By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
4 December
2020
• Indian Courts Vs Love: Court Rulings
Upholding Individual Autonomy Call For Immediate Scrutiny Of UP’s Regressive
Ordinance
TOI Edit
• Legal Howlers In UP's
'Anti-Conversion' Law Expose Its Real Intent
By N.C. Asthana
• The Muslim Media Interpretation Of
Asaduddin Owaisi's Gains In Bihar That Everyone Else Missed
By Jyoti Punwani
•
Reform Institutions To Ensure Equitable Representation To Women
By Reshma Arif Khan
• The Limits Of The Centre’s
Unilateralism
By Rajdeep Sardesai
• How Joe Biden’s Election Has Jolted
The World Led By Nationalist ‘Alpha Male’ Leaders
The Print Team
----
Indian Courts Vs Love: Court Rulings Upholding Individual Autonomy Call For Immediate Scrutiny Of UP’s Regressive Ordinance
TOI Edit
December 4,
2020
A string of
high court judgments that resoundingly uphold the rights of consenting adults
to marry and cohabit all but flattens the political attempts to criminalise
interfaith marriages. Multiple rulings of the Allahabad high court besides the
Delhi and Karnataka HCs reaffirmed that an adult’s choice of marriage is a
fundamental right. The Allahabad HC decisions are significant as Uttar
Pradesh’s ordinance targeting interfaith marriages has logged its first FIR and
arrest. Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Assam have also signalled similar intent.
Terming as
flawed a 2014 Allahabad HC judgment’s contention that religious conversion
solely for marriage was prohibited, note the words of a two-judge bench of the
same court: “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat Ansari as Hindu and
Muslim, rather as two grown-up individuals who – out of their own free will and
choice – are living together peacefully and happily over a year.” Kharwar had
converted to marry Ansari and this was challenged by her parents. This week,
another Allahabad HC bench rooted for a live-in couple harassed by the woman’s
family noting that “nobody including parents” had the right to interfere “where
a boy and girl are major and are living with their free will”.
Similar
views were also expressed by Karnataka HC in a Muslim man’s habeas corpus plea
complaining of unlawful detention of his Hindu lover by her parents and the
Delhi HC in reuniting a Hindu man with his adult Muslim wife, though the couple
had eloped and married while she was still a minor. The UP “love jihad” law
that invalidates and criminalises interfaith marriages and associated religious
conversion through an overly broad and vague definition of “allurement” among
other clauses, clashes with the spirit of the court rulings.
Eloping
couples are often forced into religious marriages, and conversion too for
interfaith couples, owing to the secular but unhelpful Special Marriage Act.
Instead of placing onerous requirements on religious conversion including a
two-month notice to the district magistrate, UP government could have eased
rules for the 30-day public notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act
as it involves no religious conversion. This would have deflected criticism
over discriminating against interfaith marriages and helped UP in its current
investment pitch by projecting a modern, progressive destination. With
individual liberties at stake as trial courts start hearing cases stemming from
the new law, Allahabad HC or Supreme Court must examine the ordinance’s
constitutionality without delay.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/state-vs-love-court-rulings-upholding-individual-autonomy-call-for-immediate-scrutiny-of-ups-regressive-ordinance/
-----
Legal Howlers in UP's 'Anti-Conversion' Law
Expose its Real Intent
By N.C. Asthana
04-12-2020
Superficially,
the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance No.
21 of 2020 appears to be similar to the so-called anti-conversion laws that are
already in existence in eight states. On a closer look though, it’s clear that
the UP ordinance is much more virulent. The other states, perhaps in the garb
of modesty, had chosen to name their Acts, rather ironically, Freedom of
Religion Acts; this one abhors pretensions.
The UP law
is teeming with legal blunders that strongly indicate the real intent of the
law is to harass people so much that conversion per se is discouraged.
Problems
start with the preamble itself. Amongst other things, it seeks to prohibit what
it calls ‘unlawful conversion by marriage’. It may be noted that any reference
to marriage is not found in the Madhya Pradesh and Odisha Acts, the oldest
legislations of this kind in the country.
There
cannot be any conversion ‘by’ marriage. There may be conversion ‘for’ marriage.
