Kanshiram Declassed Ambedkarite Politics

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Today, we remember Kanshiramji, the founder of Bahujan Samaj Party and a person who was responsible for a sea change in the political perspective of the Dalits all over the country. At the time when Bahujan movement was on the periphery and the issues it raised never went beyond identity and that too of those who were articulative and politically powerful particularly hailing from urban areas and working in the organised government sector. Bahujan or Ambedkar for them remain their own identity issue and therefore the issues of the most marginalised could never reach them as most of the time they were busy presenting themsleves and acquiring the space. So, Dalit Bahujan identity became tool for acquiring space in power structure of political parties by the powerful individuals. Community identity was used to promote individual's political interests.

It is not that Ambedkarite movement did not exist before Kanshiram. It was there and the work done by intellectuals like Bhagwan Das, L.R.Balley, V.T.Rajshekar, K.Jamnadas, and many other remained with Buddhists and Ambedkarite segments of the politically enlightened classes. While Baba Saheb Ambedkar fought for the water rights and his historic struggle for the land rights of Dalits in the villages was ignored by Ambedkarites. The problem of the broader Ambedkarite movement was that it changed one generation of people who passionately followed Baba Saheb Ambedkar and his Navayana. Their life changed but they could not go beyond their own communities and regions. The most marginalised remain outside the realm of these thoughts. Hence in Maharastra, Ambedkar became symbol of Mahar pride while in Uttar Pradesh it were Jatavs and Chamars who took Ambedkar to the nook and corners of the state.

However, Kanshiram's advent in the politics changed a lot of things. First, I admired his 'Ekla chalo' politics. People were not important but the movement was. He was the first person, I would say, who a common person, actually felt one among them. He was like them. Amedkarites had made people feel as if Baba Saheb Ambedkar was always wearing 'three pieces' all the time and I have seen many Ambedkarite who would address public meeting in the rural hinterland in that way. Kanshiram changed that. First time, rural communities felt that this man is truly representing them. He was humorous many a time and would speak bluntly about the issues. He was not goody goody as politics happened. He wanted activists to come up and take up the issues. Dalit politics was not 'reserve' for 'retired' civil servants. It was meant for those who work harder with the people. Many of his 'advisers' had thought of getting 'plum positions' and 'rajya sabha' seats when the party would come to power but Kanshiram felt the other way rounds. The experiment that he did in UP those days was to fill a sense of ownership of the party among the most marginalised communities. He extended the out reach of Bahujan Samaj Party beyond Chamars and Jatavs. The party created some of the most outstanding leaders from these castes who never got any representation anywhere, not even in the Panchayats. Communities like Nishads, Gadariyas, Rajbhars, Pasis, Kumhars, Chauhans etc were among those who got benefit and many leaders emerged from these segments and most of them came from the grassroots, who were carrying the flag of Ambedkarism in their respective areas.

Alas, today, these things are not there. The slogan has changed. People are feeling helpless.There is a gap. Kanshiram never lived like a Maharaja as that was not his trait. He could not have shed his common man's identity when any grassroots worker could approach him. All that is changed. There is a crisis. The importance of Kanshiram is not just with BSP for whom he is USP but for all those in Dalit Bahujan movement. While the ideology of this movement is essentially of Dr Ambedkar, Kanshiram's pragmatic approach could serve as ideal path.

It would be better we reach the most marginalised Dalits and Bahujans. It is important to make them feel that we care for them. It is important to take Ambedkar to those who are 'others' and not convert him to a caste hero and never succumb to the temptation of getting 'acknowledged' by others. And remember we can not take Ambedkar to them just by preaching but raising their issues and participating in struggles. A Bahujan movement without launching a struggle of basic issues of the common people will not succeed as a majority of our population lives in villages who have been deprived the basic amenities of life. They suffer in humiliation and caste violence continue to hurt Dalit interest.

In Uttar Pradesh situation is difficult and many people feel that Dalit OBCs can never unite due to the individual egos of their leaders but the facts are different. Dalit and OBCs have common interests and for that we need to combine most marginalised OBCs and poor among the power elite to ally with the Dalits. It is a reality that at the moment the violence against Dalits is coming from all powerful agrarian communities and we have to realise it that unless there is a complete land reform, it would not be possible to bring egalitarianism in the society. Declass the OBC movement too and bring the poor among them to the Dalit movement and so with Psmanda Muslims. Mere caste identities will never bring these different segments of society and hence a fight against feudal agrarian system is essential for undoing the historic wrong.

Kansiram created a movement and did not go anywhere else to get 'acknowledgment'. It is time, we follow his understanding to build up the movement. Important is that people's movement need young voices and women's representation. It is equally important to bring diverse sections of people as Kanshiramji did initially by picking up committed people into the movement. We can not feel orphaned if our leaders dont work. We have to make them feel that they are being monitored and we must chart our own path. It is important we understand that people have been left to fetch themselves and in the Parliamentary democracy the politics is just manipulations of identities which has always worked against Dalit interests. It is time we understand it. The challenges before us are much bigger when the religious rightwing ares dominating the political discourse, it is time to build up alliances with all the like minded people particularly those who are in the people's struggle. The brahmanical threat to Dalit Bahujan movement is the biggest challenge today and it could be met with stiff resistance of ideological perceptions of Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar and pragmatic ways of strengthening people's movement through participation and listening to them like Kanshiramji started in the early phase of BAMSCEF and DS-4.

Understand Kanshiram's mantra that key to power come from the poor and they are vast and we need to change our perceptions and strengthen their struggle and leadership. We can not ask people to sacrifice their lives for 'leaders'. Those time have gone. Give space as you want elsewhere and provide a healing touch to people where community leaders have not yet reached. Please dont teach them, just reach them and listen to them. if you dont reach them, the brahmanical elite is ready to barge in and provide that space and that would be the saddest day that a well built movement which has a dimension to provide hope and aspiration to millions of people all over the country.

Why Science Is Closer To Morality Than Religion

Amritanshu Pandey

India's fundamentalist moral brigade has shifted gears since the advent of Acche Din, and we are subject to daily reports of the moral police's enthusiasm, derived largely from our substantial pool of religion and culture. In this regard India is no different to religious societies around the world, where faith and its institutions provide the basis for our moral compass. If your dominant religion disavows of homosexuality, for example, then it can be guaranteed that your society's outlook will be that homosexuality is immoral.

