This is why they hate us: The real American history neither Ted Cruz nor the New York Times will tell you

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 06:00 AM EST

We talk democracy, then overthrow elected governments and prop up awful regimes. Let's discuss the actual history

Ben Norton

 Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (Credit: AP/Reuters/Jason Reed/Photo montage by Salon)
The soi-disant Land of the Free and Home of the Brave has a long and iniquitous history of overthrowing democratically elected leftist governments and propping up right-wing dictators in their place.

U.S. politicians rarely acknowledge this odious past — let alone acknowledge that such policies continue well into the present day.

In the second Democratic presidential debate, however, candidate Bernie Sanders condemned a long-standing government policy his peers rarely admit exists.

“I think we have a disagreement,” Sanders said of fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “And the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq. If you look at history, you will find that regime change — whether it was in the early ’50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile, or whether it was overthrowing the government of Guatemala way back when — these invasions, these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I’m a little bit more conservative than the secretary.”

“I am not a great fan of regime changes,” Sanders added.

“Regime change” is not a phrase you hear discussed honestly much in Washington, yet it is a common practice in and defining feature of U.S. foreign policy for well over a century. For many decades, leaders from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have pursued a bipartisan strategy of violently overthrowing democratically elected foreign governments that do not kowtow to U.S. orders.

In the debate, Sanders addressed three examples of U.S. regime change. There are scores of examples of American regime change, yet these are perhaps the most infamous instances.

Iran, 1953

 A tank in the streets of Tehran during the 1953 CIA-backed coup
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Public domain)

Iran was once a secular democracy. You would not know this from contemporary discussions of the much demonized country in U.S. politics and media.

What happen to Iran’s democracy? The U.S. overthrew it in 1953, with the help of the U.K. Why? For oil.

Mohammad Mosaddegh may be the most popular leader in Iran’s long history. He was also Iran’s only democratically elected head of state.

In 1951, Mosaddegh was elected prime minister of Iran. He was not a socialist, and certainly not a communist — on the contrary, he repressed Iranian communists — but he pursued many progressive, social democratic policies. Mosaddegh pushed for land reform, established rent control, and created a social security system, while working to separate powers in the democratic government.

In the Cold War, however, a leader who deviated in any way from free-market orthodoxy and the Washington Consensus was deemed a threat. When Mossaddegh nationalized Iran’s large oil reserves, he crossed a line that Western capitalist nations would not tolerate.

The New York Times ran an article in 1951 titled “British Warn Iran of Serious Result if She Seizes Oil.” The piece, which is full of orientalist language, refers to Iranian oil as “British oil properties,” failing to acknowledge that Britain, which had previously occupied Iran, had seized that oil and claimed it as its own, administering it under the auspices of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and eventually British Petroleum and modern BP.

The Times article noted that the U.S. “shares with Britain the gravest concern about the possibility that Iranian oil, the biggest supply now available in the Near East, might be lost to the Western powers.” The British government is quoted making a thinly veiled threat.

This threat came into fruition in August 1953. In Operation Ajax, the CIA, working with its British equivalent MI6, carried out a coup, overthrowing the elected government of Iran and reinstalling the monarchy. The shah would remain a faithful Western ally until 1979, when the monarchy was abolished in the Iranian Revolution.

Guatemala, 1954

 A CIA cable documenting Guatemalan dictator Castillo Armas’ plan to overthrow the elected government (Credit: CIA FOIA)

Less than a year after overthrowing Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister, the U.S. pursued a similar regime change policy in Guatemala, toppling the elected leader Jacobo Árbenz.

In 1944, Guatemalans waged a revolution, toppling the U.S.-backed right-wing dictator Jorge Ubico, who had ruled the country with an iron fist since 1931. Ubico, who fancied himself the 20th-century Napoleon, gave rich landowners and the U.S. corporation the United Fruit Company (which would later become Chiquita) free reign over Guatemala’s natural resources, and used the military to violently crush labor organizers.

Juan José Arévalo was elected into office in 1944. A liberal, he pursued very moderate policies, but the U.S. wanted a right-wing puppet regime that would allow U.S. corporations the same privileges granted to them by Ubico. In 1949, the U.S. backed an attempted coup, yet it failed.

In 1951, Árbenz was elected into office. Slightly to the left of Arévalo, Árbenz was still decidedly moderate. The U.S. claimed Árbenz was close to Guatemala’s communists, and warned he could ally with the Soviet Union. In reality, the opposite was true; Árbenz actually persecuted Guatemalan communists. At most, Árbenz was a social democrat, not even a socialist.

Yet Árbenz, like Mosaddegh, firmly believed that Guatemalans themselves, and not multinational corporations, should benefit from their country’s resources. He pursued land reform policies that would break up the control rich families and the United Fruit Company exercised over the country — and, for that reason, he was overthrown.

President Truman originally authorized a first coup attempt, Operation PBFORTUNE, in 1952. Yet details about the operation were leaked to the public, and the plan was abandoned. In 1954, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA and U.S. State Department, under the Dulles Brothers, bombed Guatemala City and carried out a coup that violently toppled Guatemala’s democratic government.

The U.S. put into power right-wing tyrant Carlos Castillo Armas. For the next more than 50 years, until the end of the Guatemalan Civil War in 1996, Guatemala was ruled by a serious of authoritarian right-wing leaders who brutally repressed left-wing dissidents and carried out a campaign of genocide against the indigenous people of the country.

Chile, 1973

Pinochet’s soldiers burning left-wing books after the 1973 U.S.-backed coup in Chile (Credit: CIA FOIA/Weekly Review)

September 11 has permanently seared itself into the memory of Americans. The date has also been indelibly imprinted in the public consciousness of Chileans, because it was on this same day in 1973 that the U.S. backed a coup that violently overthrew Chile’s democracy.

In 1970, Marxist leader Salvador Allende was democratically elected president of Chile. Immediately after he was elected, the U.S. government poured resources into right-wing opposition groups and gave millions of dollars to Chile’s conservative media outlets.

The CIA deputy director of plans wrote in a 1970 memo, “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup… It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [U.S. government] and American hand be well hidden.” President Nixon subsequently ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile, to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”

Allende’s democratic government was violently overthrown in Operation Ajax, on September 11, 1973. He died in the coup, just after making an emotional speech, in which he declared he would give his life to defend Chilean democracy and sovereignty.

Far-right dictator Augusto Pinochet, who combined fascistic police state repression with hyper-capitalist free-market economic policies, was put into power. Under Pinochet’s far-right dictatorship, tens of thousands of Chilean leftists, labor organizers, and journalists were killed, disappeared, and tortured. Hundreds of thousands more people were forced into exile.

One of the most prevailing myths of the Cold War is that socialism was an unpopular system imposed on populations with brute force. Chile serves as a prime historical example of how the exact opposite was true. The masses of impoverished and oppressed people elected many socialist governments, yet these governments were often violently overthrown by the U.S. and other Western allies.

The overthrow of Allende was a turning point for many socialists in the Global South. Before he was overthrown, some leftists thought popular Marxist movements could gain state power through democratic elections, as was the case in Chile. Yet when they saw how the U.S. violently toppled Allende’s elected government, they became suspicious of the prospects of electoral politics and turned to guerrilla warfare and other tactics.

Modern example: Egypt, 2013

Protesters in the August 2013 Raba’a massacre, carried out by Sisi’s U.S.-backed coup government (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/Mosa’ab Elshamy)

These are just a small sample of the great many regime changes the U.S. government has been involved in. More recent examples, which were supported by Hillary Clinton, as Sanders implied, include the U.S. government’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. In these cases, the U.S. was overthrowing dictators, not democratically elected leaders — but, as Sanders pointed out, the results of these regime changes have been nothing short of catastrophic.

The U.S. is also still engaging in regime change when it comes to democratically elected governments.

In the January 2011 revolution, Egyptians toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, a close U.S. ally who ruled Egypt with an iron fist for almost 30 years.

In July 2013, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, was overthrown in a military coup. We now know that the U.S. supported and bankrolled the opposition forces that overthrew the democratically elected president.

Today, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a brutal despot who is widely recognized as even worse than Mubarak, reigns over Egypt. In August 2013, Sisi oversaw a slaughter of more than 800 peaceful Egyptian activists at Raba’a Square. His regime continues to shoot peaceful protesters in the street. An estimated 40,000 political prisoners languish in Sisi’s jails, including journalists.

In spite of his obscene human rights abuses, Sisi remains a close ally of the U.S. and Israel — much, much closer than was the democratically elected President Morsi.

