Political Economy of Cow-Mentality in India

Parvez Alam

India is a mosaic of great cultures. Not now. The culture which we inherited from our founding fathers and martyrs who wanted to preserve the greatness would be ashamed to see India today. India today which is digital, India which is nuclear  and India one of the fastest growing economies of the world is now also the land of cynical, hysterical and emotional people. In today’s India citizenship is redefined based on emotions for cows. Gaurakshaks (Cow protectionists) are now new citizens. In hierarchy of citizenship, they are on the top. They are beyond the limits of constitution. They are limitless. No laws are applicable on them. They are new police. Sometimes it’s their responsibility to police the Police also. Police is now spectator and governments are theatre troupes and gaurakshaks are directors. They are directing the new India. Disciplining and punishing is now their prerogative.

For the last two years it is very evident that if you are part of a mob which is intending to lynch your neighbor who is earning more in the free and competitive market, a mere rumour about beef can get your things done. You do not have to employ a sharpshooter to annihilate your competitor. Cow is now more powerful weapon than the Kalashnikov or AK-47. These are the same people who have overlapping membership of a political party, a cultural organization and a mob. They are the one who have been involved in disciplining youths during valentine days and attacking pubs on the eve of the New Year. These are the people who are running after rationalist and civil society activists in the country. These are the people who are engaged in mob violence in different states.

From Dadri to Una to Alwar, they are unchecked. They find shelter of politicians. Their vigilantism has paid dividend to those politicians who side with them. It is also evident that in every case they have been proven false and the victims have been found innocent. Is innocence of victim and guilt of perpetrators of violence create narratives other than what has been already established? No. It is the tactics and methodology of those political ideologues to maintain the narratives alive which quite naturally is created on the idea of ‘otherisation’. And the same kind of violence is repeated in very similar fashion somewhere else and the very news reverberates in different locations, where similar kind of incidents has already taken place in the past. Hence, polarization gets frozen in those ‘sensitive’ areas which are divided into binaries.

Even if civil society members make hue and cry and try to do justice with the victims, they cannot stop the next incident to happen. Legal recourse may give sigh of relief to civil society members but not a breathing space to the victims’ family at large. Violence done with intention pays back not very immediately but it pays back definitely in a given time. There is no conception of repentance or remorse of such an act because it is motivated action and not an accident. It is pathetic for any society where politics is not based on compassion and empathy but hunger for power and subjugation of others.

Like traditions are invented to perpetuate hegemony, the creation of new normal adds to those structures of power. In redefined normality sahansheelta (tolerance) and ahimsa (non-violence) are lesser virtues. We Indians are now not frightened and disturbed while seeing dead bodies; we are now not disturbed because of violence. Our private spaces, our entertainment choices and our games are flooded with the themes of violence. Our cinemas are flooded with anti-hero characters. In the new normal, people are instinctively becoming violent.

It is mix of that psyche of violence and lack of compassion and empathy which has reduced a human being lesser than an animal. The sacredness of a deity which was tangible and static in the temples is now roaming around in each nook and corner of the villages and urban spaces. This is another way of capturing space. Sacredness is now installed into the body of an ‘animal’ by shifting the holiness of a temple which lacks utility in time and space. The moment body of an ‘animal’ is attacked, that will infuriate the worshippers and amount to desecration of sacred space. This is high symbolism and more apt political ideology to woo the masses who can easily understand this desecration than the complex theories.

As the politics of the nation is changing dramatically for the last two decades or so, the scientific temperament is cornered by the false and crafted emotionalism by certain sections of political class which has utilized tactically prejudices and myths prevailing in the society to consolidate and homogenized uneducated masses who are now biggest assets to right-wing politics. Tyranny of the majority is in offing in India because of the lack of value education to the citizens of this country by the previous liberal governments. The new liberal and market controlled education do not promote critical attitude hence conformity. Realities and truths are getting redefined. Emotions are getting consolidated and homogenized on communal line. Evil is no more evil, if it can win elections. Consent for crime is sought through elections and past crimes are getting endorsement in the binary politics. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ politics is precisely to win elections. Issues are no more issues if they do not have electoral utility. Poverty, unemployment, price rise and accumulation of wealth by few people are non-issue today. Politics is now looked narrowly in terms of elections. This is new normal. Intellectuals are no more intellectuals. With the tag of intellectuals, they are busy in earning fame and post by conforming to the power centers.

Individuals are no more citizens, they are divided into beef-eaters, romeos, nationalists/anti-nationalists, love jihadis, Marxists, and sanghis (those from cultural organization called Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh). Institutions are no more independent, they have to align with the parties in power. Teachers are turning into ideologues and politicians. Students are becoming party workers and foot soldiers of those ideologies. The universities, colleges and schools are encroached not by ideas but by guns, lathis (sticks) and abuses.

The era we are living in is the era of whispering and murmuring. One is on surveillance of the other. People are now becoming more sentimental and one should be careful about flagging issues about religion, castes and even questioning the leader, which might culminate into hurt-sentiment and consequently lynching. Families are now conscious of suggesting their kids and children not to enter into discussions over sentimental issues. This is new normal.

We are happy in identifying enemies than friends. We are living in the time where friends should agree with each other. There is no process of dialectics in discussions and deliberations. No counter questions. Agree, agree and agree if you want to avoid becoming enemy and getting targeted publicly. Uniformity is new normal. Conformity is new normal. Absolutism is new normal. Bestiality is new sacredness and man-eating is virtuous than beef-eating.

We have less confused and curious minds and more absolutist and rigid minds. We are living in the era of cacophony. Sharing and learning together is outdated things. If you can scream more in the discussion then that signifies you are speaking truth.

