Silence Is Not An Option: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
25 April 2017
• Silence Is Not An Option
By Neera Chandhoke
• Costs Erdogan May Have To Pay
By Arthur I Cyr
• Sharif In ‘Liquid Oxygen’; Sit Back And Watch, Indians
By Sushant Sareen
• India And Afghan Turmoil
By Gurmeet Kanwal
• Dissent And Plurality, Symbols Of Hindu Tradition, Are Under Severe Assault
By Ashok Vajpeyi
• And Now There Are Two
By Emile Chabal
• The Climate Fight Is Global
By Sujatha Byravan
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Silence Is Not An Option
By Neera Chandhoke
April 25, 2017
Vigilantism has now spilled over from the domain of the creative arts to regulate the daily lives of people
When was the last time the Hindu community asked itself the question ‘who are we’? The last of the interrogators of Hindu society was, arguably, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. He catapulted to the forefront of the political agenda the many oppressions, discriminations, and exclusions of Hinduism, and thus compelled at least public intellectuals to investigate tradition and reflect on the malaise of the community. After him no one has really looked within the collective self, reflected, and considered.
This is a great tragedy, because unless a society asks fundamental questions of itself, it is doomed to complacency and stagnation, or simply doomed. Disdaining the stimulating intellectual exercise of examining the collective self, we have swept the failings of our society under the metaphorical carpet. Lulled into complacency by meaningless assertions — ‘say with pride we are Hindu’, or a ‘New India’, or a ‘sanitised India’, or a ‘digital India’ — few people ask why we still practise caste discrimination, why we continue to be disgracefully hostile to religious minorities, or why we are indifferent to the plight of our own people.
Silence As Complicity
In a democratic political community, citizens owe obligations of justice to their fellow citizens. If the basic rights of an individual or a community are systematically violated, there should be pain, there should be empathy and outrage, and a determination to do something about the fundamental infringement of what is owed to human beings: dignity and respect. But we follow our own star; indifferent to the deplorable lack of solidarity in our community.
This is our tragedy, a double tragedy, because we are the inheritors of a rich history of public intellectuals, philosophers, social and religious reformers, and national leaders asking crucial questions of Indian society since the beginning of the nineteenth century. This was the beginning of the Indian Renaissance, and these questions escalated till the middle of the twentieth century. But no more.
Today, Hindu society is complicit in massive crimes perpetrated against Dalits, Muslims, and women, because it is silent in the face of atrocities practised by vigilantes who single-handedly define what they consider ‘morality’, and who punish people merely on suspicion that they violate codes of Hinduism. Backed by powerful political patrons and a compliant police force, vigilantes are legislators, prosecutors, juries and executioners rolled into one. Reports in our daily newspaper bring stories of horrific violence perpetrated by vigilantes masquerading as the keeper of the keys to the Hindu kingdom. This abnormality in our political life has become a normal way of doing politics. We should realise that democracy has been subverted, the rule of law has become redundant, and that our representatives are responsible for this serious deviation in political life. But we are silent.
Rising Vigilantism
In early April, cow vigilantes attacked 15 Muslim men in the district of Alwar because they were transporting cows. One person died in the appalling violence, others were hospitalised. The Rajasthan Home Minister, Gulab Singh Kataria, defended vigilantes on the plea that cow smuggling is banned in Rajasthan. Apart from the fact that the victims possessed government documents allowing them to transport cows, the Minister’s words trivialise the system of justice. If people break a law, they should be hauled up before a court of justice for ‘the law to take its own course’. The law is, however, brushed aside as a slight inconvenience, as mercenaries attack the most vulnerable in our society, the Dalits and Muslims. This viciousness and this savagery is the new normal. And we watch in silence!
Vigilantism takes vicious shapes. In 2011 M.F. Husain died in loneliness and in exile, separated from his beloved country and its mythologies, to which he paid poetic homage on canvas. Some years before his death, London-based vigilantes ransacked an exhibition in Asia House that showcased some of Hussain’s paintings, and damaged priceless pieces of art. In India, the works of the gifted artist were not allowed to be exhibited, warrants were prepared for his arrest by the police, and Hussain had to leave the country of his birth. We live in an age when anyone, with no understanding, let alone appreciation, of aesthetics, metaphors, and allegories, can rule which painting, which book, which film can enter the public domain.
