Indian Press On Religious Conversion Bills, Hate As an Ideology and Covid Vaccine: New Age Islam's Selection, 2 January 2021
By
New Age Islam Edit Desk
2 January 2021
•
Unlawful Religious Conversion Bills – Part 1
By
Saroj Chadha
•
When Hate Is Also An Ideology
By
Kaleeswaram Raj
• How
Special Marriage Act Is Condemning Interfaith Couples To Up-Style
Anti-Conversion Laws
By
Anushree Jairath
• A
‘New’ India Can’t Be Built By Abandoning The Core Values Of Our Founding
Fathers
By
Rajdeep Sardesai
•
Warping A Great Faith: Both ‘Hard’ And ‘Soft’ Hindutva Are Expedient Uses Of
Religion For Political Gains
By
Pavan K Varma
•
Iran’s Look East Policy May Force Us Rethink
By
Yogesh Gupta
•
Covid Vaccine Marks Milestone In Science
By
Dinesh C Sharma
-----
Unlawful
Religious Conversion Bills – Part 1
By
Saroj Chadha
January 1,
2021
UP
government has instituted a bill titled ‘Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020’ in the state. The title of the bill
clearly relates to unlawful conversions which means that any willing religious
conversions by adults are excluded. The bill also does not target any religion
in particular as it is applicable for all religious conversions. Madhya Pradesh
government too has passed a similar bill recently. A few other states too are
likely to bring similar legislation in the near future. As expected, there is a
lot of hue and cry over these bills from some quarters in the country. The
question is do India and Indians need such a bill? Perhaps it may be prudent to
clarify and understand some key issues involved before one can answer this
question.
It is no
secret that Christianity and Islam religions believe in conversions. Over
centuries they have converted people from other faiths in all parts of the
worlds. History is replete with instances where forced mass conversions were
carried out at the point of sword, by terrorizing or by levying taxes. The fact
that both these religions believe that the only God is their God and his
teachings are contained in their respective holy books. Is it any wonder that
despite being younger to Hinduism by thousands of years, the world today has
around 84 Christian and 50 Islamic majority nations?
As opposed
to such beliefs in Christianity and Islam, Hinduism has never resorted to
conversions as it believes that one can only be born a Hindu. It also believes
in co-existence as it does not see itself as the only religion. Therefore, it
is not surprising that India and Nepal are the only two Hindu majority nations
in the world. Mauritius, which has a majority Hindu population is made up of
migrant from India who settled there starting from middle of nineteenth
century. Thus, it may be logical to assume that the onus of protecting Hindu
religion and culture rests with India by default.
While most
western nations have been very liberal and tolerant towards other religions in
recent times, the same cannot be said of Islamic nations who continue to impose
all kinds of restrictions on people of other faiths. But today most western
nations have realised that this freedom, that they offered to migrants of other
faiths, has been misused and is now posing all kinds of challenges to their own
culture and beliefs. Many have now started taking corrective measures to curb such
misuse.
Both Islam
and Christianity are imports in India. They have been allowed to flourish in
the country because of the spirit of coexistence and tolerance that is inherent
to Hindu religion. Most of the conversions that occurred over centuries from
within the Hindu population were either forced or out of fear since India was
under Mughal rule and colonial subjugation by European nations for nearly ten
centuries. But today India has no such limitations and instead is a master of
its own destiny. Therefore, while continuing to follow its coexistence and
tolerant policies in spirit and word, by no stretch of imagination can it
continue to be a fertile land for any nefarious designs of other religions. The
nation will, and it must, take steps to safeguard its own religion and culture.
In recent
times the methodologies for conversion by Christianity and Islam have changed.
Christianity mainly converts through inducements and promises of access to a
better quality of life to the less privileged sections of our society in
different parts through well planned programs conducted by their network of
Churches and missionaries. Free rations, education and medical facilities are
some of the common inducements. They specialize in focusing on remote and less
accessible areas by targeting Dalits, Tribal and Adivasi population. Today
there are four Indian states in North East where Christians are in majority.
The funding is received from Vatican, Christian philanthropic and non-profit
organisations apart from some governments in western world, both openly and
covertly. Funding has been perhaps the least of their problem.
Islam on
the other hands relies more on conversions through persuasion that at times
turns to brain washing. The targets are mainly individuals or in small groups.
