By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
2 December
2020
• 'Love Jihad': Why Legislative Remedies Must
Not Be Dismissed
By Makarand R Paranjape
• Love Jihad’
Law
Editorial, Tribune India
• A Narrative Pakistan Can’t Just Shrug Off
By Owen Bennett-Jones
• Why India Need Not Worry About Pakistan’s
Efforts To Instigate OIC
By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty
• Tightrope
Walk In The Gulf
By Shyam Saran
• Israel’s Sabotage Hasn’t Destroyed Iran’s Nuclear
Programme, But Has Set It Back
By Eli Lake
• Top Iranian Nuclear Scientist’s Assassination
& How It Will Impact US Diplomacy In Middle East
The Print Team
• BJP’s ‘Battle’ For Hyderabad: Here’s Why
Local Muslims Are Anxious
By Kingshuk Nag
------
'Love Jihad': Why Legislative Remedies Must Not
Be Dismissed
By Makarand R
Paranjape
02nd
December 2020
For representational purposes
(Express Illustrations/tapas ranjan)
------
The Uttar
Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, came
into force after Governor Anandiben Patel’s approval on November 27. Now
‘dishonest’ conversions by ‘force, coercion, enticement, deceit and fraud’,
including for purposes of marriage, will be cognisable, non-bailable offences.
The
penalties vary, from between one-year and five-year jail terms and fines of Rs
15,000 for adult conversions to a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years and
fines of Rs 50,000 if minors, Schedule Castes/Tribes or collective conversions
are involved. Uttar Pradesh is the first state legally to target ‘love jihad’,
but other BJP-ruled states, such as Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka are
reportedly expected to follow suit.
Does this
mean one cannot change one’s religion in UP? No. That would violate fundamental
rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Those who wish to convert can still do
so by applying to the district magistrate two months in advance. Similarly,
inter-religious marriages, without conversion, can still be solemnised quite
easily under the provisions of the Special Marriages Act. The UP Ordinance is
only aimed at quick conversions for the sake of marriage or some other
dishonest reason.
The
Ordinance nowhere mentions ‘love jihad’. Also, no religion is specified. That
makes us wonder why its opponents are calling it ‘anti-Muslim’. The law would
apply equally to a Muslim woman wishing to convert to Hinduism to marry a Hindu
man or, which would be ever so rare, of a Muslim man wanting to become a Hindu
to marry a Hindu woman. The fact that the Ordinance is being called anti-Muslim
only shows that more Hindus, especially women, enter Islam than the other way
round.
Unfortunately,
the Ordinance, and the term ‘love jihad’ have become an inter-religious and
inter-party issue. Once again, Hindutva is being blamed for going against the
freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and for trying to police the private
lives and choices of individuals. Both objections are somewhat misplaced if we
look at the context and history of inter-religious relations in the
subcontinent and elsewhere.
The
expansion of Islam was not only by conquest or voluntary conversion but by the
incorporation of large numbers of female and child captives and slaves. In
turn, the latter’s children automatically became Muslims. An ever-expanding
Umma, or community of believers, being the professed mission of Islam, law and
custom legitimated absorption of women from other faith traditions into Islamic
society.
When
conquered people were more respectably integrated, slavery and concubinage were
upgraded to plural marriages with non-Muslim noble or upper-class women, as in
the Mughal harem. Indeed, peaceable relations with inferior powers or vassals
were often predicated on the marriage of the latter’s daughters into the Mughal
royal family. Skip several centuries to the horrors of India’s Partition. The
abduction of Hindu and Sikh women, with the inevitable retaliation from the
other side, became part of the standard operating procedure of bloodthirsty
communal mobs.
The
horrible script of shame, dishonour, humiliation, mutilation and revenge was often
carved on the bodies of women of both communities.In contemporary times,
rampant sexual slavery, especially of Yazidis, in territories overrun by the
Islamic State has been well-documented. Even in less unstable countries like
neighbouring Pakistan, what we are witnessing today is systematic ethnic
cleansing through the final stages of conversion and erasure of communities.
The abduction, forcible conversion and marriage of Hindu and Christian girls by
Muslim men is an almost daily occurrence.
The fact that
our super-secularists ignore, either deliberately or through colossal
ignorance, is the fundamental asymmetry between Abrahamic and Indic religions.
The latter, in fact, are not even religions in the Abrahamic sense. They are
not based on the special covenant of a chosen people with a singular and
jealous God, but are essentially plural in both precept and practice. What this
means in real-world terms is that there is no objection in Indic religions to
desist from the worship of one deity or commence the worship of another.