In the second Democratic presidential debate, when Sanders called Clinton out on her hawkish, pro-regime change policies, she tried to blame the disasters in the aftermath in countries like Iraq and Libya on the “complexity” of the Middle East. As an example of this putative complexity, Clinton cited Egypt. “We saw a dictator overthrown, we saw Muslim Brotherhood president installed, and then we saw him ousted and the army back,” she said.

Clinton failed to mention two crucial factors: One, that the U.S. backed Mubarak until the last moment; and two, that the U.S. also supported the coup that overthrew Egypt’s first and only democratically elected head of state.

Other examples

The political cartoon “Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip,” published in the Philadelphia Press in 1898 (Credit: Public domain)

There are scores of other examples of U.S.-led regime change.

    In 1964 the U.S. backed a coup in Brazil, toppling left-wing President João Goulart.
    In 1976, the U.S. supported a military coup in Argentina that replaced President Isabel Perón with General Jorge Rafael Videla.
    In 2002, the U.S. backed a coup that overthrew democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Chávez was so popular, however, that Venezuelans filled the street and demanded him back.
    In 2004, the U.S. overthrew Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
    In 2009, U.S.-trained far-right forces overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras, with tacit support from Washington.

The list goes on.

Latin America, given its proximity to the U.S. and the strength of left-wing movements in the region, tends to endure the largest number of U.S. regime changes, yet the Middle East and many parts of Africa have seen their democratic governments overthrown as well.

From 1898 to 1994, Harvard University historian John Coatsworth documented at least 41 U.S. interventions in Latin America — an an average of one every 28 months for an entire century.

Numerous Latin American military dictators were trained at the School of the Americas, a U.S. Department of Defense Institute in Fort Benning, Georgia. The School of the Americas Watch, an activist organization that pushes for the closing of the SOA, has documented many of these regime changes, which have been carried out by both Republicans and Democrats.

Diplomatic cables released by whistleblowing journalism outlet WikiLeaks show the U.S. still maintains a systematic campaign of trying to overthrow Latin America’s left-wing governments.

By not just acknowledging the bloody and ignominious history of U.S. regime change, but also condemning it, Sen. Sanders was intrepidly trekking into controversial political territory into which few of his peers would dare to tread. Others would do well to learn from Bernie’s example.

Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

Source: Salon

Indian Feminist Drama ’Parched’ Wins Stockholm’s Inaugural Impact Award

November 17, 2015 | 10:19AM PT

Jon Asp

Leena Yadav’s “Parched” has won the inaugural impact award at Stockholm Film Festival on Tuesday.

The India-set feminist drama nabbed a cash grant of 1 million Skr ($120K) to help finance her upcoming projects.

The prize was announced by Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, who presided the Impact jury which comprised Swedish theatre director Linus Tunstrom and Iranian film director Ida Panahandeh (”Nahid”). During the presser, Weiwei also unveiled a sculpture that he created for the winner.

”Through superb acting, giving unique insight into the minds and hearts of women in rural India, told with colorful, sensual cinematography, this film is a paradoxical celebration of life, in spite of tough circumstances, creating both anger and joy, giving fuel for debate as well as hope for change when addressing a burning question that affects, not half, but the whole of our society,” stated the jury.

Unfolding in a rural village in Northwest India, “Parched” turns on Rani, a woman who is about to marry her 17-year-old son with a girl two years younger. The wedding doesn’t go as planned and when Rani’s prostitute friend comes to the village, everything falls apart.

Co-produced between India, the U.S. and The U.K., “Parched” deals with domestic violence and inequality within the Indian society. The movie world premiered at Toronto to warm reviews and marks Yadav’s third directorial outing.

Stockholm has collaborated with Weiwei, who is also a docu filmmaker, for the last two years. In 2013, he was tapped to serve on the jury but was forbidden by the Chinese government to leave the country. So the festival dedicated him a “Chair for Nonattendance.” Last year Weiwei designed for the festival two ice sculptures inspired by the lions guarding the Forbidden City in Beijing.

“Stockholm has always been in the frontline in choosing interesting films, aesthetically and socially, which is very important today,” said Weiwei.

Dedicated to “headstrong visionaries who reflect our contemporary world,”the Stockholm Impact section included six other films, notably Lisa Aschan’s “White People,” a sci-fi inspired drama thriller about power and hierarchies, Mexican Matias Meyer’s loosely set J.L.G. Lé Clézio adaptation “Yo,” Erik Matti’s ”Honor Thy Father” from the Philippines, Yuval Delshad’s “Baba Joon” from Israel; and Sterlin Harjo’s “Mekko” from the U.S.

The prize is made possible with the contribution of City of Stockholm.

Filed Under: Stockholm Daily Four   

Source: varietycom

The majoritarian victims: The history of lynching black Americans as a parable of our times

One was mistaken in mourning Akhlaq or Noman or Zahid Ahmad Bhatt, the 'beef criminals'. What one should mourn is the perversion of the souls of the witnesses of lynching.

Aparna Vaidik  · Today · 05:30 pm

In 1899, a young black sharecropper, on a farm outside Atlanta in the United States of America, got into a dispute with his landlord and ended up killing him in self-defence. A rumour circulated that he had raped the landlord’s wife.  A white mob of nearly 4,000 people collected to watch the anticipated lynching of the black sharecropper. WEB Du Bois (1868-1963), an African-American with a PhD from Harvard, who taught sociology at Atlanta University at the time, heard about the prospective lynching, prepared a letter of protest and rushed to deliver it to the local newspaper. But he was already too late. The white mob jeered and clapped as the black man cowering in fear was caught, stripped, tortured and, in the end, hung and burnt alive. On his way to the newspaper office, Du Bois learned about the lynching and that the victim’s knuckles were being exhibited as a souvenir at a nearby grocery store. This lynching changed the course of Du Bois’ life and he went on to become a leading African-American civil rights activist. He is known for an evocative collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folks (1903). Described as "fireworks going off in a cemetery", the book eventually became the Bible of the civil rights movement.

For long the word "lynch" was used as part of the system of frontier justice in America where absence of legally-sanctioned trials and punishments justified its use. The verb "lynch" could include whipping and capital punishment. However, it was only after the American Civil War (1861-65) and following the emancipation of slaves (1863) that it came to be firmly associated with "to put to death" and became synonymous with acts of retribution reserved for the free African-Americans. Post-emancipation era saw the rise in racial discrimination and segregation – prejudiced treatment of the Blacks based on race and restrictions on their use of institutions (schools, churches and hospitals) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, toilets, and restaurants).

This period also saw the birth and expansion of the Ku Klux Klan – a white supremacist organisation. With the Klan, lynching became a "routine response" to any form of Black self-assertion, be it to acquire education, social and political equality or cultural inclusion. Stories and episodes of lynching instilled such terror in the heart and minds of the blacks that it ensured their acquiescence to white domination. This period, known in USA’s history as Jim Crow – which was originally a song-and-dance caricature to mock black people but by the end of the 19th century came to refer to legal institutionalisation of racism – left a dark legacy of 3,811 black people lynched to death.

Historical victims

How did the majority of white people respond to these lynchings? The reactions ranged from absolute cold revulsion, hostile defensiveness to collective amnesia. One would imagine that it was the mob murder that inspired horror. But it didn’t. What struck terror in white hearts was the supposed crime of the black man – the rape of white woman. At the core of lynching was the white fear of lustful black men as rapists of white women. The "defenceless white woman" was the centrepiece of pro-lynching propaganda. No amount of consensual sex between the two races could remove the paranoia of the majority community. Seen from the perspective of the white people, the victim was not the lynched black man but the white supremacist whose woman had been supposedly violated. The black man was assumed to be guilty in every story. Lynching thus entrenched the white supremacist’s sense of being historical victims and in turn criminalised the black men.

Lynching was not just any other murder. Lynching, where a mob captured, dragged and maimed another human was very much like gang rape in its symbolism. In many cases, the genitalia of the black men were mutilated. Gang rape and lynching both are about the male power and privilege over the victim’s body. Lynching, a majoritarian act carried out against the defenceless minority, instead of being seen as such, was presented as an act of self-reclamation guaranteeing the power and privilege of the white male. It restored the white honour by righting a perceived wrong – the black aggressor had been punished and the patriarchal duty was fulfilled. It was thus a public demonstration of the supposed moral superiority of the white community.

