Is India On Its Way To Acquiring Pakistan-Like Blasphemy Laws?: New Age Islam's Selection, 08 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
08 April 2017
• Is India On Its Way To Acquiring Pakistan-Like Blasphemy Laws?
By Seema Chishti
• Asia Needs both Secular and Sacred
By Andrew Sheng
• It’s about US, Not Syria
By Pratap Bhanu Mehta
• The Teesta Runs Through It
By Deb Mukharji
• Crimes against Humanity: In Syria And North Korea, Trump Bumps Up Against Realities Of Geopolitics
By Nayan Chanda
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Is India On Its Way To Acquiring Pakistan-Like Blasphemy Laws?
By Seema Chishti
April 8, 2017
Mohammad Akhlaq, father of an Indian Air Force employee, was murdered in 2015. He was lynched in his neighbourhood on “suspicions” that he had consumed beef. Little is known about his post-mortem report, but the meat was pulled from his refrigerator and from bins in the neighbourhood and post-mortem-ed promptly. The meat declared itself as legal and non-bovine. Just 40 kilometres from India’s capital, the death caused understandable outrage and grief in the country. It stood out as a marker for what must necessarily not happen in a proudly modern India that loves to distinguish itself from its neighbour Pakistan’s barbarity.
The gruesome murder on an Alwar street of dairy farmer Pehlu Khan, recorded on a Cellphone, for just travelling with a cow, legally purchased in the state, is only one of a string of disturbing accounts of a similar nature being witnessed for three years now. Two Muslim cattle traders, including a minor, were found strung and hanged in Latehar in Jharkhand. A young man died in police custody in the same state for allegedly WhatsApp-ing cow-related texts.
What shocks is the response of the authorities in such cases. In the Pehlu case, Rajasthan’s home minister even questioned if a death of said nature had taken place. A Union minister followed suit in Parliament, denying the cold-blooded murder for which the video recording and post-mortem report is available. Some ministers are worried, if at all, only that “brand India” may get tarnished if word was to get around and a pattern discerned. After all, it is freedom to garland Godse in India while speaking of Gandhi abroad that gives them their sheen.
Pakistan, having inherited the same laws as India did from the British, went on to fashion itself as a different beast. Differences were enhanced in the 1980s: A series of actions were undertaken by the Zia-ul-Haq regime to create and sharpen blasphemy laws. In 1980, making derogatory remarks against Islamic personages carried the punishment of three years in jail. In 1982, it became life imprisonment for “wilful” desecration of the Quran. In 1986, a separate clause was inserted to punish blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad and the penalty recommended was “death, or imprisonment for life”.
Like all blasphemy laws, this had little to do with protecting God. In Pakistan, non-Muslims could lose their lives for just being reported as having questioned Prophet Mohammed. What started with Zia didn’t end with him. Every month, you see minorities being attacked, churches burnt and people being arrested on mere suspicion of blasphemy, as mobs lead the charge against non-Muslims.
Is using the cow as an excuse for an attack on minorities — met with a chilling silence, indifference, and now, a straight-faced denial by BJP governments — a way of having our own blasphemy laws?
Plenty binds Indians. But things like a cow test are pushed to deliberately play on differences and enable the generation of hate. This, perhaps, was the problem when the Prime Minister invoked shamshans and qabristans. An unstated but acknowledged line — mortality — seen as binding all humans, is evoked to draw a sharp line of difference.
The BJP has been asserting itself as “different” in the Northeast, Goa and Kerala, where laws around cow slaughter and beef consumption are different. When its leaders promise better beef in Kerala, any claims of the BJP to being protectors of the cow don’t stand the test of facts.
No one can have a dispute with those who accord a special place to the cow in their hearts and minds. Worshippers are fully within their rights to do so, and must be free to do it, but it can’t be used to promote enmity. As in the case of the blasphemy law, the problem is when the idea is distorted to not to benefit the Quran reader but to go after the “enemy”. The laws of blasphemy and the love of the Quran are weaponised to kill those one hates. Love, for one thing, can’t end up as hate of the other.
