By Kanya D’Almeida

WASHINGTON, Apr 11 (IPS) – With over 1.5 billion people living in countries blighted by
incessant or recurring violence, the World Bank’s annual World
Development Report (WDR), with this year’s focus on how
conflict derails development, was anxiously received Monday by
scores of development agencies, governments and NGOs all over
the world.

But many progressive economists say the document does not
stray far from the neoliberal policies that have maintained
a global status quo of inequality.

“Though the World Bank stresses the need for stronger
institutions, this rhetoric is not always in line with
actual policy,” Mark Weisbrot, economist and co-director of
the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR) told IPS.

“In South America, for example, a lot of governments are
trying to do the right thing but don’t have the
administrative capacity and that’s something the World Bank
could actually contribute to,” he said. “The problem is that
the World Bank is part of a consortium with the
International Monetary Fund and so they end up generally
supporting policies that reduce the capacity of governments
by focusing on aid from the outside.”

“Though I agree with the World Bank’s priority to engage
with civil society, this needs to be combined with broader
economic reforms. For example, of the 51 countries
classified as Least Developing Countries 40 years ago, only
three have graduated. So this shows you what a structural
problem we are dealing with,” Weisbrot added.

The WDR 2011, entitled “Conflict, Security and Development”,
is essentially the brain-child of World Bank president
Robert Zoellick.

Addressing the International Institute of Strategic Studies
in 2008, he first highlighted the grave impacts of what he
calls “fragile states”, institutionally, politically and
economically weak nations that are an international
impediment to the Bank’s twin goals of sustainable growth
and poverty-alleviation.

According to the WDR, children living in fragile states are
twice as likely to be undernourished and three times as
likely to be out of school; no low-income ‘fragile’ or
conflict-ridden country has yet achieved a single Millennium
Development Goal (MDG); and poverty rates are 20 percentage
points higher in countries affected by cycles of violence
than other countries.

Civil conflicts cost the average developing country roughly
30 years of GDP growth – all undeniable indicators that
exhaustive changes in the global system are required in
order to overcome downward-spiraling conditions for over 17
percent of the world’s population.

In a positive step forward, the WDR this year adopted a
unique compilation methodology, prioritising pre-existing
local research and national data while generating its own
broad conclusions and recommendations.

“We realised that the international community has to do
things differently,” Nigel Roberts, co-director of the WDR,
told a press conference here Friday.

“Violence in the 21st century is fractured, intense,
complex, entrenched and hard to remove, so national efforts
are required over and above solutions imported from the
outside; knowledge of how to deal with violence lies with
local practitioners, not with Western agencies and
international academic institutions,” he said.

The report enumerates four basic tenets that must be
urgently addressed if cycles of violence are to be halted
and lasting progress brought into states that have endured
several generations of terror, political repression and
economic injustice: improving institutional legitimacy;
investing in citizen security, justice and jobs; adopting a
multi-tiered national-cum-regional approach to change; and
being mindful of a changing global landscape where emerging
middle-income countries and regional institutions must be
empowered to play a much greater role in defining the 21st
century agenda.

Poignantly, Justin Lin, the chief economist of the World
Bank, proclaimed, “Bread and freedom is not a question of
either/or. Each is a prerequisite for the other and we must
strive simultaneously for both.”

Various economists and policy heads note that such grandiose
plans, re-packaged for a new year, do not stray from the old
neoliberal agenda, whose methods have been tried and failed,
largely to the detriment of the very populations they
supposedly seek to fortify.

“In the last decade the World Bank has been trying to
reverse its disastrous neoliberal stance of the 1980s and
early 1990s by focusing more on human development,” Omar
Dahi, a professor of development economics at Hampshire
College, told IPS. “However, it is still an open question
whether they have abandoned the neoliberal model at the
macro level with its focus on trade liberalisation and
reliance on foreign investment.”

“This model is no longer tenable,” he stressed.

“The current focus on institutions is a welcome departure
from mere focus on integration (i.e. trade and financial
liberalisation) but institution building is a difficult
process,” he added. “Take Egypt, where the elite capture of
the state prevented any meaningful attempt to reform or
produce independent institutions, for example – this is
where supporting grassroots organisations can be helpful
since they act as both an alternative development model that
does not rely on the paradigm of growth as well as acting as
checks and balances on the performance of the state.”

“I stress the need to empower labour and peasant
organisations – cooperatives rather than NGOs,” Dahi said.
“The former are ones that are truly representative of the
working and poor class whereas many NGOs usually reflect the
opinions of a very few people, no matter how well
intentioned those people are.”

While espousing support for strong democratic institutions,
the WDR also fails to acknowledge that the World Bank’s
executive board – its most powerful decision-making body –
is dominated by the five richest donors, currently the
United States, Japan, Germany, France and the Britain United
Kingdom.

“This is a moment for the World Bank itself to be
democratised so that developing countries can have a larger
say in the way it operates. They cannot push for good
governance when they are an example of authoritarian
governance,” Dahi told IPS.

In response to the report’s discussion of terrorism, Daniel
Gorevan, a spokesperson for Oxfam International, said, “One
issue that the report fails to address is the impact
international assistance focused on short-term military or
security objectives may have on exacerbating violence.”

“We’re seeing a worrying increase in the level of
militarised or politicised aid. That’s problematic,
especially if this assistance doesn’t address the root
causes of conflict and puts communities or aid workers’
lives at risk,” Gorevan added.

“Since 2001, there has been a growing trend of aid being
used to win ‘hearts and minds’ in conflict but it is often
poorly conceived, ineffective, and in some cases has turned
beneficiaries and aid workers into targets for attack. Aid
directed to short-term political and military objectives
fails to reach the poorest people. It also fails to build
long-term security either in fragile states or, ultimately,
for donors themselves,” he concluded.

No related posts.

By Prabhat Shunglu

New Delhi: “I come from a poor family. The only asset I possess is integrity.” This was the Chief Justice of India (CJI) S H Kapadia in his reply to congratulatory letter sent by former well-known judge V R Krishna Iyer on his appointment as CJI. So, when the legality of the appointment of former Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas came up before the Supreme Court bench of CJI Kapadia the pundits and the skeptics were equally sure Thomas’s stay as CVC was going to be short-lived. A corruption case going back to the 90s was pending against Thomas in the trial court. The Supreme Court stressed Mr Thomas cannot be in charge of anti-corruption Commission when his own integrity is being questioned. “The touchstone for the appointment of the CVC is the institutional integrity as well as the personal integrity of the candidate,” the court observed.

Amidst a heap of corruption charges piling up at the UPA governments door the Supreme Court’soverruling of the executive decision not only multiplied government’s woes, boxed in by an unforgiving opposition, it has left the executive red in the face for what it considers a clear caseof Supreme Court ‘over-stepping’ its jurisdiction. In fact the first murmur of executive protest wasrecording during the hearing of the case itself when the government argued that since the post of the CVC was a constitutional one the court is not entitled to review the appointment. The court turned the argument aside saying the government may not be accountable to the court for its policy decisions it sure is accountable for the legality of those decisions.

Outside the court, even as the CVC case was on, the government did not spare any opportunity to hold out veiled warning to the judiciary against transgressing its limits. At the Commonwealth Law Conference in Hyderabad the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: While the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate growth assigned to other branches of the government.

