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.

A humanitarian tragedy in the name of deportation

In a horrifying display of inhumanity, 104 Indian migrants were deported from the United States on a military aircraft with their hands and legs shackled throughout the 40-hour-long journey back to India.

The manner in which these individuals were treated, forced to remain in restraints even while eating has sparked widespread outrage, not just in India but across the global human rights community. The visuals of these migrants, including women, being led in chains onto a U.S. military aircraft highlight the sheer disregard for basic human dignity.

These deportations were carried out as part of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Border Patrol Chief even shared a video on social media boasting about the successful deportation of illegal aliens, a move that further inflamed tensions in India.

USBP and partners successfully returned illegal aliens to India, marking the farthest deportation flight yet using military transport. This mission underscores our commitment to enforcing immigration laws and ensuring swift removals.

If you cross illegally, you will be removed. pic.twitter.com/WW4OWYzWOf

— Chief Michael W. Banks (@USBPChief) February 5, 2025

While deportations are a sovereign right of any nation, their execution must comply with humanitarian standards. The blatant criminalisation of these migrants, who left India in search of a better future, reflects a dangerous trend of treating economic migrants as hardened criminals.

India’s legal recourse under international law and human rights violations

The forced deportation of Indian migrants under inhumane conditions raises serious concerns under international human rights law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Article 5, explicitly prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by both India and the U.S., similarly prohibits such treatment under Article 7. The shackling of Indian deportees throughout their journey amounts to cruel and degrading treatment, which is in direct violation of these international norms (UDHR, ICCPR).

Additionally, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), though not ratified by the U.S., establishes that no individual should be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, including during deportation. The treatment of Indian deportees also violates the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which prohibits arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, and inhumane deportation procedures.

Legal experts have pointed out that India has the right to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee over the manner in which its citizens were deported. International law allows a country to challenge the mistreatment of its nationals abroad, and given the clear violation of human rights in this case, India could formally seek redress through the UN system. However, the Modi government has taken no such action, further underscoring its failure to defend Indian citizens against inhumane treatment by foreign nations.

Colombia’s bold stand vs. India’s silence

If there was ever a moment that underscored the Modi government’s diplomatic weakness, it is this. Colombia, a much smaller country in terms of geopolitical influence, demonstrated how a nation should stand up for its citizens.

When the United States attempted to deport Colombian nationals under similar conditions, the South American nation took a firm stand: it refused to accept U.S. military flights carrying deportees.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro strongly condemned the treatment of his citizens and ensured their dignified return by dispatching a presidential plane to pick them up. In doing so, Colombia made it clear that it would not allow its nationals to be treated as criminals.

Contrast this with India, where Modi’s government has not even raised a strong diplomatic objection. While the Colombian government exerted its sovereignty and protected its people, India remained passive, allowing the United States to transport its nationals in degrading conditions (Economic Times).

Opposition’s criticism of Modi’s failure

As soon as the images of the shackled deportees surfaced, opposition parties in India staged dramatic protests. Congress MPs, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, appeared in Parliament wearing handcuffs to symbolize the shame and humiliation India suffered due to Modi’s inaction. Shashi Tharoor, a vocal critic of the government, stated that while India must accept its nationals back, it should never tolerate such degrading treatment by a foreign nation. Other opposition leaders, including Asaduddin Owaisi and Akhilesh Yadav, slammed the government for its failure to ensure dignified deportation.

“For 40 hours, we were handcuffed, our feet tied with chains and we were not allowed to move an inch from our seats. It was worse than hell”: Harvinder Singh

Prime Minister, listen to this man’s pain. Indians deserve Dignity and Humanity, NOT Handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/WUOwUrCvMB

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) February 6, 2025

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, former law minister also condemned Modi’s handling of the situation. Swamy pointed out that Modi’s foreign policy is more focused on personal optics and friendships with Western leaders than on protecting the dignity of Indian citizens abroad. He further stated that the government’s failure to act decisively will only embolden other nations to treat Indians with similar disregard.

