SACW - 29 July 2015 | Sri Lanka: Santasilan Kadirgamar / Pakistan: Tributes to Praful Bidwai /Pakistan - India: Cease the fire / India: Terrorism's saffron brand ; Letter to UN Spl. rapporteur regarding Teesta and Javed; Mizoram Accord / When in Rome / Robot arms race / Ukraine’s left / UK: Protect abortion clinics

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - 29 July 2015 - No. 2865 
[since 1996]

Contents:
1. Sri Lanka: Santasilan Kadirgamar (11th April 1934 – 25th July 2015)
2. Book Review: Hensman on Roy, ’Partitioned Lives: Migrants, Refugees, Citizens in India and Pakistan, 1947-65’
3. India: Terrorism's saffron fault line | Latha Jishnu
4. Tributes of Praful Bidwai in Pakistan
5. Joint Statement: PIPFPD urges India and Pakistan to stop ceasefire violations and restore peace on border (23-07-2015)
6. Appeal to UN Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights Defenders regarding Prosecution of Teesta Setalvad by Govt. of India
7. India: Reports, Statements and Articles on the Trumpted-up Charges against Setalvad and Anand 
8. Recent On Communalism Watch:
  - India: 'RSS a beneficiary of Modi rule' (Kavita Upadhyay)
  - India: Clear Hindutva Pattern in Appointments to Key Educational Institutions: Amartya Sen
  - India: VHP's Sadhvi Prachi’s “Beti Bachao Mahapanchayat" game in Bareilly
  - Clockwork Saffron by Gajendra Chauhan
  - From Emergency to Now: The Wide Arc of a Hack’s Ideological Journey (Vidya Subrahmaniam)
  - Kudos to all the progressive politicians: ‘Secularism’ to go from Nepal constitution
  - This One is For Teesta (Salil Tripathi)
  - India: G. Sampath on missing conservative intellectuals
  - India: Computer labs, libraries — RSS office in Delhi heads for a complete makeover
  - Forget 'sickularists'; Vyapam, Malegaon reveal RSS' true nemesis is the 'pucca' Hindu (Ajaz Ashraf)
  - Serious makeover for RSS ?
  - Hindutva In Hurry (Shamsul Islam)
  - India: AAP playing a dangerous game by supporting radical Sikhs demanding release of militants
  - India: In Jamshedpur, clash is between communities and police vs govt (Subrata Nagchoudhury)
  - Intimidating Teesta (Editorial in Daily News and Analysis)

::: RESOURCEs & FULL TEXT :::
9. A fundamental clash of values? | Esam Sohail
10. When in Rome... | Irfan Husain
11. Of Dogs, Faith and Imams | Mohammed Hanif
12. How ‘Hindu’ is ‘new’ Nepal? | Yubaraj Ghimire
13. India: Centre should stick to provisions of Mizoram Accord | Sanjoy Hazarika
14. Talks with Taliban: more hype than hope | Jayant Prasad
15. Ukraine’s left: between a swamp and a hard place | Denys Gorbach 
16. Musk, Hawking warn of 'inevitable' killer robot arms race | Michael Rundle
17. UK: Protect abortion clinics from harassment, Jeremy Hunt urged | Tracy McVeigh

========================================
1. SRI LANKA: SANTASILAN KADIRGAMAR (11th April 1934 – 25th July 2015)
========================================
Santasilan Kadirgamar, known as Silan amongst his friends and fellow activists, passed away on Saturday July 25th 2015 in the 81st year of his life.
http://sacw.net/article11407.html

========================================
2. BOOK REVIEW: HENSMAN ON ROY, ’PARTITIONED LIVES: MIGRANTS, REFUGEES, CITIZENS IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN, 1947-65’
========================================
The partition of British India to form independent India and Pakistan resulted in cross-border migration of nearly nine million Hindus and Sikhs into India and approximately five million Muslims into Pakistan.
http://sacw.net/article11393.html

========================================
3. INDIA: TERRORISM'S SAFFRON FAULT LINE
by Latha Jishnu
========================================
COLOURS have strong associations and tend to be coded in our psyche. They are linked, sometimes inexorably, to our politics, culture and social biases. The way we respond to people, events and situations is prompted by the colour coding embedded in us, however subtly these triggers might work. Often our responses symbolise rank prejudice.
http://sacw.net/article11408.html

========================================
4. TRIBUTES OF PRAFUL BIDWAI IN PAKISTAN
========================================
Praful Bidwai's ashes immersed in River Indus in Pakistan
The ashes of Indian journalist, peace activist Praful Bidwai brought from New Delhi were immersed at a ceremony held at the bank of River Indus near Al-Manzar point in Jamsoro near here on Saturday.
http://sacw.net/article11405.html

Tributes paid to anti-nuclear activist, journalist Praful Bidwai in Karachi
KARACHI, July 24, 2015: Peace, human rights and women rights activists, academicians, political workers, students leaders, artists and economists eulogized the services of noted Indian jk6ournalist and anti-nuclear peace activist Praful Bidwai for peace in South Asia at a condolence reference at Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) Auditorium here on Friday afternoon.
http://sacw.net/article11403.html

========================================
5. JOINT STATEMENT: PIPFPD URGES INDIA AND PAKISTAN TO STOP CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS AND RESTORE PEACE ON BORDER(23-07-2015)
========================================
The Pakistan India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) on Thursday condemned the ceasefire violations and cross-border firing between India and Pakistan, and called for peace.
http://sacw.net/article11404.html