Conspiracy of silence

In Jim Crow, the acts of witnessing the lynching as bystanders or through the medium of newspapers (or pamphlets, ballads, popular stories, photographs and cinema) lent the white people a sense of security. In this way lynching bound the white community together beyond class, generational and geographical differences. This also helped generate a national tolerance for supremacist violence as something that was a normal aspect of peoples’ lives. Torture and mutilation of the blacks was passed off as a legitimate customary practice. What one saw was the growing perversion of the white community which abetted, sanctified and at times celebrated the lynchings primarily through its deafening silence. A case in point is Mark Twain, a contemporary of Du Bois, whom we know as the writer of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Twain wrote a blistering essay in 1901, "The United states of Lyncherdom" as a reaction to a newspaper account of a lynching. However, he never published the essay. Twain preferred to remain silent because he believed that he would not have even "half a friend" left once it was published. The Jim Crow era is past in the USA, however, many of the attitudes that perpetuated it remain – and so does the conspiracy of silence.

Might we read the repugnant history of lynching of black people as a parable of our times? The majoritarian community in India deploys lynching time and again as a weapon against the Dalits and minorities in the name of restoring its honour. Lynching has almost acquired the form of a legitimate customary practice with the "beef" vigilante groups roaming through city streets. The nation is gradually becoming indifferent to, or tolerant of, the violence because of its excess and because it is perpetrated in the name of righting an imagined historical wrong. One was mistaken in mourning Akhlaq or Noman or Zahid Ahmad Bhatt, the "beef criminals". Nor should we mourn the two Dalit children who were killed in Faridabad or several others before them.

What one should mourn is the perversion of the souls of the "witnesses" of lynching. The cousins, family friends, and fellow Indians who treat these killings as retribution – payback time for communities who, according to them, had enjoyed free rein under earlier political regimes. People who capitalise on these killings to strengthen and bind the majoritarian community across class, generational and regional divisions. Those who righteously ask why a death of a Hindu did not create such a furore. Those who decry the selective outrage of litterateurs and public intellectuals. Above all, the Indians who abet and sanctify these lynching with their silence.

Du Bois rightly wrote in his autobiography, A Soliloquy on Viewing My Life from the Last Decade of Its First Century (1961): “One could not be a calm, cool, and detached scientist, while Negroes were lynched, murdered, and starved.” Lynching did not leave any possibility of a neutral stance – or for silence.

Aparna Vaidik is Associate Professor of History, Ashoka University

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Source: scrollin

Patriot or nationalist? Why I will never be the latter

It is easy for me to be labelled as a patriot. Do I love my country? Perhaps. Do I feel strongly about the achievements of my nation and fellow countrypersons?

Written by Sandeep Dikshit | Updated: November 11, 2015 8:12 am

Are “patriot” and “nationalist” synonyms? No. They connote different characteristics. A patriot, deshbhakt or watanparast is someone who loves her country, vigorously supports it and its way of life, loves and fights for it. A nationalist or rashtravaadi is someone with loyalty and devotion above all to a nation. Her sense of national consciousness exalts one nation over all others and places primary emphasis on its culture and interests — the “national way of life” — as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

It is easy for me to be labelled as a patriot. Do I love my country? Perhaps. Do I feel strongly about the achievements of my nation and fellow countrypersons?

Yes, I do. Would I, if needed, pick up arms to defend my country? Yes. How would I describe a patriot? Simply as someone who will not compromise the national, security and economic interests of her country, and will contribute to its good, and to the good of others. I do not accept the notion that there are competing levels of patriotism. All decent and caring human beings defend and protect the honour and dignity of their people in their own way.

Nationalism, however, has connotations I find problematic. Do I have a particular consciousness as an Indian? Do I have a particular culture that defines me as an Indian? Yes, there is something distinctive about being Indian — family values, customs and mores, responsibilities, ownership over and liking of our music, architecture, dance, paintings and cultural expressions, peculiar phrases and expressions drawn from languages and religions of the region. But does that make me a nationalist?

I consider myself patriotic — not the flag-waving kind but certainly the flag-respecting kind. But in what way am I an Indian? In its simplest, most powerful form, as a citizen who believes in the one book that recognises me for what I am or will be and that defines my spaces, freedoms, just beliefs and rights — the Constitution. I have many fellow travellers, with varying degrees of belief in this book. But there is a finality that one will have to adhere to its basic principles, rights and duties.

However, I find myself at odds with many definitions of a nationalist. When the issues of other books, norms and cultural patterns are brought in, when religion takes a fuller role, I turn away. People who theorise on such forms of nationalism and exclusive identities are from different regions, religions and speak different languages. I have a serious problem with the notion that Hindutva is the defining and legitimising feature of being Indian.

I accept with glee and joy and preserve with passion what is mine — my Hindi, my mythology, my favourite characters, my nation and its plurality, my music and my dances, my colours and my clothes, my prejudices and my dislikes, and my opportunities to grow and mature. I will live the way I am, take joy and happiness in all the other wonderful ways in which people live, celebrate and express — but reject and oppose any imposition or condescension towards myself or others.

As a patriot, defending the security and integrity of my country and the life and property of all human beings, within and without its borders, is as critical as opposing calls and demands for recognition of different nationalisms. A religion’s beliefs, codified or not, need to be respected and given space. But when they are used to subvert the universality of human values of life, liberty and equality, for separating humanity, for codifying ways of life in

singularities rather than celebrating diversity and pluralism, then, to me, it is a war against humanity.

I reject vehemently these definitions as they impinge on me, subjugate me, blackmail me. I reject all totalitarian definitions. I will join in paying salutations to “Bharat Mata” — but as a symbol of the country, not as the divine mother.

Just as many Muslims say that loyalty to the country of birth is sanctioned in the Quran, I shall join in any celebration of the religion. But I reject religiosity as the main basis for caring for my country and its diverse people.

I reject being a nationalist. Nationalism is slyly inserted under many names and with many legitimacies — by invoking god, quoting scriptures, those shibboleths of mortal words, sometimes intelligent, often banal, usually understood and quoted with convenience and kept away from questioning in the name of faith. Equally, I reject the opposing of one form of nationalism with another. Both this definition and its opposition are carried on the wings of inscrutable divinity and religious sanction.

I am a patriot, I am not a jingoist nationalist, and shall never be one.

The writer, a member of the Congress party, is a former Lok Sabha MP

Source: indianexpress

Express report prods Karnataka to act, end boycott of Dalit cook

The report prompted the administration to act, and on Monday, several officials of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement were rushed to the school to ensure students eat the food cooked by Radhamma.

Written by Santosh Kumar R B , Santosh Kumar RB | Bengaluru | Updated: November 10, 2015 11:01 am

Officials, students eat food cooked by Radhamma. (Express Photo)

On Monday, for the first time in over five months, food prepared by Radhamma — a Dalit cook at the Government Higher Primary School in Kagganahalli village in Karnataka’s Kolar district — was not rejected by students.

On November 6, The Indian Express had reported that since Radhamma’s appointment in February 2014, 100 students had left the school. The remaining 18 continued on the condition, laid down by their parents, that Radhamma not make the mid-may meal since she is a Dalit.

The report prompted the administration to act, and on Monday, several officials of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement were rushed to the school to ensure students eat the food cooked by Radhamma.

“I am shocked, I can’t believe students ate the mid-day meal prepared by me today. Our village head Shankar Reddy, who was responsible for the boycott, also ate the food. Many officials — I don’t know who are they — visited the village in an attempt to resolve the issue. Today, all of them ate, but I don’t know about the future,” Radhamma told The Indian Express.

Among those who visited the village were officials of the department of education and its mid-day meal scheme as well as police officials, including Additional Director General of Police for civil rights enforcement Bhaskar Rao.

“Sara Fathima, superintendent of police at the civil rights cell in Kolar, bought two new sarees and gave it to Radhamma through Reddy as a gesture of goodwill to end discrimination in the village,” said a police officer.

Rao said police had learnt that Reddy was allegedly responsible for discrimination against the cook. He was also accused in a case of alleged atrocity, filed by Dalit youth Nagabhushan, a year ago. “I made sit them together to eat a meal prepared by Radhamma. I ate it, too. Reddy assured me that he will handle the issue and make sure it does happen again. We will hold a meeting with villagers on November 18 to sort out the problems,” Rao said.

“The Karnataka government is not ignoring cases of discrimination in the state. Our quick response to the issue shows that we acted in time. It is also a lesson for other Radhammas in the state. We want to sent a message that somebody will stand them if anything goes wrong,” Rao said.