In
contrast, Abrahamic religions have mandated the worst punishments for apostasy,
including torture or death in this world and eternal damnation afterwards. Even
today, being an ex-Muslim, as we know in the case of world-famous heretics such
as Taslima Nasreen or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is fraught with great danger to life and
limb.
It is in
this historic context that we need to view the UP Ordinance. While any modern,
democratic state must ensure freedom of choice of religion and of sexual
partners, even orientation, to its citizens, it must also safeguard minors and
other vulnerable sections of society from forcible or false inducements into
fraudulent marriage or religious conversion.
It may be
true that while the Ordinance reflects an anxiety in Hindu society, including
the fear of demographic decline, some safeguards to its culture, traditions,
religious practices and ways of life must also be granted to the majority
community. After all, the founders of our nation and the makers of our Constitution
did not intend to turn India into a minoritarian or anti-Hindu state.
While more
statistics are needed, figures from Kerala show that from 2009-2012, as many as
33 times more marriageable women from other faiths converted to Islam than
Muslim women to other faiths. Not just Hindus, but several Christian
denominations in the state have expressed concern over this trend. ‘Love
Jihad’, thus, is not easy to dismiss or demonise as a paranoid Hindu fantasy as
some hard-line secularists have tried. Whether ordinances such as UP’s are the
best way to tackle this is, of course, another question altogether.
-----
Makarand R
Paranjape is Director, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. Views
are personal
https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2020/dec/02/love-jihad-why-legislative-remedies-must-not-be-dismissed-2230716.html
-------
Love Jihad’ Law
Editorial, Tribune India
Dec 02,
2020
A month
after the Allahabad High Court observed that religious conversion for the
purpose of marriage is unacceptable, the Uttar Pradesh Government has enforced
an ordinance ostensibly aimed at curbing forcible or fraudulent conversions,
including those for the sake of tying the knot. The onus to prove that the
conversion has not been done forcibly will lie on the accused and the convert,
which implies that the former will be considered ‘guilty until proven innocent’
and not the other way round. The UP law, which strikes at the root of personal
liberty and individual choice, runs the risk of being misused to the detriment
of a legally recognised union between consenting adults.
The first
case under this legislation, which intends to crack down on ‘love jihad’ but
doesn’t mention the controversial term, has been registered in Bareilly
district on a man’s complaint that a youth from his village lured his daughter
and was now forcing her to convert. ‘Love jihad’ is touted as a grand
conspiracy under which Muslim men are out to convert Hindu women to Islam on
the pretext of marriage. However, lack of clinching evidence in most cases has
largely rendered it a figment of paranoid imagination. In 2009, the Kerala High
Court had directed the state police chief to find out whether there was any
organised movement to convert Christian and Hindu girls to Islam by dangling the
marital bait. The probe found no conclusive proof to establish the existence of
such a movement or the veracity of the allegations.
Marriage is
primarily a social and legal institution rather than a religious one.
Unleashing the law on an inter-faith couple that duly completes the formalities
for the registration of marriage reeks of prejudice and vendetta. The fact that
the governments of some other BJP-ruled states are preparing to jump on to the
anti-conversion bandwagon has fuelled speculation that the common objective is
to demonise a minority community and criminalise conversion even by choice.
Such draconian provisions are eventually an assault on our Constitution, which
equally entitles all citizens to freely practise any religion. And love is meant
to be celebrated, not sacrificed at the altar of religion.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/editorials/love-jihad-law-178668
------
A Narrative Pakistan Can’t Just Shrug Off
By Owen Bennett-Jones
December 2,
2020
Photo
For many
decades now the military establishment in Rawalpindi has been complaining that
the West has a narrative about Pakistan that is both unfair and impossible to
change. This version of Pakistan, they argue, goes something like this:
Pakistan is two-faced, pretending to fight militancy when in fact it supports
violent jihadists. Furthermore, Pakistan is a badly governed basket case,
obsessed with an unwinnable struggle for Kashmir, rendering it unnecessarily
hostile to India.
The
establishment’s attempt to overturn the key element of this narrative — support
for militancy — has gone through two main phases. Before 9/11 it simply denied
that it was supporting militants. And then, more recently, it has pointed to
the army’s victories over the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas and other
parts of northwest Pakistan. To the frustration of successive army chiefs,
however, neither approach has shifted the prevailing narrative.
