single National Curriculum promotes intolerance and religious extremism.

4. Clerics are authorised to censor educational content.

5. Recitation of the Quran was mandated during school assembly.

Dr. Willy Fautré, Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF), a non-governmental organisation in special status with ECOSOC, criticised the national education policy of Pakistan and pointed out its flaws, which resulted in intolerance, religious extremism and creating an atmosphere of hatred against other religions.

In a written statement submitted to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, and read out at a side event, the organisation also pointed out the provisions of the Pakistan’s Constitution and its much-disputed Single National Curriculum launched in 2021 responsible for religious intolerance and religious extremism as government schools are not secular and inclusive. The side event was held on 26 March, room 25 Palaise the Nations. Titled Human Rights in Pakistan:  Education under siege, ideology, intolerance, and the erosion of Human Rights in Pakistan, its organisers were major NGOs like CAP and HRWF.

The statement by The Coordination des Association et des Particuliers pour la Liberte de Conscience, says:

“Constitution of Pakistan states in Article 22 that ‘No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony, or worship relates to a religion other than its own.’

Therefore, Article 22 of the Constitution of Pakistan promotes non-respect of religions among the students. Human rights organisations have criticised this policy.

Citing the statistics of the Pakistan Institution of Education, the organisation said that 73 per cent of educational institutions in Pakistan are government schools, while 14 per cent are religious schools or madrasas. Such a large number of madrasas presenting an exclusivist interpretation of Islam and non-respect for other religions have contributed to an atmosphere of religious extremism and intolerance in the country.

The organisation also points out the flaws in the SNC launched by the Pakistan government. It says:

“In August 2021, the Pakistan government launched the much-disputed Single National Curriculum (SNC) for government schools, claiming that this initiative would reduce educational disparities. However, the human rights defenders criticised the SNC for its lack of inclusivity and its over-emphasis on Islamic religious content at the expense of religious minorities. In fact, school curricula and textbooks promote intolerance towards minorities and depict women in a way that is non-inclusive and is not compatible with international human rights standards.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan expressed deep concerns about the government perpetuating a singular view of religion in educational institutions through SN, depriving young students of the right to a secular education.”

The Coordination des Association et des Particuliers pour la Liberte se Conscience feels that the SNC is an attempt to Islamise the entire Pakistani society, putting the religious minorities in jeopardy. It says:

“The SNC has also been criticised as an Islamisation program under which all facets of Pakistan’s core educational curriculum were infused with religious content, aligning with the ideological bent of the existing Sunni Muslim orthodoxy. (Source: Wasim Hameed, “Minorities in Single National Curriculum”. 4, The Nation, 9 July 2021.)

According to a 73-page Report of the Salluv ECPM Foundation 5, “Pakistan, Education System, Curriculum and EU Funding” financed by the European Parliament and published in 2024, “a study by The Current revealed that Muslim religious ideas or texts were present in 7.7 per cent of the SNC’s mathematics, social studies, science, general knowledge, English, and Urdu books. Additionally, 7.47 per cent of books have references to Islam, while 0.27 per cent mention other religions in all non-religious books.”

The organisation also pointed out an act of the Punjab Assembly passed in 2022, which authorised the clerics to censor educational content and its resolution mandating the recitation of the Quran during the school assembly. Such acts and resolutions were not compatible with international human rights standards.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution VS Creationism

One major drawback of Pakistan’s education system is that it is influenced by conservative clerics who lack a scientific spirit and therefore oppose scientific theories and ideas. For example, clerics have opposed the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in Pakistan because they think that the theory is against Islamic law. In October 2023, clerics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa forced a college professor named Sher Ali to publicly renounce teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Earlier in May 2022, his car was attacked with a magnetic bomb, leaving him in his wheelchair for months. The professor was also made to make the statement that “According to Shariah, the woman’s intelligence is inferior to that of a man. I consider this the final word on this issue and believe that women should be covered from head to toe while venturing out. Women can only go out if it is needed or necessary”.

The organisation, therefore, feels that the education system of Pakistan not only promotes hatred against minorities but also is a hindrance in the development of scientific temperament among the students.

Controversial and Inequitable Image and Girls in the Curriculum of Public Schools

The organisation also found that the SNC textbooks are full of content that presents women as inferior to men as approximately 60 per cent of SNC books included images of males, whereas females accounted for only 39 per cent.

Moreover, portrayal of female characters is one-dimensional in terms of their appearances, character traits and hobbies. They are mostly portrayed as wearing hijab or headscarf, while most men are depicted wearing western attire, with only 20 percent wearing traditional Islamic clothing. With regard to occupations, male textbook characters are often portrayed as doctors, lawyers and soldiers, while female textbook characters are mostly portrayed as domestic help, housewives or caregivers.