=========================================
6. APPEAL TO UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS REGARDING PROSECUTION OF TEESTA SETALVAD BY GOVT. OF INDIA
=========================================
We write to inform you of the urgent situation of human rights defender Teesta Setalvad who is facing criminal prosecution in India. In the course of the Indian government's investigation, Ms. Setalvad has had her home raided, her bank accounts frozen, her freedom to leave the country suspended, and her privacy invaded by multiple interrogations. She also faces constant fear of possible detention and subsequent ill-treatment.
http://sacw.net/article11410.html

=========================================
7. INDIA: REPORTS, STATEMENTS AND ARTICLES ON THE TRUMPTED-UP CHARGES AGAINST SETALVAD AND ANAND  =========================================
July 28, 2015

I. India: Charges against Setalvad meant to keep her away from Gujarat riot cases: Activists and advocates
http://www.scroll.in/article/744317/charges-against-setalvad-meant-to-keep-her-away-from-gujarat-riot-cases-activists-and-advocates

II. India: Civil society members slam govt for “hounding” Teesta, Javed
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Civil-society-members-slam-govt-for-hounding-Teesta-Javed/articleshow/48245593.cms

III. India: The courts of this country are on trial, not Teesta | Indira Jaising
The hounding of Teesta Setalvad is timed to coincide with the publicly articulated urge of the Prime Minister to get a "clean chit" from the courts in relation to the ongoing cases in Gujarat, which Teesta has been doggedly pursuing. She is the victim of the pursuit for justice.
http://sacw.net/article11406.html

IV. India: CJP and Sabrang Trust Rebut Gujarat Police's False Claims in latest Affidavit - Press statement 24 July 2015
To begin with, the aims and objectives of both CJP and Sabrang Trust as contained in their founding documents are wide enough to allow for a wide range of activities. However, since its inception in 2002, CJP's core concern has been to provide legal aid to the victims of mass crimes. Sabrang Trust's main focus has been, one, Khoj (education for a plural India) programme run in schools, and two, conflict resolution and peace building.
http://sacw.net/article11402.html

V. India: Text of Teesta Setalvad / Javed Anand rejoinder to CBI in their anticipatory bail application of 23 July 2015
full text of the bail application by Teesta Setalvad / Javed Anand in the sessions court in Bombay - 23 July 2015
http://sacw.net/article11398.html

=========================================
8. RECENT ON COMMUNALISM WATCH:
=========================================
  - India: 'RSS a beneficiary of Modi rule' (Kavita Upadhyay)
  - On Abul Kalam Azad’s transition from a communitarian to a more accommodating secular worldview (Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed)
  - India: Clear Hindutva Pattern in Appointments to Key Educational Institutions: Amartya Sen
  - India: VHP's Sadhvi Prachi’s “Beti Bachao Mahapanchayat" game in Bareilly
  - Clockwork Saffron by Gajendra Chauhan
  - From Emergency to Now: The Wide Arc of a Hack’s Ideological Journey (Vidya Subrahmaniam)
  - Kudos to all the progressive politicians: ‘Secularism’ to go from Nepal constitution
  - This One is For Teesta (Salil Tripathi)
  - India: G. Sampath on missing conservative intellectuals
  - India: Computer labs, libraries — RSS office in Delhi heads for a complete makeover
  - Forget 'sickularists'; Vyapam, Malegaon reveal RSS' true nemesis is the 'pucca' Hindu (Ajaz Ashraf)
  - Serious makeover for RSS ?
  - Hindutva In Hurry (Shamsul Islam)
  - India: AAP playing a dangerous game by supporting radical Sikhs demanding release of militants
  - India: In Jamshedpur, clash is between communities and police vs govt (Subrata Nagchoudhury)
  - Intimidating Teesta (Editorial in Daily News and Analysis)
  - Muslim student, nun refuse to remove religious symbols, do not take AIPMT following dress guidelines
  - India: Two years of ‘Godman’ Asaram Bapu rape case and how families of the witnesses killed live in dread
  - India - Gujarat High Court HC extends bail for ten days for Babu Bajrangi, a top figure of the Hindu Far right 
  - Communal Violence in Jamshedpur - Report in the media and an alarming email on 23 July 2015
  - Bhagwat says 'time is favourable' to push Hindutva agenda and expand youth RSS
  - Who mainstreamed BJP? 
-- available at: http://communalism.blogspot.com/
 
::: RESOURCES & FULL TEXT :::
=========================================
9. A FUNDAMENTAL CLASH OF VALUES?
by Esam Sohail
=========================================
(Dhaka Tribune, july 25, 2015)

For Muslims who would be temporary migrants or permanent immigrants to the US (and indeed to the rest of the liberal democratic world), some very tough questions need to be discussed thoroughly

 “Oh God, please let it not be a Muslim.”

That is a prayer which is fairly common amongst Muslims in America every time yet another terror attack happens in the United States. With every such attack, as was seen earlier this month in Chattanooga, a little more of the image of Islam and Muslims goes under in the perception of American society.

Pundits and apologists can wax lyrical over “root causes” week after week after every such incident with profound -- and often unoriginal -- comments on how such is not the real Islam or how Muslims are unfairly targeted with a broader brush than others, or even how somehow such events are blowback for Middle Eastern tensions.

That kind of apologia is tiring, and has done less than nothing to change public perceptions for the better; if anything, it comes across as the typical set of canned excuses that fail the proverbial smell test. I have witnessed that sea change of American perception myself over the last quarter of a century, a change that has only accelerated, understandably so, in the aftermath of the 9/11 massacre.

If indeed one must harken back to discussing ephemeral root causes for such acts of terror, integrity would demand that the very concept of assimilation be scrutinised. While most Muslims coming to these shores assimilate seamlessly into greater American society over a period of decades or a couple of generations, too many don’t, as has been abundantly clear from the revealed profiles of multiple recent terror peddlers whose angst against their new homeland seemed partially based on its incompatibility with their religious mores.