Narratives
are extraordinarily durable. Edward Said’s argument about Orientalism — that
the West had hard-set, irrational perceptions about the East — amounted to a
description of a narrative according to which the East is filled with exotic,
irrational, lazy people who continually fail to make the most of Western
efforts to show them a better way to live. That set of ideas has been so
enduring that it informed not only 19th-century colonialism but also President
Bush’s 2003 war in Iraq.
Drones
provide another example. When the US was using unmanned aerial vehicles against
Al Qaeda and other targets in Fata and Afghanistan, journalists in the West and
Pakistan were united in reporting that they killed more civilians than
militants, helped Al Qaeda and were a breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the
later years of the drone programme, however, none of these things were true.
The Bureau
of Investigative Journalism, which for years made a very thorough attempt to
monitor drone victims, found that between 2013 and 2018 drones killed a minimum
of three and a maximum of 15 civilians. That compared with over 300 militants
killed. It is not the ratio that most people believe to be true. As for Al
Qaeda, internal documents from the organisation released in the course of
various US court cases, revealed that drones were the single most effective
weapon it faced. Meetings of Al Qaeda operatives became impossible for fear
that they would be droned. And the arguments about drones breaching Pakistani
sovereignty were always bogus. The drones, after all, took off from a Pakistani
airbase. And yet for all that, even the US, despite all its mastery of the
media management, was unable to shift the narrative about drones.
That’s not
to say that narratives can never be changed. In the UK one of the main two
political parties, the Labour Party, suffered election defeats in 1979, 1983,
1987 and 1992. The party was portrayed by the press as high-taxing, extremist
and weak on law and order. After the fourth defeat, a small group of reformers
attached themselves to Tony Blair and, rebranding the party as ‘New Labour’,
began to challenge the narrative. It took some years but with ruthless control
of media messaging and some genuine party reforms, they were able to change the
way the party was portrayed in the media and in 1997 Tony Blair was swept to
victory.
So where
does all that leave the generals hoping to change the narrative about Pakistan?
The claims that, in fact, Pakistan does not support militants have faced a
couple of problems. First everyone now realises that the much-proclaimed
arrests of militant leaders are invariably followed by their quietly being
released. And then, from time to time, people such as Gen Musharraf, let the
cat of the bag by saying Pakistan does support some militant groups.
Even if the
ISPR was able to keep everyone on message, Pakistan cannot escape the fact that
after 9/11 Pakistan’s policy towards militants could hardly have come under
closer scrutiny. Western armies have long since reached a view on what was
happening and it’s impossible to imagine a media campaign being sufficient to
change their view.
So, if a well-executed
media policy is not going to subvert the narrative, that leaves the option of
genuine policy changes. At which point Pakistan’s strategists need to take a
view on whether it is at this stage worth switching to a new approach. As the
US campaign in Afghanistan winds down, Washington is no longer focused on
Af-Pak. When he becomes president, Joe Biden is highly unlikely to see Pakistan
as a place where he should be sending much foreign aid. All of which suggests
that even if Pakistan did change its policy on militants, the foreign aid gains
may not outweigh the benefits, as the military strategists see it, of having
militants project Pakistani power in the region.
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/narrative-pakistan-cant-just-shrug-off-1502938466.html
------
Why India Need Not Worry About Pakistan’s
Efforts To Instigate OIC
By Pinak Ranjan
Chakravarty
01 Dec 2020
The
Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) grabs media headlines in India rarely,
except when it issues a statement on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The 57-member
organisation comprises Islamic countries which include India’s neighbours
Bangladesh, Maldives and Pakistan.
The OIC’s
declared goal is to protect the interests of the Muslim world, in a spirit of
harmony with other peoples for the promotion of peace and harmony. Lofty words,
similar to the noble cause of international peace and security that is the goal
of the UN.
The fact
remains that the OIC is an organisation of Islamic countries and hence is seen
as a ‘communal’ institution in the Indian discourse.
India has
had a rocky relationship with the OIC, ever since it was invited and then not
allowed to participate, in the first OIC Summit in Morocco in 1969, in the face
of opposition by Pakistan.
After the
47th annual meeting in Niamey, the capital city of Niger in central Africa, the
OIC’s Council of Foreign Ministers, issued a statement on J&K, provoking a
strong response from India.
The OIC’s
statements on J&K are issued at the instigation of Pakistan, whenever it
has a high-level meeting.
