19 Oct 2016

UK education funding cuts bring schools to breaking point

Tom Pearce

The Conservative government’s education policy is aimed at the dismantling the state school system. This involves fragmenting funding for schools through privatisation of school services and providers via the Academies and Free Schools programme. These schools are state-funded, but privately run.
The slashing of funding has led education authorities in one southern England county to consider drastic measures. In West Sussex, headteachers are considering a four-day week, as a direct consequence of a lack of funding.
According to the Guardian, headteachers at “every primary, secondary and special school in the county have written to parents saying all the obvious cuts to school spending have already been made. Now they are considering ‘modifying school hours’ as a last-ditch attempt to cut costs.”
It is estimated that schools in West Sussex will require a £20 million emergency injection of funds next April just to keep them afloat.
The crisis in West Sussex exposes the dire situation facing schools and colleges throughout the UK. Schools are being encouraged by the government to find any possible way of saving money. Support staff have been cut and teachers have seen a rise in staff leaving posts and not being replaced. As a result, schools are now raising class sizes and in some cases are denying pay progression to hold on to funds.
The Guardian reported, “Other measures being proposed include reduced spending on books and IT, and a more basic curriculum. Although these may seem like future proposals some schools have already taken those steps and still need to find more savings.”
The crisis is summed up in the situation facing George Green’s school in London’s Isle of Dogs in the east end of the city. The Guardian reported that due to a lack of funding, the school was forced to cut 30 support staff roles this year out of a total of 100—18 of those through redundancies. Headteacher Jill Baker said, “We’d never had so many goodbye speeches… it was heartbreaking.”
The fact that many schools are now consumed with how to “balance the books”, is an indictment of an education system increasingly beholden to the market.
The Department for Education (DoE) claims the government is committed to introducing a national funding formula so all schools are fairly funded. It stated, “[W]e have protected the schools budget so that, as pupil numbers increase, so will the amount of money for our schools—in 2016-2017 that will total over £40bn, the highest on record.”
In March 2016, former chancellor George Osborne’s budget included what was claimed to be a “fairer” funding formula for schools—to start from March 2017.
The reality is that the new funding system will only exacerbate already squeezed budgets, with few local authorities benefitting from increased funding. Instead, the policy’s function is to redistribute already existing budgets, with no increase in overall expenditure on education.
Even this policy has been suspended, with new education minister, Justine Greening, announcing there would be a one-year delay to the formula. The government said it would respond to its previous consultation on funding by the end of autumn, with the planned reform delayed until 2018-2019.
While state schools are being starved of funds, Theresa May’s first domestic policy after taking over as prime minister was the creation of new grammar schools based on selection. Some £50 million is to be allocated to fund expansion. Within days of May’s speech, five councils have already drawn up plans to open new grammar schools.
A recent publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), “English schools will feel the pinch over the next five years”, gives a lie to the government’s claims that it is overseeing a burgeoning education budget. The IFS highlights the attacks that are still to come on education. It found “over the last parliament education capital spending fell by 34 percent in real-terms.” The picture is not going to improve for schools and students, with the report noting, “school spending per pupil,” is “likely to fall by around 8% in real terms between 2014–15 and 2019–20.” It will be the first time since the mid-1990s that school spending has fallen in real terms.
The positions of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are barely different. Both have formally committed to protecting the age 3–19 education budget. However, according to the Nuffield Foundation Labour’s plans will lead to a “real-terms cuts to school spending per pupil of 7 percent between 2015–16 and 2019–20.” This increases to 9 percent if increases in National Insurance and pension contributions are considered.
Across the age 3-19 system, problems caused by a depletion in funding continue unabated.
Primary school education is being systematically deprived of the required funding. Last autumn, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) surveyed more than 1,000 school leaders about budgets. Eight out of 10 of those surveyed were in primaries. It found almost two thirds had balanced their budgets only by making significant cuts or using surpluses, and 7 percent had already set a deficit budget. Almost half had cut the numbers or hours of teaching assistants. A similar proportion thought their budgets would be untenable by 2017-18.
Education spending is being cut across the board. Conservative government spending on Further Education (FE) and sixth form fell by 14 percent in real terms in the past five years, with even larger cuts to come in the next parliament.
In sixth form colleges, cuts have led to colleges dropping courses and there is a push to amalgamate FE institutions and sixth form colleges. This would lead to increased class sizes and redundancies.
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) held a campaign against these changes. In March, its members in sixth form colleges held a one-day strike. The NUT reported, “The strike forced the government to think again… they have agreed to that funding for 16-19 education will be protected in cash terms for the next four years.”
The reality is that the NUT’s token action changed nothing, with the union’s own web site stating, “Taking inflation into account, however, this is still likely to mean a real terms cut of 8 percent over the next four years.”
At the Labour conference in September, new Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner pledged to bring back the Educational Maintenance Allowance for students in further education. This was removed by the Tories in 2011.
Rayner said, “We are the party of comprehensives [state schools], of the Open University”, but neglected to mention Labour’s central role in the privatisation of education through the academy system that has exacerbated the current funding crisis.