Deepa Mehta could not shoot her film on widows in the ashrams of Varanasi. And now Sanjay Leela Bhansali, known more for his lavish presentations than serious cinema, has been put on notice by the activist group Rajput Karni Sena. Bollywood producers, directors and actors have for long genuflected before the leadership of the Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena to ensure that their films could be released. The process has reached its natural culmination point, and now self-appointed censors force film-makers to follow ‘this’ and not ‘that’ script.
The Need To Speak Out
For readers of newspapers these are stories of vigilantes wreaking their perverse notions of correctness on culture, art, and society. But we cannot afford to be silent. Martin Niemöller, the well-known German Lutheran pastor and theologian, initially supported the Nazis, subsequently opposed them, and was banished to a concentration camp. Reflecting on his own silence in the face of social suffering, he authored a famous Holocaust poem: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist. / Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist. / Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew. / Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. Michael R. Burch, a poet, editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry, has authored a new version of this poem for contemporary America. ‘They’, he writes, came for the Muslims, then the homosexuals, and then the feminists, and I did not speak out because I belonged to none of these groups. He ends on a sombre note: “Now when will they come for me, because I was too busy and too apathetic, to defend my sisters and brothers?” Sages tell us that silence is a virtue, but silence when confronted by social oppression is tantamount to acquiescence.
There is a need to speak out, because vigilantism has now spilled over from the domain of the creative arts to regulate the daily lives of people. Nowhere is this more visible than in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh. The Hindu Yuva Vahini, founded by him to enforce his writ on his home turf, now rules the State and polices relationships. The group stalks courting couples, forces closure of slaughterhouses, and sparks off communal riots. A few days ago, its members broke into a home in Meerut and barged into the bedroom of a couple.
Can we afford to be silent? Our basic right to privacy is at stake. Also at stake is our status as mature citizens who possess the capacity to decide what kind of life we want to lead, who to be friends with, who to love, and what kind of food should be on our dinner table. Abjuring silence, we have to ask basic questions about our own society, and about our role as fellow citizens.
----
Neera Chandhoke is a former Professor of Political Science at Delhi University
Source: thehindu.com/opinion/lead/silence-is-not-an-option/article18201417.ece
----
Costs Erdogan May Have To Pay
By Arthur I Cyr
April 25, 2017 | 02:38 AM Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey, Turkey\'smilitary
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has probably been weakened rather than strengthened by grasping for even more power.
Last summer, he dramatically and personally turned back an attempted military coup, using social media to urge the people of Turkey to resist.
That showed courage as well as shrewdness.
The April 16 referendum addressed giving significantly expanded power to the once largely ceremonial office of president.
The Post Of Prime Minister Would Be Abolished.
The legislature would be expanded and also weakened. The death penalty would probably be restored.
Erdogan and allies quickly declared victory after the voting, but the outcome remains unclear. There are accusations of irregularities and even fraud in handling ballots.
The reported victory margin of 51.4 per cent was well below the government margin in the last parliamentary election.
Controversy over the results is certain to continue for some time, with the possibility that Erdogan may seek to repress dissent. For those observing from other nations, three realities should be kept in mind.
First, in contrast to other Muslim states, Turkey has a history of involvement in both Europe and Central Asia. In 2015, Turkey was president of the G-20.
These nations account for approximately 85 percent of the world's gross economic product. Beginning with the Ataturk revolution of the 1920s, Turkey has been viewed as a bridge between Islam and the West.
Second, since World War II Turkey has maintained good military-security relations with most European nations and the United States, despite both the failure of the European Union to approve membership, and the disastrous US invasion of Iraq.
Turkey possesses strategic sea and land shipping routes, including the Strait of Bosphorus which controls Black Sea access.
Third, Turkey represents a unique marriage of firmly rooted Muslim religious and cultural attitudes with Western governmental and social institutions and practices.
This draws on the nation's Ottoman history, which combined religious and secular outlooks. In "Lords of the Horizon — A History of the Ottoman Empire," Jason Goodwin notes that he writes "about a people who do not exist. The word 'Ottoman' does not describe a place.
Nobody Nowadays Speaks Their Language.
Only a few professors can begin to understand their poetry. ... (Yet) for six hundred years the Ottoman empire swelled and declined." Although the Industrial Revolution passed by Turkey, today that has changed.