Dr. Swamy tweeted: “Will Trump answer? Modi has no guts to demand an answer on the way they were sent back to India—like goats. Trump could have asked our Embassy in Washington to take back illegal Indian immigrants. Modi is a coward. He cannot even stand up to Maldives and Nepal, let alone China.”

In another tweet, he said: “The US govt led by Trump has been serially insulting India. Yet Modi is craving to go to the US and crawl before Trump. I demand Modi postpone his visit to the US in protest of the insults, otherwise Parliament should censure him for going against our nation’s interest.”

A ‘Vishwaguru’ that fails its own people

The Modi government has frequently claimed that India is a rising global power, a Vishwaguru that commands respect internationally. However, this incident proves otherwise. When a leader fails to ensure the basic dignity of their own citizens, all claims of global leadership ring hollow.

While Colombia and Brazil rejected inhumane deportation flights, India has remained silent and submissive. Modi’s government did not even issue a strong diplomatic protest, let alone demand an apology or a policy change from the U.S.

If Colombia, a nation with significantly fewer resources and influence than India, can ensure respect for its citizens, why can’t Modi? The answer is clear: under this government, nationalism is only a political slogan, not a principle applied in real-world diplomacy.

As deported Indians return home in chains, the question that haunts every citizen is this: Is this the global leadership Modi promised?

Related:

US Supreme Court ruling means immigrants can be detained indefinitely

US judge blocks Trump administration’s move to end ‘Dreamers’ program

The post Modi government silent as US deports Indians in chains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ten Republican and four democratic senators have reportedly signed a letter to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanding that India be designated ‘Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC), which is the US government’s special term for countries that have questionable standards of religious freedom.

Earlier, the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) had recommended that India be designated CPC. The Coalition to Stop Genocide in India, a broad coalition of Indian American and US-based civil rights organisations and activists, has welcomed the letter by the 14 senators.

According to a press release by the group, the senators have written to Pompeo saying, “Our nation was founded on the principle that all people have a right to freely practice the faith of their choice, without fear of persecution by their government or any other actors.” It went on to say, “As the leader of the free world, it is vital that the United States model and promote this crucial human right and our values to the rest of the world as a fundamental part of our foreign policy objectives.”

The letter reportedly says that US law requires the US Government to consider a federal commission’s recommendations that some countries be designated as CPC and that  should the US government decide not to accept the recommendations made by the USCIRF, a federal commission, the letter requires the State Department to inform US Congress of its reasons within 30 days of making that determination.

The Senators who have reportedly signed the letter are James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia).

Previously, US Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden called out the Centre’s repression of minority communities in India, especially the treatment of people in Kashmir in wake of the abrogation of Article 370. In July, San Francisco passed a resolution opposing CAA-NRC-NPR. Similar resolutions had also been passed by Seattle (Washington), Albany (New York), St. Paul (Minnesota), Hamtramck (Michigan) and Cambridge (Massachusetts). 

Related:

Joe Biden bats for restoration of rights in Kashmir

US slams India yet again on subject of religious freedom

Concerns about targeting of minorities in India raised at US Congressional Briefing

The post 14 US Senators demand India be designated CPC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Monday, February 24, the United States began enforcing a regulation that could deny green cards or legal permanent residency to legal immigrants who seek public benefits like food stamps and Medicaid.

The “public charge” rule

Under the new rule, a family of two-member households with a minimum annual income of at least $41,000 will be able to avoid the act. If the annual income of any 2-member family is below $41,000, they will have to lose their immigration benefits.

The so-called “public charge” rule, published in August by the Department of Homeland Security, establishes a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future, reported Vox. The new policy will also make it harder for immigrants sponsored by family members to get into the US, a phenomenon Trump has termed as “chain migration”. It will become harder for families to sponsor older parents or siblings under the new regulation. While there could be a merit-based immigration system, it would only allow people from certain fields and mostly the younger of the lot.