The European Union Funding in the Dock: Misuse of Taxpayers ‘ money of the 27 EU member states

The NGO further says that the EU funds for Pakistan’s education projects have been misused. According to the 2024 Report of Sallux/ ECPM “Pakistan, Education System, Curriculum and EU Funding”, the EU directly invested 94 million euros in education projects in Pakistan between 2016-2024.

The report contains over 40 pages of excerpts and pictures from textbooks showing that the views expressed in the official curriculum in Pakistan are not compatible with EU values as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such an amount of concrete evidence cannot be ignored.

The NGO, therefore, draws the conclusion that beyond the incompatibility of the SNC and the UN standards, the pressure of many extremist clerics and fanaticized crowds can easily kill any reform attempt as long as perpetrators of intellectual terrorism, violence and hate crimes remain unpunished and can continue terrorising 2.1 million teachers in Pakistan.

In view of the present scenario of education and its consequent fallout on the human rights situation in the country, the Co-ordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour le Liberte de Conscience has made the following recommendations to the United Nations:

1. The United Nations should urge the authorities of Pakistan to make the SNC compatible with the UN international human rights standards.

2. The UN should effectively protect its 2.1 million teachers against threats and aggression perpetrated by Islamic extremists and prosecute the latter ones.

Article was first published on newageislam.com

The post Pakistan’s education policy blatantly anti-minority, anti-women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Outside the auditorium, a long queue assembled in the lobby of the O’Brien Science Building. Most of them were Indian students. Eventually, I began conversing with the person ahead of me and we found seats together. He was in his late twenties, doing his masters, and had previously worked at a large e-commerce MNC (multi-national company) before moving to Ireland. I asked him why he was attending today’s talk by the foreign minister. He said that he was a big admirer of Dr. S. Jaishankar and his work, as well as ‘other leaders’ like him.

According to him, Dr. Jaishankar was a ‘smart’ and ‘bold’ person who cared for the country’s interests and how Indians were represented abroad. Challenging his point, I brought up the recent deportations of illegal Indian immigrants from the United States and the minister’s tepid response to the matter. He replied saying the immigrants had committed a crime by being in the States illegally and therefore it was right they were sent back. ‘In chains?’ I added. No, he said. ‘That went too far. But America will be America.’

As for those ‘other leaders’ he said, ‘the thing I like about this government is that they put the country first. The country comes first and then everything else.’ I found this interesting. By putting the country first, he was referring to the government’s unwavering focus on growth and development. I said that not all Indians saw this growth. In fact, most Indians still suffered gruelling poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment. Becoming aware of my political outlook and wanting to avoid further argument, he finally said, ‘everyone has their opinions. And everyone’s opinion matters.’

Meanwhile, the auditorium filled to its capacity. The students were visibly excited to see the Foreign Minister. Observing them, I became aware of the possibility that many students here may share my friend’s views. Since coming to Ireland, I’ve had mixed feelings encountering large groups of Indians. Many of them expect you to speak in Hindi, even in a foreign land, which as a South Indian I am not eager to oblige. Then there’s a cautionary feeling; one that comes with being a minority in India. I first gauge the political leanings of the people I interact with, some of whom under the guise of being ‘non-political’, defer in favour of the ruling party.

Here in Ireland, I am far away from the religious violence at home. Yet I find it strange carrying on conversations with supporters of the ruling party, pretending their views shouldn’t affect the pleasure of their company.

Why beat around the bush? I thought. I asked him frankly what he thought about the divisive politics of the government — the remaking of India as a Hindu nation, and the rise of hate speech and violence against Christians and Muslims. In response, he said that every government had its own variety of politics. Hindu-Muslim was just the ruling party’s version of it. In the end it was about winning elections, in other words — power. I was oddly relieved to hear this answer. It seemed analysed from a neutral but nevertheless, ruthlessly pragmatic standpoint.

‘But,’ he continued. ‘There must be a balance of power. Hindus have nowhere else to go in this world. What if something were to happen to us? There must be mutual respect. We respect all religions. But they should also respect us.’ By ‘they’ he meant Muslims, whom he perceived as a looming threat to the existence of Hindus.

I asked, in a country of 1.4 billion, where the majority was Hindu, Hinduism being the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, how were Muslims in India a threat to Hindus? Who lived in the constant fear of having their houses demolished, or being lynched by a mob driving home from work? In Ireland, a homicide makes it to the front page of every major publication in the country. In India, crimes against Muslim Indians and Dalits are hardly ever reported. With first-hand experience, we both laughed at the irony of this reality. In Ireland people were valued as human beings.