Over the past quarter century, Turkey's economy has moved from uncertainty to powerhouse. Growth has been strong, both corruption and inflation have been reduced, and government red tape and bottlenecks have been steadily eliminated.
Much of the credit belongs to reform Prime Minister and President Turgot Ozal, who held office from 1983 to 1993. He was a close ally of President George H W Bush.
While Turkey has had rocky relations with the EU, the NATO alliance has benefitted from the nation's highly effective military. In the Korean and First Gulf Wars, Turkey was a significant military coalition partner.
In Korea, Turkey's military reconfirmed once again their welldeserved reputation for combat effectiveness.
n Afghanistan, Turkey has had top command responsibilities over the years. The constitutional referendum and resulting controversy complicate US and European foreign policies.
Diplomatic distance between Ankara and Western capitals undeniably is growing.
Yet economic modernisation remains important, Islamic extremism remains under control, and both dimensions encourage positive relations with the West. Astute diplomacy can mitigate frictions.
Ultimately, the Turkish people should essentially define their government and their nation's future.
Source: thestatesman.com/opinion/costs-erdogan-may-have-to-pay-1493068113.html
----
Sharif In ‘Liquid Oxygen’; Sit Back And Watch, Indians
By Sushant Sareen
April 25, 2017
NOW that he has his back to the wall, the last thing Sharif will want to do is defy the army and seek some sort of rapprochement with India. Plus, the fact that the judges have appointed members of the Military Intelligence and the ISI to the JIT means that there is virtually no possibility of any positivity in the offing towards India.
A dialogue of the iconic Bollywood villain of yesteryears, Ajit, sums up the predicament in which Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif finds himself after the Pakistan Supreme Court ruling in the Panama Papers scandal that centred around the allegedly, but also apparently, unexplained and illegal sources of money used for buying expensive properties in London. Ajit’s favourite method of torture was to throw someone in ‘liquid oxygen’, because ‘liquid’ wouldn’t let the man live and oxygen wouldn’t let him die! The Pakistani Supreme Court has done something similar with Nawaz Sharif: It hasn’t disqualified him for not being able to explain the money trail for the London properties (oxygen), but it has instituted a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the source of the money and whether the money was proceeds of corruption (liquid). In other words, while Nawaz Sharif has escaped by the skin of his teeth – two of the five judges ruled in favour of his disqualification, while the other three, even though not convinced by the cock-and-bull story given by Nawaz Sharif’s lawyers, felt the matter needed further inquiry – the Damocles’ sword continues to hang over his head.
The case was a virtual political minefield, not just for the litigants but also for the judiciary. The expectations attached with the verdict created a huge amount of pressure on the judges. They couldn’t afford to let the Prime Minister go scot free on the basis of dodgy and dubious documents that were presented in his defence, and they couldn’t despatch an elected Prime Minister in a cavalier and arbitrary manner because of its destabilising impact on the polity and the unintended consequences of such a drastic ruling. Hence, they passed a ruling that keeps their reputation intact and still sends out a loud and clear message that even the most powerful people cannot evade accountability.
Even so, the judges have given both the defendant (Nawaz Sharif) and the petitioners (opposition) something to celebrate. Nawaz Sharif’s camp is happy not only because they survived but also because the can of justice has been kicked further down the road (the properties first came to the fore over two decades back and since then have often cropped up whenever anyone wanted to dig up dirt on the Sharif family); the opposition has taken heart from the scathing remarks passed by the judges who ruled against Nawaz Sharif, and also by the fact that he wasn’t given a clean chit even by the majority of judges who have initiated an inquiry against him. Of course, to the extent that the judiciary has disqualified other lawmakers on far lesser evidence, and even on mere technicalities, but has balked at holding Nawaz Sharif to the same standard, would certainly have disappointed the opposition who were expecting the Prime Minister to be politically guillotined by the Supreme Court. That might still happen in the future if the JIT investigation goes against the Sharifs. But chances are that, if due process is followed, then Nawaz Sharif is safe at least till after the general elections due in August next.