But philosophical circles have long settled that morality can and should be independent of religion, and its ineptitude in dealing with our moral problems becomes clearer when we look at its history and origin. In its truest, most ancient form, religion is an epistemology- a way for early humanity to make sense of the world around it. This was a time where science did not exist, and we had nothing but superstition and ritual to explain the natural phenomena. From its origin to the present, the story of religion is the story of human observation and the scientific method relentlessly gaining the territory of faith. This makes sense- the more our observational and rational senses developed, the less we had to rely on made up explanations. Astrology was replaced by astronomy, alchemy by chemistry and faith-based healing by medicine- the list can go on. Today we still have people going to astrologers to divine their future, but no scientist goes to them to design a rocket and ensure it reaches escape velocity. The reason why he hold scientists and doctors to an entirely different standard of reliability and precision than we do healers and diviners is because we know what really works and what is, even in the initial analysis, nothing more than BS.

Stripped down to what its believers claim is the essence of religion, we are confronted with some core values that most of us can ascribe to- honesty, equality, freedom, justice and the like. Unless we are sociopathic or psychopathic, we are able to intuitively understand the golden rule- as you sow, so shall you reap. Together, these values form a set that can be said to be intrinsic to most of us. Everything else about morality has been picked up by religion along the way, and we can understand this better when we see that the morality of different religions is drastically different, often even to their own earlier forms. Let us then look at some of the core values that all religions, in their claimed essences, can agree on-

1. Equality- we are ignoring here religion's long history of discrimination and non-egalitarian practices. We are speaking instead of basic statements like 'all humans are equal in the eyes of god' and 'the world is one family.'

2. Reciprocity- by reciprocity we mean the golden principle- as you sow, so shall you reap, or- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is NOT the Hindu principle of karma. The law of karma says that the actions you commit in this life will bear consequences upon your next. But the golden principle makes no assumptions about the afterlife. What you sow in this life shall also be reaped in this very life.

3. Universality- whatever rules we live by should apply to all. There cannot be exceptions to these. If all men and women are equal, then no caste-based system is compatible with this value. We cannot have one set of rules for the elite and another for the rest. At its heart, this value is an expression of the deepest sentiment of any child who has siblings. I want my parents to love and treat me exactly as much as they do my brother/sister. Similarly, I want god/the universe to treat me with the same set of rules as it does anyone else. Any hint of partiality is deeply hurtful to me, more profoundly so when that partiality is god's or this universe's.

4. Reliability- whatever contracts we form, whatever agreements that take shape between us, they must be binding and stable. This mandates trust, honesty and reliability. The problems with this value are best represented in the notorious economics' bugbear- the free rider problem. When a resource such as the air is available freely to all, who owns up the responsibility of keeping it clean? And if even one of us pollutes, will the other also not do the same? What incentive is there for me to keep the air clean when everyone else around me ignores this?

It is safe to say that the essence of most religions subscribes to these values, and the rest is often at odds with it. As already mentioned above, a caste-based religion is incompatible with both equality and universality. All major religions fail on these counts even on the basis of their undeniable patriarchy. When most believers look to their religious texts, they engage in an act of pick and chose. They select stories/commandments that align with the core values, and explain away the rest as metaphor or the misplaced product of primitive eras. This is direct proof that the core values stem not from the religious texts but from something inside us. And religion can scarcely be called their fair summation. It must be pointed out here that I talk of moderate, tolerant believers and not of blind followers.

If religion is not the best representation of humanity's core values, then what is? I posit that science, and the products of the scientific method, better reflect our supreme ideals. Let us take them one by one-

1. Equality- all humans are indeed equal in the hands of this universe. Gravity does not discriminate between a Hindu and Muslim, man or woman, nor even between Brahman and Shudra. The nuclear forces at play that bind my body together work on precisely the same rules when they bind yours. Through science we learn that the universe is exactly as egalitarian as we would want it to be. More so, certainly, than religions have proven themselves to be.

2. Reciprocity- Newton's laws of motion certainly represent the universe's reciprocity the best, but we have countless other examples. Symbiosis is an embedded part of nature, and delicate balances exist everywhere from the food chain to the solar system's Goldilocks zone. Violation of these laws of reciprocity have been shown to have damaging consequences. So much of natural selection also works on reciprocity- the act of give and take between species over countless generations. Would there exist a plant with long, hollow stalks if there was not a creature with the appendage to dip into these stalks and suck nutrients from it, or vice versa?

3. Universality- science is as universal as it is egalitarian. My neighbour cannot appease the god of gravity more than I do and gain special favours as a result. My enemies cannot pray to the sun god and acquire better progeny than I do. The universe thus manifests the same values as we do, and only religion manages to convince us otherwise. If I live life just as it is prescribed in the chosen text of my family, I will gain access to a heavenly realm that will be denied to those that ignore said text. But the universe does not work like that, no matter how much religion might try to convince us otherwise.

4. Reliability- easily the most basic value representative of science. As Einstein said- the only miracle is that there are no miracles. The laws of this universe do not suddenly break down, gravity does not one day stop working and the sun does not randomly rise from the west. The universe is, yet again, exactly as reliable as we want it to be. Religion, on the other hand, often trails humanity when it comes to progressive and humane values.

Through the scientific method, humans have thus learnt that the universe is in alignment with their most basic values. If we are to educate youngsters in a way that produces responsible, moral humans, then it is not religion we must take them towards. Rather we must point them to science, where they will see that this universe (or god, if you want to call it that) is truthful, egalitarian, reliable and reciprocative- exactly the sort of humans we want our society to consist of. What India's moral brigade fails to realise is the profound irony of proclaiming the scientific progressiveness of one's ancient traditions on one hand, and clinging to regressive, patriarchal and non-humane thinking on the other- both delivered with a straight face in the name of patriotism and cultural sentiment.

The Two Conferences Of Jammu And Kashmir

Yasir Altaf Zargar

The All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference which once was known as All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference for the period of seven years was founded by Sheikh Abdullah who is also known as “Lion of Kashmir”. Sheikh played a significant role in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. He remained Kashmiri’s popular politician. He started his debut political career, when he joined the relentless struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed. He called himself as people’s saviour (Saviour of Kashmiri people). The thing which made him popular among the people was, he began to oppose the then Maharaja’s regime and their allies. He started opposing practises of Maharaja which includes discrimination on religious grounds, tax system, brutality, taxation, corruption and exploitation of people. He challenged the then Maharaja for his brutal rule. With the bold part and vanity of Abdullah, people gave him a name “Lion of Kashmir” and he led the foundation of “All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference” in October 1932, in order to safeguard the interests of Muslim people living in Jammu and Kashmir. It was the formation of “Glancy commission” to investigate the major cause of uprising, the Maharaja allowed the formation of the 1st political party in Jammu and Kashmir. Abdullah, a Muslim never liked the Maharaja’s absolutism and he always used to agitate against Maharaja’s rule. Even the United States in Lahore agreed on the fact that the Maharaja had never showed sympathy on people of Kashmir.