Islam focuses on strengthening the identity of Muslims, both locals and
migrants, to use them in service of Islam. They are encouraged to consider
themselves as part of a global Muslim nation or fraternity. They are advised to
act as devout Muslims, to build Muslim institutions such as mosques, madrassas
and charity organizations with a view to serve political interests of Muslims
worldwide and to proselytize. Perhaps this also explains why Muslim refugees
invariably head to non-Muslim nations rather than Islamic countries. Once again
there appears to be no shortage of funds that come mainly from Middle East
Islamic nations. These funds are used to build mosques and madrassas to spread
the message of Islam.
Muslim are
charged with the duty of summoning non-Muslims to their faith. It is estimated
that in England, France and Spain alone about twenty-five thousand Christians
convert to Islam every year. For USA the figure is about twenty thousand.
Unfortunately, there is no reliable data available on conversions in India.
While these figures by themselves may not be very alarming, what is worrisome
is when a small percentage of such converts turn fanatics. The presence of such
converts from western nations and India in conflicts in Syria, Iraq and other
places is testimony to this fact.
As already
stated at the beginning there is no problem with lawful religious conversions
for adults. The problem lies with forced or unlawful religious conversions or
if children are targeted. The bills under discussion are applicable for only
unlawful conversions. The bills are not religion specific and provide
protection against unlawful conversion to people from all religions. To that
extent the bills are not discriminatory and respect all religions equally.
Do the bills
in question curtail the fundamental rights of any citizen? It is obvious they
do not since willing conversions are not included. Any law that protects the
citizens from an unlawful activity has to be a good law and cannot be seen as
an infringement of their fundamental rights. Prevention of crime is a
responsibility of the state and therefore it is duty bound to enact laws to
that effect. Any forced, deceitful or inducement based religious conversion has
to be seen as unlawful and therefore it has to be classified as a crime.
(To be
continued)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/blunt-frank/unlawful-religious-conversion-bills-part-1/
-----
When
Hate Is Also An Ideology
By
Kaleeswaram Raj
02nd
January 2021
The Supreme
Court, in an unprecedented move, interdicted Sudarshan television channel from
telecasting a programme called ‘Bindas Bol - UPSC Jihad’. Many felt that the
telecast was targeted against a particular religious community. A Bench led by
Justice Chandrachud is dealing with the legal and constitutional aspects of
‘hate speech’ in the media at large. The task before the court is to draw the
subtle yet important distinction between free speech and hate speech.
British
Parliamentarian Bhikhu Parekh said that “(hate speech) lowers the tone of public
debate, coarsens the society’s moral sensibility and weakens the culture of
mutual respect”. He explained that it “violates the dignity of the target group
by stigmatising them, denying their capacity to live as responsible members of
the society”. The Indian Supreme Court cautioned about the vices of hate speech
in Baburao Patel’s case (1980) and the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case (2014).
Statutes
against hate speech are not uncommon in liberal democracies. Section 14 of the
Saskatchewan Human Rights Code in Canada prohibits publications that instigate
hatred. India does not have a separate law on hate speech, although one can
trace facets of it in different enactments including the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, prohibits programmes
that offend “good taste or decency” or contain matters “contemptuous of
religious groups” or promoting “communal attitudes”.
Also there
are other variants of hate speech enumerated in the rule, though the phrase
‘hate speech’ is not used. Section 5 of the Cable Television Act speaks about
programme code, which, if violated, can invite punishment as provided under
Section 16 of the Act.Hate is more than an emotion or state of mind. It is an
ideology. It is not limited to a few television shows or newspaper pieces. It
is a contagious virus in the polity. It is antithetical to the spirit of the
Constitution.
The
Constituent Assembly debates are published by the Lok Sabha secretariat in huge
volumes in a commendable venture. In the debates, along with enormous erudition
and expertise of the members, one finds a great deal of mutual tolerance and
understanding. They respected one another with a great sense of deliberative
ethics. They built up an edifice for the nation through conversation. The
Constitution, in a way, is this conversation crystallised.
No wonder,
therefore, that we have a Preamble in the fundamental law that talks not only
about justice, liberty and equality but also about fraternity. The Preamble
negates hate as an ideology and puts forward its own design for the nation in
the making. The assertions of the nation resound in Part III of the
Constitution, dealing with fundamental rights. Part IV sets out the directive principles, which are the people’s
aspirations.
These
principles reflect the nation’s dreams—ranging from gender equality to the
community’s control over resources. Article 51A(e) in Part IV A, which was
incorporated later, talks about the duty to promote harmony and the spirit of
“common brotherhood” across “religious, linguistic and regional or sectional
diversities”. Article 51A(h) stresses on “scientific temper and
humanism”.Rhetoric on fraternity does not ensure its practice. The problem,
however, is that we lose even the rhetoric. When fraternity is lost not merely
in the newsrooms, but even in the legal and political landscape, there is
betrayal of the Constitution.