Most of all, I wanted to tell my friend that as a Christian I no longer felt safe in India, neither did I feel I belonged. That I was tired of being called a rice bag, a cultural traitor, with an insane desire to go around evangelizing and converting people. That it had become difficult seeing churches attacked and burnt, and parishioners beat up during our festivals. That I had grown up with Muslims, and watching their mere existence demonised with repeated calls for their slaughter was painful. That if it was Muslims bearing the maximum brunt of hatred now, it would be the Christians next. That his reasons for leaving the country and mine were very different. That I worried about my family and felt guilty I had left them behind. Did he know that feeling?

He seemed to agree with everything I was saying, yet there was something immutable in his stance. Who was I anyway, to come one day and challenge his views? Like he said, all opinions were personal and had no bearing on the other. But his opinion did matter. We were sitting in a foreign country where I considered myself safe. Because I didn’t feel safe in India, and that was directly because of his opinion and a good number of Indians who shared it.

To diffuse the tension, he laughed and said that he personally did not believe in religious discrimination, and had close Muslim and Christian friends. He apologetically repeated his first point, ‘people do anything for power. At the end the day, the powerful man rules. It’s sad, but it is the way it is.’

Forty-five minutes late, Dr. Jaishankar arrived dressed in a grey suit and tie, green for the occasion. Walking down the aisle, he was received with thumping applause. The meeting was attended by Irish and Indian ambassadors Kevin Kelly and Akhilesh Mishra as well as higher-ups and academics from UCD. The title of his lecture was ‘India’s View of the World’; an interesting topic in a time afflicted with polarisation, several major conflicts, and rising inequality. Yet apart from mentioning the developed world’s failure to meet SDGs (sustainable developmental goals), and vaguely reaffirming India’s neutrality on the Russia-Ukraine war, Dr. Jaishankar said little about what India thought of the world.

The talk seemed more about presenting India as a global superpower — robust growth, soon to be third largest economy, increasing number of airports, digitalised economy, and technological adeptness, were points he stressed on. Similarly, talk of global workplaces and collaboration in highly niche sectors like AI, drone manufacture, datacentres, and space exploration delivered in a ‘you need us more than we need you’ tone, took up most of the lecture.

Even the Q&A seemed curated with pre-selected questions to bolster this progressive and dominating image of the country.

The students were not disappointed. Every attempt at humour in the minister’s measured manner was met with laughter and delight. Every word clung to with rapt attention. My new friend laughed especially hard and clapped the loudest at the end of the talk. Looking around the audience, projecting my nausea for Dr. Jaishankar’s undeserved adulation, I realised a lot of the students were just happy to see someone in their corner. An hour before, while I waited in the queue outside the auditorium, I remembered being struck by the attire of the students around me. Most Indian students wear very basic winter jackets here. They come in dull colours, are of flimsy material, rarely fit, and are worn for the sake of warmth rather than style.

It’s not easy for Indian students studying abroad. Unlike the diversity focused college brochures, the study abroad experience for Indians is usually a lonely one, where students find themselves struggling to integrate into a new culture. They pay extraordinarily high fees (on loan) in a highly disparate currency, work stressful part-time jobs, and are for the most part broke the entire time. Their courses are chosen not out of passion, but to match the country’s Critical Skills List for the prospect of securing relevant jobs and permanent residence. They endure years of hardship to achieve one objective — making it, in a developed nation. In such conditions, symbolic gestures such as Dr. Jaishankar’s visit don’t go unappreciated.

Students cheered when Dr. Jaishankar called for a friendly visa-policy in the EU, and considered increasing shorter flights from Delhi to Dublin. These things matter to students. Hate politics, massive inequality, and upheaval of constitutional institutions back home aren’t relevant to their aspirations. If they manage to secure high-paying jobs and pay off their loans, then for all purposes, real or inflated, the government has done its work. Effectively, the government’s politics are benign and can be overlooked as long as growth, or at least the illusion of it, continued. It is selfish, wilfully ignorant, and prejudiced, but it works.

For the Indian diaspora there is another level of complexity, which is an internal feeling of cultural and racial insecurity. Indians want to be seen at par with everyone else. They wish to shed the timid, shy, thickly accented, English fumbling, and impoverished image the world has of them. Hence, the obsession with representation.

It was enough that Dr. Jaishankar was a high ranking minister, a charming man in a suite who spoke with erudition and was highly educated (He is an author of several books and has a Ph.D in International Relations). He deserved adulation not because of what he said or did, but because of what he represented to us on that stage. Speaking in front of Irish officials and university authorities, he represented what Indians could be — powerful and respected.