For sheikh both Jinnah and the Muslim league were unappealing. The influential Kashmiri leader considered that the Pakistan was the result of an emotional Muslim reaction to Hindu communalism. He took the concept of Pakistan negatively, as he had strong aversion to autocracy. Many of the supporters of Sheikh, who were Muslims, perceived that Pakistan would be dominated by feudal elements, as well as being a society in which Kashmiris would have little power. The ideas and views of sheikh were ambivalent. Actually the views of Indian national congress coincided sheikh and his party, he considered India would be different and it would have different people, different Parties and the major thing was it would have India’s famous party; Indian national Congress. He was aware of the fact that India would accept the ideas and views of his party. Abdullah was not ambivalent about Pakistan, for him it was totally un-appealing.

Abdullah had been influenced by a burgeoning friendship with the strongly secular leader of India; Jawaharlal Nehru, whom he 1st met in 1938 and who thereafter played an important and partisan role in J&K. Abdullah believed if Kashmiri leaders wanted the support of Indian national congress in their anti-maharaja struggle the party has to change its name and constitution. In 1939, the famous party of Jammu and Kashmir was renamed “All J&K Muslim conference was renamed to All J&K national conference” it was after the seven years when the party was formed(1932). Sheikh considered renaming of party, in order to encourage non-Muslims to join the party. He also believed Maharaja was oppressing people of all religions, not just Muslims. Abdullah was able to convince his supporters and colleagues to secularise the party, in order to represent all the religions present in Jammu and Kashmir, hence the name change. With the name change of party it increased strong links between Nehru and sheikh or we can say the new name change party created a strong connection between All Jammu and Kashmir National conference and Indian National congress. With the change of party name several supporters of sheikh were distressed when they heard the new name of party. The Muslims of Kashmir believed if people from other religions joined the party they can betray any time, as they believed the Maharaja has affection towards them. They also believed many non-Muslims will favour joining India. That was the main reason, which disappointed the supporters of sheikh. After this internally J&K got divided into two divisions; the people who were supporting joining Pakistan were called Pro-Pakistani supporters and those few who left were supporting joining India, were called Pro-Indian.

The few disgruntled Muslims who were against joining India revived Muslim conference once again in 1941, as a political vehicle to secure interests of Muslim people. Hence by 1941, there were two political parties or two conferences in Jammu and Kashmir, one was “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” and another which was revived was known as “All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference” (the old Muslim conference was revived by some members of National conference who were deceived with the party’s secularism). They never liked Sheikh’s close friendship with the leader of Indian National congress Jawaharlal Nehru. They were against National Conference’s support for Indian National Congress and its ideals.

The persons who were behind the revival were “Chaudary Ghulam Abbas” who became president of Muslim conference and “Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah” (both of these leader became popular leaders of Azad Kashmir later).The supporters of Muslim conference considered Hindus were not liberal to see the liquidation of the autocratic rule of Maharaja. They believed self-interested Hindu clients of maharaja wanted the regime of their co-religionist Maharaja to continue, as he would look after their interests better than Non Hindu politicians. It was the main reason behind the revival of Muslim conference in order to safe guard Muslim interests in Jammu and Kashmir. Another reason behind the revival was that majority of Muslims were ready to join Pakistan, that is why many people use to call the party as pro-Pakistani party.

In Jammu and Kashmir both the conference’s had different aspiration for J&K’S status. The Muslim conference was favouring joining Pakistan while national conference was opposing it. There were several Pandits in Kashmir valley who were supporting joining Pakistan as they considered J&K has majority of Muslim's (as mentioned in census of India 1941Vol XXII).One among the Pandits who support joining Pakistan was Prem Nath Bazaz who was leader of Kashmir Kisan Mazdoor Conference and the another pro-Pakistani Pandit was Ramchandra-KAK. The National Conference was strongest in Kashmir valley, where 50% of Muslims and many Hindus supported this party. Outside Kashmir valley its support was too less (perhaps 15% Muslims supported it). The rival of national conference i.e. Muslim conference was popular in Jammu region and less in Kashmir valley. The two parties played important role in the history of Jammu and Kashmir.

Release Of Political Detenues

Abdul Majid Zargar

The release of Masarat Alam, a top political prisoner has stirred a hornet’s nest in whole of India. Alam, incarcerated from 2010 under draconian Public Safety Act (PSA),already labeled as “Lawless law” by Amnesty International was released in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India. These guidelines require serving of fresh grounds on a detenu for every new detention under PSA to discourage State Governments from releasing a detenu through one door & imprisoning him again through another door generally known as “revolving door imprisonment policy”. It has caused a ruckus in Parliament & outside. Prime Minster Modi & his Home Minster Rajnath Singh have condemned Mufti’s decision to release political prisoners in general & Alam in particular. The media has not lagged behind in crying hoarse at Mufti’s decision. Shiv Sena, a fanatic ally of Ruling BJP has referred Mufti as God-father of separatists. The senile Columnist, Kuldeep Nayyar, once a strong votary of resolution of Kashmir dispute through dialogue, in one of his columns published in “Tribune” has questioned the wisdom of Mufti to release the top pro-resistance leader. Dhongi Baba, Ramdev has advised BJP to immediately withdraw support to the coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir headed by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. To remind the readers, this self styled guru was caught red-handed on camera discussing difficulties in ferrying black money with BJP MP , Mahant Chandnath in a joint press conference that they were hosting in Delhi (DNA-April 17, 2014) . Jammu Bar Association by joining the melee of condemnations by striking work for one day has proved that ignorance of law is a valid excuse. The hysterical reaction to a single, genuine political step by Mufti, where thousand more such steps are still needed, is a measure of Indian society’s arrogance and its imperviousness to the appeals of those seeking their basic political right & restitution of dignity. The response is typical of military mindset of Indian political class & its jingoistic media.

It needs to be mentioned here that immediately after taking over the reigns of power at Delhi, Home Minster Rajnath Singh had reaffirmed the solemn pledge of Vajpayee to solve Kashmir problem within the ambit of Insaniyat. But decency soon gave way to arrogance. The initial euphoria of bonhomie created by inviting Nawaz Sharief at Modi’s swearing ceremony soon Vanished with Govt. cancelling Foreign Secretary level talks at an apparently trivial but in essence a substantial issue of Ambassador of Pakistan meeting Kashmiri leadership. Substantial because India aimed to exclude people of J&K from the whole gamut of dispute resolution mechanism, which simply is a wishful thinking. Things soured further at cross border firing violations with each country pointing fingers at the other.

The debate in India about kashmir is marred by political arrogance, intellectual indolence & delusion of grandeur. It’s attitude towards resolving the long festering international dispute on Kashmir is not based on some rational analysis or judgment but some vague thinking emanating somewhere from lower part of human anatomy. While Indian political class and their teammates in Kashmir talk loudly about bringing peace and have Kashmir conflict resolved but show no willingness in taking the first serious step at least. While everyone has a role to play but no one is playing it with zeal and dedication. Rhetoric and falsehoods aimed at perpetuating war of attrition is the only visible thing on ground.