India’s first home minister and deputy PM, Sardar Patel, wrote to the RSS in the light of the Mahatma’s murder in 1948, saying clearly that he did not mind the RSS arguing for the welfare of Hindus but he had issues with it becoming an anti-Muslim idea, principally. He also wrote to S.P. Mukherjee, the founder of the Jana Sangh, on the importance of keeping the atmosphere sane: “As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha. Our reports do confirm that as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former (RSS) an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy [Gandhi’s assassination] became possible.”
Patel’s warning holds true even today. Once an atmosphere of hate has been created, ghastly acts become the norm. “Zeitgeist” is not just another German word. The responsibility for at least ensuring that hate crimes are not allowed to become routine is the duty of governments everywhere; certainly as important as the ease of doing business. Unless these governments are in the business of doing something else.
Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-cow-test-cow-vigilantism-gau-rakshaks-rajasthan-india-alwar-4604282/
-----
Asia Needs both Secular And Sacred
By Andrew Sheng
April 8, 2017
Last month, Professor Michael Heng argued in Singapore that in order to achieve the Asian Century, there is a need for Asian cultural-intellectual rejuvenation.
Heng’s lecture was in the tradition of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Dean Kishore Mahbubani’s 1998 challenge -‘Can Asians think?’
This search for intellectual rejuvenation is made more urgent by the rise of Trumpism, which has overturned the American neo-liberal world order to spread free markets, democracy and technology to the rest of the world. Chinese President Xi’s defence of globalisation at Davos this year was a dramatic contrast to the protectionist and inward-looking tone of Trump.
Professor Heng categorised the issues as three challenges - how to rejuvenate Asian cultures, learning from non-Asians and learning from each other. These are serious challenges that deserve serious thinking.
How the questions are framed often affect their answers.
Whilst we can identify at least five Asian cultures and intellectual traditions (Islam, Hindu, Chinese, Shinto and South-East Asian), it is no longer possible to delineate precisely where these traditions have affected each other, Western culture and traditions and how they are evolving.
Cultures, like languages, are living and not fixed in time, borrowing, learning, forgetting and adapting to a changing environment, including changing the environment itself. Whereas in the 17th century, cultures were segregated by geography, the advances in transport and communications technology are such that almost no culture can be an island - they are invaded by foreign technology to such an extent that the lines have become blurred.
But cultures survive because they are preserved and reborn. Even as Syrian culture and society is shattered by its devastating civil war, Syrian music is being spread throughout the world through the Internet, preserved by Syrian migrant and expatriate musicians and artists.
Thus, the issue of cultural-intellectual rejuvenation is a perennial search for identity in a rapidly changing world, bombarded by politics, economics, technology, climate change, religion and human migration and conflicts.
The search for identity was construed by English philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009) as the two paths to Post-Modernity - one forward looking in facing the future, and the other nostalgic and backing into old ideas of religious purity and nationalism.
The American lurch towards protectionism is part of the Republican nostalgia for right wing values - mostly defined in White Christian terms. This is not unlike the search for religious and ethnic sacred values within Asia in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto or other native beliefs.
Modern human and informational migration is such that we are all today genetic or ideological hybrids, simultaneously local, global, liberal and fundamentalist in different aspects of our lives.
Even though billions have been lifted out of poverty and illiteracy, inequality remains rife and keenly felt, creating resentment, insecurity and conflict. Each Asian culture is being melded profoundly in a potpourri that is becoming inseparable from daily contact with technology, foreigners and social media. Small wonder that such insecurity has fed the populist drive for purity and identity, seeking to protect identities from foreign or others’ “contaminations”.
Such daily disruption is being forced on all of us, from the poorest to the most privileged. How else can we explain President Trump’s inaugural address when he promised to address ‘American carnage’, meaning the perceived destruction of American jobs and the decline of the white middle class worker in terms of income and power?
Every nation-state and religion is being pulled in the two Toulmin directions, one to move forward with open modernity and the other to return to a glorious past of pure values that exist only in someone’s imagination. We cannot categorise the trials and tribulations of every local community’s struggle with globalisation in simple terms - they are the product of complex, complicated and convulsive forces that interact with each other in non-quantifiable and qualitative terms.
Current social science cannot quantify nor predict, let alone control the these conflicts of values that directly threaten social stability. We are witnessing terrorism and cataclysmic civil wars that ensue from the toxic mixture of geo-politics, religion and ethnicity, natural disasters from drought or famine and incompetent governance.