The BJP’s idea of development and progress is the same — symbolic gestures that indulge the aspirations and deep insecurities of the Indian psyche. The Vande Bharat train, grand airports, the perfunctory language of globalism, high growth, data, drones, and AI, are developmentally symbolic efforts to make India worthy of itself in the Western gaze. India’s view of the world is really India’s view of itself. To the Indian student subsisting on supermarket bought sandwiches and renting a dingy room in the suburbs, the narrative of the unstoppable Indian is something to draw hope and inspiration from. It validates their struggle.

The humiliating spectacle of Indian citizens handcuffed, shackled at their feet and dragged through a runway, and the governments’ failure to address it, is a case for cosmic irony. What can India say against ill-treatment of Indians overseas when it has itself become a model for far-right nationalism under the Hindutva project? Disdain for DEI policies in American Companies (which affect Ireland as well), curtailing H1Bs, and the ‘Normalise Indian hate’ climate currently unfolding in the Trumpian dystopia hurts Indians abroad. India has lost its moral ground in voicing out against racism because of what it does to its own, because nationalism is based on the consolidation of identities and suppression of all others. As countries progress toward the right and ire against immigrants rises, India shouldn’t be surprised when it points the finger and finds three pointing back — Muslim, Dalit, and Christian.

I don’t think my friend hated minorities. But the privilege of not being at the receiving end, occupied in his own aspirational struggle led him to have a certain blindness. In this case, we’ll call it prejudice. It doesn’t occur to him that Indians do well regardless of the hype of supremacy, because we are a brilliant people, and succeed wherever we go.

(The author is a student at the University College Dublin-UCD)

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?

Targeted attacks continue as Bajrang Dal’s disturbing trend of violence against Muslims goes unchecked

Multiple incidents of Muslims being targeted by extremist reported, attacks included hate speech and discrimination

The post The paradox of nationalism & Indian representation abroad: S. Jaishankar’s visit to my university appeared first on SabrangIndia.

• Why did I use the term Islamist instead of Islamic?

My Response: The term Islamic is a broad, neutral adjective that refers to anything related to Islam—its religion, culture, civilization, and traditions. It applies to concepts like Islamic art (art influenced by Islamic culture) and Islamic law (Sharia, the ethical and legal framework derived from Islamic principles). This term does not carry any inherent political meaning.

Islamist, on the other hand, is a more specific term with political connotations. It refers to individuals, movements, or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society, often advocating for a political order based on their interpretation of Islam. While some Islamists pursue their goals through democratic means, others adopt more radical or militant approaches. Importantly, Islamist does not equate to Islamic—not all Muslims are Islamists, and Islamism represents a distinct political ideology rather than the religion itself.

The choice of Islamist in my article was deliberate. It accurately reflects the political dimension of the subject being discussed, distinguishing it from the broader religious or cultural aspects of Islam. Precision in terminology is essential, especially when addressing political ideologies or movements within the Islamic world.

• Another criticism levelled at my work is that it merely presents others’ viewpoints without a clear, cohesive argument.

My Response: This critique misinterprets the article’s purpose. Far from lacking direction, my work deliberately highlights the diversity of perspectives on secularism and Islam—concepts that are inherently contested and open to multiple interpretations. The absence of a rigid, singular definition is not a flaw but a reflection of the discourse itself.

Contrary to the claim that my argument is unclear, I explicitly advocate for secularism as religious neutrality and Sarva Dharma Samabhava—equal respect for all religions. This framework stands in direct opposition to theocratic visions promoted by Islamist groups, which reject pluralism in favour of a monolithic religious order.

Rather than weakening my case, the inclusion of diverse perspectives strengthens it. By engaging with a spectrum of viewpoints, I demonstrate the complexity of the debate while reinforcing secularism as the most viable model for a pluralistic society like India. My article is not a passive compilation of opinions but a structured, purposeful defence of secularism—one that gains depth, not dilution, from the multiplicity of voices it engages.

• What we now call secular values—human rights, equality, compassion, and justice—are deeply rooted in religious morality. Modern secular societies did not emerge in isolation; rather, they evolved from centuries of religious teachings that laid the groundwork for these principles. Paradoxical as it may seem, secular values originate from religion itself, making secularism an inherent part of religious traditions rather than a departure from them.

My Response: I do agree. Secularism is not inherently anti-religious but can align with religious values by promoting neutrality, freedom, and equality. It ensures the state doesn’t favour any religion, protecting religious diversity and allowing all faiths to coexist peacefully. This aligns with religious principles like freedom of conscience (e.g., “no compulsion in religion” in Islam) and treating others with respect (e.g., “love thy neighbour” in Christianity). Secularism also fosters collaboration on shared goals like social justice, reflecting religious values of compassion and service. By separating religion from state power, it prevents extremism and respects moral autonomy, allowing individuals to practice their faith freely. In essence, secularism supports religious values by creating a fair, inclusive society where diverse beliefs thrive.