Vox however, reports that the current version of the regulation is much less stringent that the previous drafts which if implemented would have seen immigrants getting penalized for seeking benefits for their children instead of themselves.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said, “This final rule will protect hardworking American taxpayers, safeguard welfare programmes for truly needy Americans, reduce the Federal deficit and re-establish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largesse of taxpayers.”

Who is set to be affected?

Last year, the White House said that ‘aliens’ (immigrants) who enter or are in the US must support themselves and not rely on public benefits. Whoever is found to be a liability will be barred from entering the US and those migrants already in the US are found to become likely ‘public charges’ will be barred from adjusting their immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute told the publication that at least 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years would have had at least one negative factor under the rule – which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits.

The move is set to affect a large number of Indians who are on H-1B visas and in queue to get permanent residency. Denials for H-1B petitions have increased steadily from 4.3 percent in 2015 to 7.4 percent in 2017 and 15.2 percent in 2019, The Week reported. According to a 2018 Migration Policy Institute report, 11 percent of non-citizen Indian families that receive public benefits would be scrutinized under the new regulation.

With the “public charge” regulation, it has been portrayed by Trump that immigrants are abusing public benefits. In 2016, the average per capita value of public benefits used by immigrants was $3,718 while native-born Americans used $6,081 of public benefits.

The element of fear

“The rhetoric around the use of public benefits programs is largely smoke and mirrors,” Erin Quinn, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told Vox. “It’s feeding a rhetoric that immigrants are draining our public services when in fact these immigrants don’t even have access to those services and also galvanizing fear in immigrant communities.”

The new rule will have a chilling effect on immigrant families, creating anxiety among people who are already in the US about whether their status would get extended. Immigrants too, fuel the American economy as they are consumers and pay taxes. With the fear spread among the immigrants, experts have reported that people are even dropping benefits for which they qualify for.

Doug Rand, a former White House official who worked on the immigration policy during the Obama administration explained that many immigrants were anyway not eligible for public benefits unless they had certain cards or humanitarian protections. He said that not all public benefits were available to non-citizens and immigrants who are entitled to using some public benefits must continue to do so because they won’t be penalized for it.

“The rule has falsely created an impression that undocumented immigrants and temporary residents are gobbling up public benefits, which they’re not because they’re generally not eligible,” Rand said. “And it has scared those who are eligible, who are primarily permanent residents with green cards, legal immigrants, into un-enrolling from programs they are perfectly eligible to take advantage of under the law,” he added.

Given the announcement of millions of Indians in the US or aspiring to be there being affected, we can’t help but wonder what PM Modi thinks of President Trump’s new gift for India.

Related:

Nadella on CAA: “Would love to see Bangladeshi immigrant create the next unicorn in India”

How the U.S. Created the Central American Immigration Crisis

Section 9 Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Dilemmas of Citizenship, in Assam

The post Indians set to be affected under new US “public charge” regulation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Image Courtesy: Rediff.com

Dear NRI Bhakts,

It is my humble request that you return back to Ramrajya, we are all living in harmony.

It is refreshing to let you know that we have all been credited with 15 lakhs in our account, we do not have any beggars in India any more.

The country is flowing with milk and honey.

Ganga is the cleanest River in the world this has been confirmed by UNESCO.

Ram temple has outclassed the Vatican.

Varanasi is better than Keto.

All international travellers have dumped the statue of liberty for the statue of unity, as a matter of fact it is has been confirmed by UNESCO that it is the biggest tourist attractions world over.

We have 2 crore surplus jobs and these have no connections with either Pakodas or Chai.

A uniform civil code has been successfully implemented,
Our farmers are one happy lot, all their demands have been met.

Implementation of OROP has the entire armed forces gleaming with joy.

Kashmiri Pandits have all returned safely to Kashmir except actor par superior Anupam Kher after the block buster performance in the Accidental Prime Minister he is expected to migrate to Hollywood.

We have 1000 smart cities, they have put Singapore, Hongkong, Dubai and Shanghai to shame.