‘By marriage’ implies that conversion automatically follows any inter-faith
marriage. This is factually incorrect. As Mashood Baderin, a professor of law
at the University of London, has explained when it comes to Islam, “Under
Islamic law a Muslim man who marries a Christian or Jewish woman (ahl-e-kitab,
that is, people of the Book) has a religious obligation to honour and respect
both Christianity and Judaism. Thus the woman’s religious beliefs and rights
are not in jeopardy through the marriage, because she would be free to maintain
and practice her religion as a Christian or Jew.”
The Uttar
Pradesh law fails to appreciate that conversion is not akin to an irreversible
chemical reaction, which can take place in one direction only and there is no
going back. Nothing tangible is changed by conversion. Even circumcision for
males is not compulsory for conversion to Islam or Judaism, although it is a
recommended practice.
After
religious conversion, if someone feels that they were duped or forced into the
change, they can always press the ‘undo’ button in their minds and approach the
police for remedy.
In the
Stainislaus judgment, the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional
validity of the MP and Odisha Acts, had held that they were meant to avoid
disturbances to public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to
another ‘in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community’ and that
‘forcible conversion could create public disorder’.
The state’s
concern about forcible conversions is understandable as it could involve
several crimes, such as wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC), intimidation
(section 506 IPC), kidnapping (Section 359-369 IPC), assault (Section 352 IPC),
threat of divine displeasure (Section 508 IPC) etc.
However, as
mentioned earlier, the MP and Odisha Acts were silent on inter-faith marriages
and the Supreme Court too had not commented upon that. Hence, the UP law cannot
arbitrarily associate inter-faith marriages with public order.
With about
36,000 inter-faith marriages in India every year, about 6,000 of these must be
taking place in UP. There has not been any breach of law and order all these
years anywhere in the country over inter-faith marriages, not to speak of any
breach of the more inclusive public order. On what basis, then, can they now
suddenly start apprehending breach of public order in UP?
On the
contrary, it can be argued that a possible breach of public order over
inter-faith marriages is sought be invoked because, with the UP government’s
blessing and knowledge, some organisations sharing the ideology of the ruling
party might be hell bent upon disturbing public order.
Section
2(f) of the UP law defines ‘mass conversion’ as an incident where two or more
persons are converted and regards it as a more serious event. This is not just
arbitrary, but ridiculous. Suppose a family of three – husband, wife and an
adult progeny – decides to convert together. On what logic can the state regard
it as a more serious event than an individual’s conversion, and acquire the
right to interfere in their collective choice?
Conversion
cannot be equated with rape, where gang rape is regarded as a more heinous
offence because of the sheer immorality and violence of several men
overpowering a lone woman. Otherwise, the punishment for one murder or a
hundred murders is the same.
Section
2(i) of the UP law coins a new term, ‘Religion Convertor’. This is factually
incorrect and obviously driven by ulterior motives. Conversion in general does
not necessarily require the assistance of a convertor, nor witnesses. One can
convert even in complete solitude. For example, in the case of conversion to
Islam, all that is needed is the pronunciation of the ‘Shahada’ (I testify that
there is no true god [deity] but The God [Allah], and Muhammad is the Messenger
and servant of God), with sincere belief and conviction. By artificially
introducing the concept of a convertor, it appears that the state’s motive is
to gain an extra handle for harassing a larger number of people.
Section 3
of the UP law has two additional clauses, which the MP and Odisha Acts do not
have. First is what they call conversion by marriage. Second is ‘nor shall any
person abet, convince or conspire such conversion’.
While
abetment and conspiracy are recognised in law, ‘convincing’ is not. This is
pure fiction. Under this law, it could mean that if four Muslims happen to be
discussing the merits of Islam at a teashop while a Hindu customer is also
present and taking part in the conversation, they could be trying to ‘convince’
him to convert to Islam!
The second
proviso of Section 3 is even more ridiculous. It says, “Provided that, if any
person reconverts to his/her immediate previous religion, the same shall not be
deemed to be a conversion under this Ordinance.”
Reconversion
could be either because of one’s own thinking, or through somebody else
persuading them. It can be argued that the proviso is concerned with what is
popularly known as ‘ghar wapsi’ (homecoming). In effect, it means that some
individuals or organisations have been given a license to do whatever they want
to bring their ‘deviant’ friends back to the folds of the ‘parent’ religion and
in the process, whatever they do shall not be described as ‘abetment,
convincing or conspiracy’.