There is a healthy respect by the executive towards the judiciary and vice versa until such times or cases when judiciary seeks or has sought to question or review the government’s intent or policy decisions as was cogently displayed in the case of CVC legal battle. It is in such times the government recoils in fear accusing judiciary of usurping the executive space. This gives space for sabre-rattling by both sides. The government through its omni-potent propaganda machinery is almost always the winner telling whoever could listen that judicial ‘activism’ needed to be curbed.

The government, at such times, point out to the judiciary to look inwards and clear its own mess of corruption and judicial impropriety. The impeachment motion being brought against Justice Ramaswamy in 1993 is a case in point. And now the impending impeachment against Kolkata High Court judge Soumitra Sen has served enough grist to the government machinery to discreetly but surely take on the judiciary.

That the judiciary has not been able to avoid the taint of corruption shall remain as much a point of concern as corruption in the executive. Cases of impropriety in higher judiciary shakes the confidence of the common man for whom courts are still the last post of justice in the face of an inept administration which fails to deliver on crucial counts of governance. But one can always draw comfort in the fact that cases of judicial impropriety have been few and far between at least in the higher judiciary. Going by the unprecedented wave of litigations in public interest past two decades it can also be safely deduced people’s faith in judiciary remains undiminished. From delivering

criminal justice as in the case of Jessica Lal and Nitish Katara murder cases to reinterpreting Right to Life as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution or filling the legal void for patients in vegetative state making a plea for passive euthanasia or underlining environmental concerns in the face of growing awareness of global climate change or red-flagging executive or bureaucratic corruption, the judiciary by and large has delivered on the count of inclusive growth.

Interestingly, the government that melodramatically harps on the maxim of ‘inclusive growth’ and treading that extra mile for that last man in the row, the very idea of being over-ruled by the judiciary on the legitimate question of integrity gives them cramps. The message for the common man is clear: don’t expect executive to set precedent of top-down integrity and scruples.

Therefore the government can afford ignore the voice of civil society when it raises concerns over the draft of the anti-corruption Lokpal Bill. ( The Indian Lokpal shall be synonymous to the institution of Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries ) The Lokpal Bill, 2010, which awaits a select parliamentary committee’s nod, provides for filing complaints of corruption against the prime minister, minister, ministers and MPs with the Lokpal or the Ombudsman. The Lokpal Bill as drafted by the government places the appointment of the Lokpal in the hands of the executive. “How can those who have corrupted the system be entrusted to draft anti-corruption laws,” asks eminent social activist and Gandhian Anna Hazare. He has threatened to go on a fast-unto-death from April 5 should the government failed to rope in members of the civil society in re-drafting the bill by march-end.

Anna and like-minded people from the civil society including Magsasay Award winners, RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal and the first woman IPS officer Kiran Bedi, and a few legal luminaries and social activists have in consultation with a wide swath of public drafted a separate bill which they have termed the Jan Lokpal Bill or the Public Ombudsman Bill. Among the many suggestions the Jan Lokpal Bill envisages folding up the investigation in a year’s time. The trial shall be completed in the next 12 months so that the guilty gets punished within two years.

“Even if I have to give up my life to see that the Bill is passed I will not hesitate,” proclaims Anna. A 72-year-old can dare take recourse to Gandhian ways to achieve his objective in national interest just as the Mahatma undertook Satyagraha ( Truth with Firmness – Gandhi’s chief home-spun and non-violent piece de resistance against the British might ) in the course of his life spent in the cause of India’s independence. It shall be an interesting study whether the legacy of Gandhi lives on to temper the ‘compulsions’ of governance by coalition, where the flock is integrated by corruption but integrity is the primary casualty.
Source: SAT, March 2011

No related posts.

By Prabhat Shunglu

New Delhi: Forty days before anti-Mubarak slogans rented the air at Cairo’s Tahrir Square on January 25, India’s
Supreme Court passed a stricture against a Cabinet Minister in the ruling UPA government. The
court slammed Mr Vilasrao Deshmukh for abusing his power as Maharashtra Chief Minister by
shielding a party MLA, doubling as dubious money lender and accused of squeezing debt-ridden
Vidarbha farmers dry, against criminal action.

Six days before the Cairo uprising the Indian government rewarded Mr Deshmukh’s loyalty for the
Congress party by shifting him from Heavy Industries ministry to Rural Development Ministry, seen
as an upgrade because the ministry is close to the heart of mother Sonia Gandhi and son Rahul
both. During his tenure as chief minister ( 2004 -08 ) Mr Deshmukh logged a dubious distinction of
straddling over maximum suicide deaths of farmers in the Vidarbha region.

Autocratic regimes of Hosni Mubarak and his erstwhile Tunisian counterpart Zine El Abidine were
accused of squandering the nation’s wealth for personal gains and holding public welfare to ransom.
The public in both countries were fed up with escalating inflation and spiraling corruption. A
vegetable vendor suicide by self-immolation was the trigger for uprising against Abdeen in Tunisia,
it was the social networking sites like the facebook that mobilized people against Hosni Mubarak on
the streets of Egypt. Jasmine revolution provoked immediate results back in Tunisia as Abidine fled
the country even as Tahrir square holds hope for a spectacular change in that land of the pharaohs
and wondrous pyramids.

In an era where social networking sites are becoming platforms for cataclysmic change brought in
not by the incumbent administrative regimes but by the might and ingenuity of a people wronged by
the system, it is hard to imagine that in India a near lull ( or is it the proverbial lull before the storm
) has enveloped those upon whom the idea of a colour revolution is most desired. Not even the
students who mobilized against corruption in 1974 against the then Congress regime before allowing
themselves to be led by septuagenarian Gandhian Jai Prakash Narayan to participate in his call for
total revolution.

Consider this: The per capita gross domestic product in Egypt is 6,200 dollars compared to 3,400
dollars in India. Egypt’s per capita income is naturally higher at 130 dollars. According to the latest
report in CIA fact book, Egypt’s unemployment rate is 9.7 per cent whereas India’s stands at 10.8 per
cent despite those clutch of Nehru-Gandhi development schemes and the much-touted NAREGA. No
wonder then that 25 per cent of Indians are still poor – now considered a low-grade euphemism for
economically correct ‘those living below poverty line’ – ( That line again is an imaginary median of
economic yo-yo (ic ) fudging of unimaginable proportion. ) compared to 20 per cent poor in Egypt.

The country’s main opposition party, the Bhartiya Janata Party, has launched a crusade against
the corrupt UPA regime when its own house is leaking heavily through chinks of corruption. The
Karnatata chief minister B S Yedurappa is the BJP’s mascot in southern states where it has captured

power the first time. Everyone watched the graphic changeover of Yedurappa from chief minister of
Karnataka to a minister –in-chief of land and mine mafias. If A Raja, former telecom minister in UPA,
has been accused of under-pricing 2G airwaves sold to telecom operators and causing loss to the
tune of 1.75 lakh crore, the Reddy brothers of Karnataka have duped the exchequer of more than Rs
60,000 crores.

Yedurappa himself has a soft corner for nepotism. He bent every rule in the book to get over 500
crore rupees worth of land allotted to his two sons the eldest of whom, Raghvendra, is a member of
Parliament. The opposition estimates his personal worth at more than 1000 crores. For an elected
representative and a chief minister Yedurappa’s ill-gotten gains and his ability to straddle a corrupt
regime puts to shame Hosni Mubarak family’s loot. Since Yedurappa belongs to a party ‘with a
difference,’ president Nitin Gadkari terms his misdemeanours as purely ‘legal’ though ‘immoral.’ In
BJP’s vision immorality seems to be a perfect foil for democracy.