• The term “Islamism” originated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Initially, it was used in European languages as a neutral synonym for Islam, much like “Christianism” for Christianity. Early Western writers, including Voltaire and Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition, 1771), used “Islamism” simply to refer to the religion of Islam.

My Response: Islamism and Islam are used interchangeably. Most Islamophobes adopts this method. This approach is wrong. This is equal to equating of Hindutva with Hinduism and Zionism with Judaism.

• Islam itself is however already an “-ism” – given this, why did European languages create “Islamism” instead of just using “Islam”?

My Response: The term “Islamism” was indeed coined in European languages to create a clear distinction between Islam as a religion and the political movements or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society. While “Islam” refers to the faith, spirituality, and practices of Muslims, “Islamism” specifically denotes political ideologies that advocate for the implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) and the establishment of Islamic-based political systems. This distinction emerged in the late 20th century as a way to analyse the political dimensions of Islam separately from its spiritual and theological aspects, providing clarity in discussions about religion versus ideology.

However, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is not always clear-cut, and the term “Islamism” itself has been subject to debate. It can oversimplify the diversity of political movements within the Muslim world and may be used to stigmatize legitimate political expressions of Islamic identity.

The interpretation of Islamic values is a topic of ongoing debate, particularly between Islamists and those who prioritize Quranic values. Islamists often focus on implementing Sharia law, emphasizing legalistic interpretations over broader ethical values. In contrast, the Quran highlights values such as justice, mercy, compassion, and human dignity. One of the fundamental principles of the Quran is freedom of religion, as stated in verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” However, some Islamist movements have been accused of imposing religious practices, undermining this principle.

The Quran also promotes fraternity and equality, envisioning the ummah (global Muslim community) as a brotherhood of equals. Nevertheless, some Islamist regimes have faced criticism for fostering sectarianism and discrimination. Individual self-determinism is another key value in the Quran, emphasizing personal responsibility and individual accountability. In contrast, Islamist ideologies often prioritize collective identity over individual freedoms. The Quran is clear in its advocacy for justice, fairness, and human rights, including those of women and minorities. However, some Islamist policies have been criticized for being discriminatory or unjust, particularly toward women and religious minorities. In addition, the Quran encourages coexistence and dialogue among diverse groups, promoting pluralism and diversity. Unfortunately, some Islamist movements reject pluralism, seeking to establish homogeneous Islamic states. The Quran promotes peace and reconciliation, yet some Islamist groups have been linked to violent extremism, contradicting these principles.

Finally, the Quran advocates for economic justice, prohibiting usury and mandating charity (zakat). While Islamist attempts to implement Islamic economic systems have had mixed success in achieving justice, the importance of economic fairness remains a core Islamic value.

• The term “Islamist” has developed a pejorative connotation, especially in modern political discourse. While Islamic governance has existed for centuries—without the need for a distinct label—”Islamism” emerged in Western discourse to specifically refer to political movements advocating for governance based on Islamic principles, with an implicit tone of disapproval.

My Response: You are right. The term “Islamist” has become a focal point in the broader issue of Islamophobia, reflecting and reinforcing deeply ingrained biases in Western discourse. Historically, the West’s engagement with the Islamic world—from colonialism to the Cold War and the post-9/11 era—has shaped a narrative that associates Islam with backwardness, violence, and authoritarianism. This narrative has been perpetuated through the pejorative use of “Islamist,” which is often applied indiscriminately to a wide range of Islamic political movements, from moderate reformers to extremist groups. By conflating these diverse movements under a single, stigmatized label, the term contributes to a perception that Islam itself is inherently incompatible with democracy or modernity. This framing not only delegitimizes legitimate political expressions of Islam but also fuels Islamophobia by portraying Muslims as a monolithic group prone to extremism. The lack of equivalent terms for religiously motivated movements in other faiths, such as “Christian democracy” or “Hindu nationalism,” underscores the double standard at play, further entrenching stereotypes and fostering fear and mistrust of Muslim communities.

• Your article is about “Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy” is not about “making a compelling case for secularism as the best model for a pluralistic society like India.” India is not even mentioned in the article and rightly so because what has India to do with Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? You seem to have lost track of what the article is about.

My Response: My critique presents a theoretical and theological challenge to the imposition of Sharia within political Islam, examining its far-reaching implications for societal structures, governance frameworks, and individual liberties. At its core, my argument questions whether enforcing Sharia as state law aligns with fundamental principles of legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state.