Nagabhushan said that Rao and the Kolar district Deputy Commissioner had instructed people in the village to make sure all students, who left after Radhamma was appointed as the head cook, return to the school. “The officials have given us a deadline of November 18 to bring back all students. The number of students may rise again at the school,” Nagabhushan said.

Kolar district Deputy Commissioner Dr K V Trilok Chandra also asked the Deputy Director of Public Instruction (DDPI) Rajanna to submit a report about the developments at the school. “The DDPI will investigate why parents got their wards transferred from the school to nearby schools,” an official said.

Mulabagal tehsildar Kanta Veeraiah, Kolar SP Dr Ajay Hilory, block education officer Devaraj and deputy director for the mid-day meal scheme Lakshmaiah were also present at the village Monday.

Source: indianexpress

How the BJP went from selling development as a holy cow to banking on the cow being holy

For the Bihar campaign, the party went back to its Hindutva roots, using anti-Muslim rhetoric to sell itself to voters

Shoaib Daniyal  · Nov 06, 2015 · 07:30 am

In the electric campaign for the 2014 Lok Sabha election, the Bharatiya Janata Party went to town selling vikaas, development. Wherever Narendra Modi went, he spoke of the wonderful things he was going to do for the lives of ordinary Indians. He sold the youth the dream of the Gujarat Model. Of roads and, most importantly, electricity.  There were a few lapses into religion, such as when Modi hinted darkly at a “pink revolution”, which maintained that certain people were making a lot of money selling Indian beef to foreigners. But on the whole, Modi in 2014 seemed to be the embodiment of change that everyone welcomed.

That was then. The BJP, propped up by the charisma of Modi, was so ahead of a beleaguered Congress that it didn’t need to put much effort into its Lok Sabha campaign. The party’s core Hindutva supporters secure, its talk of development helped reach out to millions of voters who did not necessarily aligned themselves with its religious nationalism.

Bihar 2015 is a different matter. Here the BJP started off as a laggard, given the electoral firepower the alliance of the Janata Dal (United) and Rashtriya Janata Dal bought to the battle. Moreover, in Bihar, it was Nitish Kumar of the JD(U) who was associated with development, having bought transformational changes to the state in the past decade. Lastly, Modi himself wasn’t really such a big factor in this election. In 2014, Biharis were voting directly for Modi as prime minister, which wasn’t the case anymore. Besides, a year and a half meant that some of the Modi sheen had worn off.

However, combating OBC-based formations isn’t a new battle for the BJP. Its been doing this every since it became a major player in the Hindi heartland in the late 1980s ­. Remember the rise of Hindutva in India was accompanied by the rise of backward caste politics ­– the famous Mandal-Kamandal twin poles of Hindi heartland politics in the 1990s. For the Bihar polls, therefore, it just went back to its old playbook. Out came the anti-Muslim rhetoric and a politics that appealed to faith.

1) Muslim reservation bogey
The biggest problem the BJP faced was that Grand Alliance of Nitish Kumar's JD(u) and Lalu Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal seemed to have cornered the support of the backward castes. The upper castes were still with the BJP but it wasn’t going to win the election just on that. Matters were made worse by the fact that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s chief Mohan Bhagwat went in and made some comments that appeared to question India’s system of reserving seats in educational institutions and government jobs for people from marginal communities.  The Grand Alliance took this chance to attack the BJP frontally.

Scrambling for a response, the BJP attempted to polarise voters on religious lines. Pitting Bihar’s poorest communities against each other, Prime Minster Modi spoke of a conspiracy by the Grand Alliance to snatch away a part of the reservation benefits from lower castes and hand it over to Muslims:

    “Five percent from the Dalits, five percent from Mahadalits, 5% from Backwards, 5% from Extremely Backwards. There is a conspiracy to take away from their quota to give to another community.”


As it turns out, the Grand Alliance had said nothing of this sort. In fact, reservation along these lines is not even possible constitutionally. But the BJP was banking on innuendo to trump fact. As the campaign progressed, the Election Commission barred a BJP advertisement that tried to repeat this Muslim quota allegation.

2) The Pakistan/terror dog whistle
Dictionary.com describes the phrase “dog whistle” as “a political strategy, statement, slogan, etc., that conveys a controversial, secondary message understood only by those who support the message”. In India, both “Pakistan” and “terror” are used as dog whistles in order to attack Muslims.

Narendra Modi kicked off proceedings by accusing Nitish Kumar of “sheltering terrorists” who were a part of the so-called Darbhanga Module. Apart from the impropriety of accusing an elected chief minster of terrorism, this was an ironic accusation to make since the BJP was also a part of Nitish Kumar’s government at the time when it was accused of supporting terror.

Later on, BJP president Amit Shah chimed in with a, by now de rigueur, Pakistan comment. He claimed that if the BJP lost, fireworks would go off in Pakistan, a not-so-subtle dig at the Muslim support for the Grand Alliance.

Somewhat comically, some BJP leaders also pointed to the fact that the website of the Pakistani newspaper, Dawn was carrying ads for Nitish Kumar as clinching proof of the Pakistani hand behind the Grand Alliances campaign. Of course, ads on Dawn.com are served by Google Ads based on the user’s location and browsing history. They are placed automatically based on the service's guesses about the reader's interests.

 Rajiv Pratap Rudy's tweet, which he consequently deleted.

The BJP also placed ads in local newspapers around the issue of the Grand Alliance engendering terrorism. Like the Muslim quota ads, the Election Commission barred these ads, citing their potential to create communal disharmony.

3) Bihar’s moo-ver and shaker
It didn't seem surprising that the cow made its way into the Bihar election, as an attempt to play up the BJP’s Hindu nationalist side and attract voters.  On October 5, party leader Sushil Modi set the ball rolling by claiming that the BJP would ban cow slaughter in Bihar if it comes to power. Trying to frame the election in theocratic terms, the senior BJP leader said, “The forthcoming Assembly polls in Bihar is going to be a direct contest between those, who justify beef eating and those seeking effective ban on cow slaughter.”

A few days later, the other Modi took up the baton from his namesake. The prime minister attacked Lalu Prasad Yadav for claiming that some Hindus eat beef too. Modi mentioned that he was from the land of Lord Krishna and claimed that Lalu had insulted the Yadav caste with this beef comment.

A BJP ad focussed on the cow was pulled out by the Election Commission as well. The ad had a picture of a woman passionately hugging a milky-white cow with the pro-beef eating statements of a number of Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal leaders posted alongside.

BJP's ad against beef eating.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Source: scroll.inscroll.in

No one religion is better than the other, says author Anita Nair

Monday, 9 November 2015 - 12:06pm IST | Agency: dna webdesk

Latha Srinivasan

 "Let us go down to the people who need to be told what is going on rather than just embarrass a set of bureaucrats and government appointees. Let us fill handbills, flex boards, newspaper columns; let us write stories, poems and essays that will make people listen and absorb. Let us set our tongue free."

 Anita Nair

She's written several books, but one of her best-known is the translation of the Malayalam novel Chemmeen into English. Author Anita Nair has been vocal about the recent trend of intolerance  in India. In an exclusive interview with dna, she talks about this and how writers can contribute to social change in the country.

The Malayalam movie Chemeen completed 50 years this year and  you've translated the book into English. Why do you think this story is still so popular?

There is something about forbidden love that calls out to the pagan in each one of us. And there is the sea and the ethos of the fisherfolk. These are people who pit their strengths against the mighty ocean every day and their lives are fraught with danger on a daily basis.All of this come together in a seemingly simple story but is so textured that with each reading you discover a new dimension. That is why Chemmeen is an enduring classic

What's your view on the intolerance in our country today?

It is extremely disturbing and worrying. I grew up in a secular India. I was taught that every religion is just a way of reaching a greater power in an organised fashion. No one religion is better than the other. I was taught that my freedom ended at the tip of my nose and thereafter it is another person's space. I have no business encroaching it or interfering there. So to see the country change into a place where religious strife, caste distinctions are further reinforced rather than erased, escalating sexual violence - all of this is frightening. 

How can writers today contribute to social change?

We Indians are living in a strange time where writers whose life and breath are words are driven to shrug aside the accolades received for creating what they have with their blood and soul. It is the protest of the conscience keepers of the society against what is a demonic wave of intolerance. These are stalwart writers and their gesture is that of the clenched fist protesting against the establishment. While I do salute and applaud these writers for standing up and returning a national honour, I believe our protest against where our politics is leading us needs to percolate into little villages cut away from the goings-on in intellectual India. It is here that I think writers need to remember that our only ally and weapon are words. So let us write more; let us write about what worries us. Let us write about what is going to turn this country into a hell hole if we don’t prevent it from happening. Let us write in languages people read in and not just English that is truly comprehended by a minuscule segment of us. Let us go down to the people who need to be told what is going on rather than just embarrass a set of bureaucrats and government appointees. Let us fill handbills, flex boards, newspaper columns; let us write stories, poems and essays that will make people listen and absorb. Let us set our tongue free.