Biharis are enjoying their special package as announced during 2015 assembly elections.

Congress had no clue about FDI, GST and AADHAR, as you are aware BJP are the most intelligent lot they have successfully implemented them and all and the citizens are happy epically in the unorganized sector which is now thriving with joy.

All our villages are connected with the grid, everyone enjoys un-interrupted power supply.

LPG cylinders are used by those in the most remotes of village as they are extremely cheap.

We all travel by the Bullet Train.

Scams are a thing of the past since all BJP politicians daily bathe in milk.

Women in India are now completely safe. A young woman can safely walk the loneliest road alone, anywhere in India at midnight whether in Delhi, Haryana or Mumbai. Rapes are a thing of the past.

All our holy cows are safe they are all well looked after, they do not eat thrash or plastic any more, Beef export has completely been banned and we are breathing extremely good quality of oxygenated air thanks to them. Cancer is something that does not bother us at all, basically we have the cure for all diseases “Cow Urine” the medical cure.

Rupee is at it all time high.

Petrol prices are at its all-time low.

De-monitisation was a big success, it has broken the backbone of the terrorist and most.

Black money is a thing of the past; we have all migrated to ‘deegeetal’ transaction(s).

Only Hindus, Buddhist and Sikh are now living in India, the rest have all opted for Gharwapsi or have relocated to Pakistan.
All Rohingyas and Bangladeshis have been successfully deported back to their respective countries.

Please don’t slog abroad get your a… (expletive) back here where you belong. You guys have worked hard, your love and support for Modi has made all the difference. You do not know what you are missing.

Our gutters are our prised natural resource, they supply us with unlimited natural gas and since Modiji has discovered the extra 2ab our Scientists and Mathematician are gone all gaga over it, they think it’s bigger than Brahmagupta and Aryabhatta discovering and using Zero.

So please come back urgently and show some love for your country, it’s time to get fit and sell Chais & fry Pakodas.

Big thank you.

The post An Open Letter to NRI Bhakts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Authority (NPPA), price controls on stents were imposed in after irrefutable evidence gathered by the NPPA showing gross abuse and overcharging in the pricing of theseessential medical devices.”
 

The post From Howdy to How could you? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Her link with the fascist group that has primarily been actively spreading hate and promoting hate crimes against the marginalized sections of the Indian society has been criticized and condemned by a large group of likeminded individuals such as writers, research scholars, activists, lawyers, students and professionals from different fields.

They have issued a statement condemning the silence of the Democratic Party that is fielding Tulsi Gabbard despite knowing that she is associated with the Hindu-militant organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and its American affiliates.

The statement mentions that Tulsi Gabbard has been funded by members of groups like – Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, Overseas Friends of the BJP, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh and Ekal Foundation, which have direct links with the RSS.
 

The group of citizens from India who has issued the statement to the Democratic party condemning the silence of the party also stated that It would be a moral failure of members of the Democratic Party to have within their ranks a person like Gabbard who has supported and is backed by a network under whose rule India has witnessed increasing violence against Christians, Muslims and Dalits, disenfranchising of minority groups, illegal detention and clampdown on human rights of Kashmiris, and crushing of rational and progressive voices.

Their demand is that unless Gabbard unequivocally and publicly denounces the hate politics of RSS, the Democratic Party leaders hold her accountable being hand-in-glove with forces of hate and cut all ties with her.

Among the signatories are Dr. Ram Punyani, Shabnam Hashmi, Pieter Friedrich, Umar Khalid and others.

Courtesy: Two Circle

The post American Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s links with RSS condemned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) tweeted the following on Aug. 29: “It’s the duty of every American politician of Hindu faith to stand for pluralism, reject Hindutva, and speak for equal rights for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhist & Christians.” There is more. The dapper Congressman, who was replying to an article by Pieter Friedrich also said, “ That is the vision of India my grandfather, Amarnath Vidyalankar fought for.”