No all-encompassing philosophy, religion or culture can restore the broken families and societies, destroyed by terrorism and civil war.
Asia’s current strength arises from the fact that the region remains the fastest growing, with leadership that has so far been open-minded to globalisation, trade and technology as solutions to domestic poverty and under-development.
Whether one likes it or not, the resources for dealing with social inequities, climate change and security can only come from growth. Asians have learnt from war and devastating conflict that without political and social stability, growth cannot be achieved, creating a vicious cycle of declining resources and growing social fragmentation and ultimately crises.
Each society, irrespective of those in Asia or elsewhere, must find its own solution or rationale for being, because globalisation is irreversible. National economies and local cultures are inter-connected through social media and migration to such an extent that for better or worse, there is no returning to any glorious past.
Despite the fact that Asia is itself a concept of geography and a mosaic of cultures, success appears in clustered neighbourhoods. Thus, if Asian economies, especially cities, do not begin the search for modernity and moderate values and beliefs in earnest, they will be overwhelmed by the forces of extremism, domestic or imported.
To do so, Asians need both the secular and the sacred - an openness to science and globalisation with a simultaneous openness to understanding and respect for what is sacred to each and every one of us.
Asean was able to break out of poverty despite diversity of development and cultures, because of a pragmatic approach to consensus-building. We cannot find common values if we are each stuck in our own mental silos, compartmentalised and fragmented in gated communities, ghettos or sects.
The Asian story is not a belief but a process, in which all of us have a stake - to succeed or fail.
The writer, a Distinguished Fellow with the Asia Global Institute of the University of Hong Kong, writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. This is a series of columns on global affairs written by top editors and columnists from members of the Asia News Network and published in newspapers and websites across the region.
Source: thestatesman.com/opinion/asia-needs-both-secular-and-sacred-1491594148.html
----
It’s about US, not Syria
By Pratap Bhanu Mehta
April 8, 2017
The sense of normalcy that these missile strikes restore is this: American policy in Syria will signal more continuity than change. (Source: AP photo)
If the context were not so profoundly tragic, you could easily imagine a novelist writing the following lines for some character. “Ah! I see the United States has launched missile strikes on Syria. This is deeply reassuring. The American President has once again shown the world that America has a moral compass and the spine to stand up for it. It will not collaborate with evil. That fellow Trump is turning out to play from the familiar play book. The world is back to normal.”
It is a sign of the deeply disjointed character of our times that American missile strikes on Syrian airfields are being welcomed, not because they provide any reassurance that Syria is about to emerge from its catastrophic nightmare, but because they restore a sense of psychological normalcy to the American system about the world.
The sense of normalcy that these missile strikes restore is this: American policy in Syria will signal more continuity than change. The contours of that policy have been governed by the impulse to square the following contradictory elements together. The US does not have the political will or wherewithal to engage in full-scale war or induce regime change in Syria, at least not alone. But it cannot be seen not to be doing something. So the default option is a variety of “low cost” options — arming all kinds of groups of dubious provenance, using air power and bombings — whose causal effects on alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people are highly debatable to say the least. If you announce regime change as an objective, the regime in Syria has no incentive to compromise. If you don’t want regime change, but you still can’t broker a compromise, you also give a regime like Assad’s carte blanche.
It is still a part of bipartisan consensus in the US that America is a power with a moral compass: So it will constantly draw moral red lines. But, in the rest of the world, there is huge scepticism that American intervention is about maintaining its ideological self-image, not about actually solving a major humanitarian crises. Countries scared of refugees are hardly likely to carry authority on humanitarian matters.
The American interventions in Iraq and Libya, and their continued catastrophic consequences, depleted whatever little appetite the world might have had for intervention under the moral cloak of humanitarianism. Despite the fact that the humanitarian disaster in Syria has had profound internal consequences for Europe, and other Nato allies like Turkey, the American public sees no material stakes in West Asia any more. The fear in the rest of the world, after the horrendous experience of Iraq, that regime change might produce consequences for the world even more horrific than Assad (quite a thought, that), has added to the diffidence.
