24 Dec 2020

Ethical dilemma surrounding stray animals

Sucharita Saha


The genesis of the issue

I was privy to the public outcry regarding the menace of stray dogs when I saw a flurry of newspaper articles published by a leading daily regarding how dog bites were becoming more frequent, especially during the lockdown and people were forced to live in terror. This event triggered a chain reaction from other dailies and publications. Incidents of stray dog menace are not unheard of. Residents are frequently heard recounting their harrowing experiences of having been bitten by stray dogs, or being chased by them when carrying food or being snarled at while taking a walk.

While the agony of the people being harassed by dogs was understandable, what did not sit well with me was how requests started pouring in to make colonies ‘dog-free’ by killing the dogs, or asking dog lovers to take ownership of any untoward incident of animal menace. Animal lovers were also asked to adopt street dogs and restrict them to within the household. What struck me in particular was: while humans had civil rights to roam freely, do we possess the authority to curb such rights of other animals? Do human lives matter more than animal rights?

Private solution to a public problem

Trust a capitalistic society to suggest a private “solution” to the public menace of repeated instances of dog bites, which is to let a third (sufficiently-distanced) party do whatever it can to remove dogs – including putting them away quietly, or dumping them in garbage dumpsters to get rid of them. But this raises further questions:

>> Is this a sustainable solution to an ongoing issue? Will merely replacing the source of the problem solve the matter?

>> What happens when humans start fearing other animals, or even fellow humans? Do we start dumping all anti-social elements in garbage dumpsters?

>> Why do different categories of dogs get differential treatment? Why do some well-bred animals are seen as status symbols, and treated like family members, while others living on the streets are seen as social outcasts?

Law against killing of strays

Killing of stray dogs is punishable under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which classifies torture and transporting them in a manner which causes them suffering, as cruelty. However, it only attracts a meagre fine of Rs. 100-500 or imprisonment upto three months.

Ethical dilemma surrounding the issue

Utilitarianism proposes maximum collective utility, even if it means ignoring the individual rights of a few. Utilitarian views of greater benefit to society might hold ground as it would lead to a ‘safer’ and pro-human society. However, looking at it from a Kantian standpoint, discrimination against stray dogs is morally wrong because it implies that we allow human race to matter more than the strays. Libertarian view states that acts of coercion on individuals by other individuals or government is unjust. Thus, according to libertarians, removal of dogs from our surroundings and dumping them in garbage mounds violates their fundamental right to life and dignity.

Since animals cannot bear duties, therefore, should they be allowed any rights?

The argument can be made that dogs have only a private space unless humans chose to create reserves for them. While it seems fair to ask animal lovers to bear the responsibility of adoption, the institutionalized hypocrisy comes from the law where we are asinine enough to believe that rights can be given without worrying about the concomitant duties.

To counter that, one can argue that dogs form an important link in the ecosystem. Without the dogs on constant vigil, there might be increased cases of theft or robbery in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the growing population of rats, snakes and monkeys would be difficult to control if we remove the dogs altogether from the ecosystem.

Furthermore, who are we to assign dogs any duties? Do they have the same capabilities as humans to expect of them to fulfill duties? Did we consult them before imposing duties upon them? Stray dogs are smarter, have better immunity and are known for their survival instincts. Can we expect a dolphin to run, a monkey to swim or a fish to crawl?

Are some learnings more ‘important’ than others?

Having grown up and think for myself, I’m now able to think about the injustices in society, despite being a part of a capitalist society. Should I surrender to the capitalist explanation of the problem? But then, what about the social principles being thrust upon us by the same society?

We domesticated dogs to benefit from their companionship, and have been responsible for increasing their population to this extent that we see strays as a menace to society now. While we also allowed the human population to grow and looked down upon policies that forcefully sterilized them (recall the imposition of the 1975 emergency and the outcry over forced sterilization), why do we have double standards for the rising population of dogs? While we destroyed their natural habitat and forced them to move to cities, how can we shoo them away like they are traded commodities?

Even from a capitalist point of view, how is it a solution to keep someone hungry and expect them to be friendly and calm? Even amongst humans, we see instances of violence or theft of food when they do not have means to buy food.

2020: The year of learnings

Having been forced to live inside our homes for months, we now have a hint as to how it feels to be trapped, to be devoid of one’s civil rights. In the same spirit, is it too much to expect of people to show empathy towards strays? Is there a way out other than capture them in municipality cages?

Possible solutions

The issue boils down to one of man vs. animal rights, and needs to be addressed by policy measures including proper vaccination and sterilization drives, dedicated feeding spots and a team of animal caregivers who could contact a nearby NGO in case a dog is seen to be ferocious and report the matter immediately. Notably, many NGOs and dog lover groups were feeding the strays at the start of the lockdown but eventually stopped because their resources dried up. Local government authorities should come forward to help in this regard, by enforcing stricter guidelines and offering financial support to feed the strays. We should look beyond seemingly easy fixes like mass killing or simple displacement of dogs from our society and treat the matter with humaneness.

The fight against Manual Scavenging

Ashish Joshi


Manual scavenging is the age-old unfortunate practice of cleaning, carrying, and disposing human excreta from dry latrines or sewers into the disposal sites. Despite prohibitive legislations in place, a government survey from 2019, carried out across 170 districts, found that over 54000 people actively engage in the practice. In 2019 alone, 110 people died while cleaning septic tanks and sewers. For a job that has been outlawed for years, the manual practice continues without providing even the essential safety equipment that must be provided to the people engaging in this dangerous job. It is regrettable for a country that has been to Mars and back that we still have not eradicated this sordid practice from our societal fabric.

Caste and Gender: Cobwebs of a discriminatory trap

Manual scavenging is a socio-economic problem deep-rooted in the country’s caste system and plagues India’s dream of creating a modern, liberal, and equitable society for all its citizens. Most of the scavengers are Dalits primarily from the Valmiki caste and are often unregistered workers, hence forced to work on meager wages and other forms of in-kind compensation. These communities are forced to live in unsanitary residences, usually close to dumping grounds on the city’s outskirts. Moreover, the little resources that they have at their disposal keep them trapped in this practice for generations.

Another divide is created by gender. Usually, wherever the entire family is engaged in scavenging. Men work at places where the wages are slightly higher, like cleaning the railway tracks or large public sewers, while women tend to clean clogged latrines in houses that need to be cleaned daily. Around 85% of the female scavengers are married who were all forced to either take up the job as a replacement or as a companion for their mothers-in-law.