Tell us about your upcoming new book.

It is a novel that happened almost on a whim. A story of food, love and the god particle. Lena Abraham knows that love can end only in one way -- disappointment. Her marriage to KK is perfect precisely because she is not in love with him, and their life on a tea plantation in the picturesque Anamalai hills is idyllic. Then, one rainy morning, a man arrives to take up temporary residence in the home-stay they run. Shoola Pani is South Indian cinema's heartthrob, an actor in flight from his own superstardom, and the last thing he is looking for is emotional entanglement. But when Lena and he meet, something flares between them that neither could have anticipated. She becomes his Lee and he her Ship, and the place they inhabit Arcadia. Told partly from the point of view of Komathi, the elderly family cook, and whose own relationship with Lena is fraught with buried truths from the past, it's a tale of unexpected passion and adultery and reaffirms the magical power of love in all our lives.

Source: dnaindia

Wake up, BJP! Admit how intolerance is settling in

Just get out and eavesdrop on a conversation at your local teashop or on a bus: you will know how anti-Muslim hysteria spreads.

POLITICS | Long-form | 07-11-2015

Rishi Majumder @RishiMajumder

Mr X: “You girls speak your mind. If this were a Muslim country this wouldn’t have been tolerated.”

Ms A: “Even those leaving Syria are going to Europe, not other Muslim nations.”

Ms B: “That’s true.”

Mr X: “They don’t want to educate their children.”

Ms A: “They only want to send them to madrassas.”

Ms B: “True.”

Mr X: “We Hindus have only one or two children. But Muslims keep having so many.”

What better to interrupt you from a reading of Chris Hedges’ Death of the Liberal Class on a train journey?

Here is a conversation you’ve probably heard before. If you follow the thread you’ll notice how an unsubstantiated set of beliefs and an apparent concern for women’s rights and education begins to teeter on Islamophobia.

The last month could easily be termed the “Month of the Indian Intolerance Debate”. Almost everyone has weighed in and they continue doing so. After the writers came artists and musicians, scientists, filmmakers, historians and other academics — some of India’s most eminent names. Awards have been returned, positions resigned, statements made. The RBI governor has spoken. So have two well-known entrepreneurs and philanthropists. The most recent voices have been an international research and ratings agency, one of India’s biggest film stars, a Booker-winning writer and another group of acclaimed filmmakers. Like those before, powerful voices that say, ‘Yes there is intolerance. Yes, it is increasing.’

This is being contested by some, including members of the central government and ruling party. Their standpoint, to put it simply, is: ‘Intolerance isn’t on the rise’.

But you needn’t listen to the country’s intellectual giants, industry leaders, icons or the government to resolve this. Just get out and eavesdrop on a conversation at your local teashop or a bus. Or, as in my case, a train compartment of people traveling from Jodhpur to Delhi.

I didn’t interview my co-travellers, nor ask them their names, but here are brief profiles gleaned:

Mr X is a heavy set man with silver hair. He wears a plain shirt, trousers and sandals. He appears to be in his late fifties or early sixties. He used to manufacture and trade in silver vessels but then that stopped being profitable so his new business is taking sick factories on contract from the government, breaking them up and selling parts for a profit. He lives in North West Delhi’s Model Town. He says he has always been a BJP voter, except for the 2013 Delhi elections when he voted AAP, got disappointed and then went back to voting for the BJP. He hails from Churu originally, the station from where he boarded. Back in Churu, many of his family members are either actually affiliated with the BJP or its voters. He is proud that his family has, in an incremental way, done away with following Rajasthan’s ghunghat tradition. “I told my wife she doesn’t have to wear the ghunghat,” he says. “And then I told my daughter-in-law she can wear jeans if she wishes to.”

This conversation began because Mr X and Ms B got into an argument about what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done for the country.

Ms B, dressed in a salwaar kameez looks as if she is in her late twenties. She is a PhD student, studying in Rajasthan currently, but born and brought up in East Delhi’s Karkardooma. She argued that, though she had voted for Modi in 2014, he has hardly implemented any new policies, instead merely rebranded older ones. Mr X said that schemes like Swachch Bharat and the Jan Dhan Yojana would lead to a sea change in attitude upon which Ms B replied, “Maybe, but let them show results first.”

Ms A, another PhD student born and bred in Rajasthan wears a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt. She is researching the persecution of women for alleged witchcraft. She and Ms B are Jains. We know this because Mr X asked them their caste, then stated he was a “banya”. Ms A backed Mr X in his support for Modi and, with Ms B questioning their claims, the conversation may have delved deeper into their perception of governance but at some point Mr X said, “80 per cent of Indian Muslims don’t like Modi.”

No one asked Mr X where he obtained this random statistic. It seems to be something he has arrived at arbitrarily, upon noticing: “most of my Muslim friends aren’t Modi voters”. This was how the conversation turned to Muslims.

Now, let’s come to the crux of it. Here is what Mr X said at the end of the conversation: “Since Modi became Chief Minister in 2002, there have been no riots in Gujarat. This is because the Muslims wouldn’t dare to do anything after 2002. When you have a majority and a minority in the country, the majority must suppress the minority. Otherwise the minority will eat it up.”

He went from speculation to rhetoric. And the rhetoric isn’t new. “I warn the Hindus that the Mohameddans are likely to prove dangerous to our Hindu nation,” VD Savarkar had said while presiding over the 1937 session of the Hindu Mahasabha. “Let us not be stone blind to the fact that they as a community continue to cherish fanatical designs to establish a Muslim rule in India.” Also: “India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems in India.”

What was new is embedded in what followed. Uncomfortable silences began to fill the conversation as the speakers noticed I wasn’t joining in. Finally, Mr X asked me, “Aap Mohameddan toh naheen hain naa (I hope you are not a Muslim)?”

“What if I were?” I asked.

“It makes no difference,” he said. “Nowadays I say all of this to my Mohameddan friends as well. I say: I know you hate Modi, but this is how things are, how things should be.”

“Nowadays”.

Those who claim intolerance is not on the rise today make two points mostly.

One, statistics.

“The number of incidents of communal violence hasn’t increased,” they say. As if intolerance can only be gauged by the number of communal clashes or killings. In fact, intolerance, like any other intangible noun can never really be calculated, only indicated. As stated many times over by those protesting its rise, it is a culture. As implied in the writings and speeches of Savarkar, it’s an ideology.

Read Savarkar on the establishment of the Indian nation state, for instance, and it will be difficult to pinpoint immediately where the intolerance lies.

“The Moslem minority in India will have the right to be treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic rights in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will not encroach on the legitimate rights of any non-Hindu minority… The Moslem minority in particular has not obliged the Hindus by remaining in minority and therefore, they must remain satisfied with the status they occupy and with the legitimate share of civic and political rights that is their proportionate due… The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not going to struggle and fight and die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangzeb simply because the latter happens to be born within Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters themselves in their own house, in their own Land.”

To discover the intolerance in between these lines, read Dr BR Ambedkar’s critique of the above:

“It must be said that Mr Savarkar's attitude is illogical, if not queer… If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home?”

And,

“One can justify this attitude only if the two nations were to live as partners in friendly intercourse with mutual respect and accord. But that is not to be, because Mr Savarkar will not allow the Muslim nation to be co-equal in authority with the Hindu nation. He wants the Hindu nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be the servient nation.”

Coming back to the present, Mr X’s intolerance seems to have “increased” only in terms of him now being comfortable in letting “Muslim friends” know that they are the “minority” which “must be suppressed”. And while sticks and stones may break your bones, words will never harm you.

But this isn’t always the case. Mohammad Akhlaq’s family in Dadri witnessed more than words on September 28. There, intolerance resulted in murder. Communalism culminated in criminality. Likewise, most likely, with the killing of Prof MM Kalburgi on August 30. Definitely so with the Gujarat riots in 2004 and the Babri riots of 1992. And, yes, with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 as well.

These incidents have been the biggest blemishes on our nation’s recent past. To prevent more of the same, what indicators should we look for to determine whether intolerance is on the rise?