In the meantime, other big powers, Russia in particular, perhaps China to a lesser degree, now have a simple objective function: In every theatre of engagement, send a signal that America cannot write the rules of the international order. Amass as many cards as you can to demonstrate one simple fact: The American writ does not run any more. So the gap between the American self-image that it is a power driven by morals, and its ability to actually engineer humanitarian outcomes has grown. When that self-image is challenged by the news cycle involving a brutal chemical attack, America needs to act. President Obama dropped bombs; Trump launched missile strikes.
But will this action change anything? We don’t know, in part because we don’t know what framework the Trump administration brings to thinking about this issue. Trump may have pivoted back to normalcy, and gained bipartisan applause. But it does seem unlikely that elements of that larger narrative will change. Will this change the attitude of other powers like Russia? Doesn’t seem like it. In fact, for now the whole episode seems to have a standard performative quality to it: Establish very quickly that an unacceptable line (the use of chemical weapons) was crossed. Act on it, so the fact that we might still have a moral compass is preserved. Take a low risk option. Will defending the red line on chemical weapons change the brutality Assad unleashes? Not likely. Other great powers will have their usual reaction but exhibit no fundamental change in behaviour. Obama’s Syria policy was an abject failure. It is not clear that the underlying conditions that made that policy a failure are about to change.
The world is nervous because there are too many flashpoints that seem to be veering off-course, from North Korea to Yemen to Syria. The global order is precarious, because the objective functions, as it were, of all the Great Powers, are not clear. They are engaged in a form of precarious price discovery to see what they can get away with. Smaller powers are using that moment to do their own form of discovery, of what they can get away with. This pantomime of powers seems so surreal in the context of a war that has so deeply carpet-bombed the moral landscape, to use Stuart Hampshire’s phrase. Assad’s objective and modus operandi is total terror. The horror that has unfolded in Syria is so massive that our usual calculations of what will make things worse or better are immobilised.
The oddity of 11 weeks of the Trump presidency is that the promised “America first” and isolationism has also been accompanied by more war talk, and defence expansion. This poses two questions: Is the stance of the Trump presidency likely to get the great powers to cooperate more? It still seems unlikely. But the more disquieting thought is that sites like Syria and North Korea have their uses for great powers, and a host of smaller ones.
They are unwilling to tackle the dangers so posed, because these are sites at which Great Powers make their point; they are not meant to be problems they want to solve. With Trump, the worry was that we did not know what point he might want to make. Which is why the American political system is heaving a huge sigh of relief that the point he made with the missile strikes was so familiar. But familiar American policy in West Asia, as we know, brings little relief to any of the peoples in the region. The missile strikes, whether justified or not, will bring more relief to the American system, than they will, on their own to the Syrian people.
Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/syria-chemical-attacks-missile-strikes-us-donald-trump-bashar-al-assad-4604231/
-----
The Teesta Runs Through It
By Deb Mukharji
April 8, 2017
Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, is visiting India. This is her first bilateral visit to India since 2010. Being committed to a state visit to Japan, the Bangladesh prime minister was unable to attend the inauguration of Narendra Modi in May 2014, when the heads of government of SAARC countries had been invited.
There has been a significant and cumulative change in India-Bangladesh relations, and mutual perceptions, over the past few years. The tone had been set in the joint statement at the conclusion of Hasina’s visit in January, 2010, which held out the vision of future partnership, overcoming past mutual concerns. The Framework for Development and Cooperation signed the following year during then-PM Manmohan Singh’s visit, though under the shadow of the Teesta imbroglio, laid out a charter of cooperation encompassing a large spectrum of activities. The spirit of these mutually reinforcing positive approaches was maintained during PM Modi’s visit in May, 2015, which also saw closure to the long awaited Land Boundary Agreement.
India is not a direct party to the issue of the Rohingyas of Myanmar, who continue to flee to Bangladesh, which now hosts over 1,00,000 in camps. Despite some international assistance, the Rohingyas pose a serious economic problem for Bangladesh. Perhaps more important is the alleged involvement of Saudi-linked organisations in nurturing Islamic fundamentalist groups among the uprooted refugees. This provides an explosive cocktail which would be a nightmare for any nation, most so for Bangladesh, battling its own homegrown as well as IS-inspired terrorist groups.