Just as loyalty to the dynasty serves as the veritable kick to the Congress’s vision of sustaining intra-
party democracy. Therefore a Deshmukh is put on an even higher pedestal despite Supreme Court’s
rap on his knuckles. “It is sad and shocking to see how the government allows and appreciates such
ministers. Not only that, it also gives them a cabinet post. It is not a dignified act and I would call
it a shameless act.” These were the words of Supreme Court Justice A.K. Ganguly at a seminar in
Mumbai recently.

These are but different colours of a wave of corrupt (r)evolution sweeping India. The Indian urban
streets are filled with vulgar display of life borrowed on plastic money. Everyone seems to be
outstripping the other in the race for pretending to be happy in an otherwise lo(a)nely life. Every
alternate fortnight a new sedan or a 4×4 SUV teases readers from super front page advertorials and
tempts TV viewers with smart promotionals. There is an average of five short messages delivered
on mobiles by real estate agents luring prospective buyers with apartments and villas on ‘easy
instalments.’ All this lopsided economic collage is not without its ‘most-visited’ page. The national
capital, Delhi, for instance, has to come face to face with shame, with such conscience churning tags
like crime\rape\scam capital of India. A poor woman delivers a child by the roadside along the most
happening square in Delhi because the five-star hospitals in the vicinity only deliver life in lieu of
money. And from Delhi to Mumbai not a brick is laid without the ‘ideal ( adarsh in Hindustani ) mix
of gamesmanship cementing corruption.

The picture across the countryside is even more abysmal. The farmers are either in debt or
committing suicides because they cannot afford to pay off those debts, their lands increasingly
under threat from the evil eyes of land\real estate mafias and now, often, by a kind of mafiaso that
operates in the garb of Special Economic Zones ( SEZ ) where the government itself takes the ‘supari’
on behalf of moneyed class.

Like that proverbial Indian bridegroom who presents himself as a commodity in the sick, old dowry
bazaar before he ties the nuptial knot, everything is up for sale – from kidney to morality – waiting
for its right bidder. This is corruption a la India in its throbbing, naked glory removed only in texture
from Cairo style corruption which vertically split the society into haves ( all the Mubarak’s family,
friends and pliable men in his fiefdom ) and have-nots ( those who converged at Tahrir Square).

A common Egyptian waged a non-violent war against the well-entrenched despotic rule of Mubarak

and succeeded in his objective in less than three weeks. Wrote David Michael Green, a political
science professor at New York’s Hofstra University, after the Egyption uprising: Cowardice is talking

about democracy for others while actually undermining it when you don’t like the results. Courage
is walking like an Egyptian.

Will the average Indian, the ubiquitous aam aadmi, continue to wallow in the pool of doubtful
priapismic ecstasy. Or can he ever dare to walk stiff, like an Egyptian.
Source: South Asia Times (SAT) February 2011 issue.

No related posts.

By Farhad Arian

Summary

This paper aims to critically evaluate a newly signed agreement between the Australian government and the government of Afghanistan on returning those Afghan asylum seekers who do not pass the refugee test in Australia. The paper particularly analyzes the failure of both the Australian and the Afghan governments in respecting their international human rights obligations due to signing such an unrealistic agreement for the intention of the sustainable return of those Afghan asylum seekers not considered genuine refugees.

On Monday, 17 January 2011, the Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen signed an agreement with the Afghan Refugee and Repatriation Minister, Jamaher Anwary, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Richard Towel. Signing this agreement is part of Australia’s broader attempts for the intention of decreasing illegal immigrants to Australia. This agreement particularly provides the Australian government with an exceptional opportunity to successfully respond to the challenge of Afghan asylum seekers to further send those back home who fail to pass the refugee test.

Despite the promises given by the Australian government in terms of helping the Afghan government to improve passport system, funding a housing project outside Kabul, and providing skills training to Afghans, the government of Afghanistan, with signing this agreement, has ignored the fact that it is no longer capable of protecting Afghan returnees. However, neither the government of Australia nor the Afghan government has paid attention to this issue that the sustainable return of those Afghans not considered genuine refugees to Afghanistan is not a realistic approach to deal with the challenge of Afghan asylum seekers.

First of all, singing such an agreement, that allows for the forced return of those Afghans who do not pass the refugee test, is in contrary to the international human rights obligations of the Australian government. As a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Australia is obliged to ensure that people who meet the definition of refugee under the Convention are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom is threatened. As well, Australia has signed the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the 1984 Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), obliging Australia to not return people who face a real risk of violation of human rights even if they do not meet the definition of refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention. As such, signing to further the implementation of this agreement indicates that the Australian government has neither paid attention to its international human rights obligations nor taken serious the life and freedom of the returned Afghan asylum seekers.

In addition to the failure of the Australian government in respecting its international human rights obligations, the government of Afghanistan, with signing such an agreement for returning Afghan asylum seekers, has entirely ignored the fact that the returnees neither in the southern and eastern regions of Afghanistan nor in other parts of the country are safe due to the Taliban-led insurgency. In particular, the government of Afghanistan has denied the fact that all people who leave Afghanistan and seek for overseas asylum are those who cannot return due to serious security concerns to further because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. For example, Professor William Maley from the Australian National University and an expert on Afghanistan and immigration issues points out that the life and freedom of ethnic Hazaras are mostly at risk if they are forced to go back Afghanistan. Thus, regardless of incapability of protecting the returnees, the government of Afghanistan has signed the agreement with the Australian government, demonstrating the carelessness of the Afghan government in protecting the lives and freedoms of its citizens.

Furthermore, regardless of few achievements in improving human rights institutions in the post-2001 era, the Afghan government has failed to systematically protect human rights of the people of Afghanistan. In other words, in spite of signing the major international human rights treaties, the Afghan government has paid less attention in protecting human rights of its citizens. As such, the Afghan Immigration Minister has signed the agreement for returning Afghan asylum seekers with no intention of caring about the protection and improvement of the basic rights of the returnees. Therefore, signing such an agreement is another step towards violating human rights of Afghan citizens rather than guaranteeing their rights and freedoms because the government of Afghanistan no longer believes in human rights. More specifically, signing such a deal obviously indicates that respect for human rights is not a policy-priority for the Afghan government; unless it did not agree with the Australian government for returning Afghan asylum seekers to a country where respect for the dignity and rights of the people is like a dream that have never come true.

Finally, there is no guarantee that the agreement on deportation of failed Afghan asylum seekers is based on reliable and balanced security assessments of the situation in Afghanistan. As Professor William Maley points out, the security expertise of Australian officials for the purpose of returning failed Afghan asylum seekers is partly doubtful. Likewise, Paul Power, the Chief Executive of the Refugee Council of Australia, points out that even if the returned asylum seekers in Afghanistan are not so much under the threats caused by the government, they will be facing serious threats from the people or groups who are not under the control of the government. Meanwhile, The Afghan government has signed the agreement without undertaking any security expertise assessments; otherwise the deteriorated security situation in Afghanistan does not allow the Afghan government to agree with the Australian government for returning Afghan asylum seekers. As a result, this agreement is neither prepared based on reliable security assessments in Afghanistan nor pays attention to the security risks that might threaten the Afghan returnees.