The
statutes based on hate do not pass the constitutional muster even at a
philosophical level. The state cannot punish the citizens for their individual
choices, unless those harm the society. Laws cannot rest on imaginary
postulates for punishing the citizen. There is enough empirical data from Uttar
Pradesh to reveal the draconian character of the law on ‘love jihad’. Victims
are the best judges of the law. Many innocuous people demonstrated the inherent
danger of such laws. The provisions are harsh and divisive.
They
reflect the state’s encroachment into forbidden zones of citizen’s privacy.
They interfere with the fundamental human instinct for intimacy and
relationships.But these legislations do not emerge spontaneously. They happen
in an enabling political climate. Hate laws that happened in certain states may
not happen everywhere, at least for the time being. Law is politics with a legal
terminology. Politics of hate cannot understand the quintessential relation
between the nation, its people and the Constitution.
Instances
of political murder or vigilantism in the country could be the manifestation of
the detestation to which a section of the media also contributed. Physical and
cyber threats against citizens for what they are or what they believe in have
their origin in the political factories that manufacture and distribute hate.
While conventional democracy rests on majoritarianism, constitutional democracy
respects the minorities. The politics that does not honour the smaller lots
cannot generally honour the citizens. As the writer Ayn Rand said, “The
smallest minority on earth is the individual.”
This is why
a state with majoritarian impulses motivated by the doctrine of abhorrence
hooks the individuals by invoking its apparatus, ranging from police to prison.
A stringent state could annihilate the individual’s claim for dignity in the
most heinous way. But India can no longer afford a gruesome state as manifested
during the Emergency. We need to reread the country’s Constitution as a
condition for survival. The Constitution may not be eternal, but its values
are.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2021/jan/02/when-hateis-also-anideology-2244341.html
------
How
Special Marriage Act Is Condemning Interfaith Couples To UP-Style
Anti-Conversion Laws
By
Anushree Jairath
29
December, 2020
Your plea is that this is a violation of the privacy of the couples. But imagine if children run away to get married, how would the parents know about the whereabouts of their children? If [a] wife runs away, how would the husband come to know?” Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde said this year, in response to a PIL challenging the 30-day notice period of the Special Marriage Act of 1954.
The Special
Marriage Act is a civil law enacted in 1954 that allows the solemnisation of
marriages between any two individuals without religious customs, rituals, or
ceremonial requirements. More importantly, the Special Marriage Act critically
creates provisions for the marriage of interfaith couples without religious
conversions — a requirement for marriages under personal laws such as the Hindu
or the Muslim marriage acts. There exist some critical fundamental differences
between civil marriages under the Special Marriage Act when compared to
marriages under personal laws. These provisions are most problematic for
couples who wish to marry against the wishes of their families.
Difference
between marriage under Special Marriage Act and personal laws
The first
difference and a critical requirement under the Special Marriage Act is the
30-day notice period. Under this, applications are usually accepted at the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s (SDM) office, or with a marriage officer located in
the district where one of the individuals reside. After checking the
application, a notice is sent to the couple’s permanent address (an address
most young people share with their parents and families), along with being
displayed at the SDM’s notice board.
Many
couples who elope prefer to marry outside of their local jurisdiction to avoid
familial pressure, and although provisions allowing this do exist, notices are
still sent to the marriage officer of the local district. Such displays have
also made couples (especially interfaith couples) a target of familial and
societal harassment from vigilante groups. Such a clause is absent if one plans
to marry under personal law, thus the existence of it under the Special
Marriage Act is discriminatory and violates the right to equality (Article 14).
Second,
marriage under the Special Marriage Act requires an extra witness – three,
instead of two in the case of marriage registration under personal laws.
Witnesses play an important role under the Act, as they can be called to
testify in case any objections are raised during the 30-day notice period. This
extra responsibility might make one think twice before agreeing to be a
witness, adding an extra layer of complexity in the overall process.
Despite
these issues, couples who choose to use the Special Marriage Act find that
there is a complete lack of transparency around the process. In addition, many
states such as Delhi have made the registration process completely online,
which accentuates issues of access, since this requires basic legal/computer
literacy and facilities such as internet services. A lack of this can result in
corruption and potential harassment by middlemen, especially in the case of
interfaith couples.
On
surveillance and deterrence
The 30-day
notice period, the requirement for an extra witness, and the need to inform
families are elements that are absent under personal laws. Marriages under
personal laws are possible with immediate effect without parents’ knowledge or
permission. Evidently, systematic biases exist for couples who wish to marry
under the Special Marriage Act.