Scavenging has become a part of the communal identity for the people involved in this practice. Society knows who they are and what they do and hence prey on them at every step possible. The children from these communities often don’t get to go to school, but even if they do, they are forced to sit in corners with negligible attention and interaction with other students and teachers. The community members are also denied rights to use public goods and entrance to community gatherings. It is nearly impossible for someone who wants to move away from the practice to get another job as people are extremely reluctant to offer them any other job.

The challenges associated with rehabilitation.

With a few batchmates of mine, I had an opportunity to have a conversation with Activist Mr. Bezwada Wilson (Safai Karmachari Andolan). He helped us identify some critical challenges associated with rehabilitating the people associated with the practice. Post the 1993 Legislation that prohibited manual scavenging; the government has taken several steps to rehabilitate the workers. Unfortunately, all the actions that have been taken have been severely misaligned. In 2007, The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment started the Self Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS). Over INR 231 Crore was spent to be given away in the form of loans to the workers. However, a 2011 survey found the following severe shortcomings in the eventual impact of the initiative:

  1. More than 95% of the workforce comprises women, yet 51% of the beneficiaries were male.
  2. Three beneficiaries out of every four were not even associated with the practice in the first place.
  3. The INR 40,000 loan, which can be given per family to the safai karmchari to start a new small-scale venture, was majorly eaten up by middlemen. The beneficiaries eventually did not even receive even INR 5000, which they defaulted, having no idea why they were given the amount or any repayment condition.

Policymakers seek solutions from the beneficiaries themselves:

Mr. Bezwada, over the years, has had several opportunities to interact with public servants and administrators over the issue after he filed his petition to the supreme court on the issue. The common feature of all these conversations was that the state machinery, rather than seeking potential solutions themselves, revert by asking for solutions from the activists and petitioners. Eventually, It is the state’s responsibility to create an equitable society for all its citizens, and the fact that they respond by asking follow up questions indicates the priority given by them to the issue. This is possibly why the government has, on several occasions, has extended the time frame to implement the alternatives necessary to eradicate the practice after it was outlawed for the first time in 1993.

Hopefully, the central government’s recent promise on the world toilet day by mechanizing man-holes into machine holes isn’t just another one in a long list of promises made to the people.

What Mr. Wilson further stressed was that an even bigger problem exists at the end of beneficiaries, which is often ignored to jack up any policy initiative’s impact. There is no monitoring mechanism in place. As a result, a beneficiary who would receive the proposed loan amount would instead use up the money to meet personal expenses and go back to work the very next day. People who attempt to start a small-scale venture of their own are highly likely to fail as they do not have the necessary skills to succeed in other ventures.

Awareness is where the real fight lies.

The caste hierarchy is deeply ingrained in the minds of people. Someone from the privileged sections of society will never even imagine working as a manual scavenger. On the other hand, a kid from the Valmiki community is extremely likely to think that scavenging is the only job he or she can get. Even when an NGO or even the government tries to help a safai karmachari by creating a sustainable life outside of scavenging, scavenging forms for a convenient fallback option as it is a socially acceptable lifestyle in the community despite the traumatizing nature of the job. According to Mr. Bezwada Wilson, this is where the real battle is. The community’s awareness of the nature of the job, potential options outside scavenging, and realization of their self-worth are areas where the maximum work needs to be done. The long-term goal must be to strike a balance between tangible mitigative options and raising sensitivity and awareness.

Time to End Patent Monopolies

Dean Baker


For several years the opioid crisis has been recognized as a major national catastrophe. Millions of people have become addicted to the new generation of opioid drugs. In many cases, this addiction has led to the destruction of families, job loss, crime, and suicide. At the peak of the crisis in West Virginia, the hardest hit state, the death rate from overdoses alone, was more than 41 people per 100,000. This is more than 70 percent of its fatality rate from the pandemic, as of mid-December. And this doesn’t count deaths due to crime or opioid-related health conditions. Opioids are a big part of the story of the state’s drop in life expectancy over the last quarter century.

The crisis did not just happen by chance. As we now know, drug manufacturers and distributors made large amounts of money pushing their drugs. The actual process of pushing opioids by Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and their distributors has been well-documented. While the patent monopoly meant the price of Oxycontin, the most widely marketed drug among the new generation of opioids, was far higher than generic versions, this big profit margin gave Purdue Pharma and others an enormous incentive to push their drugs.

In particular, they misled doctors and the public about their addictiveness. They hired hundreds of salespeople to promote their drugs as widely as possible, with no concern whatsoever about abuse of their drugs. As a result of a series of recent legal actions, leading manufacturers and distributors have now paid or agreed to pay tens of billions of dollars to compensate individuals and communities for the harm done by their drugs.

While the devastation caused by the opioid crisis and the ensuing legal actions have received considerable attention, this important part of the picture has been completely missing. There has been essentially zero discussion of the incentive that government-granted patent monopolies gave these companies to push their drugs.

The basic point is a simple one: Patent monopolies allow companies to sell drugs at prices far above the free-market level. This is intentional. In order to give drug companies the “incentive” to invest in the development of new drugs, we give them a 20-year patent monopoly, which allows them to sell their drugs at prices far above what they would sell for if they faced generic competition.

These monopolies are the reason that many drugs are so expensive. It is rare that it actually costs much money to manufacture and distribute a given drug. When a drug is selling for thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, it is almost always because its manufacturer holds a patent monopoly. When these drugs are subject to generic competition, they can often sell for less than 1 percent of the patent protected price.

Furthermore, if a company can sell a drug at a markup of several thousand percent thanks to a monopoly, it has enormous incentive to market it as widely as possible. This will often mean concealing evidence suggesting that a drug may not be as effective as claimed, or is actually harmful, as was the case with the opioid crisis.

The opioid crisis was an extreme case, but instances where drug companies have paid large settlements in response to claims they misled doctors and the general public about the safety or effectiveness of their drugs are not rare. To take another famous example, the drug giant Merck paid billions of dollars in a settlement over allegations that it concealed evidence that its arthritis drug, Vioxx, was dangerous for people with heart conditions.

We could see the problem of drug companies lying to push drugs as an unfortunate, but unavoidable, aspect of the drug development process if there was no alternative to relying on patent monopolies to finance the development of new drugs. But in fact there are alternative mechanisms, as we in fact just witnessed with Moderna’s rapid development of an effective vaccine against the coronavirus.

As part of Operation Warp Speed, the federal government paid Moderna more than $900 million, fully covering the cost of its pre-clinical research and clinical trials. While the government also gave Moderna patent rights to its vaccine, it effectively paid for the full research and development costs upfront.