Section 4
of the UP law enables any person who is related to the one converting by blood,
marriage or adoption to lodge a complaint. Leaving aside one’s parents and
siblings, it means that even one’s cousins (progenies of uncles from both
sides) could argue to be related by blood and complain. Next is ‘related by
marriage’. If they mean spouses, they should have spoken of spouses. However,
the brothers/sisters of one’s spouse and the spouses of one’s brothers and
sisters are also arguably related by marriage. Adoption too is amusing. This
means even your adopted son or daughter could object to your conversion and
lodge a complaint! This means that an inter-faith couple can be held to ransom
by all such people.
Section 9
of the UP law defies common sense. It creates a second hurdle in the form of
objections from the public after the conversion has taken place. The conversion
will be confirmed only when this hurdle is also crossed. Why, we do not know.
Do they think that the cumbersome procedure including the so-called police
inquiry could also be manipulated? Then why did they enact it in the first
place? The only plausible reason of this is to make the whole thing so
difficult that it deters people from conversion.
The MP and
the Odisha Acts provided for one-year punishment. The UP law raises it from one
year to up to five years. The so-called ‘mass conversion’ attracts three to ten
years jail. The motive behind such harsh punishments should be obvious.
Section
5(2) of the UP law provides for compensation of up to Rs 5 lakh to ‘victims of
conversion’. They have not bothered to explain the rationale for this. It could
perhaps be argued that the philosophy might be similar to that of compensation
to rape victims. In any case, if they seek to compensate, it would mean that
they believe that someone who converts undergoes some sort of mental trauma.
How, no one knows.
Section
8(3) of the UP law mandates that the person concerned and the convertor both
have to give notices and the district magistrate shall get an inquiry conducted
through the police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the
proposed conversion.
Needless to
say, this gives the police unlimited powers, which will, in all probability, be
abused. It is well known that police in India have been acting as the hatchet
men of the ruling party. What prevents the police from fabricating an
intelligence report that a proposed conversion violates the provisions of this
law? The onus will then be on the affected party to move the high court and
fight a long and expensive legal battle.
Section 12
of the UP law is amusing. The burden of proof that the conversion was ‘lawful’
lies on the person who has ‘caused’ the conversion. They do not bother to ask
the person who has converted – his or her opinion does not matter at all. The
government seems to be more interested in prosecuting and harassing the
‘convertor’.
For the
sake of argument, even if it is granted that the government is keen on
prohibiting forcible conversions, all that it needs is that the converted
person be asked to depose before a judicial magistrate within a certain period
of conversion and submit the statement to the government.
Recently,
the Allahabad high court held, “Right to live with a person of his/her choice
irrespective of religion professed by them is intrinsic to right to life and
personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship would constitute a
serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two
individuals.” The Karnataka high court held essentially the same thing. The
Delhi high court held that an adult woman was free to reside wherever she
wished and with whomsoever she wished and directed the police to counsel the
petitioner and the parents not to take the law into their hands or threaten
either the woman or the man.
The UP law
goes clearly against these judgments and is therefore likely to be struck down
as ultra vires of the constitution. We are constrained to infer that the
ulterior motive of such a harsh law and provision of stringent penal provisions
at every step appears to be nothing but harassment. The law has quite
understandably not used the infamous words ‘love jihad’ in it, but people know
the political agenda behind it better.
https://thewire.in/communalism/legal-howlers-in-ups-anti-conversion-law-expose-its-real-intent
-----
The Muslim Media Interpretation Of Asaduddin
Owaisi's Gains In Bihar That Everyone Else Missed
By Jyoti Punwani
December
03, 2020
The Bihar
Assembly election results have had a curious fallout on social media. More than
the BJP’s breakthrough in a state it has never ruled; more than Chief Minister
Nitish Kumar’s fall; more than the spectacular performance of Tejaswi Yadav
fighting without his father, what has engaged social media is Asaduddin Owaisi
winning five seats in Seemanchal.
Curiouser
still are the glowing write-ups the AIMIM chief has received in English print
and digital media. Critical articles have been few and far between, and they’ve
been written not by journalists but by non-journalist commentators such as
Yogendra Yadav, Professor Mohammad Ayoob, Khalid Anis Ansari and Faisal CK.
The only
journalist who analysed the AIMIM’s victory comprehensively was Tanzil Asif for
The Wire. The website describes him as an independent journalist based in
Seemanchal. Could it be his rootedness in the region that helped Asif analyse
the factors that contributed to the AIMIM’s performance in Seemanchal, factors
that, as he showed, were different in every seat?