Philippine president in China seeks to cement closer ties

Peter Symonds

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte arrived in China yesterday for a four-day state visit seeking a massive boost to his country’s economy from Chinese aid, loans and investment. In the lead-up to the trip, he bluntly told the media that he was intent on “reconfiguring” foreign policy away from the United States and towards China and Russia.
Beijing is certainly laying out the red carpet for Duterte. He will meet with top Chinese leaders including President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang and National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang, as well as representatives of the Bank of China. The Philippine president is travelling with an entourage of more than 400 business leaders, including some of the country’s wealthiest tycoons.
The Philippine Star cited trade secretary Ramon Lopez as saying that the visit to China will deliver up to $3 billion in loans and grants. Duterte, a fascistic populist, will be seeking billions of dollars in Chinese investment in infrastructure projects, including rail. He declared in a speech last week that he had “a good feeling” that China “really wants to help us in a big way” and promised hospitals and schools.
The visit marks an abrupt shift. The previous Philippine President Benigno Aquino functioned as the point man in South East Asia for the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” aggressively pressing Philippine territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. With US assistance, he mounted a legal case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to challenge China’s maritime claims.
Relations with China deteriorated markedly as Aquino strengthened military ties with Washington including the signing and implementation of a new basing arrangement—the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which has already opened up five Philippine military bases to US forces.
Since coming to office in June, Duterte has called US military ties into question, ended joint US-Philippine naval patrols in the South China Sea, called for the removal of US troops from Mindanao and initiated a review of EDCA. He has also delivered several tirades against Washington over its growing criticism of his murderous anti-drug war that has claimed more than 3,600 victims in extra-judicial killings by police and vigilantes. Most recently Duterte told President Obama to “go to hell” in response to critical US remarks.
Duterte has signalled that he is open to closer military ties as well as economic relations with China and Russia. He told Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television on Monday that he would consider military drills with China or Russia. “I have given enough time for the Americans to play with Filipino soldiers,” he said, reiterating that recent joint exercises with the US would be the last.
The Philippine president also said that he would seek to buy military equipment from China during his visit, though not in large amounts. He said that he wanted small, fast-attack boats to fight “terrorism.”
In an interview with China’s state-owned Xinhua news agency, Duterte set the stage for beginning negotiations with Beijing over the South China Sea disputes. “There is no sense in going to war,” he said. “There is no sense fighting over a body of water. It is better to talk than war. We want to talk about friendship, we want to talk about cooperation and most of all, we want to talk about business.”
Resolving the longstanding territorial disputes will not be straightforward, however. Beijing is acutely sensitive to any mention of the ruling by The Hague court in July which overwhelmingly favoured Manila—and thus Washington. Any reference to the legal decision will undoubtedly take place behind closed doors.
One of the key issues is the status of the Scarborough Shoal which China has effectively controlled since 2012 after the Philippine navy attempted to eject Chinese fishing boats from the area. Both countries claim sovereignty. Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio warned last week that conceding the Philippines’ rights in disputed waters would be grounds for the president’s impeachment.
In a bid to fend off domestic critics, Duterte declared this week that he would not sell-out to China. “I will not bargain anywhere, we will continue to insist that is ours,” he insisted.
Duterte’s tilt towards Beijing has provoked growing fears in Washington that he is undermining both the US diplomatic offensive and military build-up against China across the region. The Obama administration had clearly been hoping to ratchet up the pressure on China after The Hague decision and is relying on Philippine bases to intensify its military operations in the South China Sea.
More broadly, the US is concerned that any move by its long-time ally and former colony into the camp of China would encourage other strategic partners and allies to follow suit. Andrew Shearer, an adviser at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told the New York Times this week: “If China succeeds in peeling the Philippines away from the United States, it would be a major win in Beijing’s long-term campaign to weaken US alliances in the region. It will feed fears that the right mix of intimidation and inducements could influence other partners to distance themselves from Washington.”
Bonnie Glaser, another CSIS adviser, pointed out that a downgrading of the alliance with the Philippines could damage the US if it was no longer able to fly its military surveillance planes out of Philippine bases. However, in remarks to the Guardian, she pointedly added: “I just don’t think the people in the Philippines are going to support an end to this alliance or a weakening of our cooperation.”
The comment, which undoubtedly reflects the closed-door discussions in US military and intelligence circles, is a thinly-veiled threat. Glaser is not referring to the Philippine people in general, but to sections of the military, the state apparatus and corporate elite with close ties to Washington, which are quite capable of engineering Duterte’s removal—through one means or another—if he seriously endangers American interests.