Lawmakers’
perspective towards such unjust requirements also speaks volumes about how the
Special Marriage Act is perceived. Justice Bobde’s response to the 30-day
notice period, quoted at the beginning, highlights the multiplicity of
identities that lawmakers hold — here, as parent and judge.
Additionally,
by referring to consenting adults as ‘children’ and inviting objections under
the Special Marriage Act, lawmakers like Justice Bobde cease to see young
people as decision-makers of their own lives. For many women, marrying a
partner of their choice is an attempt to get out of an abusive familial life.
In this situation, the notice defeats the right to choose one’s partner by
informing and inviting objections from the family, as well as the larger
society.
By
justifying such clauses and installing checks at every step of the Special
Marriage Act, the monitoring of young people’s lives by parents is now getting
validity in the law through arguments that prioritise surveillance over an
individual’s privacy. The Puttaswamy judgment declared privacy as a
constitutionally protected right, reiterating that “personal choices governing
a way of life are intrinsic to privacy and that the pursuit of happiness is
founded upon autonomy and dignity.”
However,
this right is regularly flouted and put aside when it comes to surveillance of
the state over its citizens.
Intersection
of Special Marriage Act and ‘Love Jihad’
The Uttar
Pradesh government has already cleared a law against forceful religious
conversions. The law, however, is now being used to target consenting
interfaith couples, including those whose parents’ agree to the marriage. Other
states, such as Madhya Pradesh and Haryana, are now contemplating laws on ‘Love
Jihad’ or ‘anti-conversion’, which use the garb of forced conversions to target
inter-faith marriages and require individuals to take special permissions if
they wish to convert their religion in order to marry under personal laws.
Contrary to the premise of the Special Marriage Act that accepts the existence
of interfaith relationships, the current ‘Love Jihad’ laws create scenarios
that suggest that every case of inter-faith marriage is actually a case of
forced conversion.
Keeping in
mind the complexities of the Special Marriage Act highlighted above, and the
criminalisation of interfaith marriages in the name of forced conversions,
couples are being forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
This twin monitoring from the law and the extreme Right is performing its
intended task of discouraging interfaith marriages and maintaining religious
‘purity’.
All in all,
the discourse around marriage in India ceases to place adult individuals at the
center. Familial and societal forces have always played a role in deciding
young people’s futures. By making the implementation of the Special Marriage
Act so complex, the law is further complicating the lives of young people who
have decided to choose their own partners. Lastly, the attitude of the law is
reflected in the name of the act itself — the ‘Special’ Marriage Act. A
marriage that is deemed special because it is seen as an anomaly, something
that is out of the ordinary and deserves constant scrutiny.
https://theprint.in/opinion/how-special-marriage-act-is-condemning-interfaith-couples-to-up-style-anti-conversion-laws/575625/
----
A ‘New’
India Can’t Be Built By Abandoning the Core Values Of Our Founding Fathers
By
Rajdeep Sardesai
Jan 01,
2021
After a
traumatic and turbulent 2020, it’s time to ring in a New Year with hope. And
since Rabindranath Tagore is being rediscovered by our netas ahead of the
Bengal elections, this is a prayer for India in 2021 that draws inspiration
from the great poet-laureate.
Where the
mind is without fear and the head is held high. Where an Indian identity is
determined by citizenship, and not divided by the narrow domestic walls of
caste, region or religion. Where true secularism demands that no State
authority promote or discriminate against any religion, where equal respect for
all faiths must be the basis of our constitutional secularism.
Where an
interfaith marriage won’t be demonised as “love jihad”. Where a consenting
adult couple will not have to prove their love to a district magistrate or a
local police officer in India’s most populous state or else be locked up. Where
eating beef isn’t a crime in one state while it is part of an essential diet in
a neighbouring one. Where agitating farmers aren’t water-cannoned or barricaded
in the winter freeze. Where a farmer isn’t looked at with suspicion because he
wants to be heard, where a turbaned Sikh isn’t a Khalistani but a kisan putra.
Where crucial laws are passed by consultation and not by diktat, where key
stakeholders are part of pre-legislative discussion. Where dissent isn’t
criminalised, where protesting students, academics and human rights activists
are not thrown into jail as anti-nationals and charged under non-bailable
anti-terror laws.
Where a
coronavirus vaccine is made available first to those most at risk and not those
who wear their VVIP badges on their sleeve. Where no one labels a community as
corona-carriers simply to cater to rank prejudice. Where public health systems
are designed to ensure quality treatment for all. Where private healthcare
recognises the difference between profits and profiteering. Where science
scores over superstition and medical care, where clean air is a national
priority.