To conclude, the 17 January agreement on returning Afghan asylum seekers between the Australian Immigration Minister and the Afghan Refugee Minister is an agreement that is in contrary to the principles of human rights to further violates Australian as well as Afghanistan international human rights obligations. While the agreement ignores the deteriorated security situation in Afghanistan, it is a deal that is not prepared based on reliable and balanced security expertise assessments. In particular, while the agreement is technically an achievement for the Australian government, it does not pay attention to the security concerns of Afghan asylum seekers who do not pass the refugee test in Australia. By signing such a violating human rights agreement, the government of Afghanistan once again proves that it does not value the lives and freedoms of its citizens whether they are at risk or under uncertain security threats.

Tuesday, January 20, 2011

Farhad Arian is a former Deputy Director of the Office of Human Rights and Women’s International Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan. Prior to joining the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was a Legal Consultant to the General-Directorate of the National Radio & Television of Afghanistan. Farhad Arian is currently undertaking a Master of Arts in International Affairs at the Australian National University (ANU).

References

Australian Human Rights Commission, (2011), “Asylum Seekers and Refugees”, Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from www.hreoc.gov.au.

Cronin, D. (2011), “Afghan Deal May Send People Back to Danger”, The Canberra Times. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from www.canberratimes.com.au.

Cronin, D. (2011), “Deal to Return Afghan Asylum Seekers”, The Canberra Times. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from www.canberratimes.com.au.

Cullen, S. (2011), “Australia and Afghanistan Sign Asylum Seeker Agreement “, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from www.abc.net.au.

Massola, J. (2011), “Deal with Afghanistan on Return of Asylum Seekers”, The Australian. Retrieved December 17, 2011 from www.theaustralian.com.au.

Morgan, T. (2011), “Failed Afghan Asylum Seekers to Go Home”, The Age. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from www.theage.com.au.

Narushima, Y. (2011), “Thousands of Afghan Asylum Seekers Face Deportation”, The Canberra Times. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from www.canberratimes.com.au.

Rehn, A. (2011), “Time to Go Home, Afghan Refugees”, The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved January 18, 2010 from www.dailytelegraph.com.au.

Related posts:

1. Last minute appeal for Lankan asylum seekers Melbourne: Refugee advocates are trying to use a last minute...
2. Afghan scribe shot Unidentified gunmen have shot dead an Afghan journalist in north-west...

Leonardo Boff

Daniela Pastrana interviews LEONARDO BOFF, Brazilian writer and theologian* – Tierramérica

MEXICO CITY, Dec 28 (IPS) – “The market is not going to resolve the environmental crisis,” says theologian
and environmentalist Leonardo Boff, professor at Brazil’s State University of Rio
de Janeiro. The solution, he says, lies in ethics and in changing our relationship
with nature.

Boff, who teaches ethics, philosophy of religion and ecology, is one of the
leading figures of Liberation Theology, a progressive current in the Latin
American Catholic Church. He has written more than 60 books and has
dedicated the last 20 years to promoting the green movement.

“If we don’t change, we are headed for the worst… Either we save ourselves or
we all perish,” said Boff in an interview with Tierramérica in the Mexican
capital, after he participated as an observer in the recent 16th Conference of
Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, held in Cancún.

Q: What is your assessment of the COP 16?

A: What predominated, save for the last two days, was an atmosphere of
disappointment, of failure. But surprisingly there were three convergences of
opinion: the commitment to fight against reaching (a global temperature
increase of) two degrees Celsius; the creation of the Green Climate Fund of 30
billion dollars (for 2012) to help the most vulnerable countries, in an
interesting sign of solidarity; and the creation of a large fund for the
reduction of deforestation and degradation of forests, because that is where
the principal cause of global warming lies.

Q: How should we interpret the stance of Bolivia, the only country that did not
agree to those commitments?

A: Bolivia supports the thesis that the Earth is “Pachamama,” a living
organism that must be respected and cared for, not just exploited. It stands
in opposition to the dominant position, which is set in the framework of the
market: selling carbon credits, for example, means granting the right to
pollute.

The dominant societies see the Earth as a treasure chest of resources that can
be used indefinitely, although now they have to be utilised in a sustainable
way, because they are scarce. They don’t recognise the dignity and rights of
natural beings, they see them as means of production and their relation is
based on utility. These are issues that did not enter into the discussions at
Cancún or any other COP.

Q: Why should they be included?

A: Because the system that has created the problem is not going to save us. If
each country has to grow a little each year, and to do so means degrading
nature and increasing global warming, then that system itself is hostile to life.

Q: The argument is that it is necessary for development…

A: Growth means what? Exploiting nature? It is precisely that type of growth
and development that could lead us to the abyss, because we humans are
consuming 30 percent more than what the Earth can replace.

That is the vicious circle. China can’t go on emitting 30 percent (of global
greenhouse emissions), because the pollution does not stay in China, it enters
the global system.

The problem is the relation of the human being with the Earth, because it is a
violent relationship, a closed fist… As long as we fail to change this, we are
headed for the worst. And this time there is no Noah’s Ark. Either we save
ourselves or we all perish.

Q: Is it really that serious?

A: There are regions in the world that have changed so much that they’ve
become uninhabitable. That is why there are 60 million displaced persons in
Africa and Southeast Asia, which are the most affected by climate change and
which emit less carbon. If we don’t stop it, in the next five to seven years
there will be as many as 100 million climate refugees, and that is going to
create political problems.

Q: What is the role of Latin America in all this?

A: It is the continent with greatest possibilities for making a positive
contribution to the ecological crisis: it has the largest rainforests and water
reserves, the greatest biodiversity, and perhaps the biggest areas for crops.

But there is still insufficient environmental awareness in a large portion of the
population. And, in any case, there is a very dangerous invasion of big
corporations that are appropriating vast regions. It is an appropriation of
common goods in function of individual benefits.

In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, gradually they are realising how the
new game of capital works: a great concentration of livelihoods to ensure the
future of the system.

Q: What options are there?

A: We have funds and technology, but we lack political will and sensitivity to
nature and human suffering. That has to be recovered. And along with ethics
of caring go the ethics of cooperation. Now it has become necessary for
everyone to cooperate with everyone.

Q: Is that possible? What needs to be done?

A: There are movements, especially among groups who see that there lands
are being divided, like Vía Campesina (international peasant movement) and
Brazil’s MST landless movement. And there are the indigenous peoples, who
don’t see the Earth simply as an instrument of production, but rather as an
extension of their body, and they need it to uphold their identity.

We are seeking a balance, and that is the collective duty of humanity, which
the market and the economy are not going to resolve. Everyone needs to do
his or her part, to be more with less, to have a sense of proportion. The
problem isn’t money.

(*This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are
part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service
produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development
Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.)

No related posts.

By Julio Godoy

PARIS, Aug 6, 2010 (IPS) – Subsidies for agriculture in the industrialised countries of the world grew again in 2009, benefiting the largest companies and land owners, such as Prince Albert of Monaco and Queen Elizabeth of Britain.

The latest increase came despite repeated and consistent evidence that such subsidies contribute to the destruction of the livelihoods of poor farmers in developing countries, especially in Africa, and that they distort international trade.