Discussions on online forums, social media, and Friday sermons at too many mosques across America, taken together, form all too obvious evidence of the lack of such blending into mainstream society.

A fundamental sticking point in this process of assimilation is the incredible gulf between certain core civic values of American society and certain very deeply held Muslim beliefs about Islamic traditions. Two such core American values stand out starkly.

While, by and large Americans are an incredibly hospitable, tolerant, and diverse people who abhor causing offense to the beliefs of others, the constitution of the country puts a premium value on the almost unfettered right to the freedom of speech and publication, including the burning of books, making offensive cartoons, and insulting personalities that others may revere.

Thus, the idea that any government entity can censor, punish, or prevent Americans from using supposedly offensive expression is utterly at odds with a core civic value here and, therefore, incompatible for those Muslims who find it equally offensive that certain books be banned, certain insults to religious personalities severely punished, or some social media videos taken down by some government entity.

The other glaring incompatibility concerns gender equity. While the glass ceiling still exists in some parts of corporate America, a government entity cannot differentiate in law between a man and a woman; hence polygyny or gender-based statutory provisions for divorce and child custody are considered simply repugnant here. Far more important is that, increasingly, American society finds it utterly reprehensible that men should dictate what women should wear outside their homes or who they should marry or where they should work.

Again, this kind of a bedrock American civic value clashes fundamentally with many mainstream Muslim traditions that condone polygyny and a secondary status for women, notwithstanding the usual “but … but ... Islam gave rights to women a long time before ...” defensiveness to the contrary.

In fact, at its basic level, the “gave rights to” refrain is quite un-American because the American intellectual tradition, going back to the Founding Fathers, has held that individuals are born with certain “unalienable rights” that are not “given” by anyone.

Taken to its logical conclusion, as the United States Supreme Court did this summer, such notions of equity mean that same-sex marriage -- an anathema to Muslim beliefs -- is legal all over America now and supported by a vast majority of Americans.

For Muslims who would be temporary migrants or permanent immigrants to the US (and indeed to the rest of the liberal democratic world), some very tough questions need to be discussed thoroughly: Are they willing to abide by and accept wholeheartedly the laws, values, and civic obligations in their new homeland, even if these expectations run radically opposite to their religious belief systems?

If not, is the lure of opportunity worth the inevitable tension and stress that these incongruities will create for them and their families? Would new hubs of advancement like Malaysia or Dubai be better suited for them in providing a better blend of opportunity and religiosity?

The issue herein is not one of what value system is better … that is best left up to historical metrics of success. Rather, it is a practical matter of making informed decisions that are good in the long run for the individuals concerned and their families.

Isn’t it better to ask and answer these questions before taking a long leap across the oceans? 
- See more at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/op-ed/2015/jul/25/fundamental-clash-values

=========================================
10. WHEN IN ROME...
by Irfan Husain
=========================================
(Dawn, July 25th, 2015)

AMRA Bone, Britain’s first woman Sharia judge, recently told the Times: “… the British government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife …”

Really? Why not? After all, Muslims in the UK cannot sacrifice animals in ritual slaughter either as this would contravene existing anti-cruelty laws. Similarly, female genital mutilation is banned, although this vile practice is widely carried out in parts of Africa.

So to demand that Muslims curb their libido is hardly unreasonable. Although accor­ding to British law, bigamy is punishable with seven years in jail, thousands of Muslims have polygamous marriages that are not registered. According to one estimate, 70-75pc of Muslim weddings are unregistered, with around 20,000 polygamous relationships in the UK.
For British Muslims to insist on following their religious practices irrespective of the law is a bit hypocritical.

With an increasing number of Muslims born and brought up in the UK leaning towards a literal, fundamental vision of Islam, many young men are opting for Sharia marriage, bypassing the local registry office. Another reason — and probably the more practical one — is that under British law, the assets owned by a married couple are equally divided if they divorce. It is this protection accorded to women that is denied to Muslim divorcees under these informal matrimonial arrangements.

According to the Times, 100,000 Muslim couples are living under such unregistered marriages. And when they are registered, they are often arranged matches in which British Muslim girls are married off to young men from remote areas of Pakistan to secure the latter the right to enter Britain, and in time, acquire residency and nationality.

The notion that the customs and religious tenets of migrant groups should supersede the laws of the host country runs contrary to the treatment most Muslim countries mete out to non-Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, merely the possession of the Bible can lead to a prison sentence or worse. So for British Muslims to insist on following their religious practices irrespective of the law is a bit hypocritical. The old saw — when in Rome, do as the Romans do — is still apt.

But it would be a mistake to assume that all polygamous marriages take place purely because of predatory male instincts. In a 2014 Channel 4 documentary on polygamy in Britain, the director, Masood Khan, interviewed an independent, professional Muslim woman involved in a polygamous Sharia marriage. She justified her situation by saying that she did not want a man around the whole time, and preferred being with her ‘husband’ for a couple of evenings a week, and letting another wife cook and clean for him.

She reminded me of a Sudanese woman I met in Lahore many years ago. Part of a World Bank delegation, she had been educated in Paris and New York, and was the daughter of a diplomat. She told me she would prefer a polygamous arrangement because she could continue with her career, while the senior wife was in charge of the household.

And if Muslim men in Britain have become more fundamentalist in their belief, so have the women. Third- and fourth-generation Muslims are not just more religious than their parents, but also more self-conscious of their religious identity. Thus, the women declare their faith by wearing headscarves and burqas, while the men cultivate long, unkempt beards. For these young people, polygamy is as much a lifestyle choice as it is a religious duty.

However, polygamy is not a universal Muslim practice. Less than 5pc men actually take more than one wife. But the growing numbers of young Muslims who do so in the UK has given rise to the notion that polygamy is common across the Muslim world.