Criminals are rewarded for their criminality and hence aspirants are heading towards becoming like them. The best profession in our times is politics. The best method in our time to become a politician is to become gaurakshak (cow protectionist). It is guaranteed that, you will be rewarded with greater posts in your political career. I am aghast and appalled by the fact that the ghettoisation is becoming new normal, ghettoisation of not only minorities/communities but also ideas. This is higher version of governmentality. This is gaumentality (cow-mentality).

Australia: After ABC program, Labor calls for investigation into One Nation

Cheryl Crisp 

The government-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) flagship program “Four Corners” this month initiated a campaign against the populist right-wing, anti-immigrant One Nation party and its leader Senator Pauline Hanson, alleging breaches of electoral laws.

The April 3 program, airing accusations by former members about One Nation’s inner workings, could signal a turn by the media and political establishment against Hanson. There is fear in these circles of her potentially destabilising impact on the increasingly discredited two-party parliamentary order on which capitalist rule has depended.

The ABC program alleged that One Nation, Hanson and her chief of staff, James Ashby, breached the Commonwealth Electoral Act by failing to declare income used for the benefit of One Nation. Under the act, donations or gifts to a political party from an individual or organisation totalling more than $13,000 must be declared to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), including the donor’s name, address and/or the name of the donor organisation.

“Four Corners” highlighted dissension in the party, centring on Ashby’s influence and a “brutal dictatorship” by him and Hanson. Disaffected former One Nation candidates and office-bearers aired various grievances, including the disendorsement of candidates, arbitrary expulsions, demands that candidates use Ashby’s printing services and a preference vote-swapping deal negotiated with the Liberal Party in last month’s Western Australian state election.

The central allegations made by former party treasurer Ian Nelson and ex-national secretary Suraya Beric are that Hanson had use of a plane during last year’s federal election campaign that was not declared to the AEC. It is also alleged that Victorian property developer Bill McNee donated the funds to purchase the Jabiru light plane and $70,000 in cash, also undeclared. McNee denied making any donations.

Exploiting the ABC allegations, the Labor Party immediately wrote to the AEC to demand an investigation, raising the possibility of criminal charges being laid. Greens spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon supported Labor’s call, advocating “repercussions” for any breaches of the legislation. The federal government’s Special Minister of State Scott Ryan also wrote to the AEC requesting an investigation.

James Ashby came to prominence in 2012 when, as a staffer of the then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper, he alleged Slipper had sexually harassed him. The Federal Court threw out Ashby’s legal action in December 2012. The judge ruled that it amounted to a politically-motivated abuse of judicial process in which Ashby had conspired with several people, including Liberal National Party (LNP) powerbroker in Queensland Mal Brough.

Ashby appealed to the Full Federal Court, which ruled his case could proceed to a hearing, but in June 2014 Ashby dropped it. Within a few months, he had contacted One Nation with a printing offer described by Nelson as “too good to be true.” By early 2015, Ashby was appointed to One Nation’s executive. Then he became Hanson’s chief of staff, running the party office.

There are echoes of the late 1990s frame-up orchestrated against Hanson and One Nation by the corporate media and the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. After adopting many of Hanson’s anti-refugee and anti-welfare policies, John Howard’s government moved against her when One Nation secured 25 percent of the vote in the 1998 Queensland state election, threatening the two-party system.

A concerted political dirty tricks campaign resulted in the jailing in 2003 of Hanson and One Nation’s co-founder David Ettridge for supposed breaches of anti-democratic political party registration legislation. The conviction on trumped-up charges was eventually overturned on appeal after they had served three months of their three-year non-parole sentence, but One Nation was crippled. Tony Abbott, then workplace relations minister, played a leading role in the operation against One Nation.

Whatever the veracity of the present allegations, the decision to air them now is bound up with political calculations. Hanson’s use of the plane has been known for almost two years and many of the other grievances have festered since last July’s federal election. Comparatively speaking, the amounts allegedly involved are tiny compared to the millions of dollars received and spent by the two major parties during their election campaigns.

As in the 1990s, the mechanism being utilised against One Nation is electoral legislation that requires all political parties to submit detailed, audited, annual returns listing donors and all expenditure. Parties without sitting members of parliament must provide extensive membership lists to obtain registration to contest elections. These measures, which trample over basic democratic rights, are particularly designed to impose onerous conditions on new and smaller parties.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called an election last July in a bid to clear the Senate of third-party “crossbench” members and secure the passage of legislation that had been blocked since 2014 because of intense public opposition to the government’s austerity cuts to health, education and other essential social programs.

The result was the opposite. Due to the deepening popular disaffection with both the government and Labor, more than 26 percent of votes in the election were cast for “other” parties, boosting their Senate numbers. This trend, fuelled by deteriorating living standards and widening social inequality, has intensified. Recent media surveys indicate that the level of support for “other parties” is reaching 30 percent.

The initial beneficiaries of this discontent have been right-wing populist formations such as One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team, which have been used to channel the hostility in nationalist and xenophobic directions. While claiming to represent ordinary people mistreated by the banks and political elites, One Nation blames the most vulnerable sections of society—immigrants, the unemployed, indigenous people and welfare recipients—for the growing distress and insecurities of vast sections of the population.

Because of One Nation’s usefulness in diverting the mounting unrest, the media and political establishment were at pains after the July election to treat One Nation as a legitimate participant in political debate. Former Prime Minister Howard, under whose government Hanson was prosecuted and jailed, declared she was “entitled to be treated in a respectful fashion by the rest of the parliament.”