A critical analysis reveals that such enforcement poses significant risks, including marginalizing non-Muslim communities and silencing dissenting voices within Muslim societies. It also risks clashing with universal human rights standards, particularly in areas such as gender equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

From a theological perspective, my critique emphasizes that Sharia is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex and dynamic system subject to diverse interpretations shaped by historical, cultural, and contextual factors. Rigid enforcement of Sharia within modern political systems disregards its inherent adaptability, distorting its original principles and fostering authoritarianism—where religious elites consolidate power, stifling intellectual and social progress.

Politically, my critique contests the exploitation of Sharia as a means of consolidating power and exerting control over populations, thereby exacerbating societal fractures and eroding social cohesion. A comprehensive review of historical precedents and comparative analyses demonstrates that imposing religious law often leads to the suppression of dissenting voices and the erosion of individual liberties.

Ultimately, my critique calls for a critical reassessment of Sharia’s role in modern governance. It advocates a framework that safeguards legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state—fostering a more inclusive, tolerant, and equitable society.

• The (Iranian) regime is not corrupt; it is principled. It has prioritized principles over political compromises. It faces sanctions because it supports Palestine—ironically, as a Shia state, it is the only one backing Sunni Palestine. The suffering of its citizens is primarily due to sanctions and military spending for national defence. Iran remains the only Muslim state capable of standing up to the U.S. in conventional warfare, making it the last bastion that the U.S. and Israel seek to bring down.

My Response: While Iran adheres to a distinct ideological framework, its governance is driven by both principled and pragmatic considerations, with internal power struggles and instances of corruption undermining the system’s integrity. The significant economic influence wielded by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and political elites has raised allegations of nepotism and financial malfeasance. Moreover, prioritizing principles over pragmatic political compromises is not inherently virtuous if it results in widespread hardship for citizens.

A balanced approach is essential—one that upholds fundamental principles while carefully considering their impact on human welfare. Iran’s troubling human rights record, as seen in the case of Mahsa Amini, highlights the urgent need for such scrutiny.

While sanctions and military expenditures contribute significantly to economic difficulties, internal economic mismanagement and political repression also play substantial roles. Many Iranians hold their government accountable for economic struggles, citing corruption, lack of transparency, and crackdowns on dissent. The government’s resource allocation, such as funding regional militias versus domestic welfare initiatives, is a contentious issue debated among Iranians themselves. Rather than being merely a victim of external pressures, the Iranian regime actively shapes its domestic and regional realities, with consequences both positive and negative.

• “The notion that Islam requires the integration of religion and state is a historical development, not a Quranic mandate.” “Fight until there is no more oppression and injustice and the Law of Allah prevails.” (Q.8:39)

My Response: This verse can be interpreted in another way. A humanistic interpretation of Q.8:39 would focus on the broader ethical and moral principles it conveys, emphasizing themes of justice, freedom, and the pursuit of a harmonious society. From this perspective, the verse could be understood as a call to resist oppression and work toward a world where human dignity, equality, and fairness are upheld. The “Law of Allah” could be interpreted symbolically as a universal moral order that aligns with humanistic values such as compassion, justice, and the common good. The emphasis on ceasing hostilities if the opposition stops (“if they desist”) could be seen as a call for reconciliation and peace, highlighting the importance of resolving conflicts through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than violence. This aligns with humanistic ideals of nonviolence and the belief in the potential for positive change in human behaviour. The reading would focus on the underlying message of striving for a just and equitable world, where all individuals are free from oppression and can live in dignity and peace. It would encourage reflection on how these principles can be applied in contemporary contexts to promote social justice and human flourishing.

• Q. 5:44 clearly affirms that governance must align with divine law.

My Response: Q.5:44 emphasizes the importance of divine guidance in governance and justice, reflecting the principle that laws should align with moral and ethical values rooted in faith. From a Quranic perspective, this verse can be understood as a call for governance that upholds justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. Divine law, in this context, is not merely a rigid set of rules but a framework that seeks to promote the well-being of individuals and society. It emphasizes accountability, fairness, and the protection of human rights, which are universal values shared across cultures and faiths. I interpret divine law as a means to foster a just and equitable society where the welfare of people is prioritized. It encourages leaders to govern with wisdom, mercy, and a deep sense of responsibility toward all members of society, regardless of their faith or background. This aligns with the broader Islamic principle of Rahmah (mercy) and the concept of Maqasid al-Shariah (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which include the preservation of life, intellect, faith, lineage, and property. In essence, governance aligned with divine law, from an Islamic humanistic viewpoint, is one that serves humanity, promotes justice, and ensures the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected and protected. It is a call to integrate spiritual and ethical principles into leadership, ensuring that power is exercised with humility and a commitment to the common good.

• Islamic governance, in both theory and practice, incorporated consultation, judicial impartiality, and legal pluralism—values that align with modern democratic ideals.