Mosul offensive threatens to inflame sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Syria

Jordan Shilton

The offensive by the US-led coalition to retake Mosul continued Tuesday, as leading participants acknowledged the fighting could take months, and aid organizations issued dire warnings of the impact on the more than 1 million civilians living in Iraq’s second largest city.
Since ground operations were launched at dawn on Monday by the Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters under the control of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and various ethnic-based irregular militias, advancing troops have captured 20 villages from Islamic State (also known as ISIS). Peshmerga forces captured part of the road connecting Irbil, the KRG capital, to Mosul Tuesday.
The US-led military operation is preparing the ground for a war crime of enormous proportions. An assault is to be waged on a city with an estimated population of 1.3 million, including 600,000 children, by some 30,000 ground force, backed up by aircraft from the US and other imperialist powers, among them France, Britain, Germany and Canada. For those lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught, virtually no plans have been made to deal with the 1 million expected to be turned into refugees, let alone how Mosul and its ethnically diverse surroundings will be governed following its recapture from ISIS.
US President Barack Obama made his first public comments on the Mosul offensive yesterday, acknowledging at a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi that “Mosul will be a difficult fight and there will be advances and setbacks.” Ignoring the destruction wrought by previous anti-ISIS operations, such as the sieges of Ramadi and Fallujah, which left both cities largely in ruins, he remarked blandly on the impact on civilians, “Executing will be difficult and no doubt there will be instances where we see some heartbreaking circumstances. … It’s hard when you leave your home.”
The wall-to-wall coverage in the Western media about ISIS’s use of civilians as human shields conceals the fact that the humanitarian catastrophe developing in Mosul is of the imperialist powers’ own making. The US-led invasion of 2003 and Washington’s subsequent fomenting of ethnic divisions between Shia and Sunni cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and created the conditions in which ISIS could flourish and claim to be liberating Sunni areas of western Iraq. The US and its coalition allies are now dropping leaflets on Mosul urging civilians to flee under conditions where the Iraqi government is said to be suspecting any male aged 14 or over leaving the city as a potential ISIS supporter.
Beyond Iraq, the US-led intervention in Syria and the Saudi-led military operations Washington has backed in Yemen have deepened regional conflicts and plunged the Middle East into a bloodbath that threatens to draw in the major powers in a wider war.
These conflicts are being exacerbated by the Mosul offensive. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Syrian army sources charged the US-led coalition with planning to enable thousands of ISIS fighters based in Mosul to flee across the border into Syria. Noting that the west of the city remained unguarded, Lavrov warned that Russia would be forced to adopt “political and military” measures if this eventuality came to pass. “As far as I know, the city is not fully encircled,” Lavrov said. “I hope it’s because they simply couldn’t do it, not because they wouldn’t do it. But this corridor poses a risk that Islamic State fighters could flee from Mosul and go to Syria.”
While other sources have reported that Shia militias kept out of the offensive due to the fear of sectarian reprisals have been deployed to the west of Mosul to cut off the escape route, it can by no means be excluded that the US has reached such an arrangement. Washington worked closely with Islamist extremists in 2011 to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya, and many of these elements were later transported to Syria with the help of the CIA before going on to form ISIS. Moreover, the Obama administration has shown its readiness to collaborate with Jihadi forces in the five-year civil war to oust the Assad regime in Damascus.
As well as potentially inflaming the war in Syria, the retaking of Mosul threatens to deepen already bitter ethnic, regional and religious divisions within Iraq itself.
Many of the ethnically based militias that have been armed and trained by Western powers engaged in bloody sectarian fighting in the wake of the 2003 US invasion and are pursuing antagonistic interests that could well result in the ethnic partition of Iraq, which would have devastating consequences for the already desperate population.
Even commentators in the bourgeois media have been compelled to note that the retaking of Mosul will resolve none of the problems that have led to Iraq’s essential partition into Kurdish, Shia and Sunni enclaves and could in fact prepare a new wave of bloodletting.
David Gardner writing in the Financial Times observed that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s hope that Iraqis would unite around the capture of Mosul was “optimistic.” He described the various militias involved in the offensive as being “at each others’ throats” and warned that the battle for control of the region, which is rich in energy reserves and is home to an ethnically diverse population including Sunnis, Shia, Kurds and Christians, could be “explosive.”
The Peshmerga fighters, who have previously been accused of atrocities against Sunni villagers, are to be kept outside of Mosul in a bid to avoid ethnic violence, but the KRG is determined to use their involvement in the offensive to strengthen its position with the central government in Baghdad. This was the message contained in an interview published Tuesday by al-Jazeera with KRG Foreign Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir. “We have a stake in Mosul,” he stated when asked about the role of the KRG after its recapture. “Mosul is important and has a direct impact on Irbil and Dohuk, and the KRG as a whole, in terms of security, the economy, a social impact. Therefore, we need to be there.”
He also left no doubt that the KRG would give little quarter to civilians fleeing the fighting because everyone would be suspected of carrying ISIS sympathies. “Having talked about IDPs [internally displaced persons] coming in, we have a security concern,” Bakir told al-Jazeera. “Those who have lived under ISIL come with baggage. Some have been recruited, therefore we have to be able to distinguish between real and genuine IDPs and those who come in disguised as IDPs.”
Sharp divisions also exist between Baghdad and Ankara. The Turkish government has deployed roughly 700 troops to the northeast of Mosul and also trained a local Turkmen militia to support it. The Shia-dominated Iraqi government has denounced Ankara’s presence, and a demonstration of several thousand supporters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was held in front of the Turkish embassy in Baghdad yesterday. Some of the Shia militias, which are heavily backed by Iran, have vowed to fight a Turkish intervention.
Turkey has refused to back down, insisting that it has a right to participate in the Mosul operations and subsequent talks over its final status. In so doing, it is aiming to restrict the activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and extend Ankara’s influence in Sunni areas. Noting Turkey’s 350-kilometer border with Iraq, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday, “We will not be responsible for the negative consequences that will emerge from any operation that doesn’t include Turkey. We will be involved both in the operation and at the [negotiating] table afterward. It is not possible for us to stay excluded.”
Primary responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs in Iraq lies with American imperialism, which laid waste to the country in its reckless pursuit of regional and global hegemony.
But the involvement of all of the major imperialist powers in the region will only exacerbate the sectarian conflicts and increase inter-imperialist rivalries. Alongside approximately 5,000 US special forces involved in the onslaught on Mosul, troops from Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Italy are also deployed to Iraq. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who has been at the forefront in charging Russia with war crimes over its involvement in Aleppo over the past month, announced a planned meeting jointly hosted with the Iraqi government October 20 to discuss plans for Mosul’s future.