Most member
countries want to avoid any bruising argument and do not object, since they
know that such statements have no substantive impact. This time, J&K was
not even included on the agenda which riled Pakistan, and it worked overtime to
beg and plead with Saudi Arabia and others to get the statement out of the OIC.
India has
always rejected such statements and this time too it has castigated the OIC,
for having no locus standi in India’s internal matters.
The Indian
statement blamed the OIC for making unwarranted references and asserted that
J&K remains an integral and inalienable part of India. Referring obliquely
to Pakistan, India’s statement said that the OIC is being used by a country
“which has an abominable record on religious tolerance, radicalism and
persecution of minorities” and said that the organisation should refrain from
making such references in future. India has also lambasted Pakistan’s
state-sponsored terrorism at the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO) held this week and hosted by India.
Of late,
Pakistan has been struggling to attack India on the issue of J&K in
international fora, a policy it has pursued for decades. Pakistan has redoubled
its efforts after the revocation of Article 370. At the UN, Pakistan, backed by
China, has failed to move the UNSC and has been shouting hoarse on violation of
human rights of Kashmiris. At the OIC foreign minister’s meeting in Abu Dhabi
in 2019, India’s External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj was invited as a
guest of honour, leading to much frustration in Pakistan and a boycott of the
plenary session by the Pakistani foreign minister, where Swaraj delivered her
address. Pakistan had tried its best to get Swaraj disinvited but failed to do
so.
While the
OIC’s statements on J&K are treated as a ritual and to satisfy Pakistan,
India’s bilateral ties with OIC countries are never affected, barring Malaysia
and Turkey which have been vocal in supporting Pakistan.
Former
Malaysian PM Mahathir Muhammad had made some egregious remarks against India on
J&K. This led to India retaliating by reducing palm oil imports from
Malaysia. Mahathir was ousted thereafter and Malaysia has not spoken out again
in the same vein. India’s ties with Saudi Arabia and UAE, two leading countries
of the OIC have improved under PM Narendra Modi’s leadership, as have ties with
Bangladesh and Maldives. Ties with other Islamic countries have not been
affected. Most of these countries have skirted the J&K issue.
Pakistan’s
frustration on the issue of J&K not getting any traction internationally
has been mounting. This led to an attempted alignment with Iran, Malaysia and
Turkey, to upstage Saudi Arabia and UAE in the OIC.
The
Pakistani FM shot his mouth off by warning that if the OIC did not show enough
activism on J&K, Pakistan would be forced to form a separate Islamic
platform outside the OIC.
This was a
direct challenge to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan paid the price of having its loan
recalled and its army chief’s mission to mend ties, resulting in his being
roundly snubbed, as he failed to get a meeting with the Crown Prince Muhammad
bin Salman.
The OIC
resolution will have no effect on India’s ties with Islamic countries.
The
establishment of formal ties between Israel, UAE and Bahrain and a recent
clandestine visit to Saudi Arabia by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu are
indicators of changing geo-political trends in West Asia. The downslide in
Pakistan’s ties with UAE is manifested in the latter’s visa ban on Pakistan.
Both Saudi Arabia and UAE host millions of Pakistani workers and if the axe
were to fall on them, Pakistan will suffer, at a time when its economy is
struggling.
For the
moment, a beleaguered Pakistan and the government of PM Imran Khan, facing a
combined opposition onslaught on the domestic front, will shout from the
rooftops that the OIC resolution is a great victory for Pakistan.
For India,
it will not cause any strain in her ties with OIC countries which have
repeatedly conveyed that bilateral ties are independent of OIC resolutions on
J&K.
At best,
this so-called ‘victory’ proclaimed by Pakistan will mute domestic opposition
but will go down as another Pyrrhic victory, meeting its inevitable end, as the
world moves on.
------
Pinak Ranjan
Chakravarty is a former Ambassador and
Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; he is currently a Visiting Fellow at
the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi. This is an opinion piece, and the
views expressed above are the author’s own.