According to a new study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), subsidies for agriculture in industrialised countries rose to around 252.5 billion dollars, or 22 percent of total farmers’ receipts in 2009 — up from 21 percent in 2008.

The study, “Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries at a Glance 2010″, found that the European Union’s subsidies for farmers rose from 22 to 24 percent. In the period between 2007 and 2009, EU farmers received an average of 23 percent of their gross receipts in form of direct financial support from the state.

The OECD represents the 30 most industrialised countries of the world, including the U.S. and most members of the EU.

The subsidies for farmers in OECD countries have been at the centre of a heated dispute for years, both at the level of the EU and U.S. and within the larger framework of the World Trade Organisation and its deadlocked Doha Development Round.

The EU spends about 75 billion dollars on subsidies for agriculture, even though the sector represents only about two percent of the total gross domestic product of the union. This subsidies regime will only change in 2014.

The new OECD data inflamed these complaints, the more so since it has been shown that the largest agro-businesses and even some royal houses in European monarchies benefit the most from the subsidies.

“EU subsidies for agriculture are a shame,” Marita Wiggerthale from the German office of the humanitarian organisation Oxfam told IPS. She cited the example of subsidies for milk, which form part of the EU agricultural policy.

Due mostly to over-production, the European milk prices for farmers were in early 2009 extremely low at less than 0.20 euro per litre. Instead of reducing the production to stabilise prices, the EU reintroduced subsidies for milk in 2009 to support producers.

“As consequence, the EU is again exporting milk to the whole developing world, especially towards Africa, at ‘dumping’ prices,” Wiggerthale said. “By so doing, the EU is destroying the livelihoods of farmers in the poorest countries of the world while artificially maintaining a too high level of production.”

To add insult to injury, the EU is simultaneously forcing developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific to further open their markets through the trade deals called economic partnership agreements.

Rainer Falk, a leading German critic of neoliberal globalisation and publisher of “World Economy and Development”, a specialised newsletter on international cooperation and trade, told IPS that the OECD subsidies for agriculture only benefit the largest companies in the sector.

“The data for 2008 illustrates this point,” Falk said. “The main beneficiary of the EU subsidies in Germany was Suedzucker, a large sugar producer, which that year received more than 50 million U.S. dollars in subsidies,” Falk pointed out.

Data from other countries confirms Falk’s complaints.

In France, one of the main beneficiaries of the EU subsidies for agriculture in the recent past has been Prince Albert of Monaco. Queen Elizabeth of Britain has also received large subsidies from the EU.

Carmel Cahill, head of the policies, trade and adjustment division of the OECD’s directorate for agriculture, food and fisheries, subscribed to this criticism. “European subsidies for agriculture continue to benefit the largest land owners,” Cahill told IPS.

According to the most recent data, 11 percent of farms get 75 percent of the payments. “Take care though,” Cahill warned, “it is the share of the payments, not of the entire budget, some of which goes to programmes and purposes that are not payments.”

Cahill also called attention to positive changes in the agricultural subsidy policies, especially in the EU.

“Despite still spending a large chunk of its budget on supporting a relatively small sector of its economy, the EU has reformed its subsidies criteria to move away from supporting exports and towards supporting producers, thus decoupling aid from production,” Cahill said.

“Such subsidies,” Cahill argued, “are far less distorting in terms of trade than the aid directly linked to production volumes.”

However, Cahill lamented that the EU and the member countries do not link the subsidies to specific targets. “The EU could connect its aid to better environmental protection measures of agriculture, or to an increased concern for biodiversity,” Cahill told IPS.

She explained that the increase in agricultural subsidies was mainly provoked by fluctuations in international commodity prices during the last four years. “Higher commodity prices in 2007 and 2008 were behind drops in the measured support in those years and the return to 2007 level prices reversed this trend for 2009″, automatically leading to relatively higher subsidies.

The OECD report also says that lower or negative economic growth in OECD countries, caused by the recent global recession, moderated demand pressures in particularly higher value-added products, such as dairy and meats. A positive supply response to higher prices in 2008 came at the same time as growth for food demand was easing.

These factors all contributed to the rise in subsidies.

No related posts.

By Praful Bidwai

New Delhi: The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States has electrified the world community and ignited hope. It is a matter of epochal significance that a Black man will live as the master of the White House, which was built by Black slaves and staffed by them until 1850, but where African-Americans would rarely be invited until almost a century later. This marks spectacular progress in a society where Blacks were sold as slaves until 143 years ago and couldn’t even vote just 40 years ago.

The magnitude of this tectonic shift in the world’s most influential nation has kindled hope everywhere in the possibility of transformative, even revolutionary, change towards inclusion, equality, and respect for diversity and pluralism. Everybody wants “a piece of Obama”, including diehard conservatives like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one-time Neoconservative philosopher Francis Fukuyama. Even President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, one of Europe’s most Right-wing leaders, is exuberant over Mr. Obama’s victory.

A striking exception to this overwhelming trend is Indian policymakers, who view the victory with nervousness and foreboding. Like the hopelessly US-dependent ruling elites of Israel and Georgia, they too had hoped Senator John McCain would win. They see Mr. Obama’s presidency as a threat. As we see below, they are totally, comprehensively, wrong.

The true domestic significance of Mr. Obama’s victory lies in its breaking of the conservative stranglehold over US society and politics. Crucial to this was his campaign strategy of grassroots mobilisation based on the promise of healing social divides This couldn’t have been achieved by another potential Democrat victor like John Kerry or Joseph Biden.

The significance of Mr. Obama’s election stands greatly magnified by the current US financial meltdown and economic recession. These have highlighted the bankruptcy of President George W. Bush’s disastrous Right-wing policies and reminded the American people of the relevance of issues like entitlement to healthcare and social security, labour rights, progressive taxation, and above all, egalitarian programmes like President Roosevelt’s New Deal. Mr. Obama’s call to put an end to “unforgiving capitalism” was wholly in keeping with this sentiment.

Mr. Obama takes over a nation exhausted with its past and despondent about its future. Almost nine out of 10 Americans believe their country has been on the wrong track. Mr. Obama will face difficult choices in fulfilling his promises. But we must hope he’ll succeed.

Globally, Mr. Obama bids fair to make an impact at a fateful moment in history, when multiple crises have converged—a global financial meltdown and growing economic crisis, discrediting of the neoliberal economic model, decline of US hegemony amidst major geopolitical shifts, and a worsening climate crisis. These cast a shadow over the notion of development as market-led accumulation of material goods to which human needs must be subordinated.

Domestically, Mr. Obama has a historic chance to launch a New Deal, by re-regulating the economy, engineering pro-people state intervention through bold healthcare and social security programmes, and initiating large-scale public works. He will come under pressure from the establishment, including some of his own advisers from the Chicago free-market economics school, to tinker at the margins without breaking with the neoliberal paradigm. This would only perpetuate Casino Capitalism and human misery through recurrent crises.

Yet, the logic of Mr. Obama’s promises on healthcare, education, taxation and social security, and his $200 billion plan for roads, ports, bridges, etc, should prompt him to discard that paradigm—if he remains true to his word. He will probably adopt a far more progressive policy than the Republicans on energy and climate change. He has promised an investment of $150 billion over 10 years on renewable sources. Under him, the US is likely to take a less hostile approach to the Kyoto Protocol—although his original proposal to put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions might be diluted.