Washington moves to silence WikiLeaks

Bill Van Auken

The cutting off of Internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is one more ugly episode in a US presidential election campaign that has plumbed the depths of political degradation.
Effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, Assange now is faced with a further limitation on his contact with the outside world.
On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks’ charge that Ecuador itself had ordered the severing of Assange’s Internet connection under pressure from the US government. In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had “published a wealth of documents impacting on the US election campaign,” adding that the government of Ecuador “respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states” and “does not interfere in external electoral processes.” On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided to “restrict access” to the communications network at its London embassy.
This statement from the bourgeois government of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa is a study in hypocrisy and cowardice. By abetting the US government’s suppression of WikiLeaks, Quito has intervened in the US elections on the side of the ruling establishment and against the rights of the American people. If Correa expects that his professed sensitivity toward the “principle of non-intervention” will be reciprocated, he should recall the fate of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who was toppled in a coup orchestrated by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009.
WikiLeaks cited reports that Secretary of State John Kerry had demanded that the government of Ecuador carry out the action “on the sidelines of the negotiations” surrounding the abortive Colombian peace accord last month in Bogota. The US government intervened to prevent any further exposures that could damage the campaign of Clinton, who has emerged as the clear favorite of the US military and intelligence complex as well as the Wall Street banks.
Whether the State Department was the only entity placing pressure on Ecuador on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or whether Wall Street also intervened directly, is unclear. The timing of the Internet cutoff, in the immediate aftermath of the release of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, may be more than coincidental.
In the spring of 2014, the government of Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half of its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years, in an attempt to raise cash to cover a growing deficit brought on by the collapse in oil prices. It reportedly sent 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at the time, in return for “high security” financial instruments and an anticipated profit on its investment. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to believe that such a relationship would give Goldman Sachs considerable leverage in relation to the Ecuadorian government.
In any case, it is evident that the US ruling establishment is growing increasingly desperate to stanch the flow of previously secret emails and documents that are exposing the real character not only of Clinton, but of capitalist politics as a whole. While WikiLeaks has released over 17,000 emails from the account of Clinton campaign manager and top establishment Democrat John Podesta, it is believed that there are more than 33,000 still to come.
The transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and other top banks and employers’ groups, for which she was paid on average $200,000 per appearance, are the most incriminating. They expose the workings of the oligarchy that rules America and the thinking and actions of a politician prepared to do anything to advance the interests of this ruling stratum, while simultaneously accruing ever greater riches and power for herself.
While on the campaign trail, Clinton has postured as a “progressive,” determined to hold Wall Street’s feet to the fire. But in her speeches to Goldman Sachs, she made clear her unconditional defense of the banks and financial houses. Under conditions of popular outrage against the bankers and their role in dragging millions into crisis in the financial meltdown of 2008, Clinton gave speeches praising the Wall Street financiers and insisting that they were best equipped to regulate themselves. She apologized to them for supporting the toothless Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law, saying that it had to be enacted for “political reasons.”
In front of her Wall Street audiences, Clinton made clear she had no inhibitions about ordering mass slaughter abroad. While telling her public audiences that she supports a “no-fly zone” in Syria as a humanitarian measure to save lives, she confidentially acknowledged to her Goldman Sachs audience that such an action is “going to kill a lot of Syrians” and become “an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” In the same speech she declared her willingness to bomb Iran.