The
question arises because the only place where journalists have critically
assessed the Hyderabad-based MP are two Muslim news websites, which mainly
(though not exclusively) report news concerning Muslims. Could it be their
rootedness in the community that helps these websites understand the
implications for Muslims of Owaisi’s politics?
One result
that stood out in Owaisi’s performance in Bihar this time was his candidate’s
loss in Kishanganj. This Muslim-dominated constituency rejected Qamrul Huda,
just a year after having voted him as the AIMIM’s first MLA in Bihar. When he
won the seat in a by-election held in October last year, the English media went
gaga over Owaisi’s successful debut in Bihar. But now, the same media ignored
his MLA’s disgraceful performance: Huda didn’t just lose, but trailed third
after the Congress and the BJP.
Again, Asif
was the only one to analyse this loss as part of his piece cited above.
It was
Aleem Faizee, editor of India's oldest Muslim news website, ummid.com, who
asked the question none of the gushing journalists asked Owaisi in the many
interviews he gave after the results. Faizee’s piece entitled 'Kishanganj is
real question that Asaduddin Owaisi needs to answer' discussed this loss in
detail.
The website
Muslim Mirror carried a number of articles on the Bihar results, of which only
one, by an academic, praised Owaisi. The editor of the Delhi-based website,
Syed Zubair Ahmad, wrote two pieces, both critical: 'Owaisi’s Bengal foray may
prove boon for BJP' and 'The BJP needs a visible Owaisi to make Muslims
invisible'
Faizee does
not see Owaisi’s electoral victories as extraordinary. They remind him of the
early days of Abu Asim Azmi, the Samajwadi Party Maharashtra president.
Following the Mumbai riots in 1992-93, Muslims rejected the Congress and
welcomed Azmi, who spoke out for the community. But when they found his MLAs
and corporators did no work, they deserted him.
"Whenever
an alternative to the Congress or any of the so-called secular parties has come
up, Muslims have voted for it," points out Faizee, "And they’ve gone
on to reject these parties when they’ve failed to deliver, even if they’ve put
up Muslim candidates.’"
This
happened with the AIMIM’s two MLAs whose victory in Maharashtra in 2014 was
hailed as the party’s first major breakthrough outside Hyderabad. "AIMIM
MLA Waris Pathan’s non-performance and his brand of communal politics gave the
Shiv Sena its first win in Byculla in 2019," laughs Faizee.
Similarly,
the Aurangabad Central seat won by the AIMIM’s Imtiaz Jaleel in 2014 is no
longer held by the party. The AIMIM candidate lost the Assembly elections held
in October last year. This was just four months after Aurangabad had voted for
Jaleel as the AIMIM’s second Lok Sabha MP and the first from Maharashtra.
"Thanks
to Owaisi’s campaign in Malegaon, the Congress MLA lost, despite having worked
a lot," rues Malegaon resident Faizee, "I can guarantee you that if
today an election is held, Mufti Ismail, who won on an AIMIM ticket, as well as
Maharashtra’s second AIMIM MLA from Dhule, will lose." In his 2014
Assembly campaign, recalls Faizee, Owaisi had promised a college in Malegaon
even if his party lost. "Where is it?" he asks.
"Anyone
who thinks Owaisi is going to bring in positive change for Muslims, is living
in a fool’s paradise," says Faizee, "Except Waris Pathan and Imtiaz
Jaleel, AIMIM candidates are the same old faces who’ve gone through all the
other parties."
For Syed
Zubair Ahmad, it’s the "negative polarisation" brought about by
Owaisi’s style of campaigning that’s alarming, because it ultimately results in
reducing overall Muslim representation. Bihar had 24 Muslim MLAs in 2015; now
it has only 19, points out Ahmad. But isn’t the BJP responsible for
polarisation in the first place? "The use of religion for politics is the
BJP’s main agenda and it has worked for the party," says Ahmad, "But
it doesn’t help Muslims. As it is, thanks to the BJP’s propaganda, where
earlier Hindus used to vote for Muslims, now they rarely do so. Politicians
such as Salman Khurshid used to win with the help of both Hindu and Muslim
votes. No longer."
In last year’s
Lok Sabha poll, explains Ahmad, the Congress’ Tariq Anwar lost from Katihar, a
Muslim-dominated seat which he had won five times, including in 2014, despite
the Narendra Modi wave. "It’s not as if the Muslims rejected him; his vote
share mirrored the Muslim population of Katihar. It’s the Hindus who rejected
him," says Ahmad, "If Hindus stop voting for 'secular' politicians
such as Khurshid and Anwar, do you think they will ever vote for the
AIMIM?"