Where it
shouldn’t take a pandemic to remind us of the plight of the urban poor. Where
no one has to ever walk hundreds of kilometres from urban shanties to their
villages because of a national lockdown. Where the poor and marginalised must
not be abandoned so cruelly even as the middle class and elite live in the
comfort of their gated colonies and high-rise apartments.
Where a PM
Cares Fund cannot be a body “owned” and “controlled” by the Government of
India, but then also not come under Right to Information laws because it
receives private funds. That, as taxpayers, we have the right to know where and
how our monies are being spent. Where election funding too is made more
transparent: Where the Information Commission doesn’t turn around and say that
there is “no public interest” in revealing the details of political donors
under an opaque electoral bonds scheme.
Where
before we spend public money on refurbishing Parliament, we first restore the
spirit of parliamentary democracy. Where democracy encourages a
decentralisation in the power structure. Where political parties aren’t a
family inheritance, but are built on merit. Where a robust democracy isn’t just
about winning elections but ensuring a level- playing field for all those
contesting elections. Where money power isn’t used for buying Members of
Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly to topple governments and
subvert mandates, where enforcement agencies don’t become weapons of threat and
intimidation against political opponents.
Where the
promise of free markets doesn’t end up in market monopolies, where the
licence-permit raj doesn’t become a patron-crony rule. Where the vast informal
sector is boosted and job-creating industries incentivised. Where growth
figures aren’t fudged and headline management matters less than hard facts.
Where judges recognise that notions of personal liberty cannot be selective: An
octogenarian activist must not struggle for weeks to get a straw sipper in jail
while influential individuals are granted instant immunity from prosecution and
arrest. Where judges eschew all post-retirement benefits, where criticising the
judiciary isn’t seen as criminal contempt. Where habeas corpus petitions are
heard with urgency.
Where an
actor’s suicide doesn’t become a national soap opera, while a farmer’s suicide
is a mere statistic. Where news media is a watchdog. Where the duty of TV
networks is to inform not incite, where news matters more than noise, where
sense scores over sensation. Where TRPs must stand for Television Respect
Points and not a crude attempt to get eyeballs at all costs. Where social media
platforms can’t get away with allowing fake news and hate speech on their
sites. Where a “new” India can’t be built by abandoning the core values of our
founding fathers.
Into that
heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. Happy New Year.
----
Rajdeep
Sardesai is a writer, senior journalist and author
https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/a-new-india-can-t-be-built-by-abandoning-the-core-values-of-our-founding-fathers/story-UsNHOoRNWGGUeKA7VLkJAM.html
----
Warping
A Great Faith: Both ‘Hard’ And ‘Soft’ Hindutva Are Expedient Uses Of Religion
For Political Gains
By
Pavan K Varma
January 1,
2021
As we step
into a new decade, Hinduism, and its interpretation and practice, will play an
increasingly pivotal role. We have seen the manifestation of ‘hard’ political
Hindutva, wedded to the goal of a Hindu Rashtra. It stands discredited not for
its evangelism, but for its lack of knowledge of the basics of Hinduism.
Another label bandied about is ‘soft’ Hindutva, but with no real clarity about
what it means. Since India is a deeply religious country, such notions need to
be investigated before they distort the role religion plays in politics and,
indeed, in our lives.
The
pejorative phrase ‘soft Hindutva’ is an outcome of a curious – if unintended –
collusion between the ultra-Hindu right and the ultra-liberal left. The
supporters of political Hindutva believe that they have a monopoly over public
display of religion (PDR). They are overt in their passionate – and sometimes
fanatical – belief in the need to project, promote and impose their warped view
of Hinduism. Thus, they view PDR by any other section of the political class,
as an attempt to usurp their ordained public space through a weak imitation,
‘soft’ as against their ‘hard’ religious commitment.
The
ultra-liberal left is dismissive about religion per se, and believes that any
public show of personal religious fealty by politicians is a betrayal of
secularism. For its votaries, political Hindutva can be countered not by a saner
practice of religion, but by not practising religion at all, least of all
publicly.
I wonder
what Mahatma Gandhi would have thought of these unseemly definitional
shenanigans. He was, as Nehru said, ‘a Hindu to the innermost depth of his
being’. During his first jail term in South Africa (January 1908), he read
Rajayoga, commentaries on the Gita. During his second incarceration
(October-December 1908) he read the Bhagwad Gita almost every day.