The emails have laid bare the nexus of corrupt connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, her various campaigns and her network of financial and corporate donors, which together constitute a quasi-criminal influence-peddling enterprise that could best be described as “Clinton, Inc.”
The revelations contained in the WikiLeaks material have been ignored or downplayed by the corporate media, which instead has focused unrelentingly on the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Clinton’s Republican rival, Donald Trump.
The Clinton camp itself has sought to deflect any questions regarding what the candidate said in her speeches or the corrupt operations of her campaign by claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that the material released by WikiLeaks had been hacked by the Russian government and therefore cannot be trusted.
This line of argumentation serves not only to divert attention from the WikiLeaks material, but also to further the Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyite claims of Kremlin intervention on behalf of Trump and advance a propaganda campaign aimed at preparing popular opinion for a direct military confrontation with Russia.
There is an air of desperation in the attempt to quash the WikiLeaks material. CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo, an open supporter of Clinton, went so far as to lie to his audience, claiming it was illegal for them to access the emails and insisting they could obtain any information on them only through the filter of the corporate media.
Well before the release of documents related to the Democratic Party, the determination of ruling circles to suppress WikiLeaks had found repeated and violent expression. State Department officials have come forward with a report that in 2010, in the midst of WikiLeaks’ mass release of State Department cables exposing US imperialist operations around the world, Clinton, then secretary of state, asked subordinates, “Can’t we just drone this guy?” She recently said she could not remember the remark, but if she made it, it was a joke.
During the same period, however, Clinton supporter and longtime Democratic campaign operative Bob Beckel declared in a television interview in relation to Assange: “A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States… there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”
To this point, the American ruling class has limited itself to judicial frame-ups and character assassination, counting on the help of its servants within both the media and the pseudo-left, large sections of which have either joined the witch-hunt against Assange or downplayed his victimization.
The principal vehicle for this campaign of persecution had been fabricated allegations of sexual misconduct pursued by Swedish authorities acting in league with the US and British governments. Earlier this year, the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued findings that Assange had been “deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner,” meaning the body had reached the conclusion that the Swedish case constituted a politically motivated frame-up.
In the midst of the current attempt to silence Assange, an even more bizarre and filthy frame-up has been concocted, attempting to smear the WikiLeaks founder with charges of taking Russian money as well as pedophilia.
At the center of these allegations is a little known online dating service, Toddandclare.com, which first attempted to lure Assange into a supposed deal to film an ad for the site, for which he supposedly would be paid $1 million, to be provided by the Russian government. When WikiLeaks rejected this preposterous provocation, the same site claimed that Assange had been charged with inappropriate contact through the site with an eight-year-old Canadian child visiting the Bahamas. This accusation was then invoked in an attempt to pressure the UN to drop its demand for an end to the persecution of Assange.
Even a cursory investigation makes clear that these allegations constitute a grotesque fabrication. Bahamian police have stated that there are no charges or any case whatsoever against Assange. The dating service has no business address, working phone number or corporate presence anywhere in the US, having all the earmarks of a dummy company created by US intelligence for the purpose of hounding Assange.
The use of such tactics is a measure of how terrified the US ruling class has become in the face of growing mass hostility to both major political parties and their two abhorrent candidates. Their fear is that the relentless exposure of the inner workings of a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich is robbing the existing political setup of what little legitimacy it had left within the population, and creating the conditions for a political radicalization within the working class and social upheavals, whoever is elected on November 8.