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/oic-islamic-countries-statement-on-jammu-kashmir-india-bilateral-ties-pakistan-role-uae-israel-diplomacy
------
Tightrope Walk In The Gulf
By Shyam Saran
Dec 02,
2020
Not long
ago, Indian foreign policy was credited with successfully navigating the
multiple contestations in the Gulf and West Asia by maintaining positive
engagement with all key actors in the region, in particular Israel, Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and Iran. This was no mean feat considering the rising level of
confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Israel and Iran. The US posture
towards the region was another complicating factor. Washington abandoned even
the pretence of playing honest broker on the Israel-Palestine issue and
ratcheted up pressures on Iran. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that
while maintaining the rhetoric of friendship and collaboration with Iran, India
has had to dilute its level of engagement with the country. Running with the
hares and hunting with the hounds can only take you so far and no further. Iran
is no longer a key supplier of oil and gas to India. The strategically
important Chabahar port project has faced repeated delays, both from US
sanctions as well as roadblocks on the Iranian side. It has also been reported
that Iran will no longer invite Indian participation in the rail project
linking Chabahar with Central Asia to the north. China with its Belt and Road
project and substantial resources is now in pole position as far as these
proposed infrastructure projects in Iran are concerned. And now the
assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on November 20 in
a terror attack, which is suspected to have been carried out by Israeli
intelligence, raises the risk of a more general conflagration in an already
tense and troubled region. Whatever gains India may have made with its deft
tactical and transactional manouevres so far could well run aground. Iran will
watch for India's reactions. When the US carried out the assassination of
Qassim Suleiman, the head of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards in
September 2019, India refrained from criticising Washington, confining itself
to expressing the hope that all sides concerned would exercise restraint. This
would not have sounded reassuring at all in Tehran. No comment has been made by
a government spokesman on the latest incident. There should be condemnation
since this is clearly a terror attack and India has itself called for zero
tolerance on terrorism. Otherwise its outrage over terrorism would be seen as
selective.
India must
condemn the killing of Iran’s nuclear scientist since it is a terror attack.
Otherwise, its outrage over terrorism would be seen as selective.
This is not
the first time that Iranian nuclear scientists have been targeted. Between 2010
and 2015, four scientists were assassinated and there have been more than
oblique hints that Israel was behind them. On this occasion, too, Israeli
intelligence is suspected to be the perpetrator. The timing and motivation are
clear. Incoming US President Biden has announced his intention of reviving the
nuclear deal concluded in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union.
President Trump
walked out of the deal in 2017 and reinstated sanctions against Iran. Iran has
retaliated by resuming uranium enrichment beyond the threshold allowed under
the agreement. Biden has said he would be willing to take the US back into the
agreement if Iran strictly observes its commitments under it. This would be
anathema to Israel and Saudi Arabia who had welcomed Trump's repudiation of the
deal. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh and possible Iranian armed retaliation
would make it impossible for Biden to follow through on his intention. If Iran
exercises restraint despite the attack, then there are still nearly two months
left for further hostile acts against Iran. With Iranian elections due in June,
the call for revenge attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia would probably
become irresistible. It has been reported that just days before the attack,
Israeli PM Netanyahu travelled to Saudi Arabia, together with US Secretary of
State Pompeo for an unprecedented meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh may well have been offered as proof of
Israel's value as a de facto ally of the kingdom against its chief adversary
Iran. This is a dangerous game which could unleash a destructive
action-reaction process which could get out of hand. This would severely damage
India's substantial interests on its western flank, in terms of energy
security, the safety and well-being of its 6 million citizens living and
working in the Gulf and the possible fallout in India itself of a deepening
Shia-Sunni conflict. Let us not forget that India has the largest number of
Shias after Iran.
It is in
India's interest to see the Iran nuclear deal revived and implemented because
this would open up prospects of closer India-Iran partnership in the energy
sector, energise cooperation in building infrastructure in Iran that would open
up an alternative and efficient route into Afghanistan and Central Asia and
help India in managing an acutely adversarial Pakistan and a resurgent Taliban.
This is a strategic interest which tactical considerations must not be allowed
to undermine.
While
Indian engagement with Iran has been diminishing, China’s profile has been
expanding. It has continued buying Iranian oil and at discounted rates. It has
emerged as a major weapons supplier to Iran despite its parallel and growing
relationship with other Gulf countries and Israel. A China whose power is
entrenched both in Pakistan and Iran is a disturbing prospect. In recalibrating
our next series of moves on our western flanks, these important considerations
must be kept in mind.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/tightrope-walk-in-the-gulf-178704
-----
Israel’s Sabotage Hasn’t Destroyed Iran’s Nuclear
Programme, But Has Set It Back
By Eli Lake
1 December,
2020
When asked
when the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan might end, retired General David Petraeus
would deploy a useful quip. “The enemy gets a vote,” he would say, meaning that
both sides need to agree to stop fighting.