During his
third imprisonment (February-May 1909) he read the Veda-Shabda-Sangana, the
Upanishads, the Manusmriti, Patanjali’s Yoga Shastra, and re-read the Gita. One
of the first books published by his International Press in Phoenix, Natal, was
an abridged version of Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, which, as he wrote in his
autobiography, was ‘the greatest book in all devotional literature’.
He did not,
therefore, see anything wrong in espousing the utopia of Ram Rajya. But – and
this is critically important – he combined his staunch belief in Hinduism with
the fullest respect for all religions.
Let us take
another example. Madan Mohan Malviya (1861-1946) was four times the president
of the Indian National Congress, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, and like him a
devout Hindu. When, as a member of the Congress, he founded the Akhil Bhartiya
Hindu Mahasabha, for the welfare of Hindus and Hinduism, was he practising soft
Hindutva or merely following his personal faith? He is credited for having
begun the aarti puja at Har-ki-Pauri in Haridwar – which continues to this day
– and the setting up of organisations for the protection of the cow, and for a
cleaner Ganga.
He is also
the iconic founder of the Banaras Hindu University, from where, as its
vice-chancellor, he published a magazine called Sanatan Dharma to promote
religious and dharmic interests. The national slogan – Satyameva Jayate – taken
from the Mundaka Upanishad, was also his contribution. Did all of this make him
a proud Hindu immersed in his faith, or just a practitioner of soft Hindutva,
uncritically emulating Savarkar and the RSS?
Our
assessments need to get away from such knee-jerk categorisations and aspire to
a more reflective inquiry. The truth is that when Hinduism is reduced to
cynical tokenism for short-term political dividends, it is soft Hindutva. When
it is devalued to illiterate aggression for long-term political gain, it is
political Hindutva. Both these extremes are a deliberate ploy to make genuine
Hindus lose agency of the way they wish to practice their religion in
conformity with republican values, democratic principles and constitutional
secularism.
Swami
Vivekananda, the towering symbol of Hindu renaissance, would have been
impatient of such categorisations of ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. His mission was to
espouse an enlightened and inclusive form of Hinduism sans hatred, intolerance
and violence. Once, when he was berated by conservative Hindu critics for
staying with a Muslim lawyer in Mount Abu, he expostulated: ‘Sir, what do you
mean? I am a Sanyasin. I am above all your social conventions … I am not afraid
of God because he sanctions it. I am not afraid of the scriptures, because they
allow it. But I am afraid of you people and your society. You know nothing of
God and the scriptures. I see Brahman everywhere manifested through even the
meanest creature. For me there is nothing high or low. Shiva, Shiva!’
Hinduism
deserves a true renaissance based on its great wisdoms. But this will require
its followers to study their religious legacy, and prevent its distortion by
‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Hindutva-vadis.
Lord Ram in
the Ramayana says: ‘Janani Janambhoomischa Swargadapi Gariyasi’ – Mother and
motherland are superior to heaven. Today, our motherland requires social
harmony and stability to realise her destiny of becoming one of the great
nations of the world. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call, ‘Sabka Saath,
Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas’, is not to become just an expedient slogan, it must
be based on Swami Vivekananda’s vision and on Mahatma Gandhi’s inclusiveness.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/warping-a-great-faith-both-hard-and-soft-hindutva-are-expedient-uses-of-religion-for-political-gains/
-----
Iran’s
Look East Policy May Force US Rethink
By
Yogesh Gupta
Jan 02,
2021
US
President Donald Trump’s decision in 2018 to abandon the Iran nuclear deal,
called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), two years back was a disaster
as it only yielded rippling negative consequences which are reshaping the
contours of the Middle East politics even now. Trump’s calculation was that the
deal was not good enough as it had neither tied Iran’s missile programme nor
its destabilising behaviour in the region; that a policy of “maximum pressure”
by putting sanctions on the Iranian oil exports would force Tehran to make
far-reaching concessions on these issues, eliminating its aggressive behaviour.
What has
the abrogation of the deal achieved? Iran’s economy is in tatters leading to
high unemployment, inflation and collapse of its currency. Iranians can’t
trade, do business, travel or even import vaccines against the Covid virus.
Notwithstanding their sufferings, the revolutionary Islamic regime led by
Ayatollah Khamenei (AK), continues to expand its influence. Any expectation
that these sufferings would encourage the Iranian people to revolt against the
regime has been belied. Iran has started enriching uranium at a much higher
level than that prescribed in JCPOA.
This is one
more case of the US establishment’s policy going wrong. Further steps by the
Trump administration like the designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) as a terrorist organisation, assassination of its top commander Qasem
Soleimani in January 2020 and its tacit nod to the killing of an Iranian
nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Israeli agents reportedly on November
27 last year , have sharply alienated the Iranian public opinion against the
US.