If India hopes to achieve an acceptable political solution to the long festering problem then it is imperative that all political prisoners are set free and a congenial & conducive atmosphere prepared for holding talks with all the stake-holders. That was also stated by the group of interlocutors appointed by Govt. Of India in 2010 to explore a political solution to the issue. It will be quite absurd on the part of authorities to think that by putting people in long detentions and forcing them out of circulation or restricting their movements will compel them to forsake their claim for a just solution. In-fact, longer the detention-stronger the resolve to achieve the objective on the simple premise that time spent in jails is an investment for those craving for just & equitable solution & larger this investment- greater the expectations for a full return on investment.

Afzal Guru’s Mortal Remains Must Reach His Family

Paramjit Singh Sahni & Shobha Aggarwal

In the next session of Jammu and Kashmir assembly scheduled to start on 18 March, 2015 the issue of return of Afzal Guru's mortal remains is expected to be debated.

Afzal Guru, convicted in the attack on the Parliament House, New Delhi, India in 2001 was clandestinely hanged to death with in the precincts of Tihar Jail, Delhi on the morning of 9 February, 2013. His family was not kept informed about the day and timing of the hanging; neither were family members allowed a last visit to meet him. It is public knowledge that Afzal was not provided proper legal assistance; there was no foolproof evidence against him. Besides, out of the convicts on the death row he was singled out of his position (said to be twenty-eight) largely due to the pressure exerted by the ultra nationalist party, BJP and the Sangh Parivar. It was purely a political decision by the Congress. His mercy petition was rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee a few days prior to his hanging. He had been on the death row for nearly eight years. The Supreme Court had sentenced him to death on 4 August, 2005 to satisfy the “collective conscience of the society”. There were wide spread and continuous protests in the Kashmir valley. Curfew had been clamped for several days in all ten districts of the valley to prevent people from expressing their sorrow and anger. The army was put on high alert. The print and audio visual media were subjected to a clamp down for days. Telecommunication, cable T.V. services and internet was blocked.

Afzal Guru's wife and family members have been persistently making a strong plea for the mortal remains of Afzal Guru to be returned. The Indian state has stubbornly refused to pay heed to this request. Thus Afzal Guru lies buried at Tihar jail, Delhi. In the same jail premises the mortal remains of Maqbool Bhat also stay buried since his hanging on 11 February, 1984. Empty graves at “martyrs' graveyard” in Srinagar await return of mortal remains of Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru.

The Government of India has been steadfastly refusing to hand over the mortal remains of these two Kashmiri Muslims widely perceived to be martyrs to the cause of Kashmir. The reasoning provided by the authorities is that the return of the mortal remains may create a law and order situation in Kashmir or it may give a fillip to militancy! History points to the contrary. Militancy was on the ascent years after Maqbool Bhat's mortal remains were confined with in the precincts of Tihar jail. The philosophical question, then, is to whom do the mortal remains belong to after the state has executed a person? It is globally perceived that on humanitarian and other considerations the mortal remains of those executed must be handed over to the family/local community to which the person belonged. Examples from history are in order.

Take the case of Udham Singh who had travelled all the way to U.K. and on 13 March, 1940 had assassinated former Punjab governor, Michael O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall, London. The latter had approved of the action of General Dyer at Jallianwala Bagh, who had ordered firing on thousands of peaceful protesters at Jallianwala Bagh on Baisakhi day in 1919 in Amritsar. On 31 July, 1940 Udham Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison in London. His mortal remains were brought to Punjab in 1974. The martyr's home – a single room dwelling built of small bricks – is under the care of state archaeology, museums and cultural affairs department.

The revolutionary Bhagat Singh was arrested on charges of shooting dead John P Saunders, an assistant superintendent of Police on 17 December, 1928 while he was coming out from the police headquarters at Lahore. Bhagat Singh was tried and sentenced to death. It is generally believed that Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged at night by the British on 23 March, 1931 in contravention of the Jail Manual which allows hanging in the morning. The mortal remains of the martyrs were also not handed over to their families. The exact place of the cremation is still unknown. The fall out of such clandestine hanging and cremation is that many theories differing from the official version sprout forth and further anger and sorrow ensues amongst the people. This leads to extreme alienation. The National Martyrs Memorial, Hussainiwala built in 1968 depicts the revolutionary spirit of the three national martyrs.

How strong and long lasting the feelings of getting the mortal remains of a martyr remain embedded in the collective psyche of a people can be gauzed from the persistent demand made till date to bring Bahadur Shah Zafar's mortal remains from Rangoon, Myanmar (Burma) to Delhi. Bahadur Shah was arrested by the British rulers and tried. In 1857, he was brought to Rangoon in captivity and died there on 7 November, 1862 at the age of 87. In a memo to the President of India submitted on 7 May, 2013 the Socialist Party, India reminded that Zafar was the leader of the first war of independence against the colonial powers and a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity and wondered “why the rulers of free India are not ready, even symbolically, to undo the insult and injustice meted out to Zafar by at least bringing back his remains to India and put him to rest at the place of his choice Dargah Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki at Mehrauli, where an empty grave awaits his remains.” [3]

For decades family members of Subhas Chandra Bose and other saner voices have been demanding that the Union Government should tell the truth about the cause of his death which is said to have taken place on 18 August, 1945. But even this basic information has eluded the people. The Justice Manoj Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry set up in 1999 said that Netaji did not die in a plane crash over Taiwan and the ashes in a Japanese temple were not Netaji's. Modi government takes the UPA line on files pertaining to Subhas Bose by not making them public. 

Roger Casement was a British diplomat, human rights activist, Irish nationalist and a poet. In 1913 after retiring from the consular service, he became more involved with the Irish Republican and Separatist movement. He was tried for treason in view of his efforts during the Great War to gain German collaboration for an armed uprising in Ireland to gain Independence against British rule. He was hanged at Pentonville Prison in London on 3 August, 1916, at the age of 51. Casement's body was buried within the prison premises. In 1965 his remains were repatriated to the Republic of Ireland which had gained effective independence in 1922.

Even during wars between two countries Prisoners of War (PoWs) are exchanged at the end of the conflict; so are the injured and the dead. Also during internal conflicts within a country a similar arrangement exists. In such situations the reasoning accorded by the governments – that the return of the mortal remains may increase the anger amongst the citizens of the enemy country – is never made an issue; bodies of those killed in encounters by the police/para-military/army are returned to the family of the deceased. On rare occasions the administration takes the precaution of using police cover right up to the cremation/burial site so that the last rites are performed peacefully. During the last rites of ‘Nirbhaya' – whose gang rape in Delhi had stirred a national outrage in December, 2012 – apart from the family members the only other persons at the cremation ground were politicians, bureaucrats and police people. Even during natural calamities like earthquake, floods, cyclone as also during riots based on caste/religious community/ethnicity the bodies are returned to the family. Or a mass funeral is organized at the site of the tragedy. At times the authorities go to the extreme length of identifying bodies of those killed in plane/train crashes or in ship-wrecks using the DNA test to deal with the compensation issue later on. In all the aforementioned situations the common thread is that the body of the deceased must reach the family even as the administration faces the wrath of the people as the “body bags” reach the family/community.

It is pertinent to add that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) deals with the return of the remains and personal effects of the dead vide its Rule 114:

“Rule 114. Parties to the conflict must endeavour to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon request of the party to which they belong or upon the request of their next of kin. They must return their personal effects to them.”

The ICRC further elaborates:

State practice establishes the customary nature of this rule in international armed conflicts. In the context of non-international armed conflicts there is a growing trend towards recognition of the obligation of parties to a conflict to facilitate the return of the remains of the dead to their families upon their request. The fact that this obligation is in keeping with the requirement of respect for family life (Rule 105 of the ICRC) implies that it should apply equally in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 

In all situations the body of the deceased must reach the family. This alone would satisfy and soothe the collective conscience of the society.

Inequality And The Crisis Of Capitalism And Democracy

Jon V Kofas

Part I: Structural Problems of Extreme Inequality

The great challenge of our time is not a clash of civilizations, as many advocated since Samuel Huntington published The Clash of Civilizations. Nor is the world most important challenge the revival of the Cold War in the form of a renewed US-Russia confrontation or in the forms of the evils of unconventional war that the US calls “terrorism”, a generic term governments use to label any opponent terrorist. These issues are manufactured and symptomatic of capitalist countries engaged in an intense world competition for markets and raw materials. This is not very different from the world power structure during the Age of New Imperialism, 1870-1914. The great challenge of our time is social and geographic inequality that threatens not only the system of capitalism creating inequality, but the democratic political regime under which capitalism has thrived in the last one hundred years.

1. Is capitalism in deep crisis because of the deepening gap between the very rich and the rest of the population, or this how the system works and society has always been organized as a social pyramid? If capitalism is creating extreme inequality what does this entail for democracy that rests on a strong middle class and all institutions on which bourgeois society his built? Does the fact 1% of the richest people will own more wealth than the other 90% of the world’s population in 2016, and that 80% of the people on earth own just 5.5% of the wealth mean anything, or is it just numbers?

As long as capitalism is relatively stable and as long as the social structure operates fairly harmoniously under such a wide gap between the super rich and the rest of us, then the possibility of “social discontinuity” (systemic change in the social structure, and economic and political system) does not appear likely in this century. After all, throughout civilization in most societies wealth was always concentrated and social structures were always hierarchical with the elites whether secular or religious enjoying privileges. There were always elites determining society’s institutions and direction while the poor remained helpless and the small middle class tried to exert whatever influence possible at the grassroots level. Why must we be any more optimistic today that elites will disappear when that seems highly unlikely because other elites will replace them under another system?

2. Does the widening income gap evident especially in the US and Europe reveal a crisis in the parliamentary system of electoral politics, as people lose faith in representative government and turn either to radical left or radical far right-wing solutions? We have seen the rise of ultra right-wing political movements and parties throughout Europe and the emergence of the Tea Party as an appendage of the Republican Party in the US representing some of the most extreme policy positions. These range from anti-immigration and xenophobic agenda to advocacy for military solutions as the only way to solve foreign policy crises. These political parties have a voice in the democratic process because the conservative and centrist parties have moved very far to the right, representing essentially the rich in society rather than all citizens. As long as people equate elections with democracy and social justice, why would the political system suffer any more polarization as it did in the 1930s amid the Great Depression? In the absence of another 1930s-style Great Depression to precipitate sociopolitical polarization, the electoral system can withstand even more income inequality and injustice, more civil unrest, and more shift of government toward police-state style solutions to such problems. After all, people do not believe there is an alternative to the existing political system any more than the economic.

3. Apologists of the status quo, from politicians to businesses from academics to the media would have citizens believe that the existing economic system is thriving and it will continue to thrive for eternity, a belief first introduced by the apostle of the capitalist manifesto Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776). In other words, it is as though capitalism transcends history and it has come to earth from the heavens. Therefore, there is no need to reform capitalism by changing policies and certainly no need to do away with it. If the system appears immersed in contradictions and anachronistic in terms of fulfilling its promise to society any more in Adam Smith’s 18th century Europe than In 21st century world, it is only because critics and those not deriving optimal privileges are against the system not because there is something wrong with it.

Reformist critics argue that the declining middle class throughout the Western World in the last four decades is symptomatic of an ailing economic system that must be addressed through the political process. If this is not done, then democracy itself will give way to a more authoritarian political system. On the left side of the political spectrum, critics argue that the crisis of capitalism has already given way to a form of authoritarianism with a thin veil of democracy for mass consumption. Capitalism has shown definite signs of decline and it will ultimately fall. This will take a long time, just as Rome was in decline from the death of Marcus Aurelius to the sacking of Rome in the 5th century. Capitalism’s decline from within will come because it is serving an increasingly smaller segment of the population to the detriment of many losing faith in its promise. This means that it will take down with it all institutions, including the warped democratic political system as it will be evolving toward some authoritarian form, a contradiction in itself.

Scholars, journalists, politicians, business people and a segment of the public know that the world is experiencing a crisis of inequality. Despite the phenomenal Gross World Product (GWP) growth rising from $27 trillion in 1990 to $75 trillion in 2014, owing largely to the integration China and former Communist countries into the capitalist economy, income inequality actually grew during this period because capital remained concentrated in the hands of the top 10 percent. The inequality crisis is not just in Egypt, Nigeria, Kazakhstan and other developing nations under authoritarian corrupt regime, but in the US and Western democratic societies that go through the motions of promising equality but deliver downward social mobility for the college graduates.

With few notable exceptions among them Norway, many of the Western democracies deliver economic and social policies not much different from authoritarian countries that make no pretenses about a pluralistic society. This is not only in European Union countries undergoing austerity, but in the US as the world’s leading capitalist country where inequality is very evident. Although the US is an open society under a pluralistic system, it has been experiencing a crisis in its democratic institutions that has been going down the road of a quasi-police state ever since 9/11, considering there are glaring violations of the Constitution regarding civil rights, and of international law regarding human rights.

Things are not very different for the rest of the Western World where the rights of workers are disappearing and middle class is shrinking, while poverty is rising amid massive capital concentration. This is all justified in the name of markets that governments today equate with the “national interest”, thus redefining the social contract as understood by European thinkers of the Enlightenment as well as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The contradiction of democracy’s promise for equality and the downward socioeconomic mobility and rising income gap between the rich and the poor has been the subject of serious studies that ignore the populist propaganda in the media. However, such studies are hardly influential among mainstream politicians loyal to the new “market-centered” concept of the social contract that whatever is good for the rich is good for the nation – reminiscent of the 1920s thinking in America. (See Vicki L. Birchfield, Income Inequality in Capitalist Democracies: The Interplay of Values and Institutions; John Skinner, Capitalism, Socialism, Social Plutocracy: An American Crisis)

On the surface, the capitalist world economy certainly appears sound because of the fact that most people believe they have a stake in it. If they have no stake in it, they have hope for themselves and their children. Just below the surface there are very serious problems owing to a complex web of problems, most of them stemming from a political economy rooted in injustice and the source of oppression and exploitation that instead of lessening it is worsening based not just on income gaps between the rich and the “rest of society”, but on the quality of life in general for the “rest of society”. This does not mean that capitalism is coming to an end any time soon. Nevertheless, it manifests signs of structural weaknesses that will eventually undermine both capitalism and democracy from within. In other words, the real enemy that will bring down the social order is not “terrorism” or another enemy nation like Russia, but the decadent system.

The World Ignores The Crisis In Gaza

Ann Wright

With the 51 day Israeli attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014 that killed over 2,200, wounded 11,000, destroyed 20,000 homes and displaced 500,000, the closing to humanitarian organizations of the border with Gaza by the Egyptian government, continuing Israeli attacks on fishermen and others, and the lack of international aid through UNWRA for the rebuilding of Gaza, the international Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition has decided to again challenge Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza in an effort to gain publicity for the critical necessity of ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the isolation of the people of Gaza.

Palestinian boys attend Friday prayers as they sit at the remains of a house that witnesses said was destroyed by Israeli shelling during a 50-day war last summer, in the Shejaia neighbourhood east of Gaza City January 23, 2015.

UNRWA, the main U.N. aid agency in the Gaza Strip has stated that a lack of international funding forced it to suspend grants to tens of thousands of Palestinians for repairs to homes damaged in last summer's war.

"People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia," Robert Turner, Gaza director of operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), said in a statement. He said UNRWA received only $135 million of the $720 million pledged by donors to its cash assistance program for 96,000 refugee families whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the 50-day conflict between the Hamas government and Israel. Little of the total $5.4 billion pledged for Gaza's reconstruction at a Cairo conference of international donors in October 2014 has reached the Gaza, and thousands of Palestinians have been sheltering in tents near destroyed homes.

"Thousands more have been living in damaged buildings, using plastic sheeting to try to keep out the rain. Around 20,000 displaced are still being housed in U.N.-run schools.”

While we recognize that funds are needed to rebuild Gaza, we feel that the publicity from another flotilla will help gain attention to the plight of the people of Gaza in ways that other initiatives may not. Indeed, governments are forced to react to the flotillas as evidenced through the diplomatic cables obtained by the Center for Constitutional Rights from the U.S. Department of State to U.S. missions in the Middle East region.

At a December, 2014 meeting, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition decided to sail a 3-ship flotilla to challenge the blockade in the first half of 2015. Twenty passengers will be aboard each of the 3 ships for a total of 60 passengers. The coalition will seek representatives from 30 countries with each country having two passengers. The U.S.- Palestinian Solidarity community will participate in Gaza Freedom Flotilla 3 and has a target of $20,000 as their part for renovation expenses and to be able to have two persons as the U.S. delegates.

47 Years Ago In My Lai: 'We Were There To Kill Ideology'

Mickey Z.

“We weren’t there to kill human beings, really. We were there to kill ideology” - Lt. William Calley

Officially termed an “incident” (as opposed to a “massacre”), the events of March 16, 1968, at My Lai -- a hamlet in South Vietnam -- are widely portrayed and accepted to this day as an aberration. While the record of U.S. war crimes in Southeast Asia is far too sordid and lengthy to detail here, it’s painfully clear this was not an isolated “incident.”

Not even close…

In fact, on the very same day that Lt. William Calley entered into infamy (he would later explain: “We weren’t there to kill human beings, really. We were there to kill ideology”), another company entered My Khe, a sister subhamlet of My Lai. That visit has been described as such:

“In this ‘other massacre,’ members of this separate company piled up a body count of perhaps a hundred peasants -- My Khe was smaller than My Lai -- ‘flattened the village’ by dynamite and fire, and then threw handfuls of straw on corpses. The next morning, this company moved on down the Batangan Peninsula by the South China Sea, burning every hamlet they came to, killing water buffalo, pigs, chickens, ducks, and destroying crops. As one of the My Khe veterans said later, ‘what we were doing was being done all over.’ Said another: ‘We were out there having a good time. It was sort of like being in a shooting gallery.’”

Colonel Oran Henderson, charged with covering-up the My Lai killings, put it succinctly in 1971: “Every unit of brigade size has its My Lai hidden someplace.”

Of the 26 U.S. soldiers brought up on charges related to My Lai, only Calley was convicted. However, his life sentence was later reduced to three and a half years under house arrest.

Never forget, comrades: This is what we're up against.

He evacuated them to safety

Hugh Clowers Thompson, Jr. wanted to fly choppers so badly that after a four-year stint in the Navy, he left his wife and two sons behind to re-up into the Army and train as a helicopter pilot. Thompson arrived in Vietnam on Dec. 27, 1967, and quickly earned a reputation as “an exceptional pilot who took danger in his stride.”

In their book, Four Hours at My Lai, Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim also describe Hugh Thompson as a “very moral man. He was absolutely strict about opening fire only on clearly defined targets.”

On the morning of March 16, 1968, Thompson’s sense of virtue would be put to the test.

Flying in his H-23 observation chopper, the 25-year-old Thompson used green smoke to mark wounded people on the ground in and around My Lai. Upon returning a short while later after refueling, he found that the wounded he saw earlier were now dead.

Thompson’s gunner, Lawrence Colburn, averted his gaze from the gruesome sight.

After bringing the chopper down to a standstill hover, Thompson and his crew came upon a young woman they had previously marked with smoke. As they watched, a U.S. soldier, wearing captain’s bars, “prodded her with his foot, and then killed her.”

What Thompson didn’t know was that by that point, Lt. Calley’s Charlie Company had already slaughtered more than 560 Vietnamese. Most of the victims were women, children, infants, and elderly people. Many of the women had been gang-raped and mutilated. All Thompson knew for sure was that the U.S. troops he saw pursuing civilians had to be stopped.

Bravely landing his helicopter between the charging GIs and the fleeing villagers, Thompson ordered Colburn to turn his machine gun on the American soldiers if they tried to shoot the unarmed men, women, and children. Thompson then stepped out of the chopper into the combat zone and coaxed the frightened civilians from the bunker they were hiding in.

With tears streaming down his face, he evacuated them to safety on his H-23.

Never forget, comrades: This is how we can choose to be.

#shifthappens

China’s Dirty Coal Plants Face Climate Risk, Investors Warned

Megan Darby

Many of China’s dirtiest coal plants could be forced to close early as regulations to curb greenhouse gases, air pollution and water stress tighten.

That is the outlook described in the most comprehensive assessment to date of the risk of “stranded assets” to investors in coal power worldwide.

Seven of the 10 companies with the biggest portfolios of “subcritical” coal plants – the least efficient kind – are Chinese, according to research from Oxford University. The US is next, taking six of the top 20 slots.

“Subcritical plants are typically older and more expensive to operate,” explains lead author Ben Caldecott.

“Consequently, they may represent a sound choice for closure by budget-constrained policymakers looking for cost-effective ways of tackling pollution.”

The report is targeted at investors, to show which companies are most vulnerable to economic losses from actions to protect the environment.

Previous studies on stranded assets have mainly focused on the oil sector, which is worth more financially but less significant in terms of carbon emissions.
“I have had so many inquiries from investors over the last twelve months about coal,” Mark Lewis, analyst at Kepler Cheuvreux, tells RTCC.

“For the first time, we have got a list of the one hundred most vulnerable companies in terms of stranded assets.

“This is a very powerful study from that point of view and it will meet a big need among investors for detailed information and spark a debate. Some of the numbers in here are absolutely shocking.”

The report focuses on subcritical coal power generation, which makes up three quarters of global coal capacity.

This inefficient technology emits 75% more carbon dioxide than the most advanced plants available and uses 67% more water.

The International Energy Agency estimates a quarter of subcritical plants must be shut down by 2020 to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels.

At the same time, concerns about air pollution and water scarcity are driving curbs on coal generation in many regions.

This is true in China and India despite the fact most of the affected companies are majority government-owned – meaning closures hit the public purse.
Lewis says: “In China and India, one might say: they are never going to strand their own assets.

“But some of the pollution problems are so bad that actually they are moving to do this. This is inevitably going to reduce the economic value of a large proportion of coal capacity.”

In Europe and the US too, old coal plants are mainly being closed down by air quality rather than climate policies.

The EU emissions trading system (ETS), which puts a market price on carbon emissions, is set to provide “little regulatory pressure”, the researchers found.
A flagship policy intended to spur low carbon investment, the ETS has been dogged by an oversupply of allowances.

“They don’t expect any of the stranding of assets even in Europe to be the result of the ETS,” Lewis notes.

“For me, that was a reminder of how badly in a lot of ways the ETS has failed to deliver what it was supposed to deliver.”

There is a “strong case” for financial institutions to evaluate the risk of companies exposed to dirty coal, Caldecott says.

“Our research will help investors decide how to screen, engage with, or even divest from exposed companies.”

“I have had so many inquiries from investors over the last twelve months about coal. For the first time, we have got a list of the one hundred most vulnerable countries in terms of stranded assets.

“This is a very powerful study from that point of view and it will meet a big need among investors for detailed information and spark a debate. Some of the numbers in here are absolutely shocking.”

International Court, Hague, Rules in Favor of Ecuador in its Case Against U.S. Oil Giant, Chevron

Robert Barsocchini 

Telesur:

The International Court of Justice (CIJ) ruled Thursday a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined the U.S.-based oil company Chevron US $9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld.

The money will benefit about 30,000 Ecuadorians, most of them indigenous.

Background from Amazon Watch:

In 1964, Texaco (now Chevron), discovered oil in the remote northern region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, known as the Oriente; the East. The indigenous inhabitants of this pristine rainforest, including the Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Kichwa and Huaorani tribes, lived traditional lifestyles largely untouched by modern civilization.

They had little idea what to expect or how to prepare when oil workers moved into their backyard and founded the town of Lago Agrio, or “Sour Lake”, named after the town in Texas where oil company Texaco was founded.

In a rainforest area roughly three times the size of Manhattan, Chevron carved out 350 oil wells, and upon leaving the country in 1992, left behind some1,000 open-air, unlined waste pits filled with crude and toxic sludge. Many of these pits leak into the water table or overflow in heavy rains, polluting rivers and streams that tens of thousands of people depend on for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing. Chevron also dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater called “produced water” – a byproduct of the drilling process – into the rivers of the Oriente. At the height of Texaco's operations, the company was dumping an estimated 4 million gallons per day, a practice outlawed in major US oil producing states like Louisiana, Texas, and California decades before the company began operations in Ecuador in 1967. By handling its toxic waste in Ecuador in ways that were illegal in its home country, Texaco saved an estimated $3 per barrel of oil produced.

A public health crisis of immense proportions grips the Ecuadorian Amazon, the root cause of which is massive contamination from 40 years of oil operations. Texaco [Chevron] dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater directly into the region's rivers and streams depended upon for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing. The contamination of water essential for the daily activities of tens of thousands of people has resulted in an epidemic of cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and other ailments.

When Texaco arrived in Ecuador in 1964, the company found a pristine rainforest environment.

This story also has relevance to the US interest in exerting control over Venezuela, which has some of the world's largest oil reserves.

Glenn Greenwald:

Venezuela is one of the very few countries with significant oil reserves which does not submit to U.S. dictates, and this simply cannot be permitted (such countries are always at the top of the U.S. government and media list of Countries To Be Demonized).

A study conducted by the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex recently found:

…foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none.

…hydrocarbons were a major reason for the [US/UK/FR/CA] military intervention in Libya … and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.

“Before the Isis forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, Isis was barely mentioned in the news. But once Isis got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike Isis targets”

The major political science study on the topic, conducted out of Cornell and Northwestern universities,recently found, after studying nearly 2,000 policy issues (essentially any issue one can imagine), that the majority of the US population has statistically zero influence on US policy, while the wealthiest portions of society – i.e owners of corporations such as Chevron – essentially dictate policy – a political system called “oligarchy”.

Why I Hope Israel's Elections Will Give Netanyahu A Fourth Term As Prime Minister

Alan Hart

If I had to express my hope in one sentence it would be this. A fourth term as prime minister for Netanyahu would see Israel becoming more and more isolated and could improve the chances of Western governments being moved to use the leverage they have to cause the Zionist (not Jewish) state to end its defiance of international law and denial of the Palestinian claim for justice.

Another way to put it would be to say Netanyahu is a disaster for Zionism so let's have more of him.

A vision of the disaster Netanyahu's leadership has been bringing on was put into words by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan when he addressed the anti-Netanyahu "Israel Wants Change" rally in Rabin Square on 7 March. He said:

QUOTE

Israel is surrounded by enemies. Enemies do not scare me; I worry about our leadership. I am afraid of our leadership... Netanyahu  is dragging us down to a bi-national state and to the end of the Zionist dream.

UNQUOTE

It would not surprise me if Netanyahu's unspoken and unspeakable response was something like, "That will not happen because we'll resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing before it could happen."

In my imagination Netanyahu shared his thoughts on how to defuse the demographic time-bomb of occupation with a group of deluded, neo-fascist Jewish settlers.  One of them said, "Yes, and while we're completing our ethnic cleansing programme we'll blow up the Dome of the Rock." Another said, "And we'll chop off some Palestinian heads as Lieberman suggested."

What Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman actually said when as leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party he addressed an election rally in Herzliya on 8 March was the following.

QUOTE

Whoever is with us should give everything as they wish. Whoever is against us, there's nothing else to do. We have to lift up an axe and remove his head, otherwise we won't survive here.

UNQUOTE

The question those words provoked in my mind was this.

If Israel continues on its present course will the future see the emergence of a Zionist equivalent of ISIS?

Because a two-state solution in the shape and form the Palestinians could accept has long been dead, killed by Israel's colonization of the occupied West Bank, an enterprise best described as on-going ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth, a bi-national state is the only hope for a political resolution of the conflict.

The creation of a bi-national state  would put under one territorial roof the land of Israel prior to the 1967 war, the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip.

In theory and principle a real and true by-national state would be one in which ALL of its citizens enjoyed equal political and all other civil and human rights.

Because the day is approaching when the Arabs of Israel-Palestine will outnumber the Jews, the creation of a bi-national state would therefore lead the de-Zionization of Palestine and, to quote to Meir Dagan again, "the end of the Zionist dream".

Question: If Netanyahu stays in power, and given that he is not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept whether in two states or one, what are his options for defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation and keeping Zionism alive?

The strategy he has been working on for many months is to have Mohammed Dahlan, the former Fatah leader in Gaza, replace Mahmoud Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority

In Gaza Dahlan plotted with Israel and its American protector to destroy Hamas. But things didn't go as planned. Hamas became aware of the Israeli and American backed Dahlan coup in-the-making and launched a pre-emptive strike to drive Fatah's forces out of the Gaza Strip.

Then, in June 2011, Dahlan was expelled from Fatah because of the widespread belief, given voice by Abbas, that he, Dahlan, was the one who did Mossad's bidding and administered the polonium that killed Arafat.

Three months later, fearing that Dahlan was plotting against him, Abbas ordered the Palestinian police to raid his home and arrest his private armed guards. (No doubt some of them were Israeli assets).

In the past year or so, in regular contact with one or two of Netanyahu's most trusted aides, Dahlan has been planning his comeback and is seeking to replace Abbas as president of the PA.

What does Netanyahu think Dahlan could do for Zionism?

My guess is that be believes President Dahlan would be prepared to use force to compel the Palestinians to accept whatever crumbs they were offered from Zionism's table - a few Bantustans here and there which they could call a state if they wished.

Though such a scenario might play well in Netanyahu's warped mind, it is totally divorced from reality (par for his course). There is no power on earth or anywhere else that could force the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to surrender to Zionism's will. Their incredible almost superhuman steadfastness for the past 67 years says so.

It follows that if the elections about to take place give him the opportunity to cobble together a new coalition to enable him to continue in office as prime minister, Netanyahu will have to come up with another way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation and the real threat it poses to the existence of the Zionist state.

On the basis of his performance in recent weeks I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that Netanyahu would begin a fourth term as prime minister by entertaining the hope that the creeping transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism will gather momentum and cause more and more European Jews to flee to Israel.

In my view that's most unlikely to happen on the scale that would be necessary to defuse the demographic time-bomb of occupation, and that would leave Zionism with only one option - a final round of ethnic cleansing.

A pretext for it could easily be created by half a dozen Israeli agents dressing up as Palestinian terrorists and killing 30 or 40 or more Jews in what would be a bog standard false flag operation. In response Israel's military might would be fully mobilized to drive the Palestinians off the occupied West Bank. Those who didn't flee to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or wherever would be killed. Butchered. And if Lieberman's wish was granted, some would be beheaded.

Question: If the Zionist Union coalition wins more Knesset seats than Netanyahu's ruling Likud Party (the polls suggest that it will), and IF (it is a big if) its leader Isaac Herzog could then put together a majority that would enable him to replace Netanyahu as prime minister, would that improve the prospects for peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice?

Despite the fact that I believe Herzog really meant what he said when he declared that it was "not too late for peace" and that (unlike Netanyahu) he would put real effort into getting a real peace process going, my answer is NO. The truth is that Herzog as prime minister would not be allowed by Israel's right wing in all of its manifestations to deliver enough in the way of withdrawal from occupation to satisfy the Palestinians' minimum demands and needs.

So, I say, defeat for Netanyahu and victory for Herzog would result in an injection of false and phoney optimism into the international politics of the conflict. We would have President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and others telling us that a new page had been turned and that the door to peace was now open.

And that would be nonsense.

If there is ever to be a real peace process it has to start with the governments of the major powers, led by the one in Washington DC, putting Israel on notice that if it does not end its defiance of international law and continues its occupation and colonization of the West Bank it will be isolated and sanctioned.

In my view the prospects of governments being prepared to use the leverage they have to try to cause Israel to be serious about peace on the basis of justice for the Palestinians and security for all would be significantly improved if Netanyahu remains in power.

Another way of putting it would be to say that Netanyahu, unbalanced if not clinically mad, is, actually, the best public relations man for the Palestinians and their cause!

The latest and the last of the pre-election polls conducted in Israel indicate that Herzog's Zionist Union will win four more seats in the Knesset than Netanyahu's currently ruling Likud party, but...  According to The Times of Israel all of Israel's analysts are of the view that Netanyahu is almost certain to be more successful than Herzog in putting together a new ruling coalition.

Also worth noting is that of the 1230 Israelis polled, 43% said they wanted Netanyahu to remain as prime minster and 35% preferred Herzog.

Because of Israel's proportional and very bizarre election system - it enables parties with only three or four seats to make or break governments and therefore gives them enormous bargaining power - the haggling to determine who will be Israel's next prime minister will probably  go on for weeks. My guess is that Herzog will be unable to put together a big enough coalition to give him a majority in the Knesset and that Netanyahu will get a fourth term as prime minister.

For the reasons stated above I hope I am right.

Footnote

When I was thinking about the political haggling that will follow Israel's elections to determine who will be prime minister,  I recalled a comment made to me many years ago by a very dear Jewish friend. He said, "If two Jews were stranded on an uninhabited desert island there would three synagogues!"