Even though the judges might have found the middle ground in their judgment, there are still serious political implications that will unfold over the next few days, weeks and months. Nawaz Sharif’s, and indeed that of rest of the Sharif family’s, carefully cultivated reputation as hard working business family, which hasn’t used politics to enrich itself and which has been pretty much teflon-coated because no corruption charge has ever stuck on them, has been severely dented by the extremely adverse ruling of the minority judges. Already the opposition is baying for his blood and demanding that he step aside until he is able to clear his name in the JIT report. According to the opposition, prima facie the Supreme Court has found the Prime Minister to be untruthful and dishonest, which under the Pakistani constitution makes him unfit to hold any public office. There are now plans to build a political movement around this issue, which if nothing else will put some wind in the sails of the opposition going into the next general elections that will be held in slightly over a year from now.
A lot will of course depend on how the case unfolds from here on. As things stand, it seems highly improbable that the JIT will be able to dig out any cast iron evidence against the Sharifs in the next couple of months. Not even Nawaz Sharif’s bête noire, Gen Pervez Musharraf, managed to get irrefutable evidence against Nawaz Sharif and his family in the nearly nine years that he ruled as a dictator. Once the investigations are complete, even if they are against Nawaz Sharif, the judiciary could either send him packing, or else if they follow due process, get a reference filed against him. In the latter case, the meandering legal system will take over, which in turn means that it will be years before any final judgment disqualifying Nawaz Sharif and his extended family. One outlier in this whole scenario is that immense pressure is brought to bear so that instead of the prosecution trying to prove Nawaz Sharif guilty, he has to prove himself innocent by producing the money trail and documentary evidence to back his claim that the London properties were not the fruits of corruption.
Politically, for now at least, although the reputation of the Sharifs has been sullied, their politics might still survive this grievous blow because how big an issue corruption will be in the Pakistan elections remains a matter of conjecture. Over more than three decades, the Sharifs have put in place a solid patronage network in the heartland of Pakistan – Punjab. Add to this their party machinery, and it will take some doing to defeat them at the hustings. Even if perchance the Sharif family is unable to contest the elections, they could still manage to get their man to be the next Prime Minister, provided of course that their party doesn’t collapse. But the biggest advantage they have is that their opposition is just not able to get its act together, neither organisationally, nor politically. The main challenger, Imran Khan, is tall on talk but doesn’t have the political brains to steal a march over the wily Sharifs. Therefore, the odds are that despite this huge setback, Nawaz Sharif will still win the next election.
As far as India is concerned, it makes little difference whether Nawaz Sharif survives or ends up on a stake. The people who call the shots on India are the army. Even when Nawaz Sharif wasn’t in trouble, there was little he did or could do to normalise relations with India. All he did then was make self-serving offers of talks, which were neither serious nor sincere because the terms of these talks were simply unacceptable to India. Now that he has his back to the wall, the last thing he will want to do is defy the army and seek some sort of rapprochement with India. Plus, the fact that the judges have appointed members of the Military Intelligence and the ISI to the JIT means that there is virtually no possibility of any positivity in the offing towards India. Therefore, India needs to sit back and watch the political drama that will unfold over the next few months in Pakistan without shedding any tears or sweating over the fate of the Pakistani Prime Minister.
Source: freepressjournal.in/analysis/sushant-sareen-sharif-in-liquid-oxygen-sit-back-and-watch-indians/1057319
----
India And Afghan Turmoil
By Gurmeet Kanwal
April 25, 2017
The situation in Afghanistan can be described as a stalemate at both the strategic and tactical levels.
The security environment is precarious, socio-economic development is stagnating, and the reconciliation process has reached an impasse.
The NATOISAF strategy to clear-hold-build-transfer-exit has succeeded only partially as the Taliban and the Al Qaida have not been eliminated and terrorists owing allegiance to ISIS are increasing in number.
The fledgling Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) are not yet capable of managing security after the premature withdrawal of the US-led NATO-ISAF intervention force.
The Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF, ANA plus ANP) numbers are small (352,000).
The ANA lacks heavy weapons, artillery, air support and helicopters for logistics support. The standards of the junior leadership are low and the troops are inadequately trained and equipped.
They do not have the level of motivation necessary to undertake complex counterinsurgency operations on a sustained basis.
Cases of fratricide and desertions with weapons are commonplace.
While the ANSF and the remnants of the NATO-ISAF forces control most of the large towns and the airports, the Taliban and the Al Qaida between them control large swathes of the countryside.
Governance is virtually non-existent outside Kabul. The approximately 13,000 NATO-ISAF troops now in Afghanistan are on a train-advise-assist mission.