The influence
of the conservative IRGC backing the clergy and hardliners in parliament has
grown. The Iranian people have lost faith in the policy of constructive
engagement and cooperation with the West and are now looking favourably on a
shift towards the East.
Iran has
countered the US policy of maximum pressure by displaying maximum resistance.
Iranian-backed militias launched attacks on the two Saudi oil facilities in
September 2019 and rocket attacks against the US air base at Balad in Iraq in
January 2020.
Given that
its conventional weapons capability is limited, Iran has been sponsoring the
sub-state actors to project its influence in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
The IRGC, Iran-backed Hezbollah and its units of foreign fighters like
Fatemiyoun (made up of Afghan Shias) and Zainebiyoun (Pakistani Shias) played
an important role in keeping Iran’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad in power in
Syria against the opposition of several countries.
Increasing
hostility between the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman and the AK regime
in Iran is reshaping the political dynamics in the region. Saudi Arabia is
seeking increasing support from Israel in counter-terrorism and security fields
against Iran, perceived as their common adversary. Turkey and Malaysia are siding
more with Iran. With the two-state solution to the Palestinian issue nowhere in
sight, the Trump administration has encouraged the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and
Morocco to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
The US
policy of supporting Israel to retain a perennial edge over its other
neighbours in the nuclear and military domains has emboldened Israel to take
pre-emptive actions against Iran whenever it feels its security interests are
threatened. Iran has demonstrated its ability to retaliate with precision and
is waiting for an opportune moment, probably after the departure of President
Trump.
The
US-Israeli pressure on Iran has impelled her to look to China and Russia for
political, economic and strategic support. Iran and China have agreed on a partnership
under which China would make an investment of $400 billion in Iran over a 25
year period in its economy, infrastructure and industries.
Iran has
reportedly allowed to develop Jask, a fishing village outside the Gulf, into a
deep sea port for dual use by the Chinese navy; it will bypass the
tension-ridden Strait of Hormuz for supply of crude oil. Iran has also
reportedly agreed to let China establish a regional ‘listening’ post at
Chabahar, which would allow her to “intercept signals within a range of about
3,000 miles”.
This would
cover several American bases in the Gulf under the US Central Command (CENTCOM)
as well as strategic locations of India and other countries. Iran is hoping
that the presence of the Chinese intelligence, electronic warfare and air
defence systems would help her in forestalling attacks from the US and Israel.
Russia is
discussing upgrade of its treaty of cooperation signed with Iran in December,
2001. Defying the US sanctions, Russia is willing to sell advance weaponry, including
its Su-30 fighters,
T-90 tanks
and S-400 air defence system to Iran in exchange for access to bases for its
air and naval forces. Iran, China and Russia have been carrying out joint
military exercises for some time.
These
proposals indicate the turn that Iran could take if it is pushed to the
extreme. Fortunately, the US President-elect Biden is aware of the importance
of Iran in the Gulf and has signalled that his administration would be prepared
to rejoin the nuclear deal. Though both the US and Iran have hardened their
positions on the JCPOA, given a choice, Iran would not close its doors on
relations with the US, Europe and their partners.
The US,
Israel and Saudi Arabia would need to be more forthcoming in meeting Iran’s
legitimate aspirations for regime survival and economic development. Failure to
do so would only push Iran towards China and Russia, increasing big power
rivalries in the region with cascading conflicts, which would harm everyone.
Acceptance
of Iran in a US-brokered pluralistic deal (like JCPOA) will certainly reduce
tensions in the region, giving one more chance to peace, stability and
cooperation. India will welcome such an initiative, as it will help her in
augmenting its much-needed political, economic and strategic cooperation with
Iran and other countries in the region.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/irans-look-east-policy-may-force-us-rethink-192443
----
Covid
Vaccine Marks Milestone In Science
By
Dinesh C Sharma
Jan 02,
2021
It was on
the eve of 2020 that China officially notified the World Health Organisation
(WHO) of some cases of pneumonia with an unknown cause in Wuhan. The symptoms
were common to several respiratory diseases, but occurrence of a cluster of
cases within a short span of time, and with severity, raised the alarm.
Based on
laboratory tests that ruled out the causative agent to be any known virus such
as SARS, MERS or avian influenza, the world body on January 9, 2020 declared
the causative agent to be a novel coronavirus. Within weeks, evidence emerged
that the virus was capable of spreading from human to human, that it causes
severe disease and has no known treatment. And within months, millions of cases
were reported from dozens of countries. This turned 2020 into the year of the
pandemic. The rapidity with which the global scientific community responded, it
appears that 2021 could be the year of the vaccine.