Mr. Obama is likely to be more respectful of civil liberties, outlaw torture and shut down Guantánamo Bay. He will probably also relax immigration and citizenship policies in favour of America’s 12 million illegal migrants. However, whether he dismantles intrusive surveillance and the Patriot Act remains unclear.

Much of Mr. Obama’s economic agenda will depend upon his Cabinet appointments. The two top candidates reportedly in the running for the Treasury Secretary’s post are former World Bank chief economist Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve. Neither is likely to break with deregulation and other neoliberal policies. The test of Mr. Obama’s leadership will lie in overruling them to push a non-market-driven agenda.

His very first appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as the White House chief of staff, who’ll control access to him, is a letdown. Mr. Emanuel is a hard-driving Washington “insider” and former investment banker, close to the family of Chicago mayor Richard Daley, a controversial operator. Sadly, Mr. Obama also wants to induct Republicans into his team.

On foreign policy and security issues, Mr. Obama promises a less arrogant, aggressive and unilateralist US—a welcome departure from the Bush-McCain approach. Mr. Obama has promised to withdraw troops from Iraq over 16 months. This is a major and worthy step—although one must hope that the US won’t maintain a substantial military presence in Iraq, including bases and “advisers”.

Mr. Obama wants to induct thousands of additional troops into Afghanistan and intensify the war. Unless this is done in cooperation with Pakistan, and under its leadership, this could turn out extremely unpopular. Mr. Obama’s remarks favouring unilateral strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaeda-Taliban militants were a big mistake. He must move away from that approach.

Mr. Obama’s positions on Iran, Russia, and Son-of-Star-Wars-style ballistic missile defence can bring about a major change in global geopolitics. If he begins a dialogue with Iran, stops NATO expansion, builds friendly relations with Russia, delays BMD deployment, and renews the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty due to expire next year, while de-alerting and disarming a substantial number of nuclear weapons, he will have made a major contribution to defusing rivalries started or aggravated by the Republicans. Mr. Obama holds that unless the US and Russia radically reduce their nuclear arsenals, they won’t be able to persuade smaller nations like Iran and North Korea to forgo their nuclear programmes. This is a big step forward.

Mr. Obama is unlikely to take an early initiative on the Palestine crisis. His call for an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is outlandish and doesn’t speak of a high level of familiarity with that issue. But a settlement with Iran could transform West Asian geopolitics.

How Mr. Obama acts on global issues will largely depend on whether he recognises that the Neocon project has failed and that US power is set to decline inexorably. In the absence of clarity on this, Mr. Obama’s agenda may fall short of the necessary transformative content.

Yet, Mr Obama’s positions are indisputably progressive, favour a more balanced and peaceful world, and deserve to be welcomed. Indian policy-makers have been lukewarm and even cynical towards them. They view them through the narrow prism of India-Pakistan relations, his remarks about mediating on the Kashmir issue and on outsourcing, and his intention to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate a Fissile Materials Cut-off agreement.

In practice, Mr. Obama is unlikely to want to undermine the competitiveness of US industry by halting outsourcing. His campaign statements on the Kashmir question are unlikely to translate into actual policy, which will have to take into account India’s reservations on the issue. As his transition team has recently clarified, the US remains committed to supporting the bilateral India-Pakistan dialogue process to resolve Kashmir and other contentious issues.

As for the CTBT, even Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee was all prepared to sign it in 1999, after declaring a unilateral moratorium on nuclear test explosions, based on a careful strategic assessment that further testing isn’t necessary for an adequate minimum nuclear deterrent. If India is truly committed to global, universal nuclear disarmament, it must recognise that the CTBT and FMCT are indispensable steps in that process. India must stop being defensive about these treaties and actively help bring them into force.

It’s unlikely that Mr. Obama will risk damaging Washington’s relations with India by aggressively pushing agendas, especially regional ones, which New Delhi is uncomfortable with. It’s a sign of our policymakers’ diffidence and their lack of appreciation of India’s high and growing economic, political and strategic weight in today’s world, that they think otherwise.

India can positively engage Mr. Obama by seeking his cooperation in an initiative for a reform of the global governance system, including a more democratic United Nations, restructuring of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation (through a Bretton Woods-II), by promoting a new financial architecture and a more equitable international economic order, and by demanding a non-confrontational cooperative security system. This means moving away from parochial, short-term preoccupations and thinking big. Can our policymakers muster the will to do this?
- IPA

No related posts.

BY ANGANA CHATTERJI
Anthropologist

HINDUTVA’S PRODUCTION of culture and nation is often marked by savagery. On 23 August 2008, Lakshmanananda Saraswati, Orissa’s Hindu nationalist icon, was murdered with four disciples in Jalespeta in Kandhamal district. State authorities alleged the attackers to be Maoists (and a group has subsequently claimed the murder). But the Sangh Parviar held the Christian community responsible, even though there is no evidence or history to suggest the armed mobilisation of Christian groups in Orissa.

After the murder, the All India Christian Council stated: “The Christian community in India abhors violence, condemns all acts of terrorism, and opposes groups of people taking the law into their own hands”. Gouri Prasad Rath, General Secretary, VHPOrissa, stated: “Christians have killed Swamiji. We will give a befitting reply. We would be forced to opt for violent protests if action is not taken against the killers”.

Following which, violence engulfed the district. Churches and Christian houses razed to the ground, frightened Christians hiding in the jungles or in relief camps. Officials record the death toll at 13, local leaders at 20, while the Asian Centre for Human Rights noted 50.

The Sangh’s history in postcolonial Orissa is long and violent. Virulent Hindutva campaigns against minority groups reverberated in Rourkela in 1964, Cuttack in 1968 and 1992, Bhadrak in 1986 and 1991, Soro in 1991. The Kandhamal riots were not unforeseen.

Since 2000, the Sangh has been strengthened by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s coalition government with the Biju Janata Dal. In October 2002, a Shiv Sena unit in Balasore district declared the formation of the first Hindu ‘suicide squad’. In March 2006, Rath stated that the “VHP believes that the security measures initiated by the Government [for protection of Hindus] are not adequate and hence Hindu society has taken the responsibility for it.”

The VHP has 1,25,000 primary workers in Orissa. The RSS operates 6,000 shakhas with a 1,50,000 plus cadre. The Bajrang Dal has 50,000 activists working in 200 akharas. BJP workers number above 4,50,000. BJP Mohila Morcha, Durga Vahini (7,000 outfits in 117 sites), and Rashtriya Sevika Samiti (80 centres) are three major Sangh women’s organisations. BJP Yuva Morcha, Youth Wing, Adivasi Morcha and Mohila Morcha have a prominent base. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh manages 171 trade unions with a cadre of 1,82,000. The 30,000-strong Bharatiya Kisan Sangh functions in 100 blocks. The Sangh also operates various trusts and branches of national and international institutions to aid fundraising, including Friends of Tribal Society, Samarpan Charitable Trust, Sookruti, Yasodha Sadan, and Odisha International Centre. Sectarian development and education are carried out by Ekal Vidyalayas, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashrams/Parishads (VKAs), Vivekananda Kendras, Shiksha Vikas Samitis and Sewa Bharatis — cementing the brickwork for hate and civil polarisation.