Turnbull government ministers applauded Hanson’s maiden Senate speech, which was afforded uncritical blanket coverage. In it she declared the country was “in danger of being swamped by Muslims” or being taken over by the “oppressive communist” Chinese government. Single parents and jobless youth were “thieves” collecting “thousands of dollars a week.” She called for bans on “Muslim immigration” and the wearing of burqas, advocated the monitoring of mosques, and called for an “Australian identity card.”

For all Hanson’s oppositional posturing, One Nation’s senators have been the Turnbull government’s most reliable parliamentary supporters. It has relied on One Nation’s four votes in the Senate to pass 90 percent of the legislation that it has managed to enact since last July’s election. This relationship may be shifting. In response to the “Four Corners” program, Hanson has threatened to withdraw support for all government bills unless the government cuts the ABC’s funding by $600 million over four years in the May 9 federal budget.

The campaign to destabilise One Nation has nothing whatsoever to do with any political differences with Hanson’s reactionary program. Instead, it is driven by anxieties that One Nation could threaten the stability of the parliamentary system, even more than it did in the late 1990s, amid ever-deepening inequality and social tensions. With a Queensland state election due early next year, and some media poll predictions that One Nation could win enough seats to be included in the next state government, measures are being taken that could undermine or break up Hanson’s party.

Indian elite hails US bombings in Syria and Afghanistan

Deepal Jayasekera

Underlining its readiness to more closely integrate with Washington’s military-strategic agenda, India’s ruling elite has hailed the April 7 cruise-missile attack on Syria and the April 13 Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bombing in Afghanistan.

While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made no official statement on the US assaults, national upper house parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, a member of Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), tweeted his support.

“In my personal capacity & analysis I welcome US strike against Syria as retaliation for the horrible poisonous chemical attack on civilians,” Swamy declared. He thus parroted the bogus US claims that its actions were in response to an alleged Syrian military chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun in southern Idlib province. The US has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its allegations against the Assad government.

Notwithstanding Swamy’s insistence that his tweet was in a “personal capacity,” he is a leading BJP member. This underscores the reality of the Modi government’s enthusiastic support for the US attack on Syria.

Swamy later also endorsed Washington’s MOAB bombing of Afghanistan—unleashing the most destructive weapon ever used since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He called for the involvement of India in a US-led strategic alliance, including Israel, in the name of fighting “terror.”

Swamy tweeted: “US President Trump’s blasting with Mother of all bombs the ISIS hideout in Afghanistan is Super. Need US Israel India compact against terror.”

Opposition Congress Party national spokesman Manish Tewari likewise welcomed the MOAB attack. He called for similar bombings in Pakistan to target various Islamic extremist groups and those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. He tweeted: “If US can drop MOAB on ISIS Khorasan, how is LET, Jaish-e-Mohmmad, Jamat-Ul-Dawa any different? Why not one on Muridke? Terror is seemless.”

LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba), Jaish-e-Mohmmad and Jamat-Ul-Dawa are Kashmir separatist groups operating from Pakistan. Muridke is a commercial city in Pakistan’s Punjab province and the operational headquarters of LET. If heeded, Tewari’s bloodthirsty calls for Washington to bomb Pakistani cities, towns and villages would result in the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

The US military attacks in Syria and Afghanistan have nothing to do with retaliating against the alleged use of chemical weapons or fighting ISIS terror respectively. Trump used the unprovoked US assaults to make clear to Russia, Iran and China that Washington will not hesitate to use any weapon against perceived adversaries.

This was spelled out on Monday by US Vice President Mike Pence during a visit to South Korea. “In the past two weeks the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan,” he declared. “North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”

Washington’s threats against North Korea are in preparation for military conflict against China, its principal ally.

In their support for the US attacks on Syria and in Afghanistan, the leaders of India’s principal parties—the BJP and Congress—are expressing their readiness to line-up with US war preparations and pursue the Indian ruling elite’s own global power ambitions.

India’s military-strategic ties with the US were initiated under the BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, from 1998 to 2004, and further developed by the successive Congress governments of Manmohan Singh. Prime Minister Modi has taken this to a qualitatively higher level, transforming India into a “frontline state” in Washington’s military-strategic agenda against China.

Irrespective of various tactical differences between the BJP and Congress over how far they should go with Washington in pursuing India’s geo-political ambitions, Swamy’s and Tewari’s remarks underscore the basic agreement in the Indian ruling elite over forging close military ties with US.

Hindu extremist groups associated with the BJP have seized on the US bombing in Afghanistan to push for a similar Indian attack on Pakistan, posing the danger of a major military conflict between these two nuclear-armed South Asian countries, with potentially deadly consequences for millions of people in the region.

Addressing a public event in Jamshedpur on April 14, Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Pravin Togadia declared: “Trump showed how it’s ‘America First’ for him by bombing IS hideouts in Afghanistan, which is more than 10,000 kilometres from Washington. Our government should show similar resolve of ‘India First’ by bombing Pakistan, which is barely 800 kilometres from New Delhi and securing the Indian soldier’s release.”

Togadia’s call for the release of an Indian soldier is a reference to former Indian navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who was allegedly arrested by Pakistan authorities in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province and sentenced to death by a military court after being accused of espionage.

Three dead as millions demonstrate across Venezuela

Eric London

Millions of supporters and detractors of the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro are demonstrating across Venezuela, bringing tensions to their highest point since 2015. On Wednesday, clashes between the two groups left three dead, including two opposition protesters and one soldier.