Unless Afghanistan’s regional neighbours, the Central Asian Republics (CARs), China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Russia join hands with the international community to supplement the ANSF’s efforts to eliminate the insurgents, the security environment is likely to deteriorate further and may degenerate into a civil war.
Afghanistan and India have had a historically friendly relationship. Its location at the strategic cross-roads between South Asia and Central Asia and South Asia and West Asia makes it an important geo-political partner.
It boasts vast mineral deposits. When the Chabahar port in Iran becomes operational, India will gain access to the Central Asian Republics through Afghanistan.
Hence, peace and stability in Afghanistan are vital national interests for India. India supports the installation of a broad-based and stable representative government in consonance with Afghan customs and traditions.
The imposition of the Western model of democracy will not be appropriate. India would prefer a government that adopts a stance of neutrality between India and Pakistan, but should be willing to work closely with any government that is truly representative of the Afghan people.
India’s efforts to provide greater assistance are being hampered by the lack of geographical contiguity. It has only limited access to Afghanistan as Pakistan has not given India transit rights.
India’s attempts to allay Pakistan’s fears about her intentions have not been successful as Pakistan has steadfastly refused to discuss this issue.
Afghanistan’s problems cannot be resolved unless the transDurand Line challenges that it faces from Pakistan and the Haqqani network are addressed simultaneously.
The India-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership agreement was signed in October 2011. It calls for close political cooperation with a mechanism for regular consultations and joint initiatives on regional and international issues.
It stipulates a strategic dialogue to provide a framework for cooperation in the field of national security. Security cooperation is intended to enhance mutual efforts against international terrorism, organised crime, illegal trafficking in narcotics and money laundering.
The agreement specifies that India will assist in the training, equipping and capacitybuilding programmes of the ANSF.
It commits the two sides to “strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation, as well as cooperation between other bodies of business and industry representatives.”
India has committed itself to continue to provide assistance for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development programmes and capacity-building. India’s policy objectives in Afghanistan are in consonance with the strategic partnership agreement.
Besides a stable and preferably neutral government, these objectives include the following ~ to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a base and safe haven for terrorists and radical extremists; counter Pakistan’s quest for strategic depth, acquire access to Afghanistan and through it to the CARs; establish broad-based engagement with all political groups; support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts, as visualised by the Afghan High Peace Council; assist Afghanistan to train its administrative and judicial staff to improve governance and the delivery of justice; and, further enhance people-to-people contacts.
India’s national security objectives comprise supporting the capacity-building efforts of ANSF by ensuring the implementation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement, including the supply of war-like stores; ensuring the safety and protection of Indian assets and infrastructure in Afghanistan; and, cooperating to share intelligence.
India’s economic policy objectives are to increase trade with Afghanistan and through it with the Central Asian Republics; enhance Indian business investment in Afghanistan; assist Afghanistan to develop its natural resources; further increase India’s reconstruction and capacity-building programme; enhance this country’s energy security; for example, through the commissioning of the TAPI pipeline; assist Afghanistan to replace narcoticsbased agriculture with regular agriculture; and, work towards the implementation of SAFTA.
Finally, unless the security environment improves substantially, governance and development will continue to be relegated.
The P-5 needs to be persuaded to supplement the ANSF with a United Nations or a regional peacekeeping force to eliminate the Taliban.
There is no support in Afghanistan for another peacekeeping force. Nor is there support in India for sending troops to Afghanistan.
However, it is generally realised that the fight against the Taliban and the Al Qaida must be won as it has long-term security implications for the country.
For India, peace and stability in Afghanistan are vital national interests. By definition, vital interests must be defended by force if necessary. Along with other neighbours ~ if invited ~ New Delhi should be willing to deploy up to one division (15,000 troops) to join such a force.
Source: thestatesman.com/opinion/india-afghan-turmoil-1493067216.html
----
Dissent And Plurality, Symbols Of Hindu Tradition, Are Under Severe Assault
By Ashok Vajpeyi
Apr 25, 2017
Dissent is one word which has assured, in the last few years, a currency unprecedented in our democratic history. The reason obviously is that at many levels, political, social, cultural, dissent is under severe assault. A political ethos and regime have emerged asserting that dissent from majoritanism is not only not permissible if not by the State, by the numerous groups of vigilantes which have mushroomed illegally and unconstitutionally. Dissent is not a right which was conferred upon ‘we the people of India’ as the Constitution states but it is inherent in all structures of democratic nature. However, in the current climate of violence and bans dissent is being termed and seen as ‘anti-national’, ‘anti-Indian’, ‘anti-Hindu’.