This massive mobilisation has erupted in ugly incidents against both Christians and Muslims. In 1998, 5,000 Sangh activists allegedly attacked the Christian dominated Ramgiri-Udaygiri villages in Gajapati district, setting fire to 92 homes, a church, police station, and several government vehicles. Earlier, Sangh activists allegedly entered the local jail forcibly and burned two Christian prisoners to death. In 1999, Graham Staines, 58, an Australian missionary and his 10- and six-year-old sons were torched in Manoharpur village in Keonjhar. A Catholic nun, Jacqueline Mary was gangraped by men in Mayurbhanj and Arul Das, a Catholic priest, was murdered in Jamabani, Mayurbhanj, followed by the destruction of churches in Kandhamal. In 2002, the VHP converted 5,000 people to Hinduism. In 2003, the VKA organised a 15,000- member rally in Bhubaneswar, propagating that Adivasi (and Dalit) converts to Christianity be denied affirmative action. In 2004, seven women and a male pastor were forcibly tonsured in Kilipal, Jagatsinghpur district, and a social and economic boycott was imposed against them. A Catholic church was vandalised and the community targeted in Raikia.

Change the cast, the story is still the same. 1998: A truck transporting cattle owned by a Muslim was looted and burned, the driver’s aide beaten to death in Keonjhar district. 1999: Shiekh Rehman, a Muslim clothes merchant, was mutilated and burned to death in a public execution at the weekly market in Mayurbhanj. 2001: In Pitaipura village, Jagatsinghpur, Hindu communalists attempted to orchestrate a land-grab connected to a Muslim graveyard. On November 20, 2001, around 3,000 Hindu activists from nearby villages rioted. Muslim houses were torched, Muslim women were ill-treated, their property, including goats and other animals, stolen. 2005: In Kendrapara, a contractor was shot on Govari Embankment Road, supposedly by members of a Muslim gang. Sangh groups claimed the shooting was part of a gang war associated with Islamic extremism and called for a 12hour bandh. Hindu organisations are alleged to have looted and set Muslim shops on fire.

It is Saraswati who pioneered the Hinduisation of Kandhamal since 1969. Activists targeted Adivasis, Dalits, Christians and Muslims through socio-economic boycotts and forced conversions (named ‘re’conversion, presupposing Adivasis and Dalits as ‘originally’ Hindus).

Kandhamal first witnessed Hindutva violence in 1986. The VKAs, instated in 1987, worked to Hinduise Kondh and Kui Adivasis and polarise relations between them and Pana Dalit Christians. Kandhamal remains socio-economically vulnerable, a large percentage of its population living in poverty. Approximately 90 percent of Dalits are landless. A majority of Christians are landless or marginal landholders. Hindutva ideologues say Dalits have acquired economic benefits, augmented by Christianisation. This is not borne out in reality.

In October 2005, converting 200 Bonda Adivasi Christians to Hinduism in Malkangiri, Saraswati said: “How will we… make India a completely Hindu country? The feeling of Hindutva should come within the hearts and minds of all the people.” In April 2006, celebrating RSS architect Golwalkar’s centenary, Saraswati presided over seven yagnas attended by 30,000 Adivasis. In September 2007, supporting the VHP’s statewide road-rail blockade against the supposed destruction of the mythic ‘Ram Setu’, Saraswati conducted a Ram Dhanu Rath Yatra to mobilise Adivasis.

In 2008, Hindutva discourse named Christians as ‘conversion terrorists’. But the number of such conversions is highly inflated. They claim there are rampant and forced conversions in Phulbani-Kandhamal. But the Christian population in Kandhamal is 1,17,950 while Hindus number 5,27,757. Orissa Christians numbered 8,97,861 in the 2001 census — only 2.4 percent of the state’s population. Yet, Christian conversions are storied as debilitating to the majority status of Hindus while Muslims are seen as ‘infiltrating’ from Bangladesh, dislocating the ‘Oriya (and Indian) nation’.

The right to religious conversion is constitutionally authorised. Historically, conversions from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam have been a way to escape caste oppression and social stigma for Adivasis and Dalits. In February 2006, the VHP called for a law banning (non- Hindu) religious conversions. In June 2008, it urged that religious conversion be decreed a ‘heinous crime’ across India.

‘Reconversion’ strategies of the Sangh appear to be shifting in Orissa. The Sangh reportedly proposed to ‘reconvert’ 10,000 Christians in 2007. But fewer public conversion ceremonies were held in 2007 than in 2004- 2006. Converting politicised Adivasi and Dalit Christians to Hinduism is proving difficult. The Sangh has instead increased its emphasis on the Hinduisation of Adivasis through their participation in Hindu rituals, which, in effect, ‘convert’ Adivasis by assuming that they are Hindu.

The draconian Orissa Freedom of Religion Act (OFRA), 1967, must be repealed. There are enough provisions under the Indian Penal Code to prevent and prohibit conversions under duress. But consenting converts to Christianity are repeatedly charged under OFRA, while Hindutva perpetrators of forcible conversions are not. The Sangh contends that ‘reconversion’ to Hinduism through its ‘Ghar Vapasi’ (homecoming) campaign is not conversion but return to Hinduism, the ‘original’ faith. This allows them to dispense with the procedures under OFRA.

The Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 should also be repealed. It is utilised to target livelihood practices of economically disenfranchised groups, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, who engage in cattle trade and cow slaughter.

In fact, a CBI investigation into the activities of the VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal is crucial as per the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Groups such as the VHP and VKA are registered as cultural and charitable organisations but their work is political in nature. They should be audited and recognised as political organisations, and their charitable status and privileges reviewed.

The state and central government’s refusal to restrain Hindu militias evidences their linkage with Hindutva (BJP), soft Hindutva (Congress), and the capitulation of civil society to Hindu majoritarianism. How would the nation have reacted if groups with affiliation other than than militant Hinduism executed riot after riot: Calcutta 1946, Kota 1953, Rourkela 1964, Ranchi 1967, Ahmedabad 1969, Bhiwandi 1970, Aligarh 1978, Jamshedpur 1979, Moradabad 1980, Meerut 1982, Hyderabad 1983, Assam 1983, Delhi 1984, Bhagalpur 1989, Bhadrak 1991, Ayodhya 1992, Mumbai 1992, Gujarat 2002, Marad 2003, Jammu 2008?

The BJD-BJP government has repeatedly failed to honour the constitutional mandate separating religion from state. In 2005-06, Advocate Mihir Desai and I convened the Indian People’s Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa, led by Retired Kerala Chief Justice KK Usha. The Tribunal’s findings detailed the formidable mobilisation by majoritarian communalist organisations, including in Kandhamal, and the Sangh’s visible presence in 25 of 30 districts. The report did not invoke any response from the state or central government.

In January 2000, The Asian Age reported: “‘One village, one shakha’ is the new slogan of the RSS as it aims to saffronise the entire Gujarat state by 2005.” Then ensued the genocide of March 2002. In 2003, Subash Chouhan, then Bajrang Dal state convener, stated: “Orissa is the second Hindu Rajya (to Gujarat).”

We all know what has happened in Kandhamal December 2007, and again now. The communal situation in Orissa is dire. State and civil society resistance to Hindutva’s ritual and catalytic abuse cannot wait.