The opposition demonstration Wednesday, billed as the “mother of all marches,” was a right-wing show of force aimed at appealing to the Venezuelan military, factions of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and US imperialism to secure more favorable bargaining terms with the government. The PSUV, which also held a sizable rally of its own on Wednesday, has been in power since the election of ex-president Hugo Chavez in 1998. Maduro became president in 2013 after Chavez’s death.

In a move intended to provoke a government crackdown, opposition leaders directed Wednesday’s massive crowd over an elevated highway situated above a river and led them toward government buildings in the city center. Opposition leader Henrique Capriles then used the resulting clashes as a pretext to call for continued demonstrations Thursday.

The demonstrations took place with Caracas under martial law. On Tuesday, Maduro enacted “Plan Zamora,” a domestic military operation that involved placing Caracas’s highways, public buildings, and key television antennas under military control. General Jose Ornelas, military commander of the capital region, explained: “We must defend Caracas.” In addition, local police across the country have been placed under the authority of the National Guard.

The extent of the military presence reflects the nervousness within government circles that increasing divisions are emerging in the government. Three weeks ago, the Venezuelan Supreme Court stripped the legislature of its lawmaking powers in a move that was later reversed after being opposed by Maduro’s own attorney general, Luisa Ortega Diaz. In a statement released Wednesday, Ortega abstained from repeating Maduro’s claim that demonstrators are “terrorists” and instead appealed to both opposition leaders and the military to refrain from violence.

On Tuesday, the government announced the arrest of four junior army officers—three first lieutenants and a captain—for “conspiracy and planning terrorist actions.” Speaking Tuesday, Maduro said the officers “are playing with the most sacred thing the Republic has, which is national unity, civil-military unity, and peace.”

The arrests were a shot across the bow to silence opposition in the armed forces, which have provided the PSUV with a key base of support over the last two decades. Elements within the army’s senior command have greatly enriched themselves since Chavez—a former military officer—took power in 1998. On Monday, Maduro appeared at a rally of thousands of soldiers and officers, praising them for “repudiating sedition against the country and traitors of the country.” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez pledged the armed forces’ “unconditional” loyalty to Maduro.

Aware of growing divisions and hoping to work out a deal on behalf of American oil companies, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday that the Venezuelan government is “not allowing the opposition to have their voices heard” and is “violating its own constitution.”

The Trump administration has signaled a policy of more-active involvement in Venezuela. In February, Trump launched a new round of sanctions against Venezuelan Vice President Tareck El Aissami and met personally with the wife of ultra-right-wing opposition leader Leopold Lopez. These moves come despite the Maduro government’s US$500,000 gift, funneled through Citgo, the US subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company, to fund Trump’s inauguration festivities, according to U.S. Federal Elections Commission filings released Wednesday.

Washington’s record of military interventions and support for Latin American dictators and death squads shows that Tillerson’s statements about defending “free speech” in Venezuela are beyond hypocritical. Before joining the White House, Tillerson was CEO of ExxonMobil, which has been exploiting Venezuela’s oil since 1921. Chavez nationalized ExxonMobil’s extraction facilities in 2007, and the company is searching for ways to “tap” Venezuelan oil once again.

The working class largely abstained from this week’s demonstrations, and there was no uptick in strikes or walkouts.

The unpopularity of Maduro’s government among the working class is outpaced only by popular hatred for the opposition, which is concentrated among upper-middle-class layers, including students, operating under the direction of groups with close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and US State Department.

Groups associated with the US government and US corporations give tens of millions of dollars to the Venezuelan opposition, much in the form of “youth outreach” to recruit members of the right-wing opposition. In 2008, the Cato Institute gave its Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty and a cash prize of US$500,000 to an opposition student leader. The opposition’s attempts to denounce Maduro’s crackdown on free speech are a fraud. In March, opposition leader Julio Borges called for the military to establish a dictatorship.

But support for the chavista government has evaporated in the midst of an unprecedented collapse in living standards for the Venezuelan working class.

The pro-capitalist, nationalist policies of the Chavez-Maduro governments, based almost entirely on oil exports, left the economy vulnerable to the drop in the international price of oil. The government responded by orchestrating a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the pockets of international finance capital, slashing social programs to make interest payments to its creditors.

As a result of these policies, 75 percent of the population—some 22 million people—lost an average of 19 pounds of body weight in 2016 alone due to lack of food. A recent university study shows that 93 percent of the country has insufficient income to purchase basic food, while a third of the population eats fewer than three meals per day, nearly triple the figure from 2015.

Mass hunger and malnutrition gave rise to a series of spontaneous demonstrations in working class neighborhoods in the first half of 2016, in which residents attacked government food storage warehouses and sacked shops where owners were hoarding food. Conditions have only continued to deteriorate.

Under these conditions, the chavista and opposition factions of the ruling class fear a social explosion. Former Interior Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres hinted at this in February when he said the government must “open space for participation to dissipate the violence” in order to “pay homage to those who died in ’89.”

This was a reference to the mass protests of February-March 1989, in which demonstrations in the town of Guarenas near Caracas over a rise in bus fares spread rapidly across the country, igniting a social powder keg. The government of Carlos Andres Perez responded by suspending the constitution, declaring martial law, and massacring more than 1,000 people.

This event looms large in the memory of both factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Both the chavistas and the opposition are planning their strategies with the overarching goal of preventing an outbreak of the class struggle.

US preparing to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Kevin Reed 

According to a CNN report Thursday, the US Department of Justice has prepared the charges it needs to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living in asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since June 2012.

US officials told CNN reporters that investigators have “proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents.”