For starters, since we’re speaking of a “culture” of intolerance, let’s examine what the official mascot of Indian culture – our Culture Minister – has to say.

On Dadri, a complete dismissal: “This (incident) should be considered as an accident without giving any communal colour to it.”

On APJ Abdul Kalam, “Aurangzeb Road has been named after such a great man who, despite being a Muslim, was a nationalist and a humanist”.

On holy books: “I respect Bible and Quran but they are not central to soul of India in the way as Gita and Ramayana are. As India's cultural minister, I recommend that Ramayana and Gita should be part of our school curriculum and I am working extensively with HRD minister Smriti Irani towards this.”

What about the party ruling our nation currently? Here is a list of some of the outrageous things other members of the BJP said immediately after the Dadri episode.

Among them:

“Why responsibility to keep peace and maintain calm is always put on the Hindus alone? Be a victim and maintain silence in face of assaults!!!” —BJP MP Tarun Vijay.

“The police have arrested innocent people. We also demand legal action against those people, who are engaged in cow slaughter as it is hurting Hindu sentiments,” —BJP leader Vichitra Tomar.

More was to follow:

“Agar nirdoshon ke khilaaf karyawaahi ki gayee, to munh-tod jawaab humne pehle bhi diyaa hai aur abh bhi denaa jaante hain (If action is taken against ‘innocents’, we have given a befitting reply earlier and know how to do so again).” —BJP MLA Sangeet Som, who was an accused in the Muzaffarnagar riots, commenting on people being arrested after the lynching at Dadri.

Words which may not harm anyone directly, but which, coming from representatives of the party and the state, can easily be interpreted as signal for what goes.

It is for this reason that politicians from the BJP often recount Rajiv Gandhi’s reprehensible words – “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes” – in the aftermath of the Sikh riots.

Rajiv Gandhi is not with us today but how, pray, are the same speakers – who never tire of accusing opponents of “selective amnesia” – not appalled at similar statements by serving ministers, MPs and members from their own party?

There has been many an appeal, by now, for the prime minister to speak strongly and decisively on the issue. But, the question to ask is: Has he done so already?

Watch Rakesh Sharma’s Final Solution and you will come across a clip of an 2002 election speech by Modi after the Gujarat Riots, around 50 minutes into the film. 

“Who are the culprits of Godhra? You tell me!” he says, in response to criticism of the riots that shook the nation after a train compartment was torched in Godhra. “If nothing had happened at Godhra, would anyone have hurled even one stone?”

During the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, Modi refrained from making any statements insinuating a Hindutva agenda. Yet, if you examine the speeches made by others at his rallies before he spoke, especially those in UP and Bihar, you will find them full of such references.

Now, read what Sharma said to the Times of India in a recent interview:

“I am a soldier of the Modi government. I cannot go beyond the Prime Minister's line of action. I only remark within my capacity and on those matters that are related to my ministries.”

Also: “From time to time, we receive directions from the party high command about commenting on political issues. I do not cross boundaries drawn by the high command.”

Do you still believe you don’t have the PM’s views on rising intolerance in the country?

Truth is, there was no need for many BJP party men who did so to make a statement after the killing at Dadri in the first place. The primary responsibility to react fell upon the state government, run by the Samajwadi Party. Similarly, the initial responsibility of reacting to the murder of Kalburgi fell upon the Congress government in Karnataka. Yet BJP politicos rushed to make themselves heard.

And now for the second flawed argument by those claiming there has been no increase in intolerance. At the centre of whataboutery surrounding the debate lies the question: What about the Sikh riots?

Here’s the thing. The Congress wants to shake off the ghost of 1984, but it can’t do so without successfully prosecuting the guilty who are alive.

Still, a question we need to ask is: Does the Congress conduct its campaigns on a majoritarian agenda that would make Sikhs uncomfortable today? Secondly, Manmohan Singh has been a Congress prime minister as well as prime ministerial candidate. Can we imagine the BJP, in the foreseeable future, having a Muslim as their prime ministerial candidate?

The BJP, rather, seems to want to wear the ghosts of 1992 and 2002 as badges of honour. The protection of Hindu cultural identity wasn’t a cornerstone for the foundation of the Congress party, but it was so for the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the BJP’s predecessor. And while the BJP tried to be more inclusive in its early years as a new party, moderating its Hindutva stance and emphasizing its links to the socialism of the Janata Party instead, it has reverted to a clear majoritarian agenda since the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Any hope for this agenda to be whittled down with the arrival of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government was dashed with the Gujarat riots of 2002. 

Hence, despite what the Union finance minister Arun Jaitley believes, Modi has not been a “victim” of “ideological intolerance” “since 2002”. He is more likely to have been either the victim —  or merely an ambitious adopter — of an intolerant ideology.

No one underlines this better than the Prime Minister Modi’s prime confidante. BJP national president Amit Shah wrote his maiden blog on September 26, two days before the incident at Dadri. Here is a translated excerpt:

“If the leading political leaders in independent India had drawn from Savarkar's life and philosophy to build the nation, then the country would not be passing through such difficult times. Come and pledge with me that we will be partners in making an India of his dreams.”

Once again, read between the lines. Intolerance is rising, most definitely. But it’s also beginning to settle in.

Source: dailyo

Blogger's Comment: An EXCELLENT MUST READ article!!

Sir said I was a Dalit so couldn’t be part of Puja: Odisha schoolgirl

According to her, as punishment, she and 20 other Dalit students were insulted, faced casteist slurs, were barred from offering prayers, and kept locked in the school for five hours.
 

Dalit schoolchildren at the Bande Mataram High School in Kendrapara. (Source: Express Photo by Debabrata Mohanty)

In her years of studying at the Bande Mataram High School in Andara gram panchayat of coastal Kendrapara, the closest Savita Malik had got to the Ganesh Puja festivities was touching the coconut to be given to the God. This year in September, the Class X Dalit student decided to offer to scrape the tender coconut for the puja.

According to her, as punishment, she and 20 other Dalit students were insulted, faced casteist slurs, were barred from offering prayers, and kept locked in the school for five hours.

Later, following an FIR by her and other Dalit students with the Pattamundai police station, against five of the upper caste teachers plus the school headmaster, the teachers had to issue a public apology.

The upper caste have got back in kind. At least 30 Dalit landless families of Andara are no longer allowed on upper caste land for sharecropping work, that they had been doing for decades. According to the Dalits, they have also been stopped from selling vegetables while local barbers have been told to turn them away.

Last month, the Dalits approached the State Human Rights Commission seeking a stop to the “boycott”. The Dalit sub-caste Kandara makes up one-third of the panchayat’s total population of around 4,000. Discrimination is common, and the Dalits say they had learnt to live with it. But this time it is different.

Rabindra Malika started working as a daily labourer in the field of an upper-caste Khandayat at the age of 20. He is now 60, and for the first time scared to approach the field. “I am sure they will beat me up. They know we Dalits are landless. If they don’t allow us to plough their land, how will we survive?” he says.

Nirakar Malika, also 60, has a family of five, dependent on the ploughing work he did on his upper caste landlord’s 3.5 acres field of black gram. He had spent Rs 5,000 of his own clearing the 6-ft tall grass that sprouts up every monsoon, over the past two months, Nirakar grimaces. “Had they told me earlier, I would not have wasted my money making the land ready for sowing.”

Madhav Malika, who was among the villagers who lodged a complaint with the tehsildar over the school incident, says, “They have declared war on us. They are hurt by the apology which we extracted from upper-caste teachers… We no longer feel safe as the Khandayats are in a majority.”

But the Khandayats don’t see anything wrong in the “boycott”, saying no one can force them to give their land, with crops of black gram, ground nut, coriander seed and moong, for sharecropping. “If we don’t like somebody, how can we allow them to go near our land?” says former sarpanch Upendra Mallick.

Claiming that what happened at the school was a “concocted story”, Mallick adds, “Our teachers did not hurt any Dalit children. The physical education teacher just wanted to ensure the schoolchildren didn’t hurt themselves scraping coconut. It was a humiliating experience for the teachers to apologise over a silly thing.”

While it remained under the surface, tension had also been simmering over minor incidents. Four months ago, Dalit farmer Ratha Malika’s 75-year-old father was allegedly beaten up after his sheep strayed into the backyard of Kalandi Nayak, a Khandayat. One of the sheep was allegedly struck to death. When Ratha complained to the police under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, upper caste villagers gave Rs 6,000 for the dead sheep as compromise.