The visit may provide the occasion for an exchange of views on how the issue may be handled and whether India has a role in advising the friendly government of Myanmar to ensure that the flow of refugees is stemmed. Tangentially, India itself is involved as some Rohingyas have sought shelter in India.
With a great display of zeal, China has been seen to be active in India’s periphery in promoting One Belt One Road and bilateral relations. They have received some setbacks in Myanmar and Sri Lanka in bilateral relations, but will surely pursue their objectives. Pakistan continues to be a willing accessory to Chinese desires to curb and contain India. Nepal had appeared to be moving sensibly towards positive relations with both her giant neighbours, until the ultra-nationalist K.P. Oli made it an either/or choice, which has done no good to Sino-Nepal relations as his successor’s recently concluded visit to China demonstrated. China has had a stable relationship with Bangladesh and is a major provider of defence hardware. A slew of agreements were signed during President Xi’s recent visit to Dhaka, including for the provision of substantial loans and grants. While carefully observing the developing relations between Dhaka and Beijing, India should avoid a Pavlovian reaction.
Since assuming the reins of government in 2009, the Awami League has tried to ensure that anti-India activities are not carried out from Bangladesh’s soil. This would not have been an easy task as elements within the establishment had been ingrained by previous administrations to promote such activities. There were, of course, areas of congruence. The Jamaat-inspired, Pakistan-supported terrorist elements had in their sights both India and the Awami League.
The Awami League government’s continuing effort to deal with terrorists has not deflected it from trying to bring to a close the consequences of the crimes committed in 1971. In this respect, Sheikh Hasina has kept the promise she had made to the electorate. But for this, she has had to face strong western criticism. The ludicrous argument has been advanced that incidents of terrorism in Bangladesh have been encouraged by the War Crimes Trial. As a noted Indian journalist recently commented, “Far, far away from the streets of Gulshan, where terrorists killed over 20 innocent people on July 1, their nominal patrons are using slick US and British lobbyists to discredit Hasina’s efforts to battle radicalism and punish perpetrators of war crimes committed during the 1971 struggle for independence from Pakistan”.
Though the Jamaat remains the fountainhead of all terrorist outfits in Bangladesh, the frenetic efforts of their lobbyists abroad, including elements of the US government influenced by their Pakistani friends, have been desperate to provide cover and legitimacy to it and prevent Bangladesh from stabilising as a liberal, secular, progressive democracy. This was true of the US state department notably under John Kerry and intelligence regimes in recent years; it remains to be seen if Donald Trump makes a difference.
Indo-Bangladesh relations presently reflect both maturity and political will. Yes, much more requires to be done to take our relationship forward. But we also have to see the present in the context of the past: Only a decade ago, the current scenario of a cooperative framework of the relationship would have seemed impossible. Since then, the long-festering maritime boundary issue has been resolved; the international award favouring Bangladesh accepted gracefully by India. The seemingly ever-lasting land boundary question is behind us. Few note that the apprehensions of large-scale communal movements of peoples simply did not come true; people decided to remain with their land, albeit with a different nationality.
Meanwhile, communications have improved dramatically as also trade and investment. The supply of electricity from India is making a difference to the lives of people in Bangladesh. Above all, Bangladesh has ceased to be a sanctuary for elements inimical to the Indian state.
A signal lacuna has been India’s inability to deliver on the sharing of Teesta waters. It is possible that even without an agreement, Bangladesh may be receiving about the same quantity as was envisaged in the discussions. The issue, however, is as much about the quantum of water as Bangladesh’s right to receive it. Not least, a demonstration of India abiding by its commitments. The present chief minister of Bengal may wish to recall that her distinguished predecessor, Jyoti Basu, played a signal role in the resolution of the Farakka Barrage issue two decades ago and earned encomiums from both India and Bangladesh.
In a recent public speech Sheikh Hasina recalled that prior to the general elections in Bangladesh in October, 2001, Indian intelligence officials in Dhaka had collaborated with their counterparts in the American embassy in discussing with Tareque Rehman (son of Begum Khaleda Zia, now in self-exile in London) how the Awami League could be defeated. Leaving aside the possibility of such discussions affecting the election results, such a charge coming from a friendly head of government has to be taken seriously. If true, it reflects sadly on Indian intelligence — considering the consistently and virulently hostile attitude towards India of the BNP government that followed.