Thus, the gulf between what David Cameron frequently refers to as “British values” and hardening Wahhabi beliefs among young British Muslims is growing. In many cases, those who have made their way to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State have stated that they have done so in order to live as Muslims in a caliphate purified of un-Islamic, Western practices.

When they witness the horrors inflicted on non-Muslims and Shias, and want to leave, they quickly discover that this is not an option. Scores of foreign volunteers have been killed for trying to flee the violence and the horrors of life under the killers of IS.

Many Muslims in Britain feel they are being made scapegoats for the actions of a tiny minority who have been radicalised. Nevertheless, the media is full of stories about Muslims being involved in terrorist plots. This constant refrain feeds into the widespread impression that extremism infects a majority of Muslims.

Against this backdrop, polygamy is perhaps not such a big deal. However, it reinforces the belief that Muslim women are exploited and mistreated. And as surveys have consistently found that women in Muslim countries are severely disadvantaged, we cannot really challenge this perception.

=========================================
11. OF DOGS, FAITH AND IMAMS
by Mohammed Hanif
=========================================
(The New York Times - July 24, 2015)
KARACHI, Pakistan — When I take my dog for a walk on the beach near my house in Karachi, this is how people react: Mothers tell their kids, look, a dog; kids ask me the dog’s name and if they can touch him; most grown men either recoil or ask me about the price and the breed. Sometimes when I see someone heading to the neighborhood mosque, I cross to the other side of the street. There is a popular belief among the pious that if they come in contact with a dog, they become unclean. You have to take a ritual bath before you can offer your prayers.

Worshipers are usually in a hurry in Karachi. These are perilous times, and I don’t want to come between men of God and God by delaying their prayers. They are, after all, fulfilling their obligation as I am trying to do.

I grew up in a very religious household where dogs weren’t exactly loved, but our faith wasn’t threatened every time a dog appeared on our doorstep. As a teenager in our village in central Punjab, I saw our local imam, who led the prayers, playing with his Russian poodle. His grandsons, who were visiting one summer, brought it and left it behind. I would see the imam with his poodle out on the street, petting her, cuddling her. His long snow-white beard and the poodle’s electric shiny curls sometimes touched. In almost a decade of devoutness that I prayed behind him, I never saw anybody object to his coming into physical contact with a dog. Maybe it was the imam’s authority. Maybe the poodle looked cleaner than some of us peasant worshipers. Maybe people thought a man as old and as pious as he knew what he was doing.

Today, if someone in his position tried to cuddle a dog in public, he would surely lose his status as imam, if not his head. Like Muslims everywhere in the world, we also yearn for more innocent times, when we could stay pure by keeping dogs at bay. There are many more worshipers in the mosques now than there were in my childhood, but there are no imams to tell the religious stories about dog love.

If you go by the fatwas issued by today’s religious scholars, some dogs are allowed in Islam and other dogs are not. At best, they make it sound as if Islam were not the second-largest religion in the world — comprising various cultural histories, ancient myths and thousands of ways of relating to animals — but a posh kennel club.

Sometimes I wish I could ask our neighborhood imam to tell us the story that, as children, we heard in many Friday sermons. It’s an Islamic fable about compassion and forgiveness and dogs. Since most religions use a woman’s virtue to teach us about morality, this one happens to be about a prostitute who had lived all her life in sin. One day she stopped by a well to have a drink of water and spotted a dog, a very thirsty dog panting at the edge of the well. She lowered a shoe into the well to draw water and quenched the dog’s thirst. As a result of this single act of mercy, Allah forgave all her sins. The fable is about sinners getting a chance at redemption, but it’s the image of a thirsty dog panting by a well that stuck with me. In some versions of the story, the dog is so thirsty that he tries to eat mud.

The Quran itself is mostly silent on the subject of dogs. The only real dog that appears in the text is a companion of the People of the Cave, a small group of young men who, threatened by an ancient king after refusing to abandon their faith, hide in a cave and take a 309-year-long nap. During these three centuries of hiding, their dog lay stretched out at the entrance of the cave to keep any intruders at bay. The fable evokes not revulsion but time travel and companionship. The Quran’s other significant mention of the dog is in a story about a man in lust with earthly desires, of whom it is said, “If thou attackest him, lolleth out his tongue; and if thou leavest him alone, lolleth out his tongue.”

Most of Muslims’ dog hate comes to us via the Hadith, a collection of sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. There are various, often contradictory hadiths about whether or not you are allowed to keep a dog as a pet. Dogs are allowed for security, says one. Their fur is fine but their saliva is unclean, says another. But if the fur gets wet, it becomes unclean. You can pet dogs, but you may not kiss them. You can keep them if they are not allowed inside the house. You can have them as long as you use them for hunting. What about the saliva they leave on the hunted animals? That’s fine.

A popular hadith about dogs says that angels won’t enter your abode if there is a dog in the house. Apparently, the angels don’t mind if the dog is out on the lawn or playing in the courtyard. Which basically leads you to the conclusion that angels don’t much care for believers living in small apartments or houses without big lawns.

The hadith warning us about the angels’ revulsion for dogs is sometimes said to have been narrated by one of the Prophet Muhammad’s close companions and the most prolific of his scribes. His name was Abu Huraira. He was also the most famous cat lover in Islamic history. In fact, his name means Father of the Cats. Some competing scribes from the era have called him an unreliable narrator, but nobody can call him out on any perceived bias against dogs: He tells the story about the forgiven prostitute.

Many other stories support the fact that caring about dogs doesn’t automatically make you a heathen. In one story, the Prophet Muhammad was leading his army into a battle when he came upon a female dog with a litter of puppies. He posted a companion to protect them. Umar, the second caliph, stated that he would be personally responsible if even a stray dog went to sleep hungry under his administration.