There is a
corollary to Petraeus’s adage that is relevant not to war but to peace
agreements: The allies get a vote, too. In the context of the 2015 nuclear
agreement with Iran, the allies include Israel, which was not a party to the
deal but is almost certainly responsible for last weekend’s assassination of
Iran’s top nuclear weapons scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Israel has
repeatedly declined comment on the Fakrhizadeh operation, which comes after a
string of Israeli sabotage actions over the summer against some of Iran’s most
sensitive nuclear sites. Earlier this month, it was reported that Israeli teams
killed al-Qaeda’s deputy outside of Tehran. When Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu announced to the world that Israeli operatives had stolen
reams of detailed Iranian schematics and plans for building a nuclear weapon in
2018, he urged the audience to remember Fakhrizadeh’s name, revealing a memo
from the late scientist describing covert nuclear activities.
Since the
news broke of the assassination, the European Union as well as several former
officials of the Barack Obama administration have issued condemnations. Former
CIA director John Brennan, for example, mused that if a foreign country was
responsible, it would be “an act of state-sponsored terrorism.”
That’s
myopic. To start, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat
to Israel and Gulf Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates. It’s not that
Iran would launch a first strike against one of these nations. Rather, it’s
that all of Iran’s other destabilizing actions — supporting terrorists, arming
regional insurgents, building up a long-range missile capability — would be
much harder to deter if Iran possessed an atomic weapon.
In this
sense, it’s mistaken to view Israel’s likely strike against Fakhrizadeh through
the lens of its effect on President-elect Joe Biden’s goal of re-entering the
Iran nuclear deal and negotiating a stronger follow-on agreement. Israel has
already proved it has extraordinary intelligence capabilities inside Iran. But
the opportunity to take out a high-value target such as Fakhrizadeh does not
come along often. It’s more likely that the opportunity presented itself and
Israel pounced.
More
important, Israel has showed in the last three years that it is willing to use
its intelligence capabilities to stymie Iran’s nuclear program. Israel killed
some nuclear scientists inside Iran during negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program. Back then, most observers believed that Israel’s only chance to
destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was an overt action, such as a missile
strike, drone attack or bombing run. The explosions at Iranian sites over the
summer suggest Israel can accomplish much of this task through intelligence
operations.
The upshot
is that any future deal with Iran will have to address Israel’s security needs.
That is not what happened five years ago. The tensions of the nuclear deal
became so dramatic that in 2015, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of
Congress to make the case against the deal Obama was negotiating. Netanyahu was
willing to risk Israel’s most important alliance to oppose a deal that he
believed imperiled his country’s future. So it’s highly unlikely that Israel
would be willing to end its activities in Iran so the U.S. can rejoin that same
deeply flawed nuclear agreement.
Israel may
agree not to launch any strikes for a time, such as the first few months of the
Biden administration. But it won’t give up the capability to strike inside Iran
unless Iran agrees to abandon the aspects of its nuclear program suitable for
building bombs. If Biden is smart, he will use this dynamic to his advantage as
he tests Iran’s willingness to negotiate.
Israel’s
sabotage and assassinations have not destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. But they
have set it back. As the architect of that program, Fakhrizadeh will be hard to
replace. What will be even harder for the regime, however, is persuading its
other scientists that they will be safe if they continue the quest for a
nuclear weapon. – Bloomberg
https://theprint.in/opinion/israels-sabotage-hasnt-destroyed-irans-nuclear-programme-but-has-set-it-back/555317/
-----
Top Iranian Nuclear Scientist’s Assassination
& How It Will Impact US Diplomacy In Middle East
The Print Team
1 December,
2020
New Delhi:
Iran’s senior-most nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated near
Tehran last Friday. Despite the scientist’s heavy security detail, attackers
“used electronic equipment” to fire at his car and kill him.
“This is
not just an isolated event or an act of revenge. This is a political move on a
really deadly, global strategic chessboard,” said ThePrint’s Editor-in-Chief
Shekhar Gupta in episode 629 of Cut The Clutter.
In his
first remarks on the assassination, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said, “The
enemies are experiencing stressful weeks… They are mindful that the global
situation is changing, and are trying to make the most of these days to create
unstable conditions in the region.”
Gupta said
Rouhani was insinuating that Israel is in “cahoots” with the Donald Trump
administration in the United States to create a situation that will elicit a
retaliation from Iran and thereby leave behind a crisis for President-elect Joe
Biden when he takes office in January next year.