It can be reasonably argued that in India, from the beginning of its civilisational enterprise, nothing has remained singular for long; in fact, nothing has been, in a sense, allowed to be singular for long. Whether god or religion, philosophy or metaphysics, language or custom, cuisine or costume — every realm is dominated by plurality. It is not accidental or purely a linguistic device that in many Western languages the word for India is plural – Indes meaning Indias. It is difficult to talk about a single Indian tradition: there are multiple traditions, all authentically and robustly Indian. Even within a single major religion Hinduism there are four vedas (not one), millions of gods, 18 upanishads, six schools of classical philosophy, two epics, four purusharthas. In fact it can be easily claimed that India as a country and equally as a civilisation is an unending celebration of human plurality. It has survived through millennia mainly through plurality, both as a people and as a civilisation.
Plurality, on its part, is inevitably embedded in the notion that there are many ways of looking and living in the world. Also, that plurality accommodates differences. These differences, in their turn, embody and enact dissent. When the vedic seer ordains in a grand manner the noble notion ‘aanobhadrah kratvo yantu vishwatah’, what is being sanctified is the idea that there are ideas spread all over the world and they are all welcome. The other vedic saying envisages that ‘vasudhaiv kutumbkam’ or the whole earth is a family. Such openness to the plurality of ideas and their acceptance as in a family is the core of the Vedic cosmic vision. It could be asserted that, throughout the millennia, many dilutions and distortions may have taken place in real life and practice, as they do almost inevitably everywhere, Indian traditions and civilisation never lost sight of this noble vision nor ever failed to allow adequate space for it.
Fear And Loathing In New India: Dadri, Alwar Lynchings Leave Us Unmoved
India invented four religions namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The birth and growth of the later three religions is yet another instance when Buddha, Mahavir and Nanak, the three founders of the three religions, dissented from the ritualistic and social caste rigidities of the Sanatan Dharma to discover new paths of spirituality, metaphysics, social organisation and liberation. Here is religious plurality being created through religious dissent. Buddhism and Jainism are two religions in India which are not posited on the notion and existence of God. They are two godless religions and this fact cannot be superseded by the reality that, overtime, followers of both religions started worshiping Buddha and Mahavir as gods. Also, Sanatan Dharma included Buddha as one of the ten avatars of God, ‘Dashavtar’ along with Rama and Krishna. Another level of the irrepressible plurality incorporating within its fold that which was distinctly radical dissent.
Whether in traditions of creative expression or in the repertoire of intellectual articulation, in India dissent from faith or from the state has always been allowed to grow and be acknowledged and accommodated. In fact, the vital plurality was many a time inspired by or expanded through dissent. For instance, when the classical tyranny of Sanskrit needed to be questioned and subverted, the many modern Indian languages came into being as forms of dissent from the classical. The vernacular did not, as it were, demolish or aspire to occupy the hallowed space of the classical. Instead it became a dissenting parallel. Each Indian language embodies and sustains a worldview which deviates from the classical world view of Sanskrit. The presence of nearly 1,000 Ramayanas in India ranging from creative transformations in languages to different readings from the Jain point view for instance, are evidence that the domination of a narrative and the worldview it enacted and expressed was creatively challenged and transformed. A Kannada Ramayan or a Hindi Ramcharitmanas deviate quite substantially from the original in Sanskrit by Valmiki and all of them are thought to have validity and sanction.
Some satisfaction can be derived from the fact that in the present situation some writers-artists-intellectuals have refused to be silent and have protested. It could be claimed that they have stood by the glorious and unbroken tradition of plurality and dissent and hopefully would continue to fight through creative and intellectual means for democratic values of freedom, justice and equality as enshrined both in our traditions and the Constitution. All thinking and creative persons owe this much at least to Indian heritage, creative imagination and humanity. That they have many different points once again underlines the innate plurality of both affirmation and dissent in India.
----
Ashok Vajpeyi is a former bureaucrat, a Hindi poet and critic
The views expressed are personal
Source: hindustantimes.com/opinion/dissent-and-plurality-symbols-of-hindu-tradition-are-under-severe-assault/story-1NCcuGkv9a4Egs0HIO04rL.html
----
And Now There Are Two
By Emile Chabal
April 25, 2017
This French presidential election has exposed dangerous fault lines in the country’s politics
Elections are generally about the winners. But the first round of the French presidential election on Sunday was as much about the losers as it was about the two figures who reached the run-off, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen.