Everyone
has a right to practice identity politics, says Ahmad, "But Owaisi’s
communal rhetoric, like that of the AIUDF’s Badruddin Ajmal in Assam, ends up
isolating Muslims. Moderate Hindus rush to the BJP when Owaisi enters the
scene. For Muslims, it is essential to take others along with us."
Owaisi may
keep winning a few seats here and there, predicts Ahmad, because Muslims feel
cheated by the so-called secular parties who’ve done nothing for them. But
finally, he wins by defeating other Muslim candidates, points out Ahmed.
The dangers
of communal politics when practised by a party that claims to speak for the
majority are continuously discussed by English journalists, as they should be.
But what of the dangers of identity politics when practised by parties claiming
to speak for the minorities? Should that discussion be left to minority
journalists in the community media?
https://www.firstpost.com/india/the-muslim-media-interpretation-of-asaduddin-owaisis-gains-in-bihar-that-everyone-else-missed-9076141.html
-----
Reform Institutions To Ensure Equitable Representation
To Women
By Reshma Arif Khan
Dec 04,
2020
As a
document, the Constitution lays the legal foundations for a country’s
governance and formulates the institutions tasked with implementing the
principles enshrined in it. For India, these institutions are the legislature,
the judiciary, and the executive. With the legislature being empowered to make
the laws, the judiciary tasked with adjudication and the executive being
duty-bound to ensure implementation, the three are meant to safeguard and actualise
the founding document’s core tenets.
Seventy-one
years have passed since India adopted its Constitution, guaranteeing equality
to all its citizens, including its largest minority population — women. This
was a radical step undertaken by the framers, considering that most supposedly
liberal democracies had refused to guarantee universal suffrage at that time.
What is
also important is that the framers didn’t just confine themselves to providing
women with a guarantee of formal equality, but through Article 15(3) that
reads: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children” — also opened avenues for the State to take
steps towards promoting substantive equality. This was a crucial provision as it
implied that the framers realised that Article 15 alone wasn’t enough, and that
special provisions were required to ensure that women are able to exercise
their right to equality.
Have we
been able to achieve these targets?
The
legislative branch, made up of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha account for
only 103 female Members of Parliament (MPs) out of 795 sitting MPs. This is
approximately 13% representation. This raises the question as to whether, we as
a country are truly committed to equal representation especially when the
foremost representative body in our democracy provides barely any
representation to the country’s largest minority?
Unfortunately,
this lack of representation isn’t limited to the legislature but rather spreads
to the judiciary as well, where female judges account for 6% of the Supreme
Court and 11.5% and 27.6% in the high courts and the lower judiciary
respectively. These figures are also indicative of successive decreases in
women’s representation with each rung of the judicial hierarchy. This is
disheartening considering the fact that the institution that was envisioned to
protect the principles of the Constitution has failed to ensure them.
In terms of
representation in the police, female personnel account for 7.28% (State of Policing
Report, 2019) of the country’s police force. This is striking when we consider
the fact that it is required by law for female uniformed personnel to be
present when escorting/arresting a female accused. Considering the serious lack
of female representation, how has the police been able to comply with this law?
And in the off chance that it has failed to follow procedure, would that not be
a violation of the accused’s right to dignity and liberty?
It was BR
Ambedkar who stated that a Constitution was only as good as the individuals who
implemented it. Thus, a modern democratic nation-state must aspire to develop
institutions that enshrine within themselves constitutional values as
originally conceptualised in their foundation. The failure of these institutions
to provide equitable representation to women, continues to serve as a stark
reminder of what poor implementation can do to a fantastic document. Two
decades into this century, India must put behind itself the regressive ghosts
of its past that continue to haunt its institutions. As the country looks to
move towards a more just and equitable future, it must begin by reforming its
institutions to represent more accurately some of its most important
stakeholders.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/reform-institutions-to-ensure-equitable-representation-to-women/story-9ZqHOSV5tP2T0nhpaC5e3I.html
------
The Limits Of The Centre’s Unilateralism
By Rajdeep Sardesai
Dec 03,
2020
Are these
really farmers who are blocking the roads and protesting?” It’s a quizzical
question often asked on news TV by many who rarely step out of studios. They
are Congress-sponsored groups, claim government spokespersons; they are
Khalistani sympathisers, suggest the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s social
media warriors.