There are lots of people who hate dogs but care about the human condition; they care about children begging on the streets, or transgender people not getting jobs. Like them, I worry if it’s O.K. to care about a mutt when the world around us is falling apart. Then I tell myself it’s exactly when the world is falling apart that you should care about mutts. After all, our prophet cared about the safety of dogs in the middle of a battle.

Our classical poetry, religious and romantic, heretic and Sufi, is full of verses where a lover wants to be a stray dog living on the street corner of his beloved’s home. Sufi poets have held dogs as a symbol of devotion and superhuman dedication. But even when the pious ones are crooning away about their desire to be a dog in the holy city of Medina, they can’t stand a real dog when it happens to pass by.

I have had to drag my dog away from speeches and recitals because he gets excited and starts barking. He probably wants to join in, but poets and protesters — religious or godless — don’t want dogs joining in their celebrations. I am reminded of the Arabic proverb: The dogs bark and the caravan moves on. Sometimes it’s the caravan that barks and the dogs that have to keep moving.

Mohammed Hanif is the author of the novels “A Case of Exploding Mangoes” and “Our Lady of Alice Bhatti.”

=========================================
12. HOW ‘HINDU’ IS ‘NEW’ NEPAL?
by Yubaraj Ghimire
=========================================
(Indian Express - July 25, 2015)

A badly mismanaged transition phase in Nepal’s politics is coming to an end. But there is no clear exit from the disorder yet

Despite being called a “Hindu state” in the constitution since 1962 with a “Hindu monarch”, the old Nepal was a more liberal society, tolerant of all faiths, although with strict laws against conversion.

Nazma Khatoon, a member of the Constituent Assembly (CA), put on a riot helmet before she occupied a chair to solicit public opinion on the preliminary draft of the constitution on Tuesday. Khatoon took the necessary precaution as top leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Prachanda had faced public fury a day earlier, having to be rescued by security forces. People are divided on both the content of the draft as well as the manner in which public opinion is being solicited, with just 48 hours allotted to it.

An overwhelming majority wants Nepal declared a “Hindu” state. This deals a near-fatal blow to the radical agenda imposed by the forces that have come to power since April 2006. India had mediated a settlement between the Maoists and seven other parties, bringing them together against the direct rule of King Gyanendra. The euphoric parties had thereafter refused to seek a larger public debate on crucial issues and unilaterally declared, in a phased manner, that Nepal would be federal, secular and a republic. Due process was not followed when these radical changes were made. The international community, led by India, had readily endorsed these changes, little realising that the direct involvement of the people was the best guarantee for institutionalising the changes.

In fact, these nine years of change have been the most intolerant phase in Nepali politics, when anybody asking for democratic norms and respect for due process and dissenting voices was branded “regressive”. It was practically an eight-party dictatorship in Nepal, which had a brute majority in the CA and yet failed to deliver the constitution. A CA member having to wear a riot helmet shows the level of distrust between the people and their leaders. Public lack of trust in the constitutional draft is likewise growing in the same proportion.

Despite being called a “Hindu state” in the constitution since 1962 with a “Hindu monarch”, the old Nepal was a more liberal society, tolerant of all faiths, although with strict laws against conversion.

But the parties that assumed power in 2006, Nepal’s foreign donors, the international community and civil society appeared to be swayed by the argument that if Nepal had to become a republic, its “Hindu” identity must be done away with. The idea of secularism was never debated. Moreover, the West, international NGOs and some UN organs openly advocated the right to conversion as an integral part of secularism. Then British Ambassador Andrew Sparkes had to resign when the Nepal government reprimanded him for his open letter to CA members to lobby for the right to conversion. This episode had also demonstrated the unwarranted extent of engagement foreign diplomats had with the constitution-writing process, which fell squarely in the sovereign sphere of Nepal’s people. The international community had earlier extended its support also to “ethnic federalism”, which implied breaking Hindu groups into “ethnic units” to demarcate provinces. With Nepal’s political parties now completely discredited, Hindu groups, together constituting more than 85 per cent of the population, have become vocal in sharing their perception that they are being divided and persecuted. The “new and progressive” Nepal now needs to settle the question of religion and its role in politics, including constitution-writing.

The undue involvement of outside powers on the issue of secularism seems to have brought hitherto unorganised groups together, demanding the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status. “Why are outsiders being allowed to speak their mind and extend monetary, diplomatic and political support to secularists, and why are we, the people of Nepal, not being allowed to have our say?” asked Kumar Regmi, a constitutional lawyer and member of the Nepali Congress, who has now joined the national campaign for a “Hindu” Nepal.

If the matter is taken to a referendum, the outcome is easily anticipated. Ignoring public sentiment, which has now been clearly articulated, will further discredit the failed constitutional process. This seems to be the end of a badly mismanaged radical phase in Nepali politics, but without a clear exit from the mess the actors, domestic and foreign, have created.

=========================================
13. INDIA: CENTRE SHOULD STICK TO PROVISIONS OF MIZORAM ACCORD
by Sanjoy Hazarika
=========================================
(Hindustan Times - 29 July 2015)
Former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi in Aizawl, Mizoram, after the signing of the Mizo Peace Accord, July 11, 1986. (Picture credit: Press Information Bureau)

In 1969 the Fifth Finance Commission recommended the creation of ‘special status’ for three states: The then undivided state of Assam, Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir. The recommendation was to economically help states that are faced by disadvantages of geography, international borders, low population density and other factors.