This is an important precedent, since it shows that direct public funding can be an effective way to support the development of new drugs. This should really not be a surprising story. The government already spends over $40 billion a year financing biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This money is almost universally regarded as a smart investment, as it has led to many great breakthroughs in medicine. In fact, the discovery of the coronavirus spike protein in 2016, which is the main building block for both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, was achieved thanks to NIH funding.

But most NIH funding is directed toward more basic research than was the case with the Moderna vaccine. The pharmaceutical industry has long pushed the view that, although the government could very effectively support basic biomedical research, if it turned to actually developing drugs or vaccines itself,  we would effectively be throwing money in the toilet because the government cannot effectively direct funding for later stages of drug development.

This was in spite of the fact that there have actually been many important drugs developed largely on NIH grants. Still, the Moderna vaccine gives us a new and very prominent example of how the government can effectively finance the direct development of a drug or a vaccine. Of course, if we are directly funding drug development there is no point in also granting patent monopolies, and PhRMA’s main argument falls apart. The logic of direct funding is that all findings would be fully open so that any manufacturer could make them. There are better and worse ways to construct financing mechanisms, but obviously direct funding can provide an alternative to patent monopolies. (I discuss this issue in chapter five of Riggedit’s free.)

In additional to allowing drugs to be available as cheap generics from the day they are approved, direct funding can also allow for open-source research. This would mean that results from pre-clinical research, as well as clinical trials, would be posted on the web as soon as practical. This would allow researchers to build on one  another’s successes and learn from their failures. This sort of open research was touted by scientists in the early days of the pandemic as a factor allowing much greater understanding of COVID-19 than otherwise would have been the case.

It would be great if the Moderna example allowed the country to engage in a serious debate on the best way to finance the development of new drugs and explicitly consider alternatives to patent monopolies. But if we are to have this debate, we have to be able to talk honestly about the problems with patent financing. This means acknowledging the perverse incentives provided by patent monopolies, and that has included the incentive to push opioids onto patients even when the drug companies knew they were so highly addictive.

Unfortunately, this obvious link between the opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical patent system has never featured in discussions of the crisis to date. Maybe the developments we’ve witnessed as a result of the pandemic will finally open our eyes and allow for a real discussion of the role that patent monopolies played in worsening this crisis in the context of a much broader debate about their merits more generally as a mechanism for financing the development of drugs.

Covid Relief: Need for Big Increase To Prevent Hunger and Distress

Bharat Dogra


As  Covid and lockdowns increased distress and deprivation in many countries, governments in most countries including India responded with relief packages aimed at directly helping the poor and vulnerable sections as well as reviving the  economy. However there are several indicators that the actual relief which reached needy people in India was much less than what was suggested by official announcements.

The lockdown in India were described as among the most stringent and sudden in world. Poverty and hunger are known to be high here even in normal times and the extent of mass distress suffered by migrant workers and other vulnerable sections during  the  lockdown could be seen by all. So relief on a really big scale was needed and if this has not reached people then this needs to be stepped up substantially without further delay.

The Accountability Initiative  located in the Centre for Policy Research has monitored government spending during the year. Its director Avani Kapur and Research Associate Sharad Pandey have written in a recent article titled ‘Decoding the dip in published Expenditure’ ( The Hindustan times, December 21, 2020), “ Despite announcements of over  Rs. 20 lakh crore in fiscal packages, total expenditure till October this year increased by only Rs. 6550 crore when compared to the same period last year. In fact, as a proportion of its  initial Budget Estimate (BE), actual expenditure is lower by five percentage points than the same period last year. A deep-dive into the ministry-wise expenditure data shows that, in terms of the total quantum of funds spent, a staggering 41 out of a total  55 ministries spent less this year till October, compared to last year.”

This review points to the recent Hunger Watch Survey, covering 11 states and 400 respondents, which revealed that more than half the surveyed households had no income source since April and 62% households reported reduced income, and recommends the universalisation of the Public Distribution  System to deal with the hunger crisis. As against this need, this review says, we have the distressing situation that “ the department of consumer affairs, which is responsible for subsidizing food grains, till October, spent 9 per cent less this year than in the same period last year.”

What is more, the review states, “Lower tax devolution to state governments has hampered their own ability to increase expenditures. Till October, states had received 19 per cent lower funds than they did for the same period last year.”

These are very disturbing finding emanating from a leading institution and published in a leading newspaper. In addition we will like to draw attention to some other aspects. A widely appreciated aspect of the relief package has been that of some free grain and pulses provided to needy households up to November. The further extension of this scheme is still awaited eagerly.

Meanwhile we need to consider not just the free food transferred by this scheme already, but also the free food transferred normally every year but withheld this year because of the non-functioning, more or less, for the greater period and the greater part of the country,  of the mid-day meal scheme and of the ICDS ( anganwadi ) scheme, not to mention the less known ones like sable ( for adolescent girls).

After the free food transfer is adjusted for this withdrawal, what is the net addition left, or is there an overall reduction?

Hence there is a clear need to bring out to what extent badly needed relief has reached needy and vulnerable sections , and to take urgent steps for ensuring that this relief is stepped up in a big way without further delay.

Minority Rights Central To India’s Democracy Fiber

Shiv Dutt Barhat


Every country, has its share of minorities, whether linguistic, cultural or ethnic. For nearly all the countries, maintaining and securing their interests is a problem. And, for the biggest democracy in the world with largest spectrum of diversity it becomes a far more complex. In India we established a National Commission for Minorities under the National Commission for Minorities act, 1992.  We even created a    Ministry of Minority Affairs in 2006 and a as nation we also celebrate. Minority Rights Day every year on 18th December with an aim to raise awareness of their rights.  Despite all these efforts for years, the condition of minorities in the country have further degraded. The three prominent reasons for this are lack of representation, fear alienation and lack of societal and cultural intermingling.

Lack of Representation

Of the 1.21 billion Indians, 172.24 million are Muslim citizens, about 14.23 percent of the total population. Thus, at least 14 percent Muslim members should serve in the decision-making body of the country to serve Muslims properly. Yet the fact is far from it. In the lower house of the Indian Parliament, the number of Muslim MPs declined by around two-thirds between 1980 and 2014, even though Muslims’ proportion of the population increased over the same period. In 1980, the Muslim members in Lok Sabha were 49 (approx 10% of total) which declined to 30 (approx 6% of total) in 2009. In the 16th Lok Sabha, Muslim MPs occupy only 20 seats out of 545 seats (approx 3.5% of total). In 2014 for the very first time, no single Muslim MP was elected in Uttar Pradesh, where there is 18% population of minorities. Also, for the first time in the history the winning party had zero MPs from minority background in Lok Sabha in 2019. With such a high under-representation how can we expect that the policies aimed for the minorities in India are designed and implemented with their points taken into consideration. This also builds the narrative of the majority of the nation, in the sense that what seems to be ok to rest of the population is opposed by a small segment again and again, giving rise to the second main cause that is feeling of alienation.