This represents a distinct shift in the focus of US efforts to persecute the WikiLeaks founder, from targeting the website’s publication of documents and materials provided by Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers, i.e., acting as a recipient of leaks, to claiming that WikiLeaks was a participant in the leaking of material by Snowden.

Although stopping short of naming Assange, when asked about the matter at a press conference on Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “We’ve already begun stepping up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”

CNN spoke with Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack about the report. Pollack said, “We've had no communication with the Department of Justice and they have not indicated to me that they have brought any charges against Mr. Assange.”

Pollack added, “They've been unwilling to have any discussion at all, despite our repeated requests, that they let us know what Mr. Assange's status is in any pending investigations. There's no reason why Wikileaks should be treated differently from any other publisher.”

The CNN report comes one week after CIA Director Mike Pompeo gave a highly publicized speech before the Center for Strategic and International Studies where he attacked both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Pompeo said during the question and answer period that Assange was not a US citizen and “has no First Amendment freedoms.”

Assange responded with a statement last Friday calling Pompeo’s remarks “dangerous” and an attempt to “stifle speech.” The WikiLeaks statement also compared Pompeo’s effort to demonize Assange to the campaign against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Both the Pompeo speech and the leaked report of impending charges against Assange are clear indications that the Trump administration is moving swiftly to a direct attack on First Amendment rights. Of a piece with its reckless war policies, the administration is attempting to silence any further exposures of the criminal activities of the military-intelligence apparatus of the state.

The timing of the Justice Department charges is connected with the recent confirmation of president-elect Lenín Moreno as the winner of Ecuador’s presidential election over Guillermo Lasso after a recount. The US was planning to exploit a defeat of Moreno, who has defended Assange up to this point and opposed his extradition from the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The Justice Department is counting on the enthusiastic support of both the US Congress and the subservient corporate media to back its assault on democratic rights. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Rep. Peter King, R-New York said, “I'm glad that the Justice Department has found a way to go after Assange. He's gotten a free ride for too long.”

Pakistan and the Panama Papers Verdict

Rana Banerji

The long awaited Panama Papers verdict on 20 April, 2017, by the five-judge bench of Pakistan's Supreme Court has stopped short of disqualifying Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and given him a temporary reprieve by ordering investigation by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of officials, including those from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI), within 60 days, under Court supervision.

 

The 3-2 split verdict suggests that while there may have been enough substance to justify that Sharif may not have been either `sadiq’ (honest) or `ameen’ (trustworthy), thus meriting disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of their Constitution, this power could not be exercised by the Supreme Court in its `original jurisdiction’ powers under Art 184(3), as it did not relate to a question of public importance related to a Fundamental Right. It purports though, that there were enough grounds to believe that the prime minister and his family members had obfuscated the money trail about the off-shore accounts and especially, the transaction pertaining to purchase of the Mayfair flats in London. 

 

The JIT has been tasked to work on a `thirteen point’ list of items pertaining to the money trail covering the setting up of the Gulf Steel Mill in Dubai; subsequent sales in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; and details of purchase transactions of the Mayfair flats. The judgment virtually dismisses the veracity of the Qatari Sheikh, Jabbar al Thani’s bailout letters about the money transactions. It also opens up the possibilities of re-opening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills money laundering investigations of the early 1990s by either the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA) or the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The role of NAB Chief Qamar Zaman in not challenging the September 2014 Lahore High Court verdict exonerating the Sharifs in the Hudaibiya case has been castigated. The JIT’s would now be `a criminal investigation’, which would have to be placed before a fresh bench of the Supreme Court to finally decide on the matter.

 

Ironically enough, in the convoluted social milieu of denial that prevails in Pakistan, the judgment was `celebrated’ with distribution of sweets and `bhangras’ by both the plaintiffs and the respondents. The Opposition, led by the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Imran Khan, hailed the landmark verdict and called for the prime minister's resignation. Pakistan's former President and Pakistan Peoples Party's (PPP) Asif Zardari criticised the majority judgment while hailing the dissenting notes recorded by the two senior judges, Justices Asif Saeed Khosa and Gulzar Ahmed, both of whom could ascend to the post of Chief Justice after the incumbent’s term ends in January, 2019. 

 

Khosa in particular, has been very caustic in commenting on Nawaz Sharif’s lack of probity, belying any familial loyalty or leanings toward views of his father-in-law, late Chief Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, who restored Nawaz Sharif to power briefly in June 1993 - after Ghulam Ishaq Khan had dismissed him as prime minister - using powers under the now abolished Article 58(2)(b).

 

Ruling party sources have chosen to ignore the `Damocles’ sword’ that still hangs on their leader. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML(N)) supporters take succor from the fact that four of the JIT's six members would be appointees of the civilian leadership. The JIT itself may effectively lead to a dead end. It is unlikely that a JIT comprising government officers would be able to press the ruling family to retrieve official documents from the British Virgin Islands (BVI) registrar of companies or the BVI Financial Services Commission (BVIFSC) regarding beneficial ownership of all offshore companies linked to them, or be able to prove that these were transferred in their name only in 2006 and that too from the Qatari royal family. Obtaining unavoidable documentary evidences from offshore jurisdictions without proper information sharing agreements would be difficult. Without these documents from offshore jurisdictions, complicated riddles regarding beneficial ownership of offshore companies and the year of their transfer in the name of the Sharifs would not be resolved.

 

Views of the legal fraternity in Pakistan have been mixed. Some luminaries have deemed the verdict as appropriate though definitely not bereft of political overtones. Noted Human Rights activist and lawyer Asma Jehangir felt `confused’ over the import of the judgment. The PPP’s Aitzaz Ahsan suspected that the formation of the JIT could enable the Sharifs to eventually wriggle out from the clutches of law.