End Game: Fractured and Scarred Tribal Communities

Bibhu Prasad Routray


For the left-wing extremism problem in India to be resolved, tribal population in the affected areas must be won over by the State. This truism is reflected in public statements of ministers and other politicians as well as official policy documents. Former Union Home Minister P Chidambaram had underlined the need to bridge the trust deficit between the State and the tribals. An expert group of the erstwhile Planning Commission in its report had suggested that the tribals must be at the core of any development plan in the extremist affected areas.

However, one of the fallouts of the decade-long war on the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) and the urge to bring to secure a victory over the extremists by any of the Kautilyan means is resulting in the fracturing of the tribal communities. Since the war on the Maoists began, the State may not have been able to convince the tribals of its intentions of bringing in development to the area. The security agencies, however, can claim to have nurtured sections within the tribal community who readily participate in government sponsored rallies denouncing extremism; join the state sponsored vigilante groups; swear by the oppressive regime of the extremists; share their liberating experience in areas freed from Maoist control; and so on and so forth. It is a different matter altogether that the participation of tribals in government organised programmes can hardly be taken as an expression of their conviction in the goodness of the State, but merely as a pointer at how the powerful State structures can find ways to exploit the vulnerabilities of the marginalised communities to its advantage.

On 18 September 2016, the Chhattisgarh police backed Action Group for National Integrity (AGNI) organised a Lalkar (defiance) rally in Jagdalpur. Termed as the biggest ever anti-Maoist congregation of people consisting predominantly of tribals, security force officials shared the dais with vigilante group leaders declaring a war against the extremists. Bike-borne youths led from the front in which 50,000 tribals are said to have participated. Selfie points had been erected for youths to take photographs with the placard holding population in the background. Slogans like 'Free your village from Naxals and take a selfie' summed up the instant gratification the tribals can have after the extremists are vanquished. The State, it appeared, has finally succeeded in convincing a large number of tribals to be a part of the mainstream.

In October 2016, the Chhattisgarh police for the first time inducted two tribal women into its fighting squad against the CPI-Maoist. In their first ever encounter, both police personnel were credited with killing two Maoist cadres. Subsequently it turned out that those killed were tribal youths unconnected with extremism. 

Prior to that, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) unveiled its plan to recruit tribal youths from Bastar into a fighting battalion, aptly named the Bastariya battalion. The physical attributes and other requirements of the candidates have been lowered to facilitate the diversion of 1000 young men who could have been part of the recruitment pool of the CPI-Maoist. Their first-hand knowledge of the terrain and command over the language spoken by the tribals will come in handy when they are deployed in COIN duties. The State can claim to have a genuine tribal fighting wing to take on the tribals on the side of the CPI-Maoist.

When states like Chhattisgarh have embarked upon a mission to get rid of the Maoist problem by the end of 2016, such incidents and expressions of loyalty does give the impression of the State inching towards a victory. The fact, however, remains that if vigilante programmes like the Salwa Judum and its various other subsequent avatars were the State's instrumentalities of launching a tribal versus tribal warfare in the areas controlled by the CPI-Maoist, the developments listed above have further deepened the divide to a point of no return. The Maoist affected areas today are rife with incidents of tribals killing tribals, tribal young men sexually abusing tribal women, tribals burning the huts of tribals, and various other atrocities. Most of these acts not only go unpunished, but are widely considered to be the new normal in extremist affected areas.

Among the strategic circles of the country, there is a cautious unanimity that Left Wing Extremism is in its death bed. The excitement over bringing what used to be the 'biggest internal security challenge' to an end must, however, nudge us to think as to what cost this victory will be achieved at. Will the inhabitants of the 'Maoist-free areas' be anything more than fractured communities and scarred tribals whose experience of abuse and subjugation at the hands of their own tribal brethren outweighing the feeling of liberation? Will such areas in the true sense of the term ever be integral parts of a stable nation? These questions must figure in the imaginations of the policy makers as such short-sighted tactics are persisted with.