My Response: My critique of contemporary political Islamists centres on their deviation from the historical and ethical principles of Islamic governance, rather than an attack on Islam itself. Many modern political Islamist movements have distorted these principles, centralizing power, side-lining diverse voices, and imposing rigid, exclusionary interpretations of Sharia. These movements often prioritize ideological purity over practical governance, using religion as a tool for political control rather than a means to promote justice and welfare. For example, the concept of hakimiyyah (sovereignty of God) has been weaponized to justify authoritarian rule, while the dynamic and adaptive spirit of early Islamic law, exemplified by ijtihad (independent reasoning), is often ignored. This rigidity leads to the suppression of dissent, the marginalization of women and minorities, and a failure to address pressing socio-economic challenges. Moreover, the politicization of religion by these groups undermines the spiritual and ethical dimensions of Islam, reducing it to a mechanism for power consolidation. By rejecting democratic principles as “Western impositions,” many political Islamists alienate broader populations, particularly the youth, who seek inclusive and pragmatic solutions to modern problems. My critique targets the authoritarian, exclusionary, and rigid practices of contemporary political Islamists, which diverge sharply from the pluralistic, consultative, and justice-oriented spirit of early Islamic governance. By reclaiming these historical principles, it is possible to envision a form of governance that is both authentically Islamic and aligned with the aspirations of modern societies for fairness, inclusivity, and good governance.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The inherent problem with political Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Distinguished Chairperson of this august gathering and Secretary of the Marx Memorial Library (MML) Professor Mary Davis, Her Excellency the Ambassador of Cuba to the UK Ismara Vargas Walter, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) Robert Griffiths, Chairperson of the MML Alex Gordon, Treasurer of the MML Harsev Bains, distinguished representatives from the Embassies of China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, leaders of various fraternal Communist and Workers’ Parties, and my dear comrades and friends,

At the outset, I profusely thank the leadership of the CPB and the MML for giving me this great honour and privilege of delivering the 2025 Marx Oration to mark the death anniversary of the greatest revolutionary thinker who ever lived, Karl Marx. On behalf of the one million members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the 15 million members of the All India Kisan Sabha, I convey my warmest revolutionary greetings to you all.

On March 17, 1883, 142 years ago, the great Frederick Engels was here, at this very spot, paying homage at the fresh grave of his closest comrade and friend. Engels said, “Marx was before all else a revolutionist…His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.”

Seminal contribution of Marx  

How prophetic Engels was! The name and work of Marx has not only endured, but has greatly enhanced, through the ages. Marx wrote in his youth, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” His scientific, critical, and revolutionary method of the analysis of society has indeed changed the world, and there is no doubt that it will change it even more.

His discovery of the science of dialectical and historical materialism, the theory of surplus value which uncovers the reality of exploitation, and his stress on the necessity of a political class struggle to achieve revolution, liberation, and socialism, have been borne out by the actual experience of gigantic struggles. The historic saga of various socialist revolutions and their spectacular achievements, and of the iconic and victorious struggle of the former Soviet Union against world fascism, will always live on through the ages.

The state of the world today proves the relevance of Marx’ analysis. Let us take just three brief quotations from Marx and see how perfectly they apply today.

In ‘Capital’, Volume 1 (1867), Marx writes, “If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” Here, Marx adds a footnote quoting T J Dunning, “With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent will ensure its employment anywhere; a certain 20 per cent will produce eagerness; 50 per cent, positive audacity; 100 per cent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk that it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both.”

In ‘Capital’, Volume 1, again, Marx writes, “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time, accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital.”

In the ‘Communist Manifesto’ (1848), Marx and Engels write, “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” Marx and Engels in this prescient passage, hint at the globalization to come – a full 177 years ago!

With the development of capitalism, Lenin enriched this concept of Marx in his seminal work, ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1917).

Relevance of today

What do we see in the world today, which underlines the relevance of Marx?

Gross and obscene inequalities abound, a direct result of economic exploitation and social oppression. The world’s richest 1 per cent own more wealth than the bottom 95 per cent of humanity. Since 2020, the richest 1 per cent have grabbed nearly 67 per cent of all new wealth – nearly twice as much as the bottom 99 per cent. Billionaire fortunes are rising by $2.7 billion a day, even as inflation outpaces the wages of 1.7 billion workers.

On the other hand, in 2023, 46 per cent of the world’s population, or over 3 billion people, are living under the global poverty line of $ 6.85 (2017 purchasing power parity) per day. Of these, 700 million people live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $ 2.15 per day. 10.7 per cent of the world population (864.1 million) is affected by severe food insecurity, and of these 60 per cent who go hungry are women and girls.