That such a comment should draw attention and of course the predictable string of ‘hate’ from the hired trolls of the current Indian regime is expected. That significant voices from the South Asian diaspora are challenging majoritarian hegemony is even more significant.

Last month, Caravan published a longform exposé by South Asian analyst, Pieter Friedrich. The article analysed the history of Hindutva organizing in the US and how these ultra-right organisations cultivated political allies. Today, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard tops the list. She is a candidate for the US presidency, who has developed deep ties to the Hindutva movement! She not only solicits money from American Hindutva organizers –even inviting leaders of Hindutva organisations to her intimate wedding ceremony – but is also seen at their important functions. On Aug. 12, the author of the Caravan article tweet-replied to a Gabbard campaign post, providing a link to the piece. Khanna also replied. Some of the exchanges are interesting:

Ro Khanna’s statement was immediately recognized by South Asian politicos as a seismic shift in Indo-centric politics. Amar Shergill in SanJoseInside said, “He is the highest ranking American elected official of Indian origin, with a deep understanding of and connection to South Asian politics, and, yet, he stated in decisive moral terms that the dominant political ideology of India must be rejected as a matter of fundamental human rights… This is brave new ground for South Asian policy discourse in the US.”

Khanna’s statement on twitter drew the predictable torrent of hate and criticism, too. While pro-Hindutva political supporters launched their offensive, the progressives and anti-Hindutva activists welcomed this courageous stance. However, the full measure of Khanna’s words are yet to be felt.  Modi and the Indian government are certain to be dismayed by this challenge to the inroads they have made within certain sectors of the Indian community in the US. In coming months, this debate within the South Asian American community will deepen. It will also be reflected in the Democratic Party that will finally be compelled to grapple with the morality of Hindutva.  Khanna’s statement goes to the heart of this debate by laying bare the obvious hypocrisy of Hindutva’s American supporters. Can South Asian Americans claim to support civil rights and equality for all Americans while simultaneously advocating for religious supremacy that results in violence –often rape, torture, murder and oppression of minorities– in India?

Over the past months, Sabrangindia has been reporting on other such signs of change among the Indian diaspora. Sadhana, a coalition of Hindus in the United States and around the world formed to assert a progressive Hindu voice that speaks up –and acts for –progressive social values and social justice. This group, with about 2000 followers on Facebook, seems like a small online group but is countering Hindutva hatred with its counter-narrative. Their website blog is a treasure trove of articles on current issues with parallels drawn from Hindu scriptures and literature.

Their website says, “Since 2011, Sadhana has been building a progressive Hindu movement. We practice our sadhana, or faith in action, by advocating for those social justice principles we believe are at the heart of Hinduism. We have mobilized Hindus in New York City and beyond to stand up for social justice causes including environmental justice, racial and economic justice, gender equity, immigrant rights, and anti-casteism. We bring a Hindu voice to the interfaith justice movement. We have chapters and members around the country and abroad. We engage and mobilize progressive Hindus nationally and internationally using social media.”
 
“ I simply don’t accept that Hindu people don’t care about lynching, mob violence, says Sunita Vishwananth, founder member of Sadhana, USA has stated publicly while continuing to mobilise Hindus in the US against Hindutva.

The history of India, and the South Asian subcontinent is complex and diverse with a plethora of language, religion, ethnicity and caste. Indian democracy has been managing this complexity with mixed success since its independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Despite being founded on constitutional and republican principles of equality and non-discrimination, the inroads of majoritarian politics have vitiated the political and public sphere: violence against minorities has often been a path to electoral success. Although there are many examples, the most recent and infamous are the 1984 Genocide of Sikhs in Delhi and the 2002 Gujarat Massacre of Muslims. Post 2014 and the election of a Hindu supremacist (read Hindutva) government in the saddle, fear and hatred against minorities has reached new dimensions. (See the US Commission on International Religious Freedom Reports for detail.) Modi’s political party (BJP) and its cultural counterpart organizations (RSS, VHP, etc.) form the backbone of the Hindutva movement.