Unlike
Trump, Biden is committed to returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), a US-Iran agreement signed during former president Barack
Obama’s time to try and contain Iran’s nuclear programme in return for lifting
sanctions, said Gupta.
he
agreement became operational on 16 January 2016, less than 96 hours before
Obama officially ceased to be president, and Trump took over, said Gupta. But
it was a deal “dead on arrival” as Trump had already taken a strong position
that viewed Iran as “the great Satan”.
For India,
its nuanced relationship with Iran, be it economic, political or strategic, has
been held at ransom ever since Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA, remarked Gupta.
If Biden resumes negotiations with Iran, it will ease up issues like the
Chabahar Port and have a similar effect on countries around India like
Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said.
Fakhrizadeh’s
death part of a series of assassinations
Fakhrizadeh’s
death is part of a series of targeted assassinations, said Gupta. Between 2010
and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated and the country has
accused Israel of playing a role in the killings. This also comes nearly a year
after the US assassinated top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
On 7
August, al Qaeda’s second-highest leader, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah or Abu
Muhammad al-Masri, thought to be the mastermind behind the 1998 attacks on
American embassies in Africa, was gunned down while on a walk with his daughter
in Tehran. Iran did not speak out about it as it not only brought shame to
Iran’s security and intelligence, but also because it was “political
embarrassment” for a Shia nation to harbour a terrorist from a Sunni
organisation, explained Gupta.
Then again,
Iran and al Qaeda have shared an “old connection”, which Iran “does not want to
admit to”, said Gupta, citing Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark’s book ‘The
Exile’.
Former
Central Intelligence Agency chief John O. Brennan called Fakhrizadeh’s death “a
criminal act” and implied that this could lead to retaliation that would hurt
US diplomacy in the Middle East.
Former deputy
national security adviser Ben Rhodes, during Obama’s tenure, also said the
assassination was aimed at undermining diplomacy between the Biden
administration and Iran. However, Brennan and Rhodes’ remarks provoked
criticism from Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Also, political scientist Ian
Bremmer reminded Brennan that four nuclear scientists were assassinated in Iran
while he was running the CIA.
Biden
presidency will majorly affect Middle East
With Biden
as the new US President-elect, every part of the world is expecting changes in
US foreign policy, but nobody will be more affected by this change than the
Middle East, said Gupta.
Going
country by country, Gupta explained that Turkey, an estranged NATO ally who
“got away with a bit” under Trump, won’t be as lucky with Biden and is already
trying to cement its relationship with Europe. It also must be asked if Biden
will be as indifferent to Turkey’s role in Syria and Libya as Trump was, he
added.
Syria is in
a “complete mess”, but it will be critical to see how Biden will position
himself with regard to President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel PM
Benjamin Netanyahu, who found a “complete unquestioning ally” in Trump, won’t
have the same with Biden.
“If
anything, [Biden] was critical of Trump for shifting the US Embassy from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem,” added Gupta. Though Biden has made it clear that he won’t
shift back the embassy, he is unlikely to cut Netanyahu as much slack as Trump
did, said Gupta.
Meanwhile,
Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations are paranoid about their “ideological
rival”, Iran.
The
situation in Iraq is equally complex as the country is under heavy Iranian
influence and the US has troops there, Gupta said and also predicted that
“respect” may return to US diplomacy in the Middle East and talks may resume.
https://theprint.in/world/top-iranian-nuclear-scientists-assassination-how-it-will-impact-us-diplomacy-in-middle-east/555063/
-----
BJP’s ‘Battle’ for Hyderabad: Here’s Why Local
Muslims Are Anxious
By Kingshuk Nag
02 Dec 2020
When voting
ended for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on Tuesday, 1
December, common citizens heaved a sigh of relief. Reason: the locals feel
COVID was intensifying due to the high decibel campaigning by all parties, and
it would have been better if there were no polls.
The
campaigning saw top BJP leaders led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP
National President JP Nadda fighting for – what seemed – the soul of Hyderabad.
Opposing them was the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) which has ruled Telangana
ever since it became a state in 2014, and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul
Muslimeen (AIMIM) that represents Muslims. Muslims comprise 40 percent of
Hyderabad’s population.