The global unemployment rate today is 5 per cent, and the global youth unemployment rate is 13 per cent. Newer technologies and artificial intelligence are aggravating unemployment and exploitation, and leading to still greater super-profits for the large monopolies and corporate houses. Runaway inflation, and wages not keeping up with it, have led to a severe cost of living crisis in several countries, for both the working class and the middle class. In 2024, 54 countries were in a debt crisis, and net resource transfers from developing to developed countries have averaged $ 700 billion per year.

There is not a shadow of doubt that all the above stark facts are a direct result of the policies of neo-liberalism and imperialist globalization, which have intensified in the last four decades. These policies met with a rude shock in 2008 with the global financial crisis which began in the USA, spread to Europe and all over the world, and forced many capitalist world leaders to turn to none other than whom Engels described as the ‘best hated and most calumniated’ Marx to get a credible explanation for these events! What a poetic irony that was!

The rising social unrest as a result of these extreme global inequalities between the Global North and the Global South, economic and social inequalities within each nation, and the attacks of the ruling classes on the working people through ‘austerity measures’, is being broadly channelized in two directions, depending upon the concrete situation in each country.

One is the rightward shift in many countries, which sometimes takes the form of far-right and neo-fascist attacks on racial, religious, and other minorities, including immigrants. Ironically, this same policy of Hitler then is being faithfully copied by Netanyahu now, and also by some others. In many countries, the political-ideological bankruptcy of social democratic parties and their unprincipled compromises have helped the far-right to advance.

The opposite trend is the significant left victories in important countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, and recently in Sri Lanka, where left forces could win over large sections of the people.

Donald Trump of the USA is the latest and classic example of the far-right, neo-fascist, authoritarian offensive. There is a method in his madness. It is a systematic last-ditch attempt to arrest the inexorable decline of the USA. This attempt is bound to fail. Under Trump, the likes of Elon Musk and other large corporate cronies are now directly calling the shots in the US government. This will make it even more plutocratic, neo-liberal, anti-people, and anti-democratic. Neo-liberalism thus creates the conditions for neo-fascism.

Trump’s ridiculous claims on Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, and Gaza, and the tariff and trade wars that he has unleashed, are being strongly resisted all over the world. His decisions of the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Accords, and also from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations, are also being opposed tooth and nail by many forces. His stand on the Ukraine war has now ranged the governments of Western Europe against him. But on the inhuman Imperialist-backed Zionist genocide by Israel against the courageous Palestinian people of Gaza, leading to the deaths of nearly 50,000 people, with 60 per cent of them being women and children, the entire imperialist camp is fully united behind Israel.

Rays of hope 

On this occasion, we salute the socialist countries like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, and the left-led countries of Latin America and Sri Lanka, who are working hard to ensure the rapid and just socio-economic progress of their people, and many are also boldly opposing Imperialism and Zionism. We give our special red salute to the people of Cuba led by their Communist Party, established by heroes like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Raul Castro. The people are courageously fighting against the savage new attacks of the Trump administration.

In other countries too, struggles and resistance are increasing. In my country India, we saw in 2020-21 a truly iconic and united nationwide struggle by millions of farmers who blocked the national highways leading to the nation’s capital Delhi for a full one year and fifteen days. They were fighting against the three pro-corporate, anti-farmer Farm Laws imposed by the central government at the height of the Covid pandemic. Over 700 farmers were martyred. This struggle forced the government to repeal the three Farm Laws, leading to a historic victory.

Now the same central government in India is trying to implement the draconian four Labour Codes, which are equally pro-corporate and anti-worker. A massive united nationwide general strike by the working class, supported by a rural strike of the peasantry, in which several million workers and peasants will participate, is being planned for the month of May 2025 against this serious assault.

The World Social Forum (WSF) has an attractive slogan signifying hope: Another World is Possible! At the graveside of the towering revolutionary Karl Marx on his death anniversary, we need to modify it a bit to: A Socialist World is Possible! Socialism for the 21st Century is the only Alternative!

Marx and Engels concluded the Communist Manifesto with these resounding words, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Comrades and friends: Let us all work unitedly to vindicate Marx yet again! Let us bend all our efforts to win over the minds and the hearts of our people! Let us fight with all our energy, strength, power, intelligence, and imagination, to win this world!

Thank you very much.

Down with Imperialism! Down with Neo-Fascism!

Down with Capitalism! Down with Feudalism!

Long Live Democracy! Long Live Socialism!

Long Live Revolution! Long Live Marxism!

Also Read:

M’tra: A blow to BJP-NDA, a shot in the arm for MVA-INDIA

To Ahilya Rangnekar, an intrepid revolutionary, April 19, on her death anniversary

SKM-CTU Call for a countrywide united worker-peasant struggle for both regime change and policy change

The post A socialist world is possible: 2025 Marx Oration appeared first on SabrangIndia.