Every institution of Indian democracy has been permeated by men and women who carry this majoritarian ideology. Progressive movements across South Asia have been mobilizing to ask the world for solidarity as they continue to bravely resist the volatile conditions in the region. The Hindutva right have been keenly set on a path to influence U.S. policy from within the American political system, which makes these recent elements noteworthy.

The post US Congressman Ro Khanna rejects Hindutva, speaks for Equal Rights of all Indians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI), a US-based body claiming to represent India’s minority communities, including Dalits and Adivasis, living in America, has raised the alarm that the international wing of the RSS has penetrates government offices across America, citing how the “US affiliate of Indian paramilitary” has been busy hosting “events with police, fire, elected officials”.

In a report published in its mouthpiece, OFMI has said, “Since August 9, the international wing of the RSS has hosted events in at least 17 government offices throughout the US, including those of two Congressmen and nine law enforcement departments, in a coordinated campaign.”

Asserting that a US-based human rights group, which OFMI does not name, has warned this is “an attempt to legitimize a fascist paramilitary responsible for pogroms against minorities in India”, the OFMI report quotes its leader Arvin Valmuci as saying, “Under the guise of celebrating Raksha Bandhan, a traditional Hindu ceremony, the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS) infiltrated multiple government offices, including many police departments.”

“Leaving aside the question of whether or not these government agencies should officially participate in a religious ceremony, they should absolutely have nothing to do with the HSS, which is the international wing of the RSS. This is an attempt by the HSS to legitimize a fascist paramilitary responsible for pogroms against minorities in India”, adds Valmuci.

The report says, “Participating government agencies include nine law enforcement departments in eight states, four fire departments in four states, and four elected officials in four states. US Congressional Representatives Bill Foster (D-IL) and Scott Peters (D-CA) are among the participants.”
 

At Naperville Police Department

It continues, “In Texas, Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers faced outcry on Facebook after sharing pictures of his participation. He subsequently revised his post to note that he was approached by a charter school requesting that he meet with local students, implying that he was not informed that the event would be hosted by the HSS. He has since deleted the post entirely.”

It provides a list of other government offices which also participated in the HSS-sponsored events: Coppell Police Department, Carmel Police Department, Dunwoody Police Department, Howard County Police Department, Naperville Police Department, San Ramon Police Department, Tredyffrin Township Police Department, and West Des Moines Police Department; Arlington Heights Fire Department, Harrisburg Fire Department, Louisville Fire Department, and Phoenix Fire Department, Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers, and Woodbridge Township Mayor John McCormac.
The report quotes Facebook comments to elucidate its view. “The HSS is the international wing of the RSS, a violent and supremacist paramilitary in India whose founders praised Nazi racial policy and modeled themselves along the same lines as the Hitler Youth,” wrote Haziq Jeelani on the Facebook of New Jersey’s Woodbridge Township Mayor John McCormac.

“They display pictures of these founders at most of their gatherings. They are a fascist organization not a religious group…. They are trying to normalize themselves and lend credibility to themselves by such photo ops. Please refrain from associating with them”, Jeelani added.

“Hi, actual person with ties to Coppell here,” wrote Sai Chimata on the Facebook of Texas’s Coppell Police Department. “Why the hell did y’all take these people seriously? Next time, do your research! The HSS is a foreign offshoot of the RSS, a militant Hindu nationalist organization in India, a literal paramilitary that’s been involved in some of India’s worst riots and pogroms. HSS-USA is essentially engaged in whitewashing Hindu nationalism abroad and promoting it among the diaspora.”

On Illinois’s Naperville Police Department, Khalid Azam, founding member of Indian American Muslim Council, wrote, “What a disgrace! This is a fascist organization (fascist is not being used as a slur here) —  HSS and its parent org, RSS, was founded by Moonje and others who visited Mussolini and Hitler and sought advice on how a similar organization and movement rooted in Fascism can be created in India. These founders have statements on the record defending fascism and Hitler’s treatment of Jews.”
 