Although
BJP had started its campaign by focusing on the ‘misrule’ of the TRS, matters
acquired a sharp edge when the saffron party began focusing on the
Bhagyalakshmi temple. This temple, standing at the edge of the Charminar, is
supposed to have preceded the latter – but this is disputed by many. Though
Amit Shah did not say so, his colleague, UP Chief Minister Adityanath (who came
campaigning), wanted to rename the city as Bhagyanagar. This is supposedly the
‘original’ name for Hyderabad, and whose ruling deity is Bhagyalakshmi. The
campaign, however, left Hyderabad’s Muslims somewhat nervous.
This was
BJP’s first foray – in a real sense – in Telangana, even though Amit Shah has
been periodically making trips to Hyderabad. Ironically, BJP’s zealous entry
into Telangana coincides with the ‘collapse’ of the Congress party nationally.
The Congress
used to be a force in Telangana earlier. When Telangana became a state in June
2014, it happened due to the decision of Congress boss Sonia Gandhi, whose
party was aligned with the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) at that time. But
once Telangana became a reality, TRS boss K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR), who used
to touch the feet of Sonia and call her ‘Amma’, dis-aligned from her. TRS
fought the elections on its own, and won and established the state government.
Over the
years it gradually destroyed the Congress party and other Opposition such that
it won the 2019 elections as well. Of course this was also due to the
munificence of voters who saw in TRS a party which swore by Telangana.
TRS’s
Declining Popularity Is BJP’s Gain
The voters,
however, realised that over the years, the TRS ruling establishment became
feudal, with the Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, promoting his son K Taraka
Ramarao (KTR) as his successor. KCR also converted the chief minister’s
official bungalow into a palatial building and did not operate from the
secretariat.
However,
the state secretariat has been demolished to make way for a new building. All
this has led to the loss of popularity for the TRS which has now been in power
for six years.
It is this
loss that BJP now wants to capitalise on. At the beginning of the campaign,
some BJP worthies (who do not want to be named) had told this writer that the
saffron party’s aim was to mark its presence in Hyderabad in the municipal
polls, so that the party could give TRS a run for its money in the next
assembly elections slated for 2024.
But with
the BJP now expected to perform better than what it seemed to at the beginning
of the campaigning, a shrill voice from the saffron party is also demanding
that the TRS government be dismissed.
Hyderabad’s
History – And Why the ‘Battle’ for the City Will Be Interesting
Because of
Hyderabad’s history, the battle for the city will be interesting: Hyderabad’s
Muslim population – at 40 percent – is larger than any of the metros in the
country, and this has happened due to the fact that the city and the princely
state (also called Hyderabad) was under the Nizam’s rule from the very
beginning.
When India
became independent, the Nizam toyed with the idea of joining Pakistan. But he
was forced to join India in September 1948 after what is called Police Action
(but was actually Military Action) that saw the Indian Army zeroing in on
Hyderabad from all sides.
Over a
period of few years, Hyderabad state was also dismantled: and the Marathi
speaking areas (that extended to Aurangabad) and the Kannada-speaking areas
(including sizeable parts of Karnataka now) were de-merged.
In place of
these demerged areas came Andhra that was the Telugu-speaking area of the
earlier Madras Presidency (established by the British). Andhra and the
Hyderabad state (which was also Telugu speaking) were then merged to form
Andhra Pradesh.
Will the
Coming Months See Tension Between AIMIM & BJP?
In this
process of demerger and merger, the Muslims were left without an anchor. Many
of them crossed over to Pakistan and others to Canada, USA and other countries.
Left behind were the less fortunate Muslims (most of them concentrated in
Hyderabad city and that too in the old city). The AIMIM represents them
politically. The party has now become politically ambitious, and contested the
recent polls in Bihar (and earlier fought in Maharashtra). But AIMIM is now
feeling the heat in Hyderabad with the BJP’s entry.
AIMIM was
earlier in tacit alliance with the Congress and then with the TRS. But in the
municipal polls, the TRS started attacking the AIMIM saying that it had nothing
to do with them.
This was
with the idea of saving itself from BJP’s attack. In the coming months, even as
the BJP ups the ante for the next assembly polls, analysts perceive that the
conflict between AIMIM and BJP will intensify. This is scaring the locals with
the prospects of communal trouble.
-----
Kingshuk Nag is the former Resident Editor of
the Ahmedabad and later Hyderabad editions of the Times of India. This is an opinion
piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.
The New Age Islam neither endorses nor is
responsible for the same.
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/hyderabad-ghmc-polls-bjp-hindutva-bhagyanagar-trs-aimim-muslims-communal-tension
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/indian-press/indian-press-love-jihad-legislative/d/123635
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