Over the years, as Assam fragmented with Meghalaya being carved out of it as a state and Mizoram as a Union Territory (which later became a state), and new states emerged from the former kingdoms of Manipur and Tripura, political and economic demands grew for parity in places of turmoil. During these difficult decades, Arunachal Pradesh moved peacefully from being a Tract under the Assam governor’s jurisdiction to the Northeast Frontier Agency (NEFA), and finally became a state in 1987. Sikkim merged with India in 1975, and in 2002, it became a part of the North Eastern Council.

All the northeastern states along with Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh got the ‘special’ tag. As a result of this, a large amount of money began to flow into these states.

The Centre would grant 90% of the funds the ‘special status’ states needed, while 10% were given as loans. In addition to this, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the prime minister and Arun Shourie was the planning minister, the first to hold charge of a new Northeast portfolio (then a department, and not a ministry), a special offer was designed, according to which every ministry would contribute 10% of its annual budget to the Northeast department.

The money was to go to the non-lapsable central pool of resources in the department, which was to become the ministry of DoNER (department of the north-east region). It was the 14th Finance Commission that recommended the ending of the ‘special status’ category and took out provisions under Normal Central Assistance (NCA) and Special Central Assistance (SCA). The chief ministers of the eight northeast states have opposed this, saying that it would ‘drastically affect the finances in the northeast states’ and objected to the fact that the Centre would no longer make good the gap in non-plan revenue expenditure such as local development projects and programmes.

A big worry of the states was that the large central subsidies that were going into medium-term and long-term infrastructure programmes and projects in these states (and quite likely into the pockets of the contractors, officials, politicians and ‘militants’) would no longer come for specific projects, but will be a part of a larger transfer. We cannot forget that these states have a history of 30-50 years of conflict. As a result of the violence, they have lost out on opportunities for growth as well as innumerable lives and livelihoods. 

The calculations of the Centre and the finance commission suffer from a fundamental flaw when it comes to Mizoram.
It’s simple: The ’special category’ issue is one of the key provisions of the 1986 landmark peace accord between the Mizo National Front (MNF) and the Government of India as well as the local government. The agreement has made Mizoram one of the most peaceful states in the country. In Clause 6 of the Mizoram Accord’s Memorandum of Understanding, the status is spelt out: (a) The Centre will transfer resources to the new government … and this will include resources to cover the revenue gap for the year, (b) Central assistance for Plan will be fixed taking note of any residuary gap in resources …

The MNF, it may be recalled, revolted against India in 1966, and received arms, funds and training from, and in China and Pakistan. The Government of India’s response was nothing less than brutal, uprooting two-thirds of the civilian population from their homes, burning villages and settling them in new fenced-in protected villages or regrouping centres. This remains one of the most undocumented and unresearched parts of the Centre’s campaign in Mizoram. That both sides showed courage and statesmanship to rise above the bitterness and bloodshed to sign a peace treaty 20 years after the first shots were fired needs to be recognised regularly. That the peace has been sustained for the overall part for nearly 30 years is no mean achievement and has happened because of the determination shown by a highly knowledgeable and educated public, the church, the governments of different parties and civil society.

This is to be underlined, especially when conditions in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Assam remain unsettled and unresolved. The latter represents a different set of issues and stories, which we shall not dwell upon here.

Anything that vitiates or dilutes the Mizoram Accord, the only peace agreement to have held in more than a half century of conflict in the northeast and which has been passed by Parliament, is unacceptable.

It is, therefore, heartening to note that the sub-committee of chief ministers set up by the Niti Aayog has tabled a draft report saying that for this category of states, the old formula should continue.

Changing the status would create new problems: The question will surely be asked — what is the value of a peace accord if there isn’t an economic dividend, let alone a political one? The Government of India needs to firmly assert that the interests of Mizoram and its special status compatriots will not be harmed.

Sanjoy Hazarika is director, Centre for Northeast studies at Jamia Millia Islamia University. The views expressed are personal.

=========================================
14. TALKS WITH TALIBAN: MORE HYPE THAN HOPE
by Jayant Prasad
=========================================
(The Hindu - 28 July 2015)

After many false starts, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban are now settling on the starting blocks. This will be a marathon, not a short race, and will not end so long as the Taliban and Pakistan talk peace and pursue violence.

Can negotiating with the Taliban result in peace and stability in Afghanistan? Eventually perhaps, but not under the current circumstances. Not while its government is hobbled by economic meltdown, is short on international assistance, and its security forces are struggling, at great sacrifice, to hold their ground against a resurgent Taliban.

Afghanistan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani thinks he can achieve, through persuasion, what the United States failed to get by coercion. He applauded the first, direct meeting at Murree, Pakistan, on July 7, between a Taliban delegation and representatives of Afghanistan’s government and High Peace Council (HPC) as “the biggest achievement of Afghanistan over the past 14 years.” A follow-up meeting is days away.

At Murree, as at the preceding track-two meetings in earlier weeks in Doha, Dubai, Oslo and Urumqi (China), the Taliban committed to safeguard the “lives, honour and properties” of Afghans. This was flouted within hours of Mr. Ghani’s statement, as the Taliban attacked civilians in Khost, Kapisa and Baghlan, including a congregation gathered for iftar, killing scores of persons.

Deconstructing the Murree meeting

The format of the Murree talks was 2 (Taliban and HPC) + 1 (Pakistan) + 2 (China and the United States), the last two attending as observers. Negotiations with the Taliban are meant to be an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned, inter-Afghan process. Yet, Pakistan is the guarantor and guide of this dialogue. Afghans are keen to hold the next round outside Pakistan, and with the main leaders of the Shura.

When former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in 2008, offered to talk to Mullah Omar anytime, anywhere, Pakistan denied having access to members of the Quetta Shura. That its horses are kept in Pakistan’s stables was implicitly confirmed the moment Pakistan agreed to facilitate the peace process.