 

What is concerning about the composition of the JIT is the inclusion of two Military Intelligence representatives. This sends a signal about the judiciary’s lack of institutional trust in civilian institutions or even about its own role in the past, acquiescing in the `doctrine of necessity’ to validate repeated military takeovers. It may be quite another matter whether the Army leadership under Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa would like to involve itself in this probe. If past precedents are to be relied upon, there could be no guarantee of soft peddling merely because Nawaz selected Bajwa to head the Army despite his low position on the eligible Generals’ seniority list. It goes without saying that during this interregnum, Nawaz Sharif would hardly be able to undertake any India friendly initiatives on matters of security policy.

 

The judgment reveals yet again how long-standing political families in Pakistan have been able to use the system to enhance their personal wealth. Credit for pushing that simple idea, both intuitively and with circumstantial evidence to support it all the way to the Supreme Court, and against a serving prime minister, must go to Imran Khan and his PTI. Whether this can be converted to political benefit in the 2018 polls is too early to predict and would depend on how effectively he can contain or dismantle the grip the Sharifs have so assiduously built up over the biradari (clan) networks in a still predominantly feudal rural Punjab.

IMU-Simons African Fellowship Program 2017 (Fully-funded)

Application Deadlines: 

• 15th March, 2017 (Decisions will be made by April 30, 2017)
• 15th May, 2017 (Decisions will be made by June 31,2017)
• 1st July, 2017 (Decisions will be made by August 31, 2017)
• 1st September, 2017 (Decisions will be made by October 15, 2017)
• 1st November, 2017 (Decisions will be made by December 15, 2017)

Offered Annually? Yes. Until 2021

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Worldwide

About the Award: The IMU-Simons African Fellowship Program supports research sabbaticals for mathematicians from AFRICAN developing countries employed in AFRICA to travel to an Internationally known mathematical centre of excellence/university (WORLDWIDE) for collaborative research.

The program is not for any post graduate courses or post doctoral training but for a LIMITED RESEARCH PERIOD. The grant covers TRAVEL and LIVING COSTS of African mathematicians working in Africa (Specifically coming from a developing country, the definition of which is determined by the IMU for all its schemes) during the sabbatical.

Offered Since: 2016

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

1. The applicant has to hold a valid doctoral degree (PhD) in mathematics.
2. The African applicant must be based (place of work) in an African developing country.
3. The applicant has to be employed as a mathematician in a faculty of a university or an equivalent higher education institution.
4. The applicant should already have established contact with a mathematician in the host institution in mathematical centre of excellence worldwide and should have a definite research plan together with the host, which must be submitted along with the curriculum vitae of both mathematicians at the time of applying for this grant. This plan should be approved by the host as well.
5. The applicant should have been granted appropriate leave of absence from his/her home institution which will cover the period of the visit.
6. The application must also be accompanied by a formal letter of invitation from the host institution, which clearly specifies the period of the (short) research visit as well as the extent of its financial commitment and support. It is expected that the host institution would at least offer office space, free Internet access and other basic amenities.The invitation has to come from the dean of the faculty for the host institution.
7. The minimal length of a visit that could be favourably considered would be one month. There is no maximal length but it has to be a sabbatical/ research visit not a fellowship position in the host institution (e.g. doing a post-doctoral).

Value of Scholarship: The grant under this scheme will cover:

1. Travel costs from the place of work of the applicant to that of the host to the extent of economy class airfare (Public) transport (surface transport by rail or bus between the nearest city where the airport is located and the headquarters of the candidate or the city/town where the host institution is located, if necessary)
2. Visa fees
3. Travel insurance charges
4. Basic living costs
5. Accommodation cost (guest house of the institution or rented flat if possible).
6. Maximum four (4) Taxi fares (on submission of receipts) may be allowed to travel between the residence and the airport/railway station (upon arrival and departure).

How to Apply: It is important to go through the basic application requirements and process before applying.

APPLY HERE

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Simons Foundation, New York

Royal Veterinary College (RVC) Commonwealth Scholarship for Students form Commonwealth Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 12th May 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  developing Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The scholarships are funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and academic direction is provided by the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), a constituent College of the University of London.

The MSc is offered via distance learning and the programme is supported by a wealth of online resources and support, in addition to annual residential teaching workshops at the RVC.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To study the MSc, students must have:

• Either a second class honours degree, or the equivalent, in a scientific subject:
  • veterinary science
  • animal science
  • agriculture
  • biological sciences or medicine.
• Or a second class honours degree, or the equivalent, in a scientific discipline, which has, in the opinion of the University, included suitable training.

English language requirement:

Applicants must provide documentary evidence acceptable to the University that the applicant has passed the IELTS English Proficiency test within the past three years, with an overall score of 6.5 and a minimum of 6.0 in each sub-test.

Applicants are invited to apply whilst awaiting IELTS results. The English language result is not required prior to application.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of program

How to Apply: Application is a two-stage process:

Stage 1 – Deadline 12 May 2017

Interested applicants should complete and submit the following:

• The application is accessed via the Commonwealth Scholarships website (See in Link below).
  • Click ‘Go to the EAS’ and on the Electronic Application System [EAS] click ‘Applicant’s Portal’, you can register as a new user with your email address.
• Complete the Scholarship Application Form [Word Doc] and email with your Curriculum Vitae (CV) to the Course Administrator: rchandler@rvc.ac.uk

Successful applicants of Stage 1 will be notified when they may progress to Stage 2 of the application process (end August).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award  Provider: The scholarships are funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and academic direction is provided by the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), a constituent College of the University of London.