Santosh Malika says that day, at the school, their children “begged” teachers to let them go. “The teachers mocked them saying it was the destiny of Dalits to touch the feet of upper-caste people.”

Savita remembers that it was her friend Sumi Parida who had asked her to help scrape the coconut. “I had just started scraping when Ashok sir (sports teacher Ashok Mullick) came and said since I was a ‘Kandara’, I couldn’t participate in the puja. When I started crying, the headmaster sir said we were destined to face such problems throughout our lives. As I was about to leave the school campus with my friends, a teacher snatched our bicycle keys and asked us to stay till the puja gets over. We begged our teacher that we were hungry and wanted to go. But they kept us locked till 3 pm, when one of us scaled the wall and told our parents what was going on,” says Savita.

Dalit students add there are other areas of the school “out of bounds” for them. “We are yet to touch the computer keyboard though upper-caste students are allowed to enter the computer room,” says Monalisa Malika, a Class IX student.

The Bande Mataram High School reopened recently, after the Puja vacations. While headmaster Ramesh Rout was not available for comment, Ashok Mallick, who is accused by the students of casteism, denies any such discrimination.

“Even the Ganesh Puja issue was blown out of proportion,” he says. Kendrapara District Collector Debraj Senapati and Kendrapara district education officer Sangram Sahu too claim they have “no information” of caste discrimination, “Let somebody complain. Then we will take action,” says Sahu.

Source: indianexpress

You have no idea how badass Trudeau's Defence Minister really is

By Sandy Garossino in Opinion | November 4th 2015

You might think Harjit Sajjan takes a pretty mean combat gear photo, but Canada's new Minister of National Defence is some kind of next-level Spy vs Spy war hero.

A 2006 letter of appreciation for Sajjan's services from the commander of Canada’s Coalition Task Force in Afghanistan has surfaced, and it reads like a Bourne Trilogy movie script.

Sajjan was considered “the best single Canadian intelligence asset in (war) theater” whose "hard work, personal bravery and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives," according to the letter, recently obtained by National Observer.

He's further credited with providing the intelligence foundation for a military operation resulting in the "kill or capture" of 1,500 Taliban fighters.

Addressed to then-Vancouver police chief Jamie Graham, the letter from Brig-Gen David Fraser thanked the chief for the loan of Detective Constable Sajjan, then a reserve officer with the Canadian Armed Forces.

It includes the following excerpts:

    "Not only did (Sajjan) display a rare high level of intellect and experience in his analysis, he also demonstrated remarkable personal courage… often working in the face of the enemy to collect data and confirm his suspicions, and placing himself almost daily in situations of grave personal risk."

    "(He) demonstrated a profound understanding of the Taliban and tribal networks…"

    "He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theater, and his hard work, personal bravery and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives."

    "Through his courage and dedication, Major Sajjan has single-handedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan."

    "(H)is analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including OPERATION MEDUSA,... that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured."

    "I rate him as one of the best intelligence officers I have ever worked with."

    "I have advised my chain of command that the Canadian Forces must capture his skill-set, and seek his advice on how to change our entire tactical intelligence training and architecture to best meet the needs of future deployed units fighting in extremely complex human battlespace."

Copy of Coalition Task Force Commander David Fraser to then-Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham

What set Sajjan’s anti-terrorism intelligence apart was his ability to connect and build trust with local populations, something he’s known to attribute in part to the Canadian military’s openness to turbans. His access granted him special appreciation of the unique dynamics and local conditions on the ground in Afghanistan.

Sajjan’s intelligence-gathering and analytic skills soon attracted the attention of senior US military and strategic advisors. His opinion letter concerning the Taliban, local warlords and the Afghan opium trade was appended in full in a major 2008 report on US anti-narcotic strategies by Barnet Rubin, senior advisor to the US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In both 2006 and 2009 Sajjan came under enemy fire, saw open combat and coped with dead and wounded soldiers.

Following Sajjan's second deployment in 2009, US Major-General James Terry, Commander of US forces in Afghanistan’s southern provinces requested that he join the US Command Team for a third deployment 2010, where he served as Special Assistant to General Terry. Pictured below, Sajjan presented General Terry with a Sikh ceremonial kirpan.

Future Minister of National Defence presents a kirpan to US forces commander, Maj-Gen James Terry in 2010

Among the many honours bestowed on Sajjan is the Order of Military Merit, awarded in 2014.

Reached for comment late Wednesday evening, the new minister emphasized that the national defence portfolio is a team effort.

"When you're the government or minister," he said, "you don't work alone. We have a tremendous civil service and military who are exceptionally capable. In National Defence, we work as a team."

Nor did Sajjan want to talk about individual heroics. Instead, he voiced concern for Canadians now serving in the military.

"It's the responsibility of government not to put soldiers into harm's way except as a last resort, when it's absolutely necessary to do so," he said. "When we do send them into harm's way we have to ensure that we've done everything in our power to find other methods to reach our objectives."

Very properly, little was made of Sajjan’s military achievements during the election campaign. His own personal style, like that of all good intelligence officers, is decidedly low-key.

But you can only hide badass for so long.

Make no mistake, Minister Sajjan’s reputation for stellar military intelligence precedes him among Canada's serving men and women, its military leadership, and the strategic planning of our allies, especially in the global fight against terrorism.

The full text of the letter reads:

Headquarters

Coalition Task Force AEGIS

Regional Command (South)

Kandahar Airfield, Kandahar, Afghanistan

16, September, 2006

Chief Constable J.H. Graham

LETTER OF APPRECIATION—DETECTIVE CONSTABLE NUMBER 1967-HARJIT SAJJAN

1. I have had the pleasure of having Constable and Major Harjit Sajjan work for me for the past nine months on OPERATION ARCHER/ATHENA, Canada’s contribution to the global war on terror in Afghanistan. I must say that Major Sajjan is one of the most remarkable people I have worked with, and his contribution to the success of the mission and the safety of Canadian soldiers was nothing short of remarkable.

2. Maj Sajjan was specially selected for the demanding and challenging task of acting as the Liaison Officer to the Afghan national Police on behalf of the Combined Task Force (CTF) Aegis HQ because of the civilian skillset he brought to the table as an undercover narcotics officer. His job further changed into being a special intelligence officer working direct to Commander CTF Aegis because of his ability to understand and exploit criminal networks. He consistently provided the most timely and accurate intelligence available, and he personally fused broad sources of information into an extremely coherent picture upon which most of the formations major operations were based. Not only did he display a rare high level of intellect and experience in his analysis, he also demonstrated remarkable personal courage in his collection efforts, often working in the face of the enemy to collect data and confirm his suspicions, and placing himself almost daily in situations of grave personal risk. His products were cogent and demonstrated a profound understanding of the Taliban (TV) and tribal networks which were critical to making formation and unit operations successful. He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theater, and his hard work, personal bravery and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives. Through his courage and dedication, Major Sajjan has singlehandedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.

3. He tirelessly and selflessly devoted himself to piecing together the ground truth on tribal and Taliban networks in the Kandahar area, and his analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including OPERATION MEDUSA, a large scale conventional combat operation that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured. I rate him as one of the best intelligence officers I have ever worked with—fearless, smart, and personable, and I would not hesitate to have him on my staff at any time in the future. I have advised my chain of command that the Canadian Forces must capture his skillset, and seek his advice on how to change our entire tactical intelligence training and architecture to best meet the needs of future deployed units fighting in extremely complex human battlespace.

4. I cannot thank you enough for allowing Constable Sajjan to deploy with us on OPERATION ARCHER, and he has been an outstanding representative of the Vancouver City Police. I would ask that you pass my personal thanks on to Constable Sajjan, and to those who supported him and his family while he was over here with us. I pray that he stays safe now that he returns to the challenges and dangers of his “everyday job,” and ask that if I can ever be of assistance to either Constable Saja, or your Department, that you do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

David Fraser

Bridgadier General

Commander, CTF Aegis

Source: nationalobserver

శ్రీ కౌముది నవంబర్ 2015

Source: శ్రీ కౌముది నవంబర్ 2015

Wearing caste on my wrist — green for Dalits, red for Thevars

Last month, a 12-year-old Dalit boy in Jodhpur was beaten up by his teacher for allegedly taking a plate from a stack meant for upper castes. The Indian Express visits schools across the country where lessons in caste differences start early.

Written by Arun Janardhanan | Chennai | Updated: November 4, 2015 6:11 am

Sivakani , a 15-year-old from Gopalasamudram, had to quit studies after the Dalit school in her village shut down and her parents couldn’t afford to send her elsewhere.