The
response of the scientific community to the pandemic was unprecedented. From
characterisation of the novel coronavirus to a set of vaccines against it —
everything was achieved in a span of less than a year. On January 10, 2020, a
consortium of Chinese and Australian scientists released the first complete
genetic sequence of the novel virus from a case of respiratory disease caused
in the Wuhan outbreak. This triggered the interest of several scientific groups
the world over, who started developing new
diagnostic
tests, possible treatment and most importantly, vaccines against the virus. As
the number of cases mounted in many countries, new insights were gained into
the disease and several treatment options like hydroxychloroquine tried and
protocols developed for management and care. All the information and knowledge
produced was shared in real-time through journals and social media platforms of
scientific research like bioRxiv and medRxiv.
Never
before in the history of medicine, a vaccine against a new virus has been
developed, tested, produced and administered in such a short time. The process
of vaccine development, which took decades in the past, has been compressed and
achieved within months. The corona vaccine is truly the breakthrough of 2020.
Scientists started working on Covid-19 vaccines using traditional approaches
(inactivated, virus-like particle) as well as new platforms (mRNA).
The level
of hectic scientific activity can be gauged from the fact that WHO’s ‘Covid-19
candidate vaccine tracker’ is updated twice a week. On the last count, there
were 60 vaccines in clinical development, undergoing various stages of human
trial. Another 172 vaccine candidates are in pre-clinical stage. About a dozen
Covid-19 vaccines are in various stages of development in India. A couple of
vaccines have been licensed in the West and millions of doses have already been
administered.
A number of
factors are responsible for the time taken for a vaccine from bench to clinic
getting reduced from several years to a few months. First, of course, is the
fact that genetic information of the novel virus was shared as soon as it was
available. Some groups already working on coronaviruses could tweak their
efforts to work on the novel coronavirus. Others working on platforms like
messenger RNA for several years also tested their platform for the novel
coronavirus. All these developments got speeded up as funding agencies and
governments provided the necessary funds, and placed purchase orders with
manufacturers in advance. There was also great public-private partnership in
vaccine development as seen in the Oxford University-Astra Zeneca and Bharat
Biotech-ICMR projects.
Once
developed in laboratory, vaccines have to be clinically tested for safety and
efficacy, involving human volunteers. Normally, this entails three stages, one
following the other. Regulatory authorities approved one stage of clinical
trial based on results of the previous one. For example, the first stage human
trial approval depends on the results of animal studies and first stage data
forms the basis for approval of the second stage. It is a time consuming
process, involving recruitment of trial participants, ethical approvals,
enlisting hospitals for multi-centric trials, data reviews etc. National
regulations also mandate that local clinical data is generated for vaccines
developed in other countries to be marketed in own country.
Since the occurrence
of recent pandemics like SARS and Ebola, the global health community has been
discussing ways to fast-track vaccine development in the event of a pandemic.
These ideas have now been implemented for Covid-19 vaccines. One of the
significant ways to reduce ‘time to market’ is to allow phase 1 and 2 human
studies in parallel, like it has been done for the Bharat Biotech vaccine.
Regulators in many countries have also permitted local clinical trials of
vaccines developed in China.
Vaccine
manufacturers too have speeded up their processes. Even as clinical data is
getting generated for regulatory approvals, they have gone ahead with mass
manufacturing of vaccines.
This
facilitates the availability of vaccine doses as soon as vaccines are licensed
for mass use, as has happened with the Moderna vaccine in America and the UK.
The Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech have kept vaccine doses ready
for shipment in anticipation of emergency use approvals. The government, on its
part, has conducted trial runs for the vaccine rollout. This way, the entire
chain, from development to rollout, has been fast-tracked.
Vaccine
manufacturers and the government will have to ensure that a mechanism is also
in place for monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. This is critical as it
is the first time a vaccine is going to be administered to the adult
population
on such a large scale. Though vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vax movement are
not major challenges in India, quick reporting and addressing of adverse effects
can help prevent resistance to vaccination.
The
Covid-19 vaccine development has provided a new template for future pandemics,
and also for addressing other infectious diseases. If governments,
international agencies, scientists and private companies can pool resources and
expertise for Covid-19, they can surely do so for a plethora of other diseases
that take a higher toll and are both preventable and treatable. That’s a
hopeful note on which to begin the year 2021.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/covid-vaccine-marks-milestone-in-science-192409
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/indian-press/indian-press-religious-conversion-bills,/d/123952
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