18 Oct 2016

Into Innovative Fashion Creation? Enter for the H&M Global Change Award 2016. €1 Million Grant

Application Deadline: 31st October 2016.
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Online and Sweden
About the Award: What if we could make a shift from “take-make-waste” to a fashion world where there is no waste? What if we could make fashion circular.
What if everything could be made again. Knowing what we know today, how would we then create the materials we use, design the processes we utilize and construct the businesses that drive fashion? What if fashion could be truly circular? What if we could reinvent it all.
We think there is no better moment to do this than now. And we believe that you have the ideas to make it possible.
We are looking for early stage ideas, within three categories, that present new circular approaches that reinvent the fashion industry. This means changing the way garments are designed and produced, shipped, bought, used and recycled today, by adding disruptive technology or new business models.
Circularity is not just about recycling. This year, you can compete in three categories to help make fashion circular.
Type: Entrepreneurship contest
Eligibility: 
  • Only one entry per participant/group is accepted. Each participant/group can register only once.
  • Entry must be the applicant’s own creation.
  • Maximum 5 team members, including the team leader.
  • For group entries, members must nominate a leader and contact person.
Selection Criteria:  The global public is invited to distribute the €1 million grant between the five innovations through an online vote. The result of the vote is revealed at a grand award ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden on 5th April 2017. This is one of the world’s biggest challenges for early stage innovation and the first such initiative in the fashion industry.
Number of Awardees: Five
Value of Programme: By applying to the Global Change Award you’re competing for:
  • A € 1.000.000 grant, shared by five winners. Which will be distributed by the public though an online vote.
  • A trip to Stockholm to attend the grand award ceremony on 5 April 2017.
  • Access to a one-year Innovation Accelerator provided by H&M Foundation, Accenture and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
How to Apply: The application form is divided into the following four parts:
  • Register for an account and fill in your profile.
  • Answer a few basic questions about your idea.
  • Give us the details on how your idea will make fashion circular.
  • Submit your idea.
Apply here
Award Provider: H&M Foundation

Pink iT Women Empowerment Programme for Unemployed Female Graduates 2016

Application Deadline: 5th November, 2016
Eligible Countries: Not stated
To be taken at (country): Training Center, Lagos, Nigeria
About the Award: This is a 22 week-long programme (16 weeks training workshop Saturdays only, while hands-on practice assignments will be done by participants during the week remotely or in a working space that shall be provided and 6 weeks internship in a software development company).
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: It is our desire to bring about the next big thing in Nigerian Software industry by empowering our women to be the Game Changers and you could be the one we are looking for:
  • Are you a graduate with a minimum of HND/B.Sc from any of the courses in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)?
  • Are you presently unemployed?
  • Do you have a creative and analytical mind?
  • Do you have a ‘can-do’ spirit, self- disciplined and self-motivating?
  •  Can you stay long solving a problem and ask for help when needed?
  •  Do you have a burning desire to bring about a change in your community?
  •  Are you free to share what you know with others and learn from others ?
  •  Are you passionate about software development?
  •  Do you enjoy learning and are you adventurous?
  • Are you enterprising and will like to be an entrepreneur?
  •  Can you commit 6 full months to the programme?
If your answers to all these questions are yes, please apply (You are our likely candidate).
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Programme: unemployed young female graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) will be taught indepth lessons on software development and entrepreneurial skills to take up entrepreneurial role in the Software Industry. The program will groom you into becoming a successful entrepreneur in the software industry and you will be expected to grow your own business. Business Name registration and Account Opening will be done for each participant. Business Stationery will also be given to you.
The broad areas that will be covered in the training are as follows:
  • Software development skills
  • Business skills: Marketing and Sales, Financial and Accounting, Entrepreneurship
  • Leadership and interpersonal Skills
Free Laptop, handout and other learning materials will be given to the participants
Duration of Programme: 22 weeks
How to Apply: 
Award Provider: The US Consulate