Amends would have been made following the 2014 elections in which the BNP had chosen not to participate and India had reached out vigorously to foreign capitals to ensure that US-inspired pressures for the annulment of the elections did not succeed.
Sheikh Hasina has been a friend of India and has addressed India’s critical security concerns with unambiguous firmness. While cognisant of her internal political compulsions, and always mindful of Bangladesh’s national interests, she has welcomed the fostering of close economic relations with India. Her state visit provides an opportunity for both sides to assess the progress made on the many agreements reached in earlier years, as also provide guidelines for the future.
Beyond the defence MoU and credits and grants for commerce, and other routine ventures, what is essential is the underlining of shared trust and commitment to preserving mutual interests.
Source: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-teesta-runs-through-it-india-bangladesh-modi-sheikh-hasina-4604193/
-----
Crimes against Humanity: In Syria and North Korea, Trump Bumps Up Against Realities of Geopolitics
By Nayan Chanda
April 8, 2017
President Donald Trump, product of the television era, prefaced his first summit meeting with America’s Asian rival China with a televised display of shock and awe. Hours before Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in Florida, all of the world’s news channels replayed endless loops of American Tomahawk cruise missiles roaring into the night sky to hit a Syrian airbase. The unmistakable message was unlike his cautious predecessor Barack Obama this president would not hesitate to use American power if its national security interest was threatened. In light of Trump’s multiple warnings about using all options to punish North Korea if China failed to dissuade its ally, this display of American might had additional weight. However, the geopolitical reality will prove much harder than bringing life to a TV script.
The result of Trump’s talk with Xi at Mar-a-Lago club is not known as we go to press but Trump will soon learn that bringing North Korea to heel with bluster and threats is more difficult than ordering a missile strike against Syria. As if to underline the point, just two days before Xi’s arrival North Korea taunted Trump by test firing yet another missile. White House believes that if unchecked, within four years North Korea will be able to hit the US with a nuclear-armed missile. There is thus an urgency to halt North Korea. Trump has repeatedly called for crippling Chinese sanctions against North Korea.
In an interview with Financial Times the week before the summit Trump warned “Well if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.” Trump’s advisers have made it clear that Chinese willingness to restrain North Korea is “a test of the relationship”. Attacking Syria just on the eve of the summit makes the test even more severe. If Washington forewarned Xi, as press reports suggest, his public reaction could be muted giving the first score to Trump. But Trump would find it hard to get Xi to pressure North Korea to the point of bringing about a collapse and thus remove a valuable buffer. And unless he is willing to risk decimating Seoul, a city of 10 million people living within North Korean artillery range, he could not contemplate a Syria strike against North Korean missile launch site or nuclear weapon storage facilities. Even if it did not trigger a nuclear war, the radiation and environmental impact that a strike against North Korea would bring would be catastrophic.
Hopefully Xi will be able to persuade Trump that China wants as much as the US does to take these weapons of mass destruction from the hands of Kim Jong-un, but the best course would be to engage in direct talks and denuclearise the Korean Peninsula in exchange of recognition of North Korea. A thoughtful Congressional leader like Democratic Senator Edward J Markey has written to Trump, urging him to launch a joint Sino-American approach to initiate direct talks with North Korea with Chinese promise of increased pressure if Pyongyang refuses to play. The path of diplomatic solution is no silver bullet as decades of futile efforts including Chinese-led Six Party Talks show. But given the options – prolonged jaw-jaw at conference halls or devastating conflict involving millions of deaths – joining China in a diplomatic effort is far preferable. But then it would inevitably involve accepting North Korea as a de facto nuclear state, just as Obama had to do with Iran in order to freeze its nuclear programme. Having repeatedly denounced Obama’s Iranian deal as “disastrous” Trump would find talking with North Korea an utterly distasteful option.
After swearing that he was not a globalist and that he would always put America first, Trump found himself taking the first military action to punish a crime against humanity. He might find talking with Kim Jong-un was preferable to undertaking an emotionally satisfying military strike that would make him responsible for a bigger crime against humanity.
Source: blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/crimes-against-humanity-in-syria-and-north-korea-trump-bumps-up-against-realities-of-geopolitics/
---
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/indian-press/is-india-its-way-acquiring/d/110688