The writer is associate professor of anthropology at California Institute of Integral Studies and author of a forthcoming book:
Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India’s Present, Narratives from Orissa

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 36, Dated Sept 13, 2008

Related posts:

1. Attack on Christmas celebrations in India, 2 hurt New Delhi (Dec. 24): Two Christians have been shot and...
2. Holy Wars: Why Tribals Convert? (TOI Edit) The biggest inducement to convert, particularly for tribals and Dalits,...
3. L. K. Advani: Catholic education, Hindutava mindset Advani went to a Catholic school and a RSS `Shakha`,...

BY PRAFUL BIDWAI

Manmohan Singh’s tainted victory facilitates India’s alignment with the U.S. and conservative domestic policies, completing the project he launched 17 years ago.

INDIAN supporters of a close strategic alliance with the United States, who also profess or advocate probity and democratic norms in public life, never cease to amaze one. For the past three years, they have clamoured for pushing through the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation deal in the teeth of strong opposition, regardless of the political costs. They constantly exhorted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to develop “the killer instinct” and complete the deal “by calling the Left’s bluff”, or go down fighting: do it, use whatever means it takes.

Yet, the same people now express dismay, shock and horror at the way the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) with its new-found ally, the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), conducted the special Lok Sabha session to debate the vote of confidence in Manmohan Singh. This made a cruel mockery of democracy by turning Parliament into a fish market, bribing Members of Parliament to win votes, and brazenly violating every rule in the book. Worse, they portray Manmohan Singh as some sort of detached observer or helpless spectator who had nothing to do with the tactics used by the S.P. and the Congress to win the motion.

This hypocrisy is astounding. The horse-trading and sordid bargains on which the government’s victory was based were no aberration, nor an unintended result of the UPA-S.P.’s actions. They were part of and integral to a consciously designed strategy.

There is simply no other way the UPA-S.P. combine could have won the confidence motion. They had to engineer defections, cross-voting and abstentions to win it by 275 to 256 votes. Had a total of 28 MPs not defied their respective party whips – a majority of them in order to favour the government – the motion would have been hopelessly lost, by 277 to 261 votes.

Such cross-votes are not trivial. Three Indian parties are particularly adept at engineering defections from their rivals: the S.P., the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party. They have run governments in Uttar Pradesh on that basis for years. All of them played a major role, and the Congress a minor role, in bringing about the cross-voting.

The Congress-UPA leadership could not but have been aware that the S.P. would be indispensable in carrying out the entire operation. Among all the friendly parties available to the UPA, it alone could have delivered the vote Manmohan Singh so desperately craved. He embraced the S.P. as an ally, as his cheerleaders had urged him.

The most stunning allegation to emerge from the scandalous display of wads of notes totalling Rs.1 crore in the Lok Sabha was that it was part of the inducement offered to three BJP MPs for abstaining from voting on the motion. It remains to be investigated whether the allegation is valid, and whether this was a simple sting operation or a more complex and devious entrapment job. But it is undeniable that it resulted in one of the most nauseating political episodes in independent India.

This strategy undermined elementary norms of parliamentary functioning, violated democratic political morality and resulted in the loss of public confidence in the integrity of the political system.

At the origin of this was the political crisis Manmohan Singh deliberately precipitated, which suddenly narrowed the UPA’s and the Congress leadership’s options and forcibly converted the nuclear deal into a virtual plebiscite on his government. He was in a tearing hurry to push the deal before the term of the U.S. Congress ended this year. His motives for doing seem to have been two: first, the “legacy factor”, or leaving behind an irreversible set of changes before his term ends; and second, his eagerness to distance the Congress from the Left in a decisive, strategic manner.

According to sources close to Manmohan Singh, he believes that he may not again become Prime Minister, and wants to leave behind a policy legacy and a transformed relationship between India and the world. He believes the best way of doing this is to complete the nuclear deal quickly and consolidate the strategic relationship with the U.S. This would achieve a result similar to the “irreversible” change that Manmohan Singh executed in India’s economic policy in 1991, or Atal Bihari Vajpayee made in India’s nuclear posture in 1998.

Secondly, Manmohan Singh has long been keen to sever the Congress’ relationship with the Left, and leave his government free to pursue a brazenly neoliberal agenda. He regards the Left as an antediluvian force with outdated ideas such as defence of livelihoods, strengthening of human rights, food security and labour protections.

Although Manmohan Singh mocked L.K. Advani at length in his reply to the Parliament debate, his most vitriolic political comments were directed at the Left. He accused the Left of collaborating with the far right and treating him as a “bonded slave”. This only confirms that he was anxious to be liberated from the constraints imposed on the UPA by the Left through the National Common Minimum Programme and other means.

Precipitating a major crisis, which put the fate of his government in the balance, was Manmohan Singh’s high-risk method of promoting his twin objectives. It has been said that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, to whom Manmohan Singh owes a great deal, love nothing so much as economic and political crises because these offer an opportunity to ram through what would otherwise be unacceptable policy changes and austerity programmes that punish the poor. Manmohan Singh has certainly learnt this tactic well.

The confidence vote win will facilitate major shifts in India’s external stance and many domestic policy changes and measures. The latter include agendas that international capital and Indian business groups have been lobbying for, such as raising foreign investment ceilings in insurance and real estate, expanding voting share of private equity-holders in public banks, dismantling labour protections such as working hours while promoting hire-and-fire policies, liberalising foreign investment in organised retail, and enforcing public-private partnerships in health and education.

This will get a big impetus if the S.P. joins the government. While the proximity of the next general elections may dampen the UPA’s enthusiasm for such measures in a period of growing economic hardship, the S.P. is unlikely to feel constrained in demanding changes that favour certain business groups. Some of them reportedly have plans to invest in building equipment and other infrastructure for nuclear power stations.

If the nuclear deal is completed in record time by rushing it through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), and having it ratified by the U.S. Congress, these groups might make early investments in or secure commitments for new nuclear reactors. Regrettably, despite the absence of a serious analysis of the appropriateness, costs, safety and environmental sustainability of nuclear power, the Parliament debate witnessed very real contention on the issue. Proponents of the deal made all kinds of extravagant claims about the virtues of nuclear power, without substantiating them. And most critics did not take them on.

At any rate, after the confidence vote, India’s external posture will undergo far more important changes. Not only will the last vestiges of nonalignment and advocacy of North-South equality be buried, there will be an overt attempt to realign India’s foreign policy and security orientation to the U.S. India will have been admitted into the global nuclear club on the understanding that it will not question the way it is run by those who control what India used to call the system of “nuclear apartheid” – because India has joined that very system.

This will help consummate what Manmohan Singh set out to do in 1991 – abandon the search for a social, economic and political development model that could be an alternative to the U.S. pattern, and join the Western bandwagon.

In many ways, Manmohan Singh’s attempt to reorient India’s relationship to the world is more radical and self-willed than the neoliberal turn of 1991. Then, the Berlin Wall had collapsed and the Soviet Union was about to disintegrate, India was utterly disoriented and many policymakers saw no alternative to IMF-World Bank policies, which cynically exploited India’s short-term foreign exchange crisis to drive a much larger agenda.

Today, the neoconservatives stand discredited, the U.S. is disliked the world over more than ever for its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, its disastrous West Asia policy, and its Islamophobic “Global War on Terror”. To want to befriend U.S. at this point in the name of India’s bid for global leadership takes some gumption. But Manmohan Singh is desperate to do this. We must oppose his misconceived plans and fervently hope he fails.

No related posts.