UK: DFID Funding For Agric-Tech Companies In Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadlines: 
You must register before noon on:
  • 26 October 2016 for the expression of interest stage of the industrial research award category
  • 25 January 2017 for the full-stage registration deadline for the early and late-stage awards
You must apply before noon on:
  • 2 November 2016 for the expression of interest stage of the industrial research award category
  • 1 February 2017 for the full-stage registration deadline for the early and late-stage awards
To be taken at (country): UK and Developing Country
Eligible Fields: The following areas are priorities for DFID funding in Round 6:
  • integrating smallholders into supply chains
  • meeting quality standards and improving productivity
  • creating new supply chains
  • increasing the value of production to smallholders
  • improving access to appropriate innovation in developing countries
  • innovation that increases rural income through improved processing / storage
  • control of crop pests, weeds and diseases
In this competition we will not fund forestry, wild capture fisheries and equine-related proposals.
About the Award: Agricultural innovation in developing countries, particularly Africa, is low. For example, the share of cultivatable land planted with modern crop varieties in Africa is only 28%. This compares with 65% globally. Most of the poorest people in Africa (75%) live in rural areas. They rely on agriculture and livestock for their livelihoods.
The Agri-Tech Catalyst will take innovative ideas from any sector or discipline. Ideas must show the potential to improve the sustainable intensification of agriculture. The scope of the Catalyst includes:
  • primary crop and livestock production including aquaculture
  • non-food uses of crops including ornamentals
  • food security and nutrition challenges in international development
  • addressing challenges in downstream food processing, provided the solution lies in primary production
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: To lead a project you must:
  • be a UK-based business (or research-base partner for early-stage technical feasibility studies only)
  • be a business of any size
  • carry out your project with the aim of improving developing country agriculture
  • work in collaboration with others (businesses, research base and/or third sector)
  • include at least one consortium member from an eligible developing country
Selection Criteria: Your project may focus on one of the following:
  • early-stage technical feasibility
  • industrial research
  • late-stage experimental development
This will depend on the challenge and maturity of the technology or the approach you take.
For technical feasibility studies and industrial research, you could get up to:
  • 70% of your eligible project costs if you are a micro or small business
  • 60% if you are a medium-sized business
  • 50% if you are a large business
For experimental development projects which are nearer to market, you could get up to:
  • 45% of your eligible project costs if you are a micro or small business
  • 35% if you are a medium-sized business
  • 25% if you are a large business
Find out if your business fits the EU definition of an SME (see link below).
We expect projects to last up to:
  • 18 months for early-stage technical feasibility
  • 3 years for industrial research awards
  • 18 months for late-stage experimental development
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Programme: We expect projects to range in size depending on the award category. Total project costs could be:
  • £150,000 to £400,000 for early-stage technical feasibility studies
  • up to £1.5 million for industrial research
  • up to £800,000 for late-stage experimental development
How to Apply: To apply:
  • register online (see link below)
  • read the competition guidance (see link below)
  • watch the briefing webinar from 1 August 2016 (see link below)
  • attend the consortia building event for potential applicants in London on 14 September 2016 (see link below)
  • complete and upload your online application on our secure server
We will not accept late submissions. Your application is confidential.
As there are 3 streams to this competition, please make sure you read the correct guidance for applicants for the stream you want to apply into
Award Provider: The Department For International Development, UK

Yale Greenberg World Fellows Programme 2017 for Emerging Mid-Career Leaders

Application Deadline: 7th December, 2016  at 11:59 PM EST
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International (Any country other than the United States)
To be taken at (country): Yale University, USA
About the Award: Applications to the Yale Greenberg World Fellows Programme are accepted from across sectors and around the world.  Each class of Fellows is a unique group: geographically balanced, and representative of a wide range of professions, talents, and perspectives.  The 2017 program will run from mid-August to mid-December.  Fellows are expected to be in residence at Yale for the duration of the program. 
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Be in the Mid-career stage: Fellows are at least five, and typically not more than 20, years into their careers, with demonstrated work accomplishments, and a clear indication of future contributions and excellence.  The average age of a Greenberg World Fellow is 39, though there is no minimum or maximum age limit.
  • Be fluent in English: An excellent command of the English language is essential.
  • Be a citizen of a country other than the United States: While dual citizens are eligible, preference is given to candidates whose work is focused outside the US.
Selection Criteria: 
  • An established record of extraordinary achievement and integrity;
  • Commitment to engagement in crucial issues and to making a difference at the national or international level;
  • Promise of a future career of leadership and notable impact;
  • Special capacity for critical, creative, entrepreneurial, and strategic thinking;
  • Likelihood to benefit from participation in the Program and to contribute to global understanding at Yale;
  • Commitment to a rigorous program of activities, to full-time residence at Yale for the entire duration of the program, and to mentoring students and speaking frequently on campus
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: 
  • A taxable stipend to cover the costs of living in New Haven
  • A modest, furnished one- or two-bedroom apartment for the duration of the program
  • Medical insurance
  • Round-trip travel from home country
Duration of Fellowship: mid-August to mid-December.
How to Apply: 
  • Please note that application for admission to the Yale Greenberg World Fellows Programme is completely an online process. There are no paper forms to complete or mail.
  • Prior to the deadline, you may work on your application at any time and submit it when you are ready. After creating an account and accessing the online application, you can upload materials and request your letters of recommendation.
  • Most questions about the program and the application process can be answered by reviewing this website and the common questions.  If your question is unanswered, you may contact staff at applicant.worldfellows@yale.edu. Please do not send multiple emails regarding one issue, and please do not email staff individually. We thank you for your patience in allowing staff adequate time to thoughtfully process your inquiries.
  • Apply now for the 2017 Yale Greenberg World Fellows Program
Award Provider: Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Programme