At Howard County Police Department

“Seems RSS Hindutva Fascists, who are killing innocent Christians and other minorities, wanting a all Hindu state, are preparing groundwork in the US,” wrote Ranjit Singh on the Facebook of California’s San Ramon Police Department. “It seems they have vested very heavily into pulling this off in all police stations in the US. Wow, watch out!”

“Clearly, the Howard County Police Department is not aware that the HSS is the international wing of the RSS,” wrote Miriam Joseph on the Facebook of the Maryland law enforcement agency. “They are extremist Hindu supremacists who regularly lynch and kill Christians and Muslims in India. It was one of their members who shot and killed Mahatma Gandhi.”

The OFMI report says, “In the 21st century, the RSS is most notorious for staging two major pogroms against Indian minorities. In 2008, around 100 Christians were massacred in the Indian state of Odisha. Their churches and homes were burned and tens of thousands were made refugees. Odishan Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, who was in office during the pogrom, reported, “Members of RSS… were involved in the violence.”

It adds, “In 2002, around 2,000 Muslims were massacred in the Indian state of Gujarat. Reporting on the violence, Human Rights Watch stated, “The groups most directly responsible for violence against Muslims in Gujarat include the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, the ruling BJP, and the umbrella organization RSS, all of whom collectively form the Sangh Parivar. These organizations, although different in many respects, have all promoted the argument that because Hindus constitute the majority of Indians, India should be a Hindu state.”

The report quotes the Human Rights Watch report, “We Have No Orders To Save You,” to point out that during the Gujarat riots, “several witnesses reported the police told them when they appealed for rescue from their attackers. Graffiti discovered on torched Muslim institutions declared, ‘The police are with us’. After the violence ended, many testified that police refused to file charges on behalf of the victims or record the names of the accused.”
 

Top: Congressman Bill Foster; Bottom: Congressman Scott Peters

It quotes award-winning novelist Arundhati Roy as saying that, in the years before the “pogrom” in Gujarat, “the police, the administration, and the political cadres at every level” were “systematically penetrated.”
Roy stated, “The RSS runs a shadow government that functions through tens of thousands of shakhas (branches) and other ideologically affiliated organizations with different names — some of them astonishingly violent — spread across the country…. The RSS today has white supremacists and racists from the United States and Europe circling around it.”

Comments OFMI’s Valmuci, “We appreciate the open welcome government agencies in America provide to people of all religions, races, and backgrounds. Yet the RSS is, by its very nature, opposed to diversity and multiculturalism.”

He adds, “The presence of the RSS’ international wing in American police departments frightens minorities of Indian origin and inculcates a feeling of deep insecurity. We want these government agencies to apologize for hosting the HSS, to issue statements distancing themselves, and to disavow all future events with this international wing of a supremacist paramilitary.”

First published in https://www.counterview.net/

The post RSS international wing ‘infiltrating’ US offices: American minorities body raises alarm appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For seven years, we have had to listen to a chorus of journalists, politicians and “experts” telling us that Assange was nothing more than a fugitive from justice, and that the British and Swedish legal systems could be relied on to handle his case in full accordance with the law. Barely a “mainstream” voice was raised in his defence in all that time.

From the moment he sought asylum, Assange was cast as an outlaw. His work as the founder of Wikileaks – a digital platform that for the first time in history gave ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep States – was erased from the record.

Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those books – to nothing more than a sex pest, and a scruffy bail-skipper.
The political and media class crafted a narrative of half-truths about the sex charges Assange was under investigation for in Sweden. They overlooked the fact that Assange had been allowed to leave Sweden by the original investigator, who dropped the charges, only for them to be revived by another investigator with a well-documented political agenda.

They failed to mention that Assange was always willing to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London, as had occurred in dozens of other cases involving extradition proceedings to Sweden. It was almost as if Swedish officials did not want to test the evidence they claimed to have in their possession.