Fear of Alienation

What is considered by many in the country as “the myth of alienation terror of minorities” is definitely not a myth any more, but something that happens and hopes the government to respond. However, why do minorities sound as they do (especially in last few years)? The political mechanism over the last five years has much to do with the problem. The causes for this may be expressive and aggressive incidents. In the past five years, the media have played a major role in establishing anti-Muslim Hindu discourse. Every mechanism was attempted to make the people of India know that Muslims are the country’s biggest challenge. For starters, Muslims’ wedding lives are anti-social, Muslims’ death is anti-national, even in the initial phase of Covid spread a single community was targeted again and again, etc. In the minds of the Hindus, this anti-Muslim idea does have effect affect in numerous ways. Some examples of this phenomenon include topics such as love jihad, Ram temple, Ghar Wapasi, and banning the triple talaq system. This leading to the third reason which lack of cultural interaction and exchange.

Lack of Societal and Cultural harmony and intermingling

When the thought of difference is deep rooted in to the society and ingrained in the minds of children since a very young age, the truth becomes weak. The lack of understanding of each other’s culture along with the years old biases make us believe that our interpretation of the situation is correct. And the real evils of society take advantage of this high information asymmetry between both the sides to spark communal disharmony and gain their own political agenda.

Solution: Social Activism & Cultural Interaction

Democratic advocacy is one form to fight tyranny. There is a lack of influential progressive leaders who work vigorously against the oppressive actions of the state. On the other hand, the state itself is involved in avoiding any behavior that it does not believe is in line with their vision and narrative. Nevertheless, many people are also committed for the well-being of immigrant groups.

Mr Dev Desai, a social worker for minority rights, is the social activist I had the pleasure of interacting with. He’s working with an ANHAD (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy). (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy). For him, personal experiences are biggest justification for working for an agency like ANHAD. He has a inspiring story which lead to some unique personal experiences and motivated him to work for minority communities in the country. The year 2002 was when Dev was a 10th-grade student, used to live and study in a location where Muslims mostly lived. The horrors of the Hindu-Muslim riots of 2002 in Gujarat are known to all of us, but the gruesome scenes and memories are very fresh and traumatizing for of both victims and other witnesses During such protests, most people worry on material harm such as loss of life or damage to property, but almost no one thinks about the cultural and emotional impact. Mr. Dev shared a related tale about how the bulk of his school’s Hindu students began to leave because of its location. Parents became overly careful about the safety issues that their Hindu children might have in an area of the Muslim majority on the presumptions that the other side is wrong. This shows the kind of divide created between the two faith groups, where an institute like school which meant for imparting education, sharing knowledge and bringing children together building a sense of community and oneness in them also was severely impacted. A huge issue for school was the dropout of many Hindu pupils, and so the administration and the teachers started to recommend that students not leave, except that most people did not agree with the school administration. Mr. Dev was the only one who opted not to leave the school and continue his study. He was thus the only Hindu child in school for around two years. During this time, he noticed that certain individuals with special interests in mind propagated the ideology of animosity entirely unexpected and false.  Tales about how communal conflict has a systemic effect on people’s lives are exaggerated and hence how societal friction contributes to a deterioration of the country’s social structure needs to be stressed more strongly. He saw the difference in what was communicate din the society and what he personally experienced with his friends. Thus, realized the value of cultural exchange and the only way to educate people about and abridge the difference between reality and what seems to be real was social activism. Reach out to people around you, share your thoughts and experiences, incorporate theirs and be respectful.

Many tales of corporate control over agriculture

Bhabani Shankar Nayak


In 1991, when I was 12 years old and in 8th class in my village high school, the Government of India led by the Congress Party launched new economic reform programmes. I vividly remember reading local newspapers, which carried news on the reduction of agricultural subsidies on seeds, fertilisers, electricity and irrigation. It also started dismantling the universal approach to food security and public distribution system in India. My father who was an active farmer then and used to be the district leader of BJP (Secretary of Kishan Morcha) but supported liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation policies of the Congress Government in New Delhi. He argued that these policies will bring economic boom and there will be trickle-down effect on all sectors of Indian economy. The agriculture sector and famers will benefit from such policies. This was also the silent understanding of BJP and RSS but made piecemeal opposition to the reforms led by the Congress Party. The national and mainstream media heralded the new economic reforms as the best policy option for a powerful and developed India. The theological promise of neoliberalism is like deceptive salvation in Hindu religion.

After three decades, my village is witnessing the declining of agriculture. The new economic reforms were slow poison for the agrarian economy. The new economic policies ruined agriculture in my village. The fertiliser corporations get subsidies. The industries get water and electricity subsidies but the farmers in my village nearly abandoned agriculture as a source of their livelihood. There are a very few farmers left in my village due to lack of availability of alternative livelihoods for them. As Modi government follows the footprints of the Congress Party in implementing more ruthless agricultural policy reforms, my father (my best friend) opposes these polices and he argues that corporatisation of agriculture will destroy agricultural economy and take away farmer’s livelihood in short run and farmer’s land in long run. Such a transformation of my father gives me hope and shows greater transformation waiting for India in political and economic terms. The democratic debate between the father and son continues as famers protest against an authoritarian regime led by Mr Narendra Modi.

Mr Narendra Modi led BJP government and his Hindutva henchmen are claiming that agricultural reforms are necessary to expand trade and investment in agriculture. The goal of the reform is to increase wholesale agricultural market for the growth of agricultural exports. The Modi government claims that farmers will get greater freedom within liberalised agricultural market and maximise their profit. It would result in higher standard of living and higher quality of life for Indian farmers. It is important to burst these myths propagated by Modi and his ignorant Hindutva capitalist cronies. These claims are blatant lies and agricultural reform policies are unsustainable. The Modi led agricultural reform policies would make farmers vulnerable to market forces. The deepening of capitalist market forces have ruined agriculture, agricultural communities, farmer’s lives and livelihoods. The market led industrial approach to agriculture drives farmers out of business and reinforces agrarian crisis which forces farmers to commit suicide.

The American farmers have become vulnerable to corporate exploitation and abuse because of similar reform policies. The liberalised agricultural policies have helped in the growth of very few corporations that controls American agriculture today. The deepening of market forces and growth of industrial agriculture led to the growth of four corporations that controls forty percent of agricultural market in USA.  It destroyed the livelihood of small and medium farmers, rural communities and swallowed family farms in America. The corporations suppressed the price of the farm produce and increased its selling price. Both American producers and consumers suffer heavily due to such agricultural transitions. It also destroyed small businesses affiliated with agriculture in US. The American farmers are fighting back and defeat corporate control over American agriculture.

The European Union (EU)’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has created a system in which the large farmers and landowners in UK, France and Germany are the beneficiaries of its subsidies whereas the small farmers are marginalised. It has created a wholesale agricultural market where prices of agricultural products are different in different parts of EU member countries. The price fluctuation within agricultural market is created by the market forces within EU and the small farmers face the crisis. The EU led CAP has huge negative impacts of developing countries in Africa. The subsidise overproduction of food, milk and poultry is destroying local production and local markets in Africa. The big farmers and agricultural corporations in Europe are the net beneficiaries of such agricultural policies driven by market forces. These policies ruined the rural communities and destroyed the livelihoods of small and medium farmers in Europe. Therefore, Land Workers’ Alliance is not only opposing the CAP but also demanding subsidies to small farmers and family farms in UK. It is also strongly demanding the British government to exempt agriculture from all free trade agreements. Many European countries have also realised that industrial agriculture led by corporations destroy the environment. So, there are many social and political movements against corporate takeover of agriculture in Europe today.

Many developed countries have witnessed to the landgrab by the big corporations and big farmers with the growth of corporatisation of agriculture. The Congress Party governments have started the policies of corporate land grab in the name of Special Economic Zones (SEZs).  After agricultural policy reforms, the Modi led BJP government is planning to liberalise land laws further by which the corporates can take over land ownership from the small and medium farmers in India. The BJP government is preparing itself to provide vast stretches of land to the capitalist cronies and friends of Mr Narendra Modi. The corporate led industrial agriculture in India will create conditions of industrial feudalism and corporate landlordism in one hand and consumerist individualism on the other.

The corporatisation of agriculture destroys social fabric in agricultural and rural communities. The cooperative culture is converted into competitive culture that ruins rural communities with the growth of individualist consumerism. The market forces do not believe in diversification. The market forces promote economies of standardisation which is dangerous for the diversity within Indian agriculture. Therefore, the market led industrial agriculture dominated by corporations can never be an alternative for India and Indian farmers. The Government of India need to find ways to invest in agricultural cooperatives to empower farmers and generate employment in agriculture by diversifying it. India and Indian farmers need socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and economically rewarding agricultural policies and egalitarian land reforms to increase farmer’s income and expand market led agricultural economy, where agricultural producers can directly interact with their consumers. Such an agricultural market economy would be really open, free and fair.

Turkey gambles in bid to rival China as a key supply chain node

James M. Dorsey


A projected sharp reduction in trade between the United States and China in the next two years coupled with moves to diversify supply chains potentially position Turkey alongside Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan and Poland as competitors in efforts to reduce dependency on the People’s Republic, according to a just published study.

The study, conducted by the Boston Consulting Group on behalf of the Turkey-US Business Council (TAIK), suggests that Turkey, located on a fault line that separates Europe from Asia, has prerequisites to emerge as a winner provided it invests in its digital, electronics and equipment sectors.

TAIK is an affiliate of the Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEIK), the country’s oldest and largest business association.

The study identifies Africa as one region where the US and Turkish firms bring complimentary assets to the table. Turkey has in recent years significantly expanded its diplomatic, political, military, and economic footprint in Africa.

Africa is also a continent where China has made major inroads and could emerge as the dominant player, particularly in countries like Egypt that risk economic collapse.

Issued weeks before US President-elect Joe Biden is scheduled to take office, the study appears intended to underline Turkey’s strategic importance at a time that the country’s relations with the US and the European Union are strained.

The US recently slapped Turkey with sanctions for acquiring Russia’s S-400 anti-missile defense system while the EU imposed penalties in response to controversial Turkish gas drillings in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Increasing Turkey’s relevance to global trade flows would serve various Turkish objectives: boosting the country’s economy imperiled by the pandemic, the global economic downturn, and structural problems as well as capitalizing on recent geopolitical victories garnered through its military intervention in Libya, its support for Azerbaijan in this fall’s Caucasus war against Armenia, and the demonstrated capabilities of its homemade hardware, particularly drones.

To improve its chances of becoming a key alternate supply chain node, Turkey has sought to polish its tarnished image as a disruptive force by attempting to improve strained relations with two other key regional players, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and pressuring Iran – moves that would please Europe as well as Mr. Biden.

Finally, becoming a major alternative to Chinese-controlled supply chains furthers Turkey’s ambition to exploit something of a power void because of diminished US regional engagement to carve out its own place in a world in which power is being rebalanced as a result of big power rivalry.

“The growing rift between the United States and China creates significant opportunity for geopolitical cooperation. Turkey and the United States would both benefit economically,” said a Turkish businessman.

Predicting that US-China trade would drop by up to US$200 billion in the next two years, the study suggested that Turkey could significantly enhance its relevance to the global economy by leveraging its industrial base to exploit underutilized potential in data and software services and technology start-ups; and invest in cutting edge electronics and equipment manufacturing in areas such as smart cities, the Internet of Things, and automation.

The study warned that countries like Vietnam, Taiwan and Mexico have so far proven more adept than Turkey at exploiting emerging opportunities. It said the three countries this year boosted their electronics, automotive, and/or agricultural sectors by up to 11 percent.

TAIK’s lobbying agent, Mercury Public Affairs, distributed the study to US policy and opinionmakers, in an effort to change Washington perceptions of Turkey and its assertive president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

DEIK, the Turkish business association, together with TAIK, last week organized a webinar to highlight contributions of frontline personnel in the fight against COVID-19 who have either Turkish roots or links to Turkey’s allies.

Participants included Sine Akten, vice president of the Turkish American Medical Association; Esam Omeish, a Virginia surgeon and president of the Libyan American Alliance who is believed to be a supporter of the Turkish-backed Government of National Accor in Libya; and Samia Piracha, the Washington DC Chapter President of the Association of Physicians of Pakistani-descent in North America

TAIK, backed by Mr. Erdogan, kicked off its campaign to reposition Turkey with a webinar in June, entitled ‘A Time for Allies to be Allies: Turkish American Global Supply Chain,’ that was addressed by influential US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of outgoing President Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Graham acknowledged Turkey’s importance, noting that going forward Turkey’s relationship with the United States was likely to be grounded in economic integration through a free trade agreement.

He predicted that Africa would be “the prize of the 21st century” and said that he hoped that the United States and its allies rather than China would be the continent’s infrastructure and technology provider.

Mr. Graham cautioned, however, that Turkey’s S-400 acquisition, the resulting US cancellation of the sale to Turkey of advanced F-35 fighter jets, and Turkey’s military intervention in northern Syria were the greatest impediments to Turkey achieving its goal of becoming a key node in reconfigured US supply chains.

“The potential of this relationship is unlimited, but we’ve got to get over the friction points. It’s not going to reach its full potential until we get a resolution to the S-400/F-35 problem. Its not going to reach its full potential until we can come up with a more sustainable solution to Syria. The sooner we can get these two issues behind us, the more likely everything becomes a reality. Confidence building measures, that’s what I’m looking for,” Mr. Graham said.

Mr. Erdogan may see his geopolitical successes and attempts at rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and Israel as confidence-inspiring but that is unlikely how either side of the Washington divide will perceive them.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s supply chain competitors appear to be gaining a head start even if the United States recently branded Vietnam a currency manipulator.

Mr. Erdogan has so far given little indication that he is willing to budge on Syria or risk his already complex relationship with Russia by backtracking on the S-400.

Describing differences with the US and the EU as “artificial agendas,” Mr. Erdogan this week told his Justice and Development Party’s members of parliament that “Turkey is facing double standards both over the eastern Mediterranean and the S-400s. We want to turn a new page with the EU and United States in the new year.”

The Turkish president appears to be gambling on the Biden administration prioritizing the reduction of dependency on China by adopting policies that are, in the words of international affairs scholar Aaron L. Friedberg, “at least partially insulated from day-to-day political pressures.” That could prove to be a risky bet.

Is Iran Closer To Avenging The Murder Of Its Two Prominent Leaders?

Askiah Adam


Brigadier General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC) and Iran’s most important nuclear scientist was assassinated not too far from Tehran recently. Iran immediately accused Israel , an allegation confirmed by a senior Washington official soon after. Meanwhile Tel Aviv has remained silent. Given its many earlier assasinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists and Netanyahu’s specific mention of Fakhrizadeh in 2018 the assumption is a safe one.

This year saw the murder of two prominent Iranian leaders. Very early in the year President Trump of the USA ordered the murder of Qasem Solaimani, a Major General of the IRGC and commander of the Quds Force, one agreed by all as formidable. He was on a diplomatic mission. In both instances Tehran vowed revenge but as time has shown prudence has been the watchword. The reported early warning bombing of the US Iraqi base, Ayn Al-Asad was intended to avoid deaths of US servicemen and women. Clearly the intention was to avoid a counter attack and prevent the outbreak of war.

The loss of Fakhrizadeh while great is not expected to paralyse Iran’s nuclear programme. It is only natural that the personnel pool in the area has grown over the years to meet the needs of Iran’s nuclear energy industry. Iran has denied that there was ever any effort to build a nuclear weapons programme, a stand very much part of its Islamic tenets. But Israel uses the nuclear weapons argument as a convenient strategy of undermining the Iranian effort to build its strength: economic and defence. Israel is fighting to maintain the uneven playing field of West Asia (Middle East) where it is the sole nuclear power but undeclared.

If then the Fakhrizadeh murder will not hamper Iran’s ability to build its nuclear energy industry, which for its own convenience Israel assumes will be flipped and weaponised, then why commit the crime? Observers argue that the intention is to tie President-elect Biden’s hands in the event he tries to resurrect US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran Deal making war the necessary option. The assumption is that the murders would inhibit Iran’s ability to return to the Iran Nuclear Deal. While plausible, this fails to recognise the pragmatism that has informed Tehran’s decisions thus far.

Indeed, most are convinced that vengeance will not bring about the declaration of war by Tehran. And yet, the failure to secure Fakhrizadeh’s safety is an embarrassment for Tehran.

The realization of justice is a much cherished principle of Shia Islam: “Everyday is Ashura. Every land is Karbala”, the former the day of Imam Hussain’s (Prophet Mohammad’s grandson) martyrdom, the latter where he was martyred in his fight for justice. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at the receiving end of much injustice for defending its sovereignty and resisting the hegemonic proclivities of the USA. The 8 year Iran – Iraq war was nothing but a war where Iraq played proxy for the USA. The on-going debilitating American sanctions, including its refusal to lift those on medical supplies despite the Covid-19 pandemic have caused civilian casualties and deaths, intentionally targeted to trigger an uprising among the Iranian people against the government.

The pursuit of justice is the core of Shi’ite belief. When this informs the dynamics that drives awareness of the Iranian people then the country’s enemy is obvious: external forces. Obviously, too, the government is very mindful of Islamic tenets as is seen in their attitude towards nuclear weapons. Was this the rationale for not killing US troops when Iran’s missile attacked US bases in Iraq? Was this why they shot down the unmanned drone (UAV) and spared the manned US spy plane. If the answer is yes then revenge for the murders of Fakhrizadeh and Soleimani will not be a conventional hot war.

In a time when wars are fought by the weaponising of any means that can destroy society and economies, what can Iran weaponise to undermine Israel? In the case of Soleimani the shape of that justice can be surmised from Trump’s admission of murder. But the Fakhrizadeh murder?

The glean of a possible answer could be at hand. On December 17th, 2020 a news story in the  Haaretz begins with “Israel is in the midst of a massive cyber attack by an Iranian group…”

“.…Iranian -linked hackers have targeted at least 80 Israeli firms in what experts say is a form of ideologically driven cybercrime.” Apparently, this attack by the group Pay2Key, is the latest “in a string of cyber campaigns against Israel.” Israeli experts suggest this is a war against their economy. What leads the experts to this belief is that, unlike the average sophisticated cybercriminals, the ransom demanded is comparatively small — although a report in The Times of Israel said “no ransom” was demanded — probably because the objective is political rather than commercial.

According to the headline of the report ”The Iranians Are Waiting for the Israeli Response…”

If the report is accurate and a cyber war ensues, given the assumptions of the experts that the ‘hacktivists’ have been in place for a considerable time it is then safe to assume that a planned attack has long been in place. If war it is then it is safe to assume that the objective is economic paralysis hitting all of the economy as what Russia did to Ukraine in 2015. There cannot be half measures on the Iranian part if they are to avenge themselves effectively. Data stolen can be engineered to cause substantial paralysis of whatever the future target maybe, possibly Israel’s supply chain given the nature of the targets.

Cyber warfare fits well into the Islamic principles of the Iranian state. Tehran has taken every opportunity to demonstrate its scientific and technological skills but unwilling to exploit any of it needlessly. It is not a Third World country struggling to develop. It is a major military power of West Asia. It builds missiles, a prowess the US is trying to end. The late Fakhrizadeh has the distinction of being compared to Oppenheimer the father of the nuclear bomb. It is a civilisation of some five thousand years. Iran is feared for its potential, especially by the Arab states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies.

23 Dec 2020

Britain descends into chaos as coronavirus crisis mounts

Robert Stevens


The COVID-19 death toll in Britain continues to rise inexorably, with predictions that National Health Service hospitals will be treating more coronavirus patients on Christmas Day than at any point in the pandemic.

On Tuesday, 691 more people were announced dead from the virus. Yesterday this was topped with 744 deaths reported, the highest total since April 29. The 39,237 new coronavirus cases announced yesterday was the highest yet recorded in Britain.

This carnage takes place under conditions in which the entire country is descending into chaos. Supermarkets such as Tesco are limiting purchases of toilet roll, eggs, rice and other staples, amid warning of fruit and vegetable shortages amid scenes of panic buying.

Yesterday, at the port of Dover and across large parts of the county of Kent, thousands of truck drivers were still unable to return to their home countries on the European continent, despite an agreement with France to let COVID-tested drivers cross to Calais.

Vehicles wait at the entrance to the Port of Dover, that is blocked by police, as they queue to be allowed to leave, in Dover, England, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2020 (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

As early as December 18, a 20-mile queue began forming on the M20 motorway and on the A20 leading into Dover. Much of the extra traffic was due to retailers seeking to get goods into the UK in time for Christmas amid problems at already full container ports and uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit talks between London and the European Union.

Around 5,000 lorries are queued up in three separate locations in Kent. Many of the hauliers have spent days sleeping in their cabs with no access to basic supplies.

Truck drivers scuffled with police officers at Dover yesterday. Drivers stood in pouring rain and strong winds chanting, “We want to go home.” One told the BBC, “We are very tired. We're staying in cars, we don't have a lot of food, no money. Police three days ago told us that testing will start soon, but they don't know when and that's why people are protesting”.

Earlier, truckers clashed with police at the disused Manston airfield 18 miles from Dover. Around 3,800 lorries are parked up like sardines at Manston waiting to return home. They blockaded the A299 motorway in Kent yesterday morning in a mass protest.

The UK must test every truck driver leaving the UK for France, after a highly infectious strain of COVID-19 was acknowledged by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson last week. On Tuesday evening, Johnson and President Emmanuel Macron reached agreement on a deal to reverse the unilateral 48-hour French ban on freight lorries travelling between Dover and Calais, as well as travel through the Channel Tunnel. Until January 6, only lorry drivers and French and EU citizens or residents who have an essential reason to travel and who show a negative test result less than 72 hours old will be allowed into France.

UK Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick warned after the deal was struck that it still may take a “few days” to clear the backlog of lorries demanding to cross the Channel. This is a massive understatement. Until yesterday, when a few mobile testing units arrived, there weren’t even any permanent testing areas in Dover. The government is having to draft in military personnel to assist.

Tensions flared after many hauliers refused to leave Dover to be tested at Manston, as this would mean an 18-mile trip and a return to the back of the queue.

The chaos at Dover is only the most visible expression of the mounting disaster throughout the country. Literally nothing is functioning properly despite the government having years to prepare for a pandemic.

The test and trace system, to the extent it was ever really in operation, has collapsed. Testing never exceeded 430,000 a day and daily testing briefings by ministers were abandoned months ago. Under the government’s Dover plan, hauliers are to be given a “lateral flow test” with results available in 20-30 minutes sent by text message. However, such tests are highly unreliable and can give a false reassurance to those testing negative. After directors of public health questioned their accuracy, the government was forced to shelve a plan to open other lateral flow test centres it planned to operate over Christmas. The Guardian reported Tuesday, “Government figures from the mass testing programme in Liverpool revealed earlier this month that the tests missed 30% of cases with a high viral load and half of positive cases that were detected by standard coronavirus tests.”

The rollout of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the UK is also beset with problems and is proceeding at a snail’s pace. The first patient was given a dose of the vaccination on December 8, but as of yesterday only 500,000 people out of a population of 66 million had received even their first dose of the virus. Two doses, around 21 days apart, must be administered to each person to ensure immunity.

So slow is the rollout that it is being proposed by Professor David Salisbury—who was responsible for immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013—that people just be given an initial dose, in order to vaccinate more people. This was despite’s Pfizer’s insistence that testing showed that two doses were required "to provide the maximum protection". Salisbury’s proposal was backed yesterday by Tony Blair, the multi-millionaire war criminal, who knows as much about science and viruses as he does about his self-proclaimed “humanitarianism.”

The crisis at Dover has been seized on by Macron and leaders of other European government to denounce Britain as “plague island”, as if they were not themselves responsible for a catastrophic situation within their own borders.

Due to the criminally reckless “herd immunity” policies operated by government of all stripes throughout the EU, the virus is on the increase everywhere. Respected epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson told a parliamentary committee yesterday, “It would suggest, almost certainly in my view, that this [mutation of the] virus has been introduced to the great majority, if not all, of European countries at the current time.”

Yesterday Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced that six million more people in the east and south east of England were being placed under the highest Tier four restrictions from December 26. “Across the country, cases have risen 57 percent in the last week. The average daily COVID hospital admissions are 1,909 a day--that’s the highest figure since mid-April. There are 18,943 people in hospital right now, that’s almost as many as at the peak,” he said.

Even these horrific numbers could be dwarfed by an even greater scale of infection in the coming weeks. Hancock announced that, with the assistance of South Africa scientists, two cases of another new variant of coronavirus had been detected in Britain. “Both are contacts of cases who have travelled from South Africa over the past few weeks.” Both had been instructed to go into quarantine, with Hancock stating, “This new variant is highly concerning, because it is yet more transmissible and it appeared to have mutated further than the new variant that has been discovered here.” The South African strain was being analysed at the UK’s Porton Down military laboratory.

Leaked 2021 draft budget set to pauperise Iraqi workers and their families

Jean Shaoul


The leaking of Iraq’s federal budget has provoked widespread anger. The budget will devalue the Iraqi dinar and cut public sector salaries, amid an escalating healthcare, economic and political crisis.

Thousands took to the streets, blocking the main roads leading to oil installations and bridges in oil-rich Basra city, and the port of Umm Qasr in the south of the country, demanding unpaid wages. There were protests in several areas of Basra province by day-rate employees of the government, including in the energy sector, demanding payment of salaries they have not received in months.

This follows similar protests earlier this month demanding unpaid wages in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which employs three out of four workers. Protesters in Sulimaniya burned down the regional government buildings and the offices of the two main Kurdish political parties. Protests have continued, on a smaller scale, after the KRG’s security forces cracked down viciously, leading to 10 deaths–eight protestors and two members of the security forces--scores injured, hundreds detained and journalists threatened with violence.

Iraqi cabinet (Source: Government of Iraq)

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s government faces a catastrophic financial crisis following the collapse in oil revenues which provide more than 90 percent of its income. It has borrowed from the Central Bank to pay the public sector wage and pension bill of $5 billion a month, as income fell to $3.5 billion, depleting the country’s dollar reserves.

According to the leaked draft 2021 budget, al-Kadhimi has agreed to devalue the dinar as a means of raising government income. With oil prices denominated in dollars and the dinar pegged to the dollar, this will give the government more money to spend. The draft budget assumes a devaluation of around 23 percent, is based on an exchange rate of 1,450 dinars per dollar, compared to the current 1,182 dinars per dollar. The value of the dinar has already fallen on the street, ahead of the official devaluation, as exchange houses in Baghdad sell the dollar for 1,300 Iraqi dinars.

The International Monetary Fund estimated that Iraq’s economy will shrink by 11 percent in 2020. It had proposed an exchange rate of 1,600 dinars to the dollar as part of a package of economic and financial conditions for granting a loan to Iraq’s desperate government. That loan will only be forthcoming if Baghdad falls in line with Washington’s political and economic requirements—curbing the power of Iranian-backed militias and politicians and implementing economic “reforms,” including the restructuring of Iraq’s large state-owned banks, privatisations, and above all the slashing of public sector wages and benefits.

The devaluation means a huge cut in workers’ living standards as their purchasing power falls, pushing ever more into poverty, and raising fears that the dinar's value will continue to slide. As a doctor at a Covid-19 ward in Baghdad told AFP, “Our salaries will be worthless.” Day labourers and those without work face immediate destitution.

Even after the devaluation, there will be a record $40 billion budget deficit. The budget envisages expenditure of $103 billion, with just $63 billion in revenue. The government’s White Paper had sought to halve the public sector wage bill, slashing it from 25 percent of GDP to 12 percent, threatening not only workers’ jobs and wages but also the patronage system from which most of the political parties draw their funding and power. The draft budget appears to have retreated a little from this target figure, but has cut salary benefits, including danger pay, higher education degrees and expenses for high-level officials.

Nevertheless, the slashing of benefits, which can in some cases serve to double workers’ paltry wages, combined with the devaluation is a massive assault on the working class. As Ali Kadhim, 50, a teacher told Al Jazeera, “The majority of Iraq’s work force are government employees. We are the middle class, but (the government’s latest) decisions are going to make us the poorest class.” He added, “I am paying off two loans that take up a third of my salary. After these decisions I don’t know how much I am going to earn.”

In October, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) warned that the slump in demand and plummeting oil prices, along with the limited restrictions put in place to deal with the pandemic—Iraq has confirmed more than 585,000 cases and 12,700 deaths—would deepen inequality. At least 13 percent of Iraqis and 36 percent of young people are officially unemployed. According to ReliefWeb, around 8 percent of households (3 million people) were not getting enough to eat in September, while the World Bank’s November report estimated that up to 5.5 million of Iraq’s 39 million population were at risk of falling into poverty, meaning that more than 40 percent of Iraq’s predominantly young population—the median age is 20 years--would be living in poverty.

Iraqi children have been some of the worst affected by the trauma of war, poverty and the disastrous state of the country’s education system, once one of the best in the Arab world. Some 3.2 million school-aged children are out of school. In conflict-affected areas, almost all school-aged children are missing out on an education, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, early marriage, child labour, and recruitment by Iraq’s numerous militias.

With one in every two schools damaged, many have up to 60 children in a class and operate a shift system. The number of qualified teachers has fallen at all educational levels as spending on education has declined and Iraq’s educated and professional class fled abroad following the wave of assassinations of colleagues since the US-led invasion of the country in 2003. The closure of schools earlier this year due to the pandemic affected more than 10 million children, causing a further educational decline for those who have already lost years of schooling.

The budget is likely to exacerbate tensions with Kurdistan, which is dependent upon the federal government in Baghdad for cash to pay its employees. The budget requires the KRG to contribute 250,000 barrels of oil per day in return for its budget allocation of $8.6 billion, while containing provisions for reducing or eliminating its transfers to the KRG.

Kadhimi, a former intelligence officer with close ties to Washington, became prime minister earlier this year after the previous government was brought down by mass protests that started in October 2019, against inequality, poverty, corruption and the sectarian political system. While he promised an investigation into the more than 600 protesters who were killed by the security forces during the crackdown, those responsible have not been identified or brought before the courts. He pledged to hold elections next June based on new legislation that would overturn Iraq’s sectarian political system but has been unable to secure the necessary political agreement in parliament.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Farhad Alaaldin and Kenneth Pollack warn that Iraq’s economic collapse could lead to a civil war drawing in its neighbours. If Iraq’s government continues to lose credibility, “armed groups and tribes, including the armed militias backed by Iran, would try to fill the vacuum and usurp the role of the primary security forces in Iraq.... These same groups would also fight for territory to control. They might try to take control of revenue-generating resources such as oil fields, ports, border crossings, large businesses, agricultural land, and private properties.”

Iraq, which has strong trading and commercial links with Iran, has become a key political battleground in US imperialism’s militaristic confrontation with Tehran. The Trump administration has insisted that Baghdad rein in the Iran-backed Shi’ite militias that have repeatedly fired rockets into the Green Zone, the heavily fortified area that houses the US Embassy, military forces and contractors.

In September, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to close the embassy in Baghdad as a prelude to US military attacks aimed at “liquidating” Shia militia elements charged with responsibility for attacks on US facilities. Earlier this month, the US withdrew some of its staff from the embassy in the run up to the first anniversary of the January 3 US air strike that killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a prominent member of the Iraqi government and deputy commander of Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi, an Iran-backed umbrella militia group, in Baghdad.