The first
theory can be easily countered. If the Congress had the resources and
organisational might to sponsor a farmers’ movement for even a week, the party
wouldn’t be reduced to 52 Members of Parliament (MPs). To demonise the
protesting farmers as Khalistanis is more unfortunate. It reveals a mindset
that seeks to stereotype any anti-government protest as anti-national. The
Punjabi Jat farmer’s attachment to land is a bit like the Gujarati middle class
community’s connection to the stock market: Bring in a stock-market reform that
sparks off fears over future profits and watch the reaction in Surat. A handful
of people speaking in support of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale’s bloodied legacy
is hardly reason enough to label a movement of farmer unions as being driven by
Sikh separatism.
So then,
who are these protesters braving winter temperatures and police water cannons
and gheraoing Delhi? What if one suggested that they are ordinary citizens
worried about a new legal framework that could disrupt their traditional
working system? It isn’t as if these farmers are impoverished. The average
landholding in Punjab is 3.7 hectares, well above the national average. It
isn’t as if the new farm laws will destroy their lives; instead, the reforms
can benefit farmers by eliminating middlemen. It’s just that there was a stark
unilateral edge to the Centre’s decision to bring in laws that could change
Punjab’s well-entrenched mandi system of crop sale and purchase.
The manner
in which farm reforms were pushed through a brute majority in Parliament, with
almost no consultation with stakeholders, lies at the root of the
confrontation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s predecessors — PV Narasimha Rao,
AB Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh — were constrained by the absence of a majority and
had to reform by stealth or consensus. The Modi model is built around a
strongman-State that issues firmans with no dialogue with the parties
concerned. Then, be it a hugely disruptive move such as demonetisation or a
grandiose vision like the Central Vista project, there is little space for any
pre-decision conversation. Recall also the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu
and Kashmir or the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
In each
instance, dissenting voices were stifled, even criminalised. Little attempt was
made to strike up a dialogue with protesters; they were not seen as the BJP’s
vote bank.
By
contrast, farmers are a crucial vote bank. Modi makes it a point to reach out
to the garib-kisan in almost every speech. The Centre’s media machine repeatedly
points out how the government has hiked the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and
provided small and marginal farmers ₹6,000 annual income support under the
PM-Kisan scheme. There is also no doubt that a large number of farmers have
voted for the BJP in elections. Punjab is an exception here since it is the one
north Indian state that has resisted the Modi wave since 2014.
It is the
recognition that any kind of farmer revolt can spiral out of control that has
forced the government to the dialogue table. A protest which begins in Punjab
can easily spread to neighbouring BJP-ruled Haryana, and indeed to other states
with large and restive farm populations. Political leaders in the Kashmir
Valley can be jailed, student activists from a Jawaharlal Nehru University can
be browbeaten, the Shaheen Bagh women can be threatened with goli maaro
rhetoric, but an angry and restless farmer must be assuaged.
Which is
why the events of the last week perhaps provide a clue to where the real
opposition to the Modi government’s dominance lies. It doesn’t lie in a weak
political Opposition whose leaders struggle to go beyond Twitter debates. It
doesn’t lie in institutions that have been weakened over time. It doesn’t lie
in a media which has, with a few exceptions, lost the capacity to tell truth to
power. It doesn’t lie in urban elites hypnotised by political Hindutva and a
larger-than-life leadership to even question blunders such as demonetisation.
The
opposition to governments that rule by decree lies in sizeable groups of ordinary
Indians who do not like being taken for granted. Modi is by far the most
popular leader in the country. But personal popularity does not guarantee
permanent support on each issue. A more consensual approach is sometimes needed
to remove anxieties when initiating far-reaching reforms. A one-sided diktat is
no answer when people need to be first comforted and convinced into acceptance
of a new law.
Post-Script: While the Delhi-centric media’s attention has
been focused on the farm agitation, citizen groups in south Goa have been
holding day and night protests against infrastructure projects that threaten
the state’s fragile and invaluable forests and wildlife sanctuaries. In a land
of a million mutinies, citizen power is the best antidote to executive overreach.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/the-limits-of-the-centre-s-unilateralism/story-ogDDRbQhdTtsEtxm6gHxSJ.html
------
How Joe Biden’s Election Has Jolted The World
Led By Nationalist ‘Alpha Male’ Leaders
The Print Team
4 December,
2020
New Delhi:
The world is dominated by nationalist ‘alpha male’ leaders such as Russian
President Vladimir Putin, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, Turkey’s President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and even
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
However,
Joe Biden’s election as US President is expected to have an impact on these
alpha male leaders with American politics witnessing a more liberal shift.