The media and political courtiers endlessly emphasised Assange’s bail violation in the UK, ignoring the fact that asylum seekers fleeing legal and political persecution don’t usually honour bail conditions imposed by the very state authorites from which they are seeking asylum.

The political and media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand jury in Virginia formulating charges against Assange, and ridiculed Wikileaks’ concerns that the Swedish case might be cover for a more sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock him away in a high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

They belittled the 2016 verdict of a panel of United Nations legal scholars that the UK was “arbitrarily detaining” Assange. The media were more interested in the welfare of his cat.

They ignored the fact that after Ecuador changed presidents – with the new one keen to win favour with Washington – Assange was placed under more and more severe forms of solitary confinement. He was denied access to visitors and basic means of communications, violating both his asylum status and his human rights, and threatening his mental and physical wellbeing.

Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy, using his diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream” journalist or politician thought this significant either.

They turned a blind eye to the news that, after refusing to question Assange in the UK, Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years.

It was a freedom of information request by an ally of Assange, not a media outlet, that unearthed documents showing that Swedish investigators had, in fact, wanted to drop the case against Assange back in 2013. The UK, however, insisted that they carry on with the charade so that Assange could remain locked up. A British official emailed the Swedes: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”

Most of the other documents relating to these conversations were unavailable. They had been destroyed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol. But no one in the political and media establishment cared, of course.

Similarly, they ignored the fact that Assange was forced to hole up for years in the embassy, under the most intense form of house arrest, even though he no longer had a case to answer in Sweden. They told us – apparently in all seriousness – that he had to be arrested for his bail infraction, something that would normally be dealt with by a fine.

And possibly most egregiously of all, most of the media refused to acknowledge that Assange was a journalist and publisher, even though by failing to do so they exposed themselves to the future use of the same draconian sanctions should they or their publications ever need to be silenced. They signed off on the right of the US authorities to seize any foreign journalist, anywhere in the world, and lock him or her out of sight. They opened the door to a new, special form of rendition for journalists.

This was never about Sweden or bail violations, or even about the discredited Russiagate narrative, as anyone who was paying the vaguest attention should have been able to work out. It was about the US Deep State doing everything in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an example of its founder.

It was about making sure there would never again be a leak like that of Collateral Murder, the military video released by Wikileaks in 2007 that showed US soldiers celebrating as they murdered Iraqi civilians. It was about making sure there would never again be a dump of US diplomatic cables, like those released in 2010 that revealed the secret machinations of the US empire to dominate the planet whatever the cost in human rights violations.

Now the pretence is over. The British police invaded the diplomatic territory of Ecuador – invited in by Ecuador after it tore up Assange’s asylum status – to smuggle him off to jail. Two vassal states cooperating to do the bidding of the US empire. The arrest was not to help two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction.

No, the British authorities were acting on an extradition warrant from the US. And the charges the US authorities have concocted relate to Wikileaks’ earliest work exposing the US military’s war crimes in Iraq – the stuff that we all once agreed was in the public interest, that British and US media clamoured to publish themselves.

Still the media and political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the lies we have been served up for these past seven years? Where is the contrition at having been gulled for so long? Where is the fury at the most basic press freedom – the right to publish – being trashed to silence Assange? Where is the willingness finally to speak up in Assange’s defence?

It’s not there. There will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just curious, impassive – even gently mocking – reporting of Assange’s fate.

And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn’t care. In fact, they happily conspired in paving the way for today’s kidnapping of Assange.

They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for ordinary people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They don’t care about any of that. They are there to protect their careers, and the system that rewards them with money and influence. They don’t want an upstart like Assange kicking over their applecart.

Now they will spin us a whole new set of deceptions and distractions about Assange to keep us anaesthetised, to keep us from being incensed as our rights are whittled away, and to prevent us from realising that Assange’s rights and our own are indivisible. We stand or fall together.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post After 7 years of deceptions about Assange, the US readies for its first media rendition appeared first on SabrangIndia.