By far the biggest losers in this election were the two traditional parties of government. On the centre-right, François Fillon contrived to lose an election that seemed to have been tailor-made for him. François Hollande’s devastating approval ratings in the final year of his presidency — polls suggested that fewer than 5% of French electors were ‘satisfied’ with his performance — made a right-wing victory almost a certainty. All Mr. Fillon had to do was reach the second round of the presidential election and he was guaranteed to win.
Fillon’s Flip
Instead, he committed political suicide. His corrupt past caught up with him and he haemorrhaged votes to Mr. Macron. His failure to reach even the 20% in the first round, despite strong mobilisation amongst his core electorate, sealed his fate. This is the first time under the Fifth Republic that the right has not had a candidate in a presidential run-off. It will be a defining trauma for future generations of right-wing activists.
Not that the centre-left has much to cheer. The socialist candidate, Benoit Hamon, was all but obliterated. His score of 6.3% was the worst for a centre-left candidate since 1969. Mr. Hamon offered a raft of new and exciting policy ideas, but he rapidly lost momentum. In any case, French presidential elections are never won with good ideas, and he did not have the charisma to carve out a space for himself.
But, where Sunday night was a catastrophe for the party institutions of the French left, it was more positive for millions of left-wing voters who cast their ballots for the maverick far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. His score of 19.6% exceeded all expectations. Across southern and western France, traditional socialist bastions voted for Mr. Mélenchon, in part to protest against five years of left-wing ‘compromise’ under Mr. Hollande, in part simply because the far-left candidate ran a highly persuasive campaign.
The problem, of course, is that Mr. Mélenchon is a one-man show. He is supported by the French Communist Party, but he is independent of it. And it is not clear whether he can pull together a far-left coalition for the upcoming parliamentary elections. The future of the French left will depend on the ability of the socialists to maintain their strong local representation, as well as absorb the discontent that led so many of their supporters to vote for a candidate whose sole aim is to destroy the Socialist Party.
Uncertain Victories
And what of the two winners? Here, too, the picture is more ambiguous than the triumphant rhetoric would suggest. Ms. Le Pen achieved a respectable 21.53% but this is far below the inflated expectations of her supporters (and her detractors). Over the past three months, her poll ratings declined inexorably — from 28% to 22% — and her campaign exposed all of her ideological and institutional weaknesses. Despite a discredited left-wing government and a climate of insecurity, she only managed a modest increase in her vote share compared to 2012.
The French are right to feel intense shame and deep concern that a far-right candidate has once again reached the second round of a presidential election, but it is fairly clear that if Mr. Fillon had run a better campaign, Ms. Le Pen would have been eliminated. She has secured her support base in northern and south-eastern France, but there is almost no chance of her winning the run-off. The only question is how badly she will lose. If she manages 25%, it will be a humiliation; if she manages 40%, she can claim a pyrrhic victory.
For Mr. Macron, on the other hand, the news is mostly good. His score of 23.75% and the fact that he came in first place give him enormous legitimacy going into the run-off. Mr. Fillon and Mr. Hamon have already called on their supporters to vote for him, and while Mr. Mélenchon has so far refused to do so, there is little doubt that a vast majority of his supporters will prefer to cast their votes for a shiny technocrat rather than a crypto-fascist.
Yet even here there is cause for concern. Insofar as Mr. Macron is a known quantity, he is seen as the architect of Mr. Hollande’s unpopular economic policies, and there is little evidence at this stage that his presidency will deviate significantly from that of his predecessor. Just as crucial is the question of who will govern. Who will be his Prime Minister? How will he build a ‘non-partisan’ party? In many ways, the run-off in two weeks’ time has now become much less important than the parliamentary elections in June. These will determine the balance of power for the next five years.
More fundamentally, this election has exposed dangerous fault lines in French politics. For it is quite clear that Mr. Macron is the candidate of affluent, cosmopolitan France, while Ms. Le Pen is the voice of a poorer, disenfranchised peripheral France. Rarely has this long-standing distinction been so starkly reflected in a French election. If Mr. Macron does not find a way to deal with this issue, the real losers of Sunday’s vote will be the French people.