In episode
632 of ThePrint’s Cut The Clutter, ThePrint’s Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta
decodes this change that Biden’s term will bring about.
“If you
look at the state of the world, you can go clockwise or anti-clockwise, you
will see the world is being run by alpha males of the nationalist Right, and
now the world is about to change for all of them,” Gupta said.
Gupta also
highlighted how President-elect Biden is not talking a lot about Russia —
another alpha male stronghold — which was seen in his interview to The New York
Times.
“Russia is
not on top of Biden’s mind. That will be a big difference from Donald Trump,
for whom Russia had different kinds of importance. There was a general
impression that Putin had some kind of leverage over him, which he will no
longer have over Biden,” Gupta said.
In China’s
case, Trump made a “big deal” out of trade imbalance with the country and said
a lot of rude things about it. He even put tariffs on some goods coming from
China.
With Biden,
China has to handle a new reality because he is not going to declare a
friendship with China. “Biden’s campaign looked tough on China even more than
Trump,” Gupta said.
In the NYT
interview, Biden said he wouldn’t change anything with China right now, rather
he will wait and see how the situation develops.
The
President-elect said his strategy was to get all of America’s allies on the
same page, and that it was the only way to have some leverage over China.
In order to
build leverage against China, Biden will have to invest in America’s economy,
especially in sectors like biotech, special materials, new materials, clean and
green technologies etc.
“You can
see a more patient move on China with allies, I don’t think it’s going to make
Xi Jinping very happy or very comforted. I think Jinping is going to be in a
hurry to see what he can do in the two months before Biden settles down,” Gupta
said.
Erdogan was
‘punching’ above his weight and he did it because “Trump’s withdrawal from
everything created a vacuum there”, said Gupta.
He added
that Turkey was being two-faced in most international matters. In Syria, it was
fighting Russia but then was in cahoots with the latter on some other matter.
Similarly, Turkey allied with Israel in Kazakhstan but later abused the country
because it wanted to establish itself as the leader of the Islamic world.
According
to Gupta, Erdogan did so because he thought the “sheriff” (Trump) was his
‘friend’ and that he can continue to do whatever he wants, but now that’s not
going to happen when Biden comes to power.
“Biden will
not be silent considering the human rights violations in Turkey and how Erdogan
is destroying his democracy,” he explained.
“This isn’t
Trump’s America that will leave the Middle East to its own devices, or make its
own deals with the Arab world, and then let everyone else play their games,”
Gupta said.
Trump was a
‘big enemy’ for Iran and “had done all the worst he could have done with Iran
short of attacking them, which his people have now denied him because he does
not have the power to launch an operation”, Gupta revealed.
With Biden
coming in, Iran doesn’t have to worry about that and can “heave a little sigh
of relief”, he said. In fact, he added, they might witness a ‘some balance’
coming back since Biden is committed to going back to the JCPOA (Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action).
Biden has
said his priority in negotiations with Iran will be to block their development
of a nuclear weapon. This will turn out to be a positive for India since it
will lift tensions in the Islamic world. India has important commercial
interests with Iran, like oil purchases and exports.
In Brazil,
Bolsonaro is going to ‘miss’ Trump because he got away with a lot when the
latter was in power but Biden “will raise questions about this and that”, said
Gupta.
Biden’s
administration will also not be as ‘forgiving’ as Trump with Israel. He will
especially not be pleased with the country annexing the West Bank territories
and declaring Israel sovereignty over settlements on the West Bank and
Palestinian territories.
He said
Modi’s second term is looking very different from his first, considering the
Chinese standoff, farmers’ protest, coronavirus and economic decline. Biden’s
election is one such change.
“So all in
all, the change in America and also the weakening of many of these strong men
who have been friends of India, and also strengthening of the odd one like
Iran. All this tells you that this world has changed,” Gupta concluded.
https://theprint.in/opinion/how-joe-bidens-election-has-jolted-the-world-led-by-nationalist-alpha-male-leaders/557305/
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/indian-press/indian-press-indian-courts-vs/d/123656
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism