2 Feb 2018

Transform Together Full-Time Scholarships at Sheffield Hallam University 2018/2019 – Undergraduate and Masters

Application Deadlines: 31st May 2018 for September 2018 start
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Sheffield Hallam University UK
About Scholarship: Are you ambitious? Do you want to represent international students at Sheffield Hallam University now and in the future? If so, these exclusive and competitive scholarships are aimed at you.
Transform Together scholarships are open to students from any non-EU country applying to study at Sheffield Hallam University to enrol in the next academic year.
The scholarships will be awarded to well-qualified students who demonstrate academic, personal or professional achievement on their scholarship application form. Successful applicants will be awarded with a certificate to mark their achievement following enrolment on their course.
Type: Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for one of these scholarships you must;
  • Be an international or a European Union (non-UK) fee paying student
  • Postgraduate only – have achieved a minimum 2.1 or equivalent in your honours degree and must meet the English and academic entry requirements for your course.
  • Undergraduate only – have achieved the English and academic entry requirements for the course. If you are awarded an undergraduate scholarship, you must successfully complete each year of study to continue to receive the fee waiver.
  • Have accepted an offer for a full-time taught undergraduate or postgraduate course at Sheffield Hallam University.
  • Be fully self-funding your studies
  • Be able to pay any additional fees your course may require, for example field trips
You are not eligible to apply if you
  • Are receiving full or part funding for your studies from a sponsor or other scholarship provider
  • Are studying a Sheffield Hallam course at a partner institution, or
  • Have an offer for our Graduate Certificate International Pre-Masters in Business and English or International Foundation Programme in art, design and media or business, law and social sciences, and Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths. You can apply for a scholarship for the course that you will progress onto following successful completion of the preparation programme.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Half fee waiver (50%) is available for postgraduate courses and for each year of an undergraduate degree.
A package of incentives is to be confirmed, but will include
  • the opportunity to become an alumni ambassador back in your home country
  • a programme of events which aims to enhance your learning and social experience with fellow scholars
  • a Sheffield Hallam University hoodie
Successful scholars will be expected to represent Sheffield Hallam University through various activities during the academic year and after graduation.
Duration of Scholarship: for full period of study
How to Apply: To apply for a Transform Together Scholarship, please follow these steps
  • Apply for a course at Sheffield Hallam. If you have not applied for a course, please visit our online prospectus
  • Check you meet the scholarship eligibility criteria listed below
  • When you have accepted an offer to study on a course here, apply for a scholarship online using the link below by the closing date of 31 May 2018
  • Send your academic transcripts to globalscholarshiptranscripts@shu.ac.uk by 31 May 2018
  • You will be notified if you have been successful within one month of the deadline. All decisions are at the University’s discretion and are final.
Sponsors: Sheffield Hallam University

Rice University Business Plan Competition for Student Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 5:00 pm CST, Friday, 9th February, 2018
  • Accepted teams will have until 5:00 PM CDT Monday, March 12, 2018 to submit a 10-page (maximum) Business Plan and Media materials
  • Accepted teams have the option (but are not required) to make revisions to their business plan and submit a new version by 5:00 PM CDT Saturday, March 31, 2018
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Houston, Texas
About the Award: The Rice Business Plan Competition is the world’s richest and largest graduate-level student startup competition. It is hosted and organized by the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University and the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship, Rice University’s internationally-recognized initiative devoted to the support of entrepreneurship. This is the 18th year for the competition. In that time, it has grown from nine teams competing for $10,000 in prize money in 2001, to 42 teams from around the world competing for more than $1 million in cash and prizes.
Sectors: business plans and companies should fall into one of four categories, or sectors:
  1. Life Science – includes (but not limited to) Medical Devices, Therapeutics, Diagnostics, Health IT, Biotechnology
  2. Energy/Clean Technology – includes (but not limited to) Sustainability, Water, Battery Technologies, Control Systems, Smart Metering, PV Technology, Natural Gas, Transportation/Mobility, Oil & Gas Technologies, Algae, Fuel Cells, Hybrid Vehicles
  3. Information Technology – Includes (but is not limited to): Mobile Apps, Software, Digital Media, Consumer Web, Bto-B Applications, Enterprise Software, SAAS, Internet, Web, Virtual Reality, Big Data, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Drones, Hardware, Robotics, Unmanned Vehicles
  4. Other Innovations – Includes (but is not limited to): Advanced Materials, Nanotechnology, Composites
Teams must choose one sector/category for their companies. Teams may chose a second sector/category, though a second sector/category is optional and not required. Please choose sectors/categories that best align with your company’s product, technology, system or mission.
Type: Entrepreneurship/Contest
Eligibility: Teams must meet all the following eligibility requirements in order to be selected to compete:
  • Student Enrollment: The competition is for degree-seeking students currently enrolled on a full- or part-time basis (i.e., in the academic year from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018). This includes students who graduated, or will graduate any time after July 1, 2017. (For example, December 2017 graduates are eligible to compete). Students who graduated before July 1, 2017 are not eligible to participate. Adjustments may be made for teams from non-U.S. universities that have a different academic calendar; please contact the RBPC director if you are from a non-U.S. school and feel this applies to you.
  • Outside Funding Limitations: All ventures must be seeking outside equity capital, typically early-stage venture capital investment or early-stage angel investment. All ventures must be “for profit” entities. This is an early-stage pitch competition, therefore, startups that have raised more than $250,000 in equity capital from sources other than the students or their friends or families prior to July 1, 2017 are not eligible to compete. Startup teams may have raised  ANY level of equity funding AFTER July 1, 2017. Equity funding awarded as part of an accelerator/incubator program does count toward funding limits.
  • The following do not count toward funding limit: Research and other grants; competition winnings; traditional loans; and any friends and family funding.
  • Revenue Limitations: Ventures with more than $100,000 in revenues in prior academic years (before July 1, 2017), are
    excluded.
  • Prior Activity: Both student and other team members may have worked on an idea or new technology in previous academic years, or in the case of the student team members, even prior to entering graduate school, provided that their venture’s revenues and equity capital raised does not exceed the above limits.
  • Team Composition: This is a competition primarily for graduate-level students. All graduate students, not just MBA candidates, are eligible to participate in the competition. This includes, but is not limited to, PhD candidates, MBA students, MD candidates, JD candidates, and other Masters candidates. Competing team members may be from different disciplines and/or different universities. However, undergraduates are allowed to compete fully, as long as at least one member of the presenting team at the RBPC is a currently-enrolled graduate student and a member of the venture’s startup management team, and part of the team that presents in the competition (competing team). In other words, a team of two students could be comprised of one undergraduate student and one graduate student. Alternatively, a team of five students could be comprised of four undergraduates and one graduate student.
  • Minimum Team Size: The presenting team that competes at Rice University must include at least two current students and not exceed five current students. In other words, at least two members from each startup team must travel to Rice to compete, and both of these two members must be current students. The purpose of this rule is to encourage startups to enlist at least two founders in order to increase the potential for a successful startup.
    Maximum Team Size: Teams may bring up to five startup team members who participate in the presentations on Friday and Saturday. In other words, at least two and no more than five startup team members may participate in the verbal presentations on Friday and Saturday. Others involved in the venture (non-students, faculty advisors or mentors) are welcome to travel to Rice with the competing student team, but are prohibited from participating in the presentations or Q&A sessions. More than five students can travel to Rice with the team, but only five students can serve as presenters. In fact, we encourage the team to bring a faculty, staff or other advisor with them to the RBPC, and we will invite them to attend our special lunch with the Dean of the Rice business school on Friday afternoon.
  • Team Presentation: at least two student members of the startup should participate in every round of presenting the startup’s investment pitch (i.e., the startup business plan presentation) on Friday and Saturday, April 6-7. Of the team members presenting, at least two of them must verbally present in the rounds they are involved in. To “verbally Present” means give/speak at least 20-30% of the presentation. The intention is that at least two team members share speaking responsibilities in the presentation section. The Q&A does not count toward the presentation time. The team may divide speaking time in their presentation however they choose, but a minimum of two members must speak at some point in the main presentation.
    The exception is the Elevator Pitch Competition on Thursday, April 5, where only one member of the team will be able to give the 60-second presentation.
  • Student Involvement: The competition is for student-created and student-managed ventures, including new ventures launched by licensing university technology. Students participating in the competition (i.e. members of the founding team) are expected to:
    • be a driving force behind the new venture,
    • have played a primary role in developing the business strategy
    • have key management roles in the startup venture, and
    • own significant equity in the startup venture.
  • Faculty Involvement: Each team MUST have the endorsement of a faculty or staff advisor at their school and must provide contact information for their faculty advisor, regardless of whether or not the advisor will travel with the team to Rice University. All faculty advisors will be asked to confirm the eligibility of the team.
  • Nature of Ventures: The competition is for new, independent ventures in the seed, start-up, or early growth stages. Generally excluded are the following: buy-outs of existing businesses, expansions of existing companies, real estate syndications, tax shelters, franchises, licensing agreements for distribution in a different geographical area, and spinouts from existing corporations. Licensing technologies from universities or research labs is encouraged.
  • Prior Activity: Technologies may be presented in the RBPC only once. Competing team members may participate in the RBPC more than once if entering with a new venture/new technology.
  • Attendance: To be considered for any award, all competing (presenting) team members must arrive at Rice on Thursday, April 5, 2018 by 12:00 PM (Noon) CDT and be present on campus on Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:30 PM CDT for the Elevator Pitch Competition; on Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM CDT for the First Round; and on Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:00 AM CDT for the Semi-Final or Challenge Round. Teams may not add or substitute presenting members during the competition. Teams must attend the Awards Banquet on Saturday night to receive their awards. Teams should plan their return travel no earlier than Sunday morning.
  • Required Forms: Each team will be required to provide appropriate documentation to receive award payments which include W-9 and/or EIN forms for US teams, and W-8 BEN forms for International teams No prizes can be awarded without the required forms submitted.
Value of Award: 
  • Rice University will provide an intense, immersive experience over the course three days for student startup founders to pitch to investors, receive multiple rounds of feedback and advance their startup.
  • There will be over $1 million in prizes, and all 42 teams who compete at Rice University in Houston are guaranteed to win cash prizes. The minimum cash prize is $500 and the grand prize winner receives a $300,000 investment (typically in the form of a convertible debt note, without geographic restrictions.)
Duration of Program: April 5-7, 2018
How to Apply: Submit your application online at www.rbpc.rice.edu
  • One member of your team, the designated team leader, should complete the simple online application. The application consists of contact information and eligibility requirements, a 2-5 page Executive Summary, and an optional 1-2 minute
    Video Elevator Pitch.
  • There is no cost to apply or to compete. Multiple student startup teams from the same school, institution or university center may apply to compete. There is no limit on the number of applications per school. The startup teams competing at Rice must include at least two degree-seeking students, including at least one graduate level student. (See details in Eligibility Requirements section.)
  • Once an application is submitted, no changes can be made.
  • We hope to offer all teams all teams that complete an application will receive a free 6-month subscription to Live Plan by Palo Alto Software. Instructions about your subscription will be provided after the application deadline.
  • Teams invited to compete in the Rice Business Plan Competition will be notified by email on or before Thursday, March 1, 2018.
Award Providers: Rice University

Ayada Lab French-German Incubation Lab for Entrepreneurs in West Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 16th February 2018
Eligible Countries: West African countries
To Be Taken At (Country):  Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana
About the Award: It consists of local and regional workshops, mentoring by some of the best African entrepreneurs in the fields of cultural, digital and social entrepreneurship, networking with leading German and French cultural, social and digital entrepreneurs. The program takes place in English and French, the two languages of the Lab.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: Young West Africans entrepreneurs who meet the following criteria are more than welcome to apply :
  • Aged between 20 and 35
  • Be a national of and based in either Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria or Cameroon
  • Have a 1 year project experience or a tested idea creating value of innovation with high impact on society
  • Have a project in the Cultural and Creative industries (fashion, books, cinema, etc.), Digital (online courses, e-learning, digital education), or Civil society issues (education, women rights and empowerment, civic tech, active citizens)
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
    • Networking trips: to France and Germany to meet with European creative and tech industries experts
    • Individual mentoring: Round 2 selection of candidates for a full year individual mentoring and participation in the AYADA Lab regional workshop
    • Local & regional workshops: Taking place in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria and Cameroon, with African cultural, social and digital experts to bolster the startups
Duration of Program: 12 months
How to Apply: Apply Now
Award Providers: Institut Francais, Goethe Institut

European Journalism Centre (EJC) Journalism Grants for Reporting on Opportunities for Women in Developing Countries (€200,000 Grant Award) 2018

Application Deadline: 21st February 2018 (22:00 CET)
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: “The Innovation in Development Reporting Grant Programme has granted over €4.5m to almost 400 grantees worldwide. In this latest round, we’re looking to add to that community by supporting newsrooms and freelancers covering compelling topics,” said European Journalism Centre Director Adam Thomas. “The jury are first and foremost looking for a strong, under-reported story angle. Regardless of innovative format, whether it’s via print or virtual reality, awarded projects will also demonstrate a strategic and focused approach to reaching the right audience, at the right time.”
Type: Grants
Eligibility: The stories must report on one or more of the world’s developing countries, (ideally Least Developed Countries (LDCs)), and/or the key European donor countries’ development relations with these countries.
  • Whether tackling women’s lifelong learning, health, jobs, entrepreneurship, or new roles in their communities, the projects pitched should be original, under-reported, critical and nuanced.
  • Freelancers, staffers and media organisations are eligible to apply.
  • There is no citizenship, nationality or residence/location restriction on the applicants as long as the final results are published in media outlets with significant reach to audiences in the following European countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom.
  • Journalists who are not specialists in development issues are strongly encouraged to apply as well.
Selection Criteria: Selection criteria include editorial focus and quality, impact and reach, and innovation. Previous winners have involved creative uses of video, audio, imagery, data, text, maps, graphics, quizzes, animation and other engaging content forms.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The grant given is up to €20,000 per project.
How to Apply: Applications can only be submitted via this online application form
For further information on applications eligibility criteria, click here.
Award Providers: The European Journalism Centre is running the Journalism Grants Programme with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bristol University Think Big Scholarships for Undergraduate and Postgraduate International Students 2018 – UK

Application Deadlines: 
  • The deadline for the first round is Friday 23rd March 2018.
  • The deadline for the second round is Friday 29th June 2018.
Eligible Countries: International
To Be Taken At (Country): University of Bristol, UK
About the Award: Bristol University is committed to helping and nurturing global talent to produce the future leaders of tomorrow.
Field of Study: Any full-time Undergraduate programme (except Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Science) or Postgraduate programme offered at the University
Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate
Eligibility: You can apply for a Think Big Scholarship if you:
  • •  are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
  • •  applied to start a full-time undergraduate degree in one of the qualifying course or one year, full-time taught postgraduate programme at the University of Bristol in September 2018.
Number of Awards: 26 Undergraduate scholarships AND 26 Postgraduate scholarships.
Value of Award: Award covers between 25 and 100 per cent of tuition fees for the duration of your course.
Duration of Program: Duration of candidate’s chosen program
How to Apply: To apply for this scholarship, download and complete the required (either undergraduate or postgraduate) application form on the Program Webpage and email it to international-partnerships[at]bristol.ac.uk.
Go through the Application procedure on the Program Webpage before applying.
Award Providers: Bristol University

United Nations Teen Advisors Program for Young Girls around the World 2018

Application Deadline: 12th February 2018
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: The Teen Advisor program is where Girl Up truly lives out its “by girls, for girls” mission. Composed of a widely diverse group of teenage girls, Teen Advisors are passionate change-makers who together spread and fuel Girl Up’s work. As Teen Advisors, they are central to all Girl Up decision-making including advocacy, fundraising and communications strategy. To support the Teen Advisors in this task, Girl Up provides skills-based trainings, professional development opportunities, hands-on learning, and most significantly, personal relationships with the staff.
Since the first Teen Advisor class served the 2010-2011 school year, these seven classes collectively have raised, 117 Teen Advisors have collectively raised nearly $500,000, completed more than 7,000 hours of service, hosted hundreds of events in their communities around the world and performed nearly 500 advocacy actions – including in-district meetings and countless letters and calls to congress.
Teen Advisor Responsibilities include:
  • Attend and actively participate in and prepare for monthly calls/webinars (scheduled for the second Sunday of every month)
  • Attend two mandatory in-person meetings — one preceding the annual Leadership Summit in Washington D.C. (mid-July), the other in January or February of the following year (for those U.S. applicants, the weekend generally follows either MLK….”
  • Start and/or lead a Girl Up Club in your school or surrounding community
  • Regularly contribute to the Girl Up Community, an online hub for Girl Up Clubs and Campuses
  • Represent Girl Up in the media and at events in their communities
Type: Training
Eligibility: Applications are open to self-identified girls from the U.S and outside the U.S. Applicants:
  • Must be entering the U.S. equivalent of 9th-12th grades
  • Display a sense of maturity, cultural-sensitivity, and openness to learning about different cultures
  • Be committed to the empowerment of girls and women
  • Possess strong leadership skills and have proven desire to become a globally-minded citizen through meaningful discussion, learning and action in their community and school
  • Have knowledge of and passion for Girl Up’s mission and vision for adolescent girls around the world
  • Be able to complete all Teen Advisor responsibilities as outlined below
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • Access to United Nations speakers, agencies and initiatives
  • Access and financial support to attend speaking and blogging opportunities for special events and conferences like the Social Good Summit and International Day of the Girl
  • Intensive skills-based trainings, professional development opportunities, hands-on learning
  • An insider’s view into Girl Up through constant communication with staff, and most significantly, personal relationships
  • Decision-making power in the work of the campaign
Duration of Program: Program starts June 1 2018. Runs for 1 year
How to Apply: Every January, Girl Up opens the first round of applications to teen girls who are ready and excited to change the world. Girl Up selects girls from the first round and invites them to complete the full second round application. Girl Up reviews those applications and notifies the new class of Teen Advisors in mid-April. Teen Advisors serve for one year beginning June 1.
Award Providers: United Nations Foundation.

The Darker Side of India: Religious Violence

SOHAIL MAHMOOD

The history of modern India has several incidents of religious violence. In the 1947 Partition when both India and Pakistan achieved their independence from the British Raj there took place one of the greatest migrations in history when Muslims left India for Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan for India. It is estimated that between 10 and 12 million people crossed the border between India and Pakistan in 1947. In the ensuing violence between the Muslims and Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs between 1.5 to 2 million lost their lives.
Since independence hundreds of religious riots have been recorded in Indian which thousands have been killed, mostly Muslims Minorities in India, especially Sikhs, Muslims and Christians, are being persecuted by Hindu nationalists belonging to the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This has been widely reported in the media and by international watch dog organizations. There has also been a rise in communal and sectarian violence in India. For instance, a Muslim has been beaten to death in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand after reportedly asking a group to stop playing loud music on New Year’s Day. Earlier this year, a Muslim man was reportedly killed by a mob who accused him of transporting beef in his car. On January 26, 2018, Hindu youth clashed with Muslims in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh in which one person was killed. This led to riots in the town for a couple of days.
Vigilante cow protection groups harassed and attacked people in states including Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka in the name of upholding laws prohibiting the killing of cows.
Earlier, the bodies of two Muslim cattle traders were found hanging from a tree in Jharkhand. In June, members of a cow protection group in Haryana forced two Muslim men, who they suspected were beef transporters, to eat cow dung. A woman in Haryana said that she and her 14-year-old cousin were gang-raped by men who accused them of eating beef. A team formed to reinvestigate closed cases related to the 1984 Sikh massacre identified 77 cases for further investigation and invited people to testify. The functioning of the team continued to lack transparency.
Ananya Bhattarya claimed in his article published in Quartz, April 14, 2017that India is the fourth-worst country in the world for religious violence.
According to civil rights groups there is an extensive list of brutalities in the name of religion in India. For instance, the killing of at least 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Since independence in 1947, the Muslim community has been subject to and engaged in sectarian violence in Gujarat state. In 2002,Hindu extremists carried out acts of violence against the Muslim minority population. The starting point for the incident was the Godhra train burning which was allegedly done by Muslims. During the incident, young girls were sexually assaulted, burned or hacked to death. These rapes were condoned by the ruling BJP, whose refusal to intervene lead to the displacement of 200,000. Death toll figures range from the official estimate of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus killed, to 2,000 Muslims killed. Then Chief Minister Narendra Modi has also been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have the police and government officials who took part, as they directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to the extremists. In 2007,Tehelka magazine released The Truth: Gujarat 2002 which was a report based on a six-month-long investigation and involving video sting operations. It  stated that the violence was made possible by the support of the state police and the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi for the perpetrators. The report and the reactions to it were widely covered in Indian and international media. The recordings were authenticated by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation There was great media interest in the report’s description of Narendra Modi’s role in the riots, based, for example, on video footage of a senior Bajrang Dal leader saying that at a public meeting on the day of the fire, “he had given us three days to do whatever we could. He said he would not give us time after that, he said this openly.”
The only conclusion from the available evidence points to a methodical pogrom, which was carried out with exceptional brutality and was highly coordinated.
According to Human Rights Watch, the violence in Gujarat in 2002 was pre-planned, and the police and state government participated in the violence. In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court. As expected, the Muslim community was very angered by the development and viewed it as a betrayal of trust.
On 6 December 1992, riots took place between Hindus and Muslims in Mumbai in which at least 11 people were killed in various incidents in the city. The riots changed the demographics of Mumbai greatly, as Muslims moved to Muslim-majority areas and Hindus moved to Hindu-majority areas.
The 2002 Godhra train burning incident in which Hindus were burned alive allegedly by Muslims led to the Gujarat riots in which mostly Muslims were killed. According to the death toll given to the parliament on 11 May 2005 by the United Progressive Alliance government, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and another 2,548 injured. Some 223 people are missing. According to one advocacy group, the death tolls were up to 2000. According to the Congressional Research Service, up to 2000 people were killed in the violence.
Tens of thousands were displaced from their homes because of the violence. According to New York Times report, witnesses were dismayed by the lack of intervention from local police, who often watched the events taking place and took no action against the attacks on Muslims and their property.
Sangh leaders as well as the Gujarat government maintain that the violence was spontaneous and uncontrollable reaction to the burning. However, the Government of India has implemented almost all the recommendations of the Sachar Committee to help Muslims.
In its annual human rights reports for 1999, the United States Department of State criticized India for “increasing societal violence against Christians.” The report listed over 90 incidents of anti-Christian violence, ranging from damage of religious property to violence against Christian pilgrims.
In Madhya Pradesh, unidentified persons set two Statues inside St Peter and Paul Church in Jabalpur on fire. In Karnataka, religious violence was targeted against Christians in 2008.
A 1999 Human Rights Watch report states increasing levels of religious violence on Christians in India, perpetrated by Hindu organizations. In 2000, acts of religious violence against Christians included forcible reconversion of converted Christians to Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature and destruction of Christian cemeteries.
In 2007 and 2008 there occurred a massacre of more than 100 Christians and torching of thousands of homes in Orissa and Karnataka.
Undoubtedly, religious intolerance is very high in India. A Pew Research Center analysis of 198 countries has ranked India as fourth worst in the world for religious intolerance. Tensions between religious communities, especially Hindus and Muslims, has long divided India. However, the rifts have intensified lately.  Muslims in India at times experience attacks by Hindus because of alleged cow slaughter. In addition, there are multiple incidents of rioting and mob violence involving the two communities. Officials of the BJP have made declarations that India should be exclusively Hindu.  Minority communities, including Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, complained of numerous incidents of harassment by Hindu nationalist groups. There is a government ban on buying cows for slaughter in animal markets. Also, there is the promotion of Hindi, and there are the appointments of Hindutva sympathizers to top posts in educational and cultural organizations.
In Gujarat state anti-conversion laws do not allow people to adopt a religion without permission from the district magistrate, also hampering religious autonomy. In Haryana state the Hindu holy text, the Bhagwad Gita, has been included in the school curriculum. The Hindu nationalist wing of the governing BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has organizes mass ghar wapsi (return to Hinduism) ceremonies, which are also viewed as an attempt to dismantle minority religions.
Most troubling is the role of the BJP in religious violence in the country. The party has been complicit in many incidents of religious violence, especially against Muslims. The historical development of the BJP is intrinsically tied to its minorities, especially Muslim, populist bashing catering to its Hindu nationalist base. The development of the party took place because of this stance against minorities, especially Muslim. In 1983, right-wing Hindu zealots from the Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal destroyed the 16th Century Babri mosque, declaring, without any proof. that it was built on the site of a temple destroyed by Muslim rulers.
Many political analysts trace the rise of the Party BJP since that event. It is believed that the demolition of the mosque was indeed the most blatant act of defiance of law in India and a watershed for Indian nationhood. Then the BJP had hoped that the demolition of the mosque would consolidate Hindu votes in its favor, but the party failed in coming into power until 1999.
Later, a 2010 Allahabad court ruled that the site was indeed a Hindu monument before the mosque was built there, based on evidence submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India. This action had caused great humiliation to the Muslim community. The resulting religious riots caused at least 1200 deaths. The Government of India then blocked off the disputed site and the matter lingers on in the court.
Much later, the BJP achieved its first absolute majority in parliament in 2014 and Narendra Modi became prime minister. Since then he has actively promoted Hindu nationalism and has started to implement the BJP’s Hindutva agenda.
Human Rights Watch, an influential global human rights watchdog organization, in is latest World Report 2018 states:
Vigilante violence aimed at religious minorities, marginalized communities, and critics of the government—often carried out by groups claiming to support the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—became an increasing threat in India in 2017. The government failed to promptly or credibly investigate the attacks, while many senior BJP leaders publicly promoted Hindu supremacy and ultra-nationalism, which encouraged further violence. Dissent was labeled anti-national, and activists, journalists, and academics were targeted for their views, chilling free expression. Foreign funding regulations were used to target nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) critical of government actions or policies. Lack of accountability for past abuses committed by security forces persisted even as there were new allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings, including in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Jammu and Kashmir…. Mob attacks by extremist Hindu groups affiliated with the ruling BJP against minority communities, especially Muslims, continued throughout the year amid rumors that they sold, bought, or killed cows for beef. Instead of taking prompt legal action against the attackers, police frequently filed complaints against the victims under laws banning cow slaughter. As of November, there had been 38 such attacks, and 10 people killed during the year. In July, even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally condemned such violence, an affiliate organization of the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), announced plans to recruit 5,000 “religious soldiers” to “control cow smuggling and love jihad.” So-called love jihad, according to Hindu groups, is a conspiracy among Muslim men to marry Hindu women and convert them to Islam.
The Indian media acknowledges that hate crimes are taking place in India. Lynching of Muslims suspected of consuming beef, a taboo for Hindus, have become commonplace. Paranoid extremist Hindus accuse Muslim men of engaging in “love jihad” or converting Hindu women by seducing them into marriage.  Christians also face the same sort of allegations. Today, it is common that Hindu extremists beat up a Hindu-Muslim couple in India. Recently, a court annulled a marriage between a Muslim man and a 25-year-old Hindu woman in medical school.
Although Modi constantly proclaims his aim is to develop India for all Indians, Muslims are barely represented in BJP governments in the center and in the states. The chief minister Modi has selected to govern Uttar Pradesh, is renowned for his hostility to Muslims. The state is the most important one in India because of its population and political significance. Meanwhile, the voices of the country’s vulnerable Muslim minority are being stifled, as never in history. These incidents of religious persecution aren’t new in India. In the past, the country has witnessed numerous incidents of religious violence, mostly against religious minorities. Often religious tensions are a product of narratives that seek to justify violence based on certain myths.
Although, the country’s constitution provides for religious freedom, India does not always practice it. Indeed, it is a tragedy that India, under Modi and the BJP, has turned more intolerant of religious minorities who continue to suffer under the Hindu nationalists rule. Given India’s success in economic development, it is tragic indeed that religious violence is tearing the country’s social fabric and thereby hurting the country’s overall development as a global power. We wish it was not so.

Yemen’s Crisis Belong to All of Us

Robert Koehler

What’s a little cholera — excuse me, the worst outbreak of this preventable disease in modern history — compared to the needs of a smoothly functioning economy?
A week before he was kicked out of British Prime Minister Theresa May’s cabinet for allegedly having watched pornography on his government computer, former First Secretary of State Damian Green was quoted in the Guardian as saying that British weapons sales to Saudi Arabia were necessary because: “Our defense industry is an extremely important creator of jobs and prosperity.”
That statement is not the scandal — just business as usual. And of course Great Britain only supplies a quarter of the weaponry Saudi Arabia imports to wage its devastating war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United States supplies more than half, with 17 other countries also cashing in on this market.
This amounts to a huge portion of the world at war, with a lot of winners and only a few, easily ignored losers. The losers include most of the population of Yemen, which has become an abyss of hopelessness, with famine and infectious disease intensifying the hell they are being forced to endure, as international players struggle for regional domination.
This sort of insanity has been going on since the dawn of civilization. But the voices crying out against war remain as marginalized and without political clout as ever. War is too useful politically and economically to be susceptible to a moral challenge.
“Our understanding of war . . . is about as confused and unformed as theories of disease were roughly 200 years ago,” Barbara Ehrenreich notes in her book Blood Rites.
This is an interesting observation, considering that “The cholera epidemic in Yemen has become the largest and fastest-spreading outbreak of the disease in modern history,” with more than a million suspected cases reported, and some 2,200 deaths. “About 4,000 suspected cases are being reported daily, more than half of which are among children under 18,” according to Kate Lyons of the Guardian. “Children under five account for a quarter of all cases.”
Lyons quotes Tamer Kirolos, director of the Save the Children NGO in Yemen: “There’s no doubt this is a man-made crisis,” she said. “Cholera only rears its head when there’s a complete and total breakdown in sanitation. All parties to the conflict must take responsibility for the health emergency we find ourselves in.”
I repeat: This is a man-made crisis.
The results of this strategic game of power include the collapse of Yemen’s sanitation and public health systems. And fewer and fewer Yemenis have access to . . . clean water, for God’s sake.
And it’s all part of the strategic game of power. In order to rout the Shiite rebels backed by Iran, the Saudi coalition “has aimed to destroy food production and distribution” with its bombing campaign, according to London School of Economics researcher Martha Mundy. When I read this, I couldn’t help but think about Operation Ranch Hand, the U.S. strategy during the Vietnam War to destroy crops and forest cover by inundating the country with some 20 million gallons of herbicides, including the notorious Agent Orange.
What military or political end could possibly warrant such action? The reality of war transcends all description, all outrage.
And the global antiwar movement has, as far as I can tell, less traction than it did half a century ago. U.S. politics is unraveling, not realigning itself to create a sane, secure future. Donald Trump is the president.
Following his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has moved its iconic Doomsday Clock forward to two minutes to midnight, released a statement:
“Major nuclear actors are on the cusp of a new arms race, one that will be very expensive and will increase the likelihood of accidents and misperceptions. Across the globe, nuclear weapons are poised to become more rather than less usable because of nations’ investments in their nuclear arsenals. President Trump was clear in his State of the Union Address last night when he said ‘we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal.’ . . .
“Leaked copies of the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review suggest that the U.S. is about to embark on a less safe, less responsible and more expensive path. The Bulletin has highlighted concern about the direction that countries like the United States, China and Russia are moving, and momentum toward this new reality is increasing.”
This is a man-made crisis. Or is it something less than that — a crisis of the worst of human instincts? In Yemen, cholera and famine have been unleashed by men in pursuit of victory for their cause. The faces of suffering and dying children — the consequences of this pursuit — provoke shock. This is so clearly wrong, but geopolitically, does anything change?
Violence is still sold as a necessity of security. “We must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal.” And it’s still being bought, at least by those who think the violence is aimed at someone else.

Huge Military Budgets Make Us Broke, Not Safe

Miriam Pemberton

We’re all tense. Hearing about our fellow citizens in Hawaii scrambling around, looking for a place to hide from a nuclear bomb, will do that to you. So will contests between two unstable world leaders over the size of their nuclear buttons.
Now, some politicians say they’ll protect us by adding massive amounts to the Pentagon budget. This seems like a no-brainer: feel threatened, give more money to the military. But it isn’t.
Practically everyone from the president on down, though, seems to take it as a given. “In confronting these horrible dangers,” Donald Trump said during his State of the Union, “I’m calling on Congress” to “fully fund our great military.”
The president and his party are now looking to add somewhere between $30 and $70 billion more in military spending to their budget for next year — on top of the increases for this year. Democrats seem willing to go along, with a few caveats.
Nobody seems worried anymore about adding to the financial hole we just dug for ourselves and our children with $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich.
It’s true that the military needs predictability, which has been hobbled by politicians who can’t get it together to pass a real budget. Every enterprise, except maybe improv comedy, does. But it’s not true that the military needs more money.
The portrait of a “starved” military, which Trump and his secretary of defense like to complain about, airbrushes out a few facts.
We’re now spending more on the military, adjusted for inflation, than at any time since World War II — including during the Reagan and George W. Bush buildups. We spend more than the next eight countries put together.
Worse still, the military can’t even say what it’s actually spending — it’s still the only federal agency that can’t pass an audit. The brass says they’ll really try this year, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Trusting the Pentagon to rein in its own waste hasn’t worked. Back in 2015, the Pentagon’s own commissioned report found $125 billion in administrative waste that could be cut over five years. But then they simply buried the report.
Here’s what we really need to feel safer: Leaders who are working to reduce nuclear tensions rather than rev them up.
Instead, in addition to firing off scary tweets, Trump repeated calls in his State of the Union to “modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal,” to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Why? The 4,000 nukes we currently have — enough to destroy the entire planet — seem like an adequate deterrent.
Leaders are meanwhile working on designs for new “lower yield” nukes, envisioning them as tools for “limited” nuclear war. That makes nuclear war seem more feasible, and therefore more likely. Feeling safer yet?
And they want to build up the arsenal of conventional weapons, mostly to counter China. But China is expanding its influence around the world not mainly through military spending — its military budget is only a third of ours — but through its civilian investments.
As the U.S. retreats from providing development aid, China is filling the vacuum. As the U.S. cuts off its previous investments in clean energy technology, China has become the solar panel provider to the world.
Our new security strategy, by the way, has also airbrushed out climate change. A military that previously identified climate change as “an urgent and growing threat to national security” is now barred by the administration from talking about it at all.
While we contemplate spending money we don’t have for weapons we don’t need, the urgency of this threat continues to grow.