Source: thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/and-now-there-are-two/article18201333.ece
----
The Climate Fight Is Global
By Sujatha Byravan
April 25, 2017
The Paris accord requires vigilance by all global actors in view of the U.S.’s changed stance on climate change
Farmers from Tamil Nadu were gathered in Delhi recently, carrying skulls, apparently belonging to those among them who had committed suicide. They were seeking government assistance following the worst drought in the State in recent times. Concurrently, there are several droughts in many other parts of the world, including Bolivia and several regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. Scorched lands have led to dying livestock, withering crops, and parched communities.
Several recent extreme events such as wildfires, droughts, severe heatwaves and cyclones in other places have a clear signature of a changing climate, but in many cases these are exacerbated by other institutional failures. None of this has, however, persuaded the present U.S. government that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) are responsible for climate change. The U.S. is still the world’s second largest annual emitter of GHGs and has generated more than a quarter of the total anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere since 1850.
Even though the U.S. has not technically withdrawn from the Paris Agreement from last December, when countries came together and set climate-related targets for themselves, President Donald Trump’s recent decisions are a sweeping repudiation of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies to reduce and limit pollution and GHGs.
The curbs on power plant emissions by the Obama administration — the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — were aimed at reducing the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by about a third below the 2005 levels by 2030. The regulations would require states and electric utilities to reduce emissions either by deploying renewables, reducing demand or increasing power plant efficiencies.
Effect Of Trump’s Actions
Mr. Trump’s orders not only directed federal agencies to cancel or amend policies that might interfere with domestic energy production, but also slashed research budgets for climate change.
In any case, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CPP has been in the courts for more than a year due to a legal challenge mounted by over half the U.S. states and a number of companies that opposed the rule. Nevertheless, even if Mr. Trump’s order to eliminate the CPP were to go into effect, his administration is required by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to regulate carbon dioxide. Moreover, the EPA’s rules are themselves not easy to reverse by a stroke of the presidential pen, especially given another 2009 EPA finding that GHGs “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations”.
How far Mr. Trump will continue to push for curbs on climate change reduction in the U.S. and any possible ripple effects from these remain to be seen. Under the circumstances, most commentators believe that his actions will have a limited impact.
Still, the recent moves by its President are a clear signal that the U.S. is no longer interested in curbing GHGs to stabilise the climate and neither is it keen to meet its Paris commitments.
Mr. Trump’s actions also demonstrate that allowing countries to write their own Nationally Determined Contributions, seen as an improvement to a global top-down approach, still has to confront the same political problem — continued implementation of the agreement by successive governments within each country. That a major emitter is retreating from its former commitments is of course a danger to the world’s climate, but this may not be a big step back if other countries persist with their efforts and if renewables continue to get more affordable as they have recently. This move also provides elbow room for renewable energy businesses elsewhere to pick up the slack in interest within the U.S.
Nonetheless, it does make one wonder how the U.S. or Europe would have responded if another country, say, India, had undertaken similar actions. There may have been little time lost before name-calling and shaming began, following which global trade sanctions would likely have been imposed, or perhaps other kinds of bans or penalties. The chance that any of this will happen now towards the U.S., still a superpower, appears to be slim.
Role Of Sub-National Actors
Nation states are the proper agencies responsible for curbing emissions to the shared global commons. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump’s recalcitrance shows that a change in political leadership could lead to the backing out of an international treaty by any signatory. Global agreements are often tenuous and need support and pressure from other actors within and across countries who function at many levels: states, territories or provinces within a country, cities, policy think tanks, scientists, philanthropists, local communities, civil society organisations, investors, transnational groups and multinational industries.
For example, the now global movement created by 350.org and other climate protection advocacy groups in Europe and elsewhere has made impressive progress on many fronts. The regional commitments to reducing GHGs by states in large parts of the U.S., the philanthropies that are supporting improvements in efficiencies and innovations in the climate and energy sector, and cities such as New York and Seattle, which are committed to building a low-carbon future, are all examples of sub-national entities that have a powerful influence. Thus, whether it is Mr. Trump or a Democrat in the White House, the work for these players is quite important. Climate change, like democracy itself, requires vigilance and participation by both state and non-state actors.
Source: thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-climate-fight-is-global/article18201434.ece
-----
URL: