Category Archives: South Asia Bulletin

Amartya Sen protests government interference

http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/nalanda-university-letter-to-board-members/article6913582.ece
19TH_SEN_2316025f

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen

Dr. Amartya Sen’s letter to Board members of Nalanda University

Fellow Members of the Nalanda Governing Board

Dear Colleagues,

19 February 2015

I am writing to you on a subject relating to the governance of Nalanda University in which all of us have been very deeply involved. As you know, at its last meeting on January 13-14, 2015, the Board decided unanimously (in my absence – I had recused myself – leaving George Yeo to chair the Board meeting) that I should be asked to serve as Chancellor of Nalanda University for a second term, when my present term expires in late July. The unanimity was, I was pleased to be told, firm and enthusiastic, coming from all members of the Board , which – as you know – consists of representatives from different Asian countries (including China, Japan, Singapore and others), in addition of course to Indian academics and professionals.

However, the decision of the Governing Board becomes operational, according to the Nalanda University Act of Parliament, only after the Visitor of the University (the President of India, ex-officio) gives his assent to the decision. I understand that the Board’s decision was conveyed to the Visitor in mid-January, immediately after the meeting of the Governing Board of the Nalanda University, drawing his attention to the urgency of the matter, since the planning and implementation of new teaching and research arrangements are proceeding rapidly in the newly functioning University.

More than a month has passed since then, and it now seems clear that the Visitor has been unable to provide his assent to the Governing Board’s unanimous choice, in the absence of the Government’s approval. The Governing Board has not been favoured with a reply to its request, either from the President’s office or from the Ministry of External Affairs. As Board members are aware, our Visitor – President Pranab Mukherjee – has always taken a deep personal interest in the speedy progress of the work of Nalanda University, and given that, we have to assume that something makes it difficult – or impossible – for him to act with speed in this matter.

Non-action is a time-wasting way of reversing a Board decision, when the Government has, in principle, the power to act or not act. This, as you might recollect, also happened to the revised Statutes that the Governing Board passed unanimously last year. Many of these Statutes (including the one pertaining to the Chancellor’s term of office) also never received formal acceptance or rejection from the Ministry of External Affairs, which had the role of coordinating with the Visitor’s office.

It is hard for me not to conclude that the Government wants me to cease being the Chancellor of Nalanda University after this July, and technically it has the power to do so. This delay as well as the uncertainty involved is leading, in effect, to a decisional gap, which is not helpful to Nalanda University’s governance and its academic progress. I have, therefore, decided that in the best interest of Nalanda University, I should exclude myself from being considered for continuing as Chancellor of Nalanda University beyond this July, despite the unanimous recommendation and urging of the Governing Board for me to continue. I take this opportunity also to thank the Governing Board very warmly for its confidence in me.

As you would also remember, there was considerable disquiet among Board members about the Government’s evident unwillingness to appreciate the international character of Nalanda University and to pay appropriate attention to the multi-country Governing Board of Nalanda. In particular, the Governing Board was kept completely in the dark about an attempted unilateral move by the Government to rapidly reconstitute the entire Board, and to do this in violation of some of parts of the Nalanda University Act (reflected especially in the letters that have already been sent out to foreign governments, departing from the provisions of the Act as it now stands).

I write this letter with a heavy heart since re-establishing Nalanda has been a life-long commitment for me (as it is important also to you). While classes have very successfully started, on a small scale, in two Schools (the School of History and that of Environment and Ecology), we are, as you know, in the process of planning other Schools, including a School of Economics, a School of Public Health, and a School of Buddhist Studies, Philosophy and Comparative Religion, and also of augmenting the intake of students. I have been personally much occupied with this planning, but I will, of course, pass on the work-in-progress to the Vice-Chancellor.

I am also sad, at a more general level, that academic governance in India remains so deeply vulnerable to the opinions of the ruling Government, when it chooses to make political use of the special provisions. Even though the Nalanda University Act, passed by the Parliament, did not, I believe, envisage political interference in academic matters, it is formally the case – given the legal provisions (some of them surviving from colonial days) – that the Government can turn an academic issue into a matter of political dispensation, if it feels unrestrained about interfering. As a proud and concerned citizen of India, I take this particular occasion to communicate my general disquiet in public, which is why I am openly sharing this letter.

Also, since I receive a great many constructive suggestions every week about teaching and research at Nalanda University for possible implementation (a number of these suggestions coming from the public have indeed been extremely useful for the academic planning of Nalanda), I am using this occasion to publicly communicate that I shall do whatever I can over the remaining time I have, though the leadership of the long-run planning of Nalanda has, obviously, to come from someone else.

I end by thanking you for the help, advice and support I have been receiving from all of you, which I will continue to treasure even when I move away from Nalanda University this July.

Yours ever,

Amartya Sen

Keywords: Nalanda UniversityLetter to board membersAmartya Sen

 

Attack on Charlie Hebdo

From South Asia Citizens Web

Long Live Charlie Hebdo! : A letter to the left leaning in wake of Charlie Hebdo shootings of January 2015

Harsh Kapoor, 24 January

(A slightly edited version of the below article is appearing in Mainstream Weekly, 31 January 2015)

The January 2015 terror attack on the Paris satirical weekly and its gross misinterpretation by people of Left liberal sensibilities in India and much of the world.

We recently witnessed a devastating terror assault by fanatics who gunned down close to 200 children in a school in Peshawar. Was this a desperate cry of the dispossessed in Pakistan? I am glad that the various tiny fractions of the left in Pakistan stood up and condemned it openly, some in India also stood up for the first time. It provoked widespread shock and disdain.

But the terrorist assassination of 12 cartoonists, journalists and workers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7 January 2015 has provoked very different reactions. Geographical location of the murder seems to drive this.

I am utterly astounded and shocked at the manner in which many in the left leaning and liberal circles in India have reacted to the devastating terror attack in Paris. Has a section of left gone mad? Why do they have to deflect a straight forward issue and start providing rationalisation for terror attacks from the Muslim fundamentalists. We are being given an endless spiel on French colonisation, the war for decolonization in Algeria, the exclusion of the so-called Muslim ‘community’ in France, the blowback for France’s foolish involvement in the recent wars in Libya and Syria and so on. The role of poor and dispossessed is being invoked.

Commentators from the anglo saxon world and even our desi left intelligenstsia who are waxing eloquent on the Charlie Hebdo massacre are making the most absurd amalgam between the French establishment and a truly radical far left wing magazine which shared absolutely nothing in common.

Charlie Hebdo is presented as the center of all evil that existed ever and that it had it coming, that their cartoons were racist and hurt sentiments. All this reminds me of 1989 and the Rushdie affair when this hurt sentiment industry made it big and has since become globalised. India’s Picasso, M.F. Hussain, was forced to leave his country by the wrath of the Hindu Far Right, all in the name of hurt sentiments. Many of the same radicals who stood by M.F. Hussain are now shamelessly standing up with free rationalisation for the Charlie Hebdo killers. Why such different treatment for different religio-fundamentalist strands? Were the poor and dispossessed involved in going after M.F. Hussain or in the assassination of M.K. Gandhi? What about the assassination of Salman Tasseer? Poor and oppressed, any takers?

Charlie Hebdo was born in rebellious times of May1968 in France. It had been preceded by other radical magazines like Hara Kiri and Enragé and many others. But they are in many ways part of a lineage of a very long historical tradition dating back to the French revolution and Jacobins of radical caricature making and mocking the powers that be — religious or other — in every sphere of life. The French revolution was the time of incredibly powerful irreverence and it gave birth to a very incisive form of satire and lampooning. Many magazines with satirical drawing accompanying text emerged during this time and have continued since. Later a much softer version of this developed in Britain and elsewhere.

The 1968 generation Charlie Hebdo has had an even more militant libertarian non conformist view of the world, groomed by a radical antipathy to the political power of religious authority, and a deep identification with ideas of the broad left. Pungent depictions the magazine runs are devastatingly funny that poke fun at everything, just every thing that makes for daily life. This vitriolic humour has come to be vital part of French intellectual and popular culture and there is a social acceptance for it. Millions read satirical comics, satirical newspapers, and magazines. Its anti religious politics takes apart the clergy, most of all the nuns, bishops, popes, rabbis, all who represent the high and mighty and, more recently the Dalai Lama, the new cults, and also in the recent times imams, mullahs as gate keepers of religion.

Charile Hebdo has a bawdy, burlesque style of black humour. Not for the weak hearted. In 1970 Charlie Hebdo made fun of Charles de Gaulle, president and leader of the Resistance, on the day of his death, provoking demands from the Right for its ban. The publication ceased in 1981 and was revived in 1991. Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists have faced hundreds of court cases since its creation. But it has continued to strike against powerful capitalists, bureaucratic and religious elites. The many targets of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons and journalism have been the far right extremists, police repression, war mongering, the big corporate media, anti immigrant policies, capitalist and employer wrongdoing, the big banks and the stock markets, cuts in public spending and the military industrial complex, the nuclear industry, homophobia, conservative social values, denial of climate change, the food industry, the big pharma etc etc

In the English speaking world, there is practically no tradition of satirical magazines like Charlie Hebdo or say a newspaper like Le Canard Enchainé (A Duck in chains — Canard/Duck is French slang for newspaper) that deploy sardonic cartoons with investigative journalism and opinion pieces as standard fare. The kind of fiercely brutal cartoons that appear in Charlie Hebdo and the like in France have no chance of appearing in Britain, in the United States, Canada, Australia and most of the world. This would pass as obscene bad taste, it is matter of culture as to what is obscene or distasteful. In a country like India, the Charlie style cartoons would be unacceptable to both the left and right and the non ideological and unthinking.

Thanks to the French revolution, there are no blasphemy laws in France (except for Alsace and Moselle regions which joined France after the revolution). But however, France has strict laws on hate speech, on anti Semitism and on holocaust denial, so hateful activity is under the scanner.

Blasphemy or “religious insult” and racism are two different things. But with the rise of identity politics all over the world, there has been a successful push by many to collapse these into a single block that turn’s religious identity into ethnic or racial faultlines. In keeping with this, all of French of North African descent get sweepingly described in the media as Muslims (less than 5% go to mosques, 20% are atheists) or Arabs (vast majority are from Berber origins) and all of the ‘white’ French get labeled as Christian, a huge mistake this — a misnomer for the French. But in this age of easy clichéd (black and white) representation who cares for complexity — just an SMS does the fixing.

The politics of Charlie Hebdo has been progressive as it gets and informed by the new left around the world. They have been anti fascist, pro-abortion, pro-contraception in solidarity with the feminists, they stood up with the anti nuclear movement unlike their own friends on the left. The main anti-racist platform in France, SOS Racisme, teamed up with Charlie for campaigns against anti immigrant policies. They denounced the Right Wing opposition to legalise gay live-in relations. During the 1990’s war in Algeria when there were violent attacks from the fundamentalists on the local media and the artists, writers and cartoonists, many were forced into exile. Charlie Hebdo opened its doors to numerous Algerian journalists and cartoonists in exile. All this goes back in fact because people like Bob Siné (the anarchist celebrity cartoonist from the 1950s and 1960s, Siné one of the oldest cartoonists who worked for Charlie Hebdo magazine till 2008.) faced umpteen law suits for supporting Algeria’s independence movement in the 1950’s.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, has been condemned in France by the trade unions, by the anti nuclear movement, by women’s groups, by organisations of homeless, by the immigrants organisations all have offered help and solidarity. Thousands of people attended the solidarity demonstrations in Paris and other cities across france to express their outrage. Tens of thousands of Franco-Algerian, Franco-Moroccan and Franco-Tunisians were present in the demonstrations, carrying flags from the countries of the Maghreb. There have also been expressions of solidarity by organisations of Muslim religious believers from the famous Seine-Saint-Denis suburb of Paris with a high working class population. [1] Journalists in Algeria and the Tunisian Trade Union of workers in Graphic Arts (Syndicat des métiers des arts plastiques tunisien) have issued statements in support of Charlie Hebdo, saying they have faced and still face similar threats and attacks from fundamentalists.

In fact five of the cartoonists who died were people whose work appeared also in many weeklies, dailies and monthlies of left persuasion all over France. The French trade unions, the women’s groups, the antinuclear movement carried their cartoons. They were household names.

Georges Wolinski who was very famous in France. He was one of the longest standing members of Charlie Hebdo, was very close to the communist Party of France and the president of the France-Cuba friendship association. Close to 80 books of cartoon we penned by him, they are prized possessions of millions in France, Spain and elsewhere.

Jean Cabut (pen name Cabu), was a class apart and extremely popular for his past with hilarious Le Canard enchainé — the french precursor of WikiLeaks. His cartoon character Mon Beauf, a caricature of the racism, and sexism of an ordinary Frenchman, became so popular that the word ’beauf’ (short for “beau-frère”, i.e., brother-in-law) has entered French slang dictionaries. His work appeared in numerous newspapers, but many volumes of cartoons were sold on their own as best selling books. One of which was the ‘Big blond with a black shirt’ a lancet’s knife lampooning of Jean Marie Le Pen, the leader of the extreme right National Front.

Tignous, had his cartoons appear every week in Charlie but also on the pages of the daily l’Humanité (news paper of the Communist Party) and in the CGT trade union paper La Vie Ouvrière, in Telerama and L’Echo des Savanes. Tignous was a member of Cartoonists for Peace. Bella Ciao the famous Italian song of the left was sung at the funeral for Tignous.

Stéphane Charbonier (known as Charb) the murdered editor of Charlie, was a member of the French Communist Party and a supporter of the Front de Gauche (the Left Front — a joint for of left groups), had opposed the 2005 proposed neoliberal European constitution. The 2009 book ‘Marx: Mode d’emploi’ (Marx: A User’s Guide) by the late far left intellectual Daniel Bensaid was attractively illustrated with funny drawings by Charb. Charb was also well known for his four volume ‘chien et chat anticapitalistes’ (anti capitalist Cats and Dogs cartoon books). At his funeral they played the Internatonale to bid farewell to him.

Bernard Maris (or Uncle Bernard to Charlie Hebdo readers) a 1968 radical was one of main shareholders of Charlie Hebdo, was part of the editorial group. He was a reputed left economist, on the advisory board of ATTAC (http://www.attac.org/), the social movement body opposed to corporate globalization. His work appeared in a wide range of magazine and was popular on French Radio. He appeared in a 2010 Jean Luc Godard film ’Film Socialisme’

Philippe Honoré had joined Charlie Hebdo in 1992. His worked appeared in numerous magazines and papers including the the Trade Unions Magazine, La Vie Ouvier apart from Charlie Hebdo. He was self taught cartoonist, who was widely known for his book covers. He had a a very funny book on Nicolas Sarkozy’s Presdency called ’Je Hais les petites phrases’. His subtle humour stood out from his colleagues at Charlie Hebdo. They played the French song La Bute Rouge and the Bob Dylan Song Farewell Angelina sung by Joan Baez at his funeral at the Pére La Chaise cemetary.

Charlie Hebdo magazine has been a well known and fervent opponent of Zionism and Israel’s regular assaults on Gaza. It defended Roma / gypsy people against police crackdowns and deportation. Charlie Hebdo has been part of the cultural intellectual infrastructure (where with all) of the left in France. Killing them has been like a body blow to the left sensibilities and to the cultural sphere in France.

The murder of these left cartoonists and its obscene celebration by the progressives elsewhere is akin to the following hypothetical nightmare. That our international celebrity Marxist Tariq Ali, the radical broadcaster Amy Goodman, and our big time prof from Columbia all get assassinated by some Islamist nuts for being British or American and the progressive chatterati grotesquely take off talking about horrors of British and American imperialism and that this is blowback. Sad to imagine such a scenario.

The Islamist echo effect on Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris is still on; there are now big violent street demo’s in North Africa (A report in El Watan of 17th jan 2015 says ‘the slogan heard in the demonstration in Algeria after the Charlie Hebdo massacre was “Ahlyha nahya, ahlyha namout, wa alayha nalqa Allah” (pour – l’Etat islamique – nous vivons, pour lui nous allons mourir et rencontrer Dieu) [English Translation: For an Islamic State – we are living, for which we will die and encounter God]’) and the Middle East, also near home in Pakistan. I am now with sadness waiting for the ones that may happen in Delhi, in Bombay, in Calcutta and for the real prospect of our lefties joining them in solidarity with the hurt religious sentiment walas.

The left today is very shy of confronting Muslim Fundamentalism, lest it be seen as anti-Islam. It has become a taboo they better get rid of. The other malady afflicting the left leaning is xenophobic nationalism anti west-ism, becoming a reactionary instinct deployed to explain everything from road accidents to bad weather. Please wake up comrades: internationalism is the need of the day against rising tide of fascist movements that may spell the end of all democratic space.

The killers of Charlie Hebdo grew up in areas where once there was a red belt of communist-run towns around Paris. Today the left, has pretty much ceded ground in these working class suburban towns. These are recruiting grounds for multiple forms of fascist and reactionary groups, armed with propaganda, satellite TV, hate-filled gospel and dress codes and moral conduct all blessed by ‘authentic’ religion and culture. Christian evangelical cults, Islamist preachers and the Far right xenophobes all promoting identity politics. Now it is time to mass mobilise against fascist formations in France as in India.

In India we have hate speech, violently communal speech, anti religious speech all co exist with virtually no real hand of the state successfully stopping it. We have unity and diversity of Fatwas and Farmans from Khaps, self appointed religious or ‘community’ leaders increasingly defining the landscape for speech, writing, film, dress and accepted behaviour. Blasphemy and hurt sentiment industry is flourishing. A slow poison is spreading.

It is time we promoted Freedom of Speech as a left wing issue, and differentiate it from hate speech; the space to speak is shrinking everywhere and most of all for people who represent subversive ideas of equality and secular democracy.

The massacre in Paris

From The Hindu

January 22, 2015

The Muslim in liberal Europe

ISHTIAQ AHMED

For extremist Muslim outfits, subverting the West’s secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism is top priority. It is important that Europe does not let the notion of multiculturalism serve as a means for Muslims or any other community to obtain exemptions that conflict with its overall inclusive and equal citizenship

The French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo is known for its irreverent approach to religion. In the past it has published cartoons of the Prophet. A cartoon controversy has raged for quite some time in western Europe, which has resulted in similar violent assaults by incensed Muslims determined to mete out extreme punishment on the offenders.

In a speech to the nation, the French President, François Hollande, described the events as “a tragedy for the nation, an obligation for us to confront terrorists.” He added, “We are a free nation that does not give in.” He further asserted, “We carry an ideal that is greater than us.” However, he emphasised that such pathological behaviour was by no means to be associated with most French Muslims who were loyal, law-abiding citizens. Leaders of other western countries have rallied around France. The U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, described French democracy as the paragon, which inspired others to follow it. Others paid similar tributes and pledged support to France in the fight against terrorism. French Muslim clerics and lay leaders have been quick to denounce the Charlie Hebdo attackers as renegades to Islam and expressed sympathy for the victims of the terrorist outrage.

Of the 66-million strong population in France, five million are Muslims, mainly Algerians but also from other former French colonies in the Maghreb. Less than two million say they are interested in religion. Consequently, France has the biggest Muslim population, a majority of whom are secularised and virtually integrated in French society. Such a situation is typically unacceptable to the extremists who thrive on polarising Muslims and non-Muslims. They deliberately seek opportunities to corroborate “The Clash of Civilizations”, the thesis of the American political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington. Huntington had famously argued that ‘Western’ and ‘Islamic’ civilisations were incompatible. As compared to the liberal, rule-oriented and law-abiding West, the Islamic civilisation was an aggressive and expansionist global force with a pronounced zeal and proclivity towards violence and warfare, he asserted. He warned against Muslim immigration to the West, and declared multiculturalism to be a failed and doomed ideal.

Such thinking has been brewing since a long time among anti-immigration parties and movements in western Europe. For example, a Conservative member of the British Parliament and Minister of Health (1960-63), Enoch Powell delivered in Birmingham on April 20, 1968, the infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech against immigration. In it he warned that the British people were worried about being swamped by non-whites who would multiply by leaps and bounds and become a source of disturbance and instability. Such developments would culminate in rivers of blood as a result of race wars. The British National Front, the French National Front, and the German Neo-Nazis were the earliest parties that took a stand against non-white immigrants. Holland, Belgium, Germany and Scandinavian groups too began to air similar views. Over time, the emphasis changed from racial terminology to explicitly religious jargon about the Islamic threat to Europe.

Personal law and justice systems

The activities and demands of some individuals and organisations among Muslims inadvertently confirmed that a grand Trojan horse conspiracy was under way to take full advantage of liberal immigration laws and enter western Europe in large numbers and then set in motion the Islamicisation of western Europe. For example in 1975, Sheikh Syed Darsh, the head cleric of London’s main Regent’s Park Mosque demanded that Islamic law, the Sharia, should be allowed to regulate Muslim personal affairs. He asserted that both British law and Sharia aimed at establishing justice, but Islamic justice derived from Koranic injunctions and its application to personal matters of Muslims would only complement British justice, not subvert it. This was of course not true because Sharia laws pertaining to family matters differ radically from western family law systems. Sharia law pertaining to marriage, divorce and inheritance confers greater rights on males whereas in the secularised western family law system, differential rights have more or less been eliminated. Demands for application of Sharia law to personal matters have been raised in other countries as well.

A Pakistani journalist, Kalim Siddiqui, greatly emboldened by the Iranian revolution, floated the notion of a Muslim parliament of Great Britain. In 1990, a “Muslim Mnifesto: a Strategy For Survival,” was launched by Siddiqui. It advocated practically the establishment of an alternative legal system. The Muslim parliament never took off as a representative body of British Muslims, as very few Muslims evinced interest in it. However, such developments were indicative of cultural tensions and serious disagreement on values that were coming to the surface. In the background of the Arab-Israeli wars and the constant humiliation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, anti-westernism attracted sections of Muslim society all over the world. Moreover, from the early 1980s, the Iranian-Saudi competition to influence Muslims and their funding of some organisations widened the radical Islam constituency internationally and in western Europe.

Mounting tensions were greatly exacerbated when in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa against writer Salman Rushdie for his The Satanic Verses (1988), alleging that it grievously insulted Islam. Suddenly, the Muslim presence in a secularised, Christian society, where freedom of expression and opinion was firmly entrenched, drew attention not only of the authorities who were keen to maintain law and order but also the general public. The public debate polarised around those on the left who thought Rushdie had played into the hands of the West by writing a book scurrilous of the Prophet of Islam while mainstream politicians and media denounced the fatwa and the death sentence as being illegitimate.

A trigger for terror

However, in the aftermath of 9/11, and the U.S.-NATO reprisals against Afghanistan, which resulted in thousands of troops being stationed in that country, followed by President George W. Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, terrorism as the means to express Muslim antipathy and fury against the West gained worldwide adherents. Consequently, terrorist attacks happened in western Europe in 2004.

While the reaction to 9/11 was no doubt the trigger that set in motion concerns for security in Europe, such fears were compounded by related issues that generated tension. For a long time the French National Front had been calling for the repatriation of Muslims to their home countries. On the other hand, among Muslim immigrants, despite a secularised majority, the trend to adhere more strictly to Islamic attire and other symbols had been gaining ground. Girls had begun to use headscarves in schools, which were deemed as a violation of the rules that required religion being kept out of educational institutions. A public debate took place which generated consensus against the hijab. On March 15, 2004, President Jacques Chirac signed into law the Bill passed by the French national legislature which came into effect on September 2, 2004. However, some women began donning an extreme form of dress, the burqa or niqab, to mark their social isolation when in public. It was considered as an extremist provocation. It meant covering the whole face and all other parts of the body. The burqa was also banned in April 2011. The Dutch and Belgian Parliaments have also passed Bills banning the niqab in public; the completion of the legal procedure is expected to be completed soon. Elsewhere governments have either openly rejected such legislation or adopted a policy of non-action.

It is quite clear that relations between Muslim immigrants and host societies in the West are ridden with tensions. Concerns for identity and collective identification are deeply ingrained in people. Immigrants invariably carry many ties and loyalties in their cultural and emotional baggage. There is no doubt that contemporary Muslims and Westerners have been socialised and groomed in very different ideals and values. Such socialisation is not absolute; change and transformation are possible, but such processes are very slow and never quite complete. No doubt terrorist activities among Muslims are up until now confined only to some individuals and a few organisations, but extremist Muslims including the al-Qaeda pursue a determined policy to polarise Muslims and non-Muslims across the world. Therefore, subverting secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism in the West enjoys top priority in their strategy to gain power and influence. It is important that the European state should not let the notion of multiculturalism serve as a means for Muslims or any other community to obtain legal exemptions and exemptions that conflict with the overall inclusive and equal citizenship that applies to most of Europe. Equally, it is important that vigilance and surveillance of extremist Muslims is maintained and improved upon but without jeopardising the rights of Muslims in general to equal treatment under the law. Immigrant communities need to be properly informed about not only their rights but also obligations. Without such a dialogue and understanding, the future of multiculturalism and pluralism is bleak in western Europe.

(Ishtiaq Ahmed is visiting professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, Professor Emeritus, Stockholm University, and Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore.)

 

Two lectures on India

 

From The Hindu

Vice-President Hamid Ansari being presented a memento by eminent jurist Soli J. Sorabjee while former Attorney-General Ashok H. Desai looks on, at the Tarkunde memorial lecture in New Delhi. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

 

NEW DELHI, November 23, 2014

Updated: November 23, 2014 02:01 IST

End culture of impunity: Hamid Ansari

STAFF REPORTER

 

Vice-President Hamid Ansari being presented a memento by eminent jurist Soli J. Sorabjee while former Attorney-General Ashok H. Desai looks on, at the Tarkunde memorial lecture in New Delhi. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

Vice-President M. Hamid Ansari pointed out that people have a “profound disenchantment with the state” due to misuse of laws such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.

He was delivering a lecture in memory of eminent jurist and human rights activist V.M. Tarkunde, here on Friday.

Mr. Ansari called for, “a fuller accountability into the system of governance at all levels so that the culture of impunity ends, and the state and its functionaries are held accountable for every act of omission or commission.”

There must be “continual oversight” to ensure that people are “kept sufficiently awake to the principle of not letting liberty be smothered by material prosperity.” The need, he said, was to find a balance between traditional rights of citizens with environmental imperatives and economic objectives or else social tensions would undermine development.

“Innovative legislation pertaining to right to food, education, information and rural employment has been put in place. A critical analysis of the results however show imbalance in implementation and insufficient attention to some other areas.”

The Vice President pointed out that violations of the right to life and liberty by the state was acute in areas of internal conflict such as Jammu and Kashmir, the north-east, and the Naxal belt.

“Much of this is credible, has been carefully documented, and reflects poorly on the state and its agents,” he said. “Despite the constitutional and legal guarantees, religious minorities continue to be the target of violence and discrimination… Patterns of systematic mobilisation of hate and divisive politics are discernible; in many cases these have been pursued with impunity.”

From The Hindu

NEW DELHI, November 23, 2014

Updated: November 23, 2014 01:58 IST

Nehru favoured state control over resources: Irfan Habib

ANITA JOSHUA

Working on the premise that Jawharlal Nehru’s world-view “provides the bedrock upon which alone this nation can sustain itself,” the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust on Saturday launched a lecture series that seeks to reconstruct and recover his “idea of India” while critiquing it.

Delivering the first lecture in the series christened, “The Indian Modern & Nehru,” eminent historian Irfan Habib flagged the key interventions made by the country’s first Prime Minister during the freedom struggle to lay the foundations of independent India.

In particular, Prof. Habib dwelt at length on Nehru’s celebration of reason and advocacy of a welfare state; two interventions that ran contrary to what Gandhi had spelt out in his book Hind Swaraj. “Gandhi spoke of self-help and minimal state but Nehru felt that people wanted a supportive state and advocated public sector control of mineral resources, railways, industry,…’’ Nehru also advocated ‘land to the tiller,’ something which Gandhi was opposed to, Prof. Habib added.

Pointing out that Gandhi chose Nehru as his political heir despite these differences, Prof. Habib said 1947 saw their two streams of thought unite like never before. “Both wanted communal slaughter to stop. And, they wanted Muslims to remain in India even after Partition as should Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. Very few Congress leaders agreed with them.”

Challenging allegations that State control over resources was a personal agenda of Nehru, the historian pointed out that public sector control over mineral resources, key infrastructure and industry were mentioned in the Karachi Resolution and was part of the official Congress policy from the early 1930s.