No known senior members of the Shura were present at Murree. A noteworthy inclusion was that of Mullah Yahya, of the Haqqani network, which is known to act as “a veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. The exclusion of Syed Tayyeb Agha, head of the Taliban political office in Qatar, adds to the incertitude of the peace talks, as he is recognised as the sole figure authorised to negotiate on behalf of the Taliban.

Pakistan’s National Security Advisor, Sartaj Aziz said that the “key Taliban leaders” at the talks represented Akhtar Mansoor, “the acting head of the Taliban”, and that Mansoor had a clear mandate from the “Central Shura”. The Murree process is going to be as much an Afghanistan-Pakistan dialogue, as one between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Mr. Ghani’s play of the dice has logic, since the Quetta Shura operates under the umbrella of the Pakistan Army. Mr. Karzai had attempted to engage Pakistan exactly the same way. He failed, but not for lack of trying. His later efforts, to contact individual Taliban leaders resulted either in their incarceration or elimination. The former Taliban Defence Minister, Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, arrested in Pakistan in 2007, was allegedly tortured and killed in March 2010.

When, in 2010, Mr. Karzai’s emissaries engaged Mullah Biradar, the seniormost Taliban leader after Mullah Omar, he was promptly arrested in Pakistan and put out of commission. In 2013, an HPC delegation, permitted to see Biradar, found him to be so heavily drugged that he could not utter a single word in the meeting.

Contradictory objectives

And when, in a creative move, the U.S. helped Qatar set up a Taliban office in Doha to give Taliban representatives a measure of independence from Pakistan, the ISI sought to infiltrate and control that office. The recent arrest of Tayyeb Agha’s brothers in Pakistan might have been part of this effort.

Indications of the Taliban’s readiness to sit down to talk have been in the air for a few years. The question is, under what conditions and to what purpose? Some Afghan participants who participated in the recent meetings feel that the Taliban has principally used its international exposure to charm foreign interlocutors, instead of committing to abjuring violence and joining the democratic process.

While Afghans suffer intimidation and terror at its hands, the Taliban projects itself as a moderate and nationalist force, promising to protect women’s rights and female education, and provide a clean administration. They claim ideological and organisational disassociation with extremist groups like the al-Qaeda and Daesh.

These talks are unlikely to deliver peace and reconciliation because the objectives of the protagonists do not match. Mr. Ghani hopes to make the negotiations a continuing process, and meanwhile build mutual confidence, outline the agenda issues necessary for peace, and eliminate violence. The Taliban wants the exit of foreign forces, power-sharing, constitutional changes establishing the supremacy of the Sharia, and the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, reversing the gains of the Afghan people over the past 14 years. Its immediate objectives are seeking the release of Taliban prisoners, ending targeted sanctions, and a removal of the bounty lists for information leading to the location and capture of its prominent leaders.

Moreover, not all factions of the Taliban are committed to peace. Large areas have fallen under its de facto control, including in pockets in the north, from Faryab to Badakhshan. No one other than the Pakistan Army knows whether Mullah Omar, not seen for a decade, is dead or alive. Even if the Taliban was to agree to a ceasefire, it will be to bide its time for a more formidable offensive.

The role of the Pakistan Army

Mr. Ghani often says that Pakistan has been in an “undeclared state of hostilities with Afghanistan.” For him, Pakistan’s acceptance that the real conflict is between the two States, rather than within Afghanistan, “is the breakthrough.” “The problem, fundamentally, is not about peace with Taliban,” he told a conference co-hosted by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council in Washington DC in March, “The problem is fundamentally about peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Facilitation of direct talks with the Taliban is not enough to prove the Pakistan Army’s bona fides. It has failed to provide Afghanistan direct access to key members of the Shura, take action against the Haqqani network, and restrain the Taliban from its 2015 offensive.

Instead, since the launch of ‘Zarb-e-Azb’ — the Pakistan Army’s war against terrorism — just prior to Mr. Ghani’s assumption of office, more Afghan soldiers have died in action than the number of U.S. and International Security Assistance Force soldiers killed in the preceding 13 years. The question in Afghan minds is: has the Pakistan Army really done what it can?

Its past conduct reinforces such doubts. Thrice before, it has had the opportunity to help stabilise Afghanistan: first, in 1992, when the Peshawar-based Seven Party Alliance formed the government; second, when the Taliban took over in 1996; and third, post-2001, when Pakistan’s contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom made it a ‘Major non-NATO ally’.

The Pakistan Army is believed to no longer follow a selective approach to terrorism, and to have strong internal and external reasons for pursuing a new policy. Pakistan has paid a heavy price for its complicity with the Taliban. Moreover, a Taliban government in Kabul might not serve Pakistan’s best interests. The U.S. desire to disengage, and China’s decision to invest in Afghanistan’s stability, to deny a safe haven for Uighur insurgents and pursue its regional interests, serve as incentives for Pakistan to alter its behaviour.

Even so, Pakistan still prevaricates on ending the distinction between the “good” and “bad” terrorists. The Pakistan Army is a firefighter in Pakistan and indulges in incendiarism in Afghanistan, dousing the flames within its own territories and fanning them across its borders. It is expelling terrorists from Pakistan and installing them in Afghanistan, thereby shifting the epicentre of terrorism away from Pakistan. The Pakistan Army treats the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as the enemy of State and the Afghan Taliban as a legitimate force, advocating the extinction of TTP and accommodation of the Taliban.

The course of future talks

The Murree meeting foretells future conversations, even negotiations, which are bound to be long and complex. Attempts to conciliate the Taliban were made even before its resurgence in 2005-06. The High Peace Council was set up in 2010, with former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, as its head. The Taliban assassinated him the following year. After many false starts, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban are now settling on the starting blocks. This will be a marathon, not a short race, and will not end so long as the Taliban and Pakistan talk peace and pursue violence.