IN the schools of Tirunelveli, about 650 km south of Chennai, caste comes in shades of red, yellow, green and saffron. It’s what students wear on their wrists, on their foreheads, around their necks, under their shirts. It’s who they are.

At the Government Higher Secondary School in Tirunelveli town, a Class X student extends his hand to display his green-and-red kayaru, a wrist band of interwoven threads. “The upper castes have yellow-red bands, so we have these,” he said.

In this belt in southern Tamil Nadu known for violent caste conflicts between OBCs and Dalits, these wrist bands are markers that tell children who is a friend, who isn’t. Though there are no written rules, students usually know their ‘colours’ by the time they reach high school.

It’s red and yellow for Thevars, blue and yellow for Nadars, saffron for Yadavs — all socially and politically powerful Hindu communities that come under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category — while students of the Dalit community of Pallars wear wrist bands in green and red and the Arundhathiyars, also Dalits, wear green, black and white.

In August, while investigating the increasing number of clashes between student groups, the district administration found that wrist bands were often used to target on the basis of caste. The district collector then asked the education department to ban wrist bands in schools in Tirunelveli. There was no written order, only a direction issued at a meeting of the education department. A headmaster, who was present at the meeting, said, “It was a verbal direction but a strong one,” he said.

Chief Educational Officer of Tirunelveli R Swaminathan confirmed that they had issued such a warning. “We have already directed all schools to ban such bands following reports of caste clashes based on colour. Not just wrist bands, any colour that they use to identify their caste is banned,” he said.

But it’s easier said than done. These kaiyarus can be confused for sacred threads handed out in temples and it’s hard to impose any such ban. Besides, there are more ways to talk caste.

A Dalit student of a school in Tirunelveli town said the pottu (bindi or tilak) worn by students were also colour-coded. “If you wear a pottu with yellow sandalwood paste, with a dash of vermilion on it, I know you are a Thevar,” he said. The other dominant castes, like the Nadars, have their own colour-coded tilaks; Dalits, he said, usually don’t wear them.

The 13-year-old likes yellow — “it’s my favourite colour” — but he can’t wear it because he will be “questioned” by the Thevars. “We get a yellow kayaru from temples, but I can’t wear that on my wrist. If I did, they would taunt me and call it a ‘rowdy band’,” said the Class X student.

He says he can’t risk the wrath of the upper-caste students because he is new to this school. This year, he moved to Tirunelveli town from the Dalits-only school in Gopalasamudram village. The school in his village was once part of the Pannai Venkatramaiyer High School, but in November 2013, after a caste tension in the village, a separate branch was set up for Dalits and he was among the 140 students who moved there. But in June this year, the district administration refused to renew permission for the Dalits-only school, forcing most of the students to drop out. One of the students, 15-year-old Sivakani, was forced to quit studies as her parents couldn’t afford to send her to a school outside the village.

C Lakshmanan, an assistant professor of the Madras Institute of Development Studies and a leading researcher of Dalit issues, said such practices in Tamil Nadu could be attributed to the lack of political representation for Dalits. While the Scheduled Castes make up 20 per cent of the population in the state, they have poor political representation.

“These practices emerged in the 1990s. When we were working to implement the Panchayati Raj Act in the state, we came across a series of instances of Dalits being barred from local body elections. Around the same time, political movements representing OBCs also began to take shape, giving these OBC communities better social clout. So while these dominant communities used markers such as wrist bands to single out and subjugate Dalits, for the Dalits, these were ways of asserting themselves,” he said.

A headmaster at a school near Tirunelveli town said there were other markers. “Like you have different houses — green house, yellow house, etc — in city schools, children here wear coloured vests. We cannot ban everything, definitely not what children wear under their uniform. These vests come in handy during a game of basketball to draw up teams based on caste lines, but they are as effective to settle scores,” said

The headmaster said anything, even a song, can trigger caste tension among students. Recalling one such instance, he said, “Recently, a Dalit student on a bus played a song on his cellphone hailing Ambedkar. A Thevar student responded by playing a song in praise of his caste from the Kamal Hasan movie, Thevar Magan. This led to a clash between students representing both communities,” he said.

Students also wear lockets with photographs of leaders representing their castes. K Kamaraj lockets are popular among Nadar students; the Thevars wear lockets with photographs of U Muthuramalingam Thevar, a veteran political leader for Thevars; the Yadavs have claimed Veeran Alagumuthu Kone, one of the first freedom fighters, as their own; while in Coimbatore and Namakkal regions of the state, Gounder students wear lockets of Dheeran Chinnamalai, one of the commanders in the Polygar Wars of 1801-1802.

People here say such caste markers were unheard of until two decades ago. “These practices coincided with the rise of several caste-based political parties (such as the Samathuva Makkal Katchi of Nadars and the All India Moovendar Munnani Kazhagam of Thevars) and movements. While such practices are particularly visible in Tirunelveli, you will find them across the state,” said M Bharathan of the Human Rights Council based in Tirunelveli.

“Wrist bands and coloured vests are just what you see. There’s much more to this conflict,” said Lakshmanan. Tirunelveli district collector M Karunakaran said he ordered the ban on coloured wrist bands and other things used to identify caste following a police report on the increasing number of caste-based clashes in schools. “We banned all sorts of things, including wrist bands, after a police report studied the pattern of violence in schools and colleges. The police sought help from the district administration. Not only schools, college officials too were called for a meeting where we asked them to ban such things,” he said.

Source: indianexpress

Intolerance: PM Modi deliberately silent while colleagues keep issues alive, says Arun Shourie

Pointing out that Modi finds time to tweet on events such as British PM David Cameron’s birthday, Shourie alleged that his silence on crucial issues was deliberate.

By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Published:Nov 3, 2015, 2:34

 Former Union Minister Arun Shourie.

Former Union Minister Arun Shourie said on Monday that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on key issues amid growing intolerance in the country was a political decision aimed at winning the Bihar elections.

Rejecting the BJP’s defence that the Prime Minister could not be expected to speak on every issue, Shourie told Karan Thapar in an interview on India Today TV: “Prime Minister is not a section officer of the homoeopathy department. He is not head of a department. He is the Prime Minister. He has to show the country the moral path. He has to set moral standards.”

Pointing out that Modi finds time to tweet on events such as British PM David Cameron’s birthday, Shourie alleged that his silence on crucial issues was deliberate. “He kept silent on the Dadri incident and incidents like the killing of two Dalit children (in Haryana)… He is keeping silent while his party colleagues and ministers are keeping the issues alive,” he said.

Asked whether Modi’s silence was political, Shourie said: “I think so… you can’t have it both ways. You are a very strong leader but cannot control your members.”

Terming Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s statement that Modi was the victim of intolerance as “most dangerous”, Shourie said: “When a ruler believes or he is made to believe that he is a victim then in his mind he gets the fullest justification for vengeance. It is terrible. It will give him grounds to be vengeful.”

Asked about the BJP’s claim that he was no longer a party member, Shourie indicated that he had not renewed his membership so that the party could not expel him for his criticism. “I am a graduate of the Ramnath Goenka school… When a guest is coming don’t leave any knives and forks that could be used to stab you,” he said.

Referring to Tourism Minister Mahesh Sharma describing former President Abdul Kalam as “a nationalist despite being a Muslim”, Shourie said that allotting the BJP leader the house in which Kalam lived was like “spitting in the face of people”. “This is really symbolic,” he said.

Shourie also agreed with suggestions that Modi and BJP chief Amit Shah were pitting one community against another in Bihar and cited a Pakistani analyst to say that while the neighbouring country was trying to get out of a pit, India was slowly going down that way.

Criticising Shah’s statement that if the BJP loses in Bihar, crackers would be burst in Pakistan, Shourie said leaders were resorting to “anything and everything” to win “a mere election irrespective of its long term consequences”.

Shourie also criticised those in the government who had described critics of Modi as “rabid” and “intolerant”, saying they themselves had “not read a single book in 20 years.”

Shourie described the writers, authors and artistes who had returned their awards in the “climate of intolerance” as “conscience-keepers” of the country and said their motives cannot be questioned. “Those who cannot write two paragraphs are sitting in judgement over writers,” said Shourie.

Although he expressed confidence that the country would survive these times, he said investors are concerned because the current climate comes on top of other “mistakes” such as somersaults on tax policies and the clash with institutions like the judiciary. “They (investors) do not want to get caught in legitimising something that is fundamentally wrong,” said Shourie.

(With PTI)

Source: indianexpress