CMAAE African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) Masters Fellowship for African Researchers 2017

Application Deadline: 15th June 2017

Offered annually? Yes

About the Award: The Collaborative Masters of Science in Agricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE) programme of the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) is run in a network of 17 participating universities in 12 countries in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa.

The students enroll in any of the 8 accredited university departments of Agricultural Economics (see application procedure below) for the first two semesters to take core courses before the successful ones converge at a Shared Facility for Specialization and Elective (SFSE) to undertake elective courses in the third semester, usually at the University of Pretoria.

Field of Study: Fields of specialization covered in the CMAAE programme include Agricultural and Rural Development, Agricultural Policy and Trade, Environment and Natural Resource Management, and Agribusiness Management.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• Must be nationals of Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda or Ethiopia;
• Must have attained a First Class or a Second Class Honours (Upper Division) degree in Agricultural Economics or related field from a recognized university;
• Must be willing to work in their country government ministries/ institutions upon graduation.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Duration of Fellowship: The duration of the CMAAE programme is 2 years, generally starting in August/September 2017 for all the universities except the University of Pretoria which will admit in January 2018.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must submit their applications for admission directly to any of the eight CMAAE accredited universities (application procedure can be obtained from the respective university websites).

These are: Egerton University, Kenya; Haramaya University, Ethiopia; University of Nairobi, Kenya; Makerere University, Uganda; Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania; Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Malawi; University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe; and University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Upon receipt of an admission letter from the specific university, the applicant should upload the following documents via the AERC scholarships application portal http://scholarships.aercafrica.org/ not later than June 15, 2017.

• Scholarship application letter;
• Curriculum vitae;
• MSc admission letter or temporary/provisional admission letter, or an official letter assuring admission with fee structure;
• Certified copies of University transcripts and certificates;
• Academic reference from at least a Senior Lecturer;

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: AERC

Important Notes: Females, candidates from less privileged regions or groups as well as candidates with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.

LMS-AMMSI Conference Travel Grants 2017 to African Postgraduate Students in Mathematics

Application Deadlines: 

1. Deadline for 1st Conference: 1st February 2017
2. Deadline for 2nd Conference: 1st May 2017
3. Deadline for 3rd Conference: 1st September 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country):

About the Award: The funds are for travel only and are not to be used for accommodation or other expenses.  Institutions or organizations can apply for these grants by filling the application form below and submit by the following deadlines, according to the month in which the conference is to be held:

1. 1st Conference:  March to June 2017
2. 2nd Conference:  July to October 2017
3. 3rd Conference: November 2017 to February 2018.  

Type: Grants

Eligibility: These grants are to cover the travel costs of postgraduate students, with mathematics degrees, to enable them to attend the conferences.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: £2,000 (GBP) per conference

How to Apply: Please submit applications by E-mail only to: AMMSI Administrator

Email:    ammsi.africa@gmail.com

Download application forms from the link below

Visit Grants Webpage for details

Award  Provider: The London Mathematical Society (LMS), African Mathematics Millennium Science Initiative (AMMSI)

Militarism and Militancy in Kashmir Have Nipped Evolution in the Bud

Nyla Ali Khan

Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh has recently claimed that Kashmir will be a changed place within a year.

Subcontinental politics is ridden with mainstream political organizations and, in conflict zones, separatist organizations attempting to outdo one another in taking the moral high ground and adopting righteous attitudes, while obviating the necessity of repairing dysfunctional institutions. The deployment of violence to quell an insurrection has, historically, depoliticized societies and metamorphosed organizations which were created for the protection of borders and trained for land warfare into political stakeholders. I recall a conversation that I had with a politically influential acquaintance about the role of the Indian Army in J & K. I asked rather acerbically how the Army had become a stakeholder in the Kashmir imbroglio, and she hurriedly and just as acerbically replied that, “there are good stakeholders and there are bad stakeholders, and armed forces are, inevitably, stakeholders in an insurgent zone.” I was rather ticked off by that response and wondered how a mediator with such a mindset could be open to diplomacy and peaceful negotiations to further the India-Pakistan peace process.

If the political evolution of a society is nipped in the bud by a puissant military establishment, state policies always fall short of becoming coherent. The more the military establishment makes incursions into democratic spaces, the more shaky institutions of state remain and the more fragmented the polity becomes. Once a populace begins to question the validity of the choices it exercises in the electoral process because processes of electioneering and institutions of democratic governance lack transparency and are debilitated, the sociopolitical fabric is ripped to pieces. The “sovereign” role played by the GHQ in Pakistan is an example of such a scenario. In civilized societies, political dissent is not curbed and national integrity is not maintained by military interventions. The more military officials get involved in issues of politics, governance, and national interest, the more blurred the line between national interest and hawkish national security becomes. Contrary to what the Indian military establishment is doing in J & K and the Northeast and what the Pakistani military establishment is doing in Balochistan, people must learn to work together across ethnic and ideological divides and insist that everyone be included in democratic decision-making and be given full access to basic social services. It is an egregious mistake and one that has severe ramifications to allow the military of a nation-state to bludgeon its democratic processes.

Belligerent political and military voices at the federal level conveniently forget that the special position accorded to J & K would enable the strengthening of a closer association between the state and India. The Constituent Assembly of India had been careful to take note of the special circumstances for which provisions had been made in J & K. It is interesting to note that while the Praja Parishad, which fought tooth and nail against the special status, constitutionally, granted to J & K and merged with the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1963, raised the slogan of Ek Pradhan, Ek Bidhan, Ek Nishan in the 1950s, a spokesperson of that organization claimed that they would strive for the replacement of the national flag of India by a bagwa-flag. Instead of deterring the growth of democracy, the goal should be to empower the populace of J & K sufficiently to induce satisfaction with the Kashmir constituency’s role within current geopolitical realities such that a dis-empowered populace does not succumb to ministrations of destructive political ideologies. In addition to addressing the political aspect of democracy, it is important to take cognizance of its economic aspect as well. The dominant perception of Kashmir as just an insurgent state within the Indian Union and not as a political unit with legitimate regional aspirations might benefit security hawks but will not do any long term good.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir is so geographically located that it depends for its economic growth on an unhindered flow of trade to both countries.  Kashmiri arts and crafts have found flourishing markets in India for decades.  At the same time, the rivers and roads of Kashmir stretch into Pakistan. Prior to 1947, Rawalpindi used to be Kashmir’s railhead, and Kashmiri traders would use Karachi as the sea-port for overseas trade. The welfare of the people of the state can be guaranteed by securing the goodwill of the political establishments of both India and Pakistan, and by the display of military discipline and efficiency at the borders. The forte of the armed forces of a country, to the best of my knowledge, is national security, not national interest or foreign policy.

The road to Kabul from India and Pakistan runs through Kashmir. Central and Southern Kashmir shares borders with India, Pakistan, and China. Pakistan-administered Northwest Kashmir shares a border with Afghanistan and China. China administers the Northeast Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram tract in the northeast. Various territorial disputes persist. Thus, a crucial step to winning the peace in Afghanistan is to ensure the empowerment and stability of Kashmir’s culture, economy, and democratic institutions.

The purported “statesmanship” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cohort has just further deterred the growth of democracy in the state. Instead of empowering the populace of J&K sufficiently and ensuring that a disempowered populace does not succumb to ministrations of destructive political ideologies, the BJP has left no stone unturned to exacerbate the alienation of the people of the state.

Chronic Pain? Don’t Look for Help From Traditional Medicine

Martha Rosenberg

It is estimated that up to 66 percent of US women and 45 percent of US men live with chronic pain from spinal disorders like disc disease, pinched nerves and neck pain, to complex regional pain syndromes, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and headaches. Low back pain alone affects eight out of 10 people worldwide and is the fifth most common reason people visit the physician.

Yet despite steroid and pain-killer injections, expensive and invasive treatments like spinal fusion, disc surgery, spinal cord stimulators, nerve ablation and the controversial opioid drugs, chronic pain is becoming worse in the US adult population not better.

The truth is, even though pain medicine is now a $300 billion a year business, it mostly offers only short-term solutions and short-term relief to patients sometimes with considerable risks.

For example:

*Spinal surgery fails so frequently in resolving pain, it has created the medical term “failed back surgery syndrome.” No one has ever heard of “failed hip surgery syndrome” or “failed shoulder surgery syndrome” because they don’t exist. One study of Workers’ Compensation patients found the success rate after a second lumbar surgery was only 53 percent and after a third, 35 percent.

*Surgically-implanted spine stimulators, which control pain by exerting electrical signals, have been linked to migration of the leads, lead breakage, infection, unwanted jolting and shocking and more.

*Radiofrequency ablation, commonly called “nerve burning,” can cause infection, numbness and allergic reactions to contrast dye and burning sensations after the procedure. Despite destruction of the apparent offending nerves, pain can persist and migrate to new locations.

* Loosened guidelines and wider prescribing for opioid narcotics have not only created an unprecedented national addiction problem, over time, they can produce the very pain they are supposed to treat–a phenomenon called opioid-induced hyperalgesia.

*Medtronic’s highly promoted Infuse Bone Graft that was supposed to stimulate bone growth and replace damaged spinal disks during surgery but turned out to be linked to side effects like paralysis, nerve damage, respiratory problems, excessive bone growth and worse. Congress found the company downplayed risks and side effects.

*In 2012, sealed vials of the steroid methylprednisolone used for spinal injections from  compounding pharmacies spread a rare fungal meningitis that killed seven people and sickened 64 across nine states. In 2007, the journal Spine reported 78 injuries and 13 deaths from the injections prior to the fungal contamination.

There are three reasons why the $300 billion a year pain “biz” is ballooning: Aggressive advertising, a population that is aging and growing heavier and more sedentary and patients and physicians who too often believe that quicker and more dramatic treatments are always better. Even though the public accepts the necessity of hard work for positive results in sports, academia and most other fields, when it comes to chronic pain, Americans often want a quick fix, like narcotics, surgery, injections and implanted devices– not hard work.

Yet only twenty years ago chronic pain was treated in a different and more effective way. Chronic pain patients used to receive the attention of a whole team of medical professionals, called a “multidisciplinary team.” The team would include a physiatrist (a doctor specialized in physical medicine and rehabilitation), physical, occupational, vocational, exercise and ergonomics therapists as needed, a social worker, psychologist, rehabilitation nurse and even support groups of other pain patients and clergy.

Of course, today insurers will not reimburse such treatment thinking it “too expensive.”  Yet when looking at long-term outcomes, repeated surgeries and re-hospitalizations, worker disability and opioid addiction, the upfront investment in multidisciplinary treatment is actually cost saving.

One reason multidisciplinary team treatment works so well for pain patients is it addresses both mind and body. Also, patients are part of the team and their opinions and input matter; in most pain treatments today, patients are passive and told what to do.

Yes, more people are suffering from chronic pain than ever and there are more treatments available. But it is not clear that pain patients themselves are benefiting.

Moreover, the risks are sometimes considerable.