(Jayant Prasad is a former Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan. Currently, he is Advisor, Delhi Policy Group, and Visiting Fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries.) 

=========================================
15. UKRAINE’S LEFT: BETWEEN A SWAMP AND A HARD PLACE
by Denys Gorbach 
=========================================
(open democracy - 24 July 2015)

With a new-found reputation for radicalism, Ukrainian politics is in flux. The left, however, are nowhere to be seen.

The events of the past two years—the mass protests that led to the deposing of President Viktor Yanukovych, the subsequent annexation of Crimea, and Russian aggression in the east—have changed much in Ukrainian society. 

These events have split the global left, dividing the so-called ‘anti-imperialists’ (who support Putin’s aggression) and those who condemn it. Meanwhile, inside Ukraine, left-wing activists are currently re-grouping in response to the events of the past 15 months. Indeed, the changes taking place inside the radical left community began in 2011-2012; the events that followed served as a catalyst. 
From the ground up

When Ukraine became an independent state in 1991, the left movement was in the process of being built from the ground up.

Traditions of left-wing protest had long been eradicated, and talk of a continuous tradition of an organised left, stretching back to Nestor Makhno or the Trotskyists, was preposterous.

May 2014: the Socialist Party of Ukraine marks May Day in Kyiv. (c) Oleksii Vovk / Demotix.

Traditions of protest under left-wing rubrics had long been eradicated

In the late twentieth century, the language of democratic protest against Soviet power, leftist at its core, was liberal conservative.

Indeed, in the late 1980s, the Soviet press used to call conservatives, who supported a more authoritarian regime and an end to the democratic process of perestroika, ‘right wing’ (although formally speaking, they were communists), and the opposition (including conservative liberals like Boris Yeltsin)—‘left wing’. 

Later, in independent Ukraine during the 1990s, the term ‘leftists’ became popular when referring to the Stalinist and post-Stalinist parties, which, having taken root in the debris of the recently dissolved Communist Party, went on to exploit people’s nostalgia for the Soviet Union.

These parties included the Socialist Party of Ukraine (SPU), which drifted away from Stalinism to social democracy; the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU), self-declared successor to the old Soviet Communist Party of Ukraine; the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, which broke off from the SPU and quickly took up a nationally-oriented ‘socialist’ position, with an ‘anti-globalisation’ bent grounded in religion; and, last but not least, the Peasant Party of Ukraine, rocked by a series of scandals in the past 15 years. 

Throughout the 1990s, these political forces made up the majority in the Verkhovna Rada, and acted as the opposition to President Leonid Kuchma. It was precisely these parties, emerging from the Stalinist tradition (indeed, the majority of them never left it), which came to embody left-wing principles for ordinary people in Ukraine. 

Thanks to their efforts, socialism and communism are still closely tied to ideas such as Slavic nationalism, a pro-Russian geopolitical orientation, the police state, the death penalty, social conservatism, the defence of ‘canonical Orthodoxy’, and the wholehearted approval of the Soviet experience.
Gradual regression

In the past 15 years, however, these parties have lost their political influence. This slow defeat has come about not just as a result of demographic processes (the inevitable ageing and diminishing of their supporters), but also due to their own miscalculations.

Simferopol, March 2014: meanwhile, statues of Lenin began to fall all over Ukraine. (c) Gregor Fischer / Demotix.

During the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko, the once powerful SPU squandered its political capital, as it entered unscrupulous coalitions, made bad political deals, and was exposed in a series of corruption scandals. 

The Communist Party, which was practically in a governing coalition with the Party of Regions under Viktor Yanukovych, supported the infamous dictatorship laws of 16 January 2014, and in so doing, bound its political future with that of the regime, which quickly fell apart a month later. 

After Maidan, with a large portion of their electorate in annexed Crimea and the territories of the ‘People’s Republics’, the communists had little hope of returning to parliament. 
‘The left swamp’ 

At the same time, new left-wing organisations of a different breed have emerged: genuinely anarchist initiatives, Trotskyite groups, radical offshoots from the bureaucratic structures of the CPU, left-leaning nationalists, anti-fascists, social democratic circles—the wide spectrum of left organisations and movements typical of any western country. 

Though Ukraine's left split well before Maidan, the events of 2014 have left their mark. (c) Oleg Pereverzev / Demotix.

To distinguish these groups from the post-Stalinist parties, which monopolised the left flank of national politics, Ukrainian journalists coined the term ‘the new left’. They did this without paying much attention to the fact that this term refers to a concrete political tradition; and one, which, not every young leftist who doesn’t love the CPU belongs to. 

Aware of their minimal numbers and influence, these movements kept close to one another: they organised common protests and May Day demonstrations (for Kyiv, with a population of three million, a 500-strong May Day march was considered a success), operated general mailing lists and leased spaces for collective use.

Members of one group would move to another or create their own, but would remain, nevertheless, in the same friendship groups. New people also found themselves here. 

Aware of their minimal numbers and influence, these movements kept close to one another

This is how a phenomenon that came to be known as the ‘left swamp’ formed: a relatively stable, close-knit social environment where many people hated one another on political and personal grounds, held different political ambitions, but nevertheless felt a sense of belonging to a common cause.
Drying out the swamp

When one group tried to use the swamp in its own interests, though, this was the beginning of the end of this community. 

In 2010, the Organisation of Marxists, a group that unified Stalinist former Komsomol members with Trotskyites, invited the swamp to participate in the creation of a ‘left political subject’ (the term 'party' was not used to avoid scaring off the anarchists). And so a process was set in motion. Its results turned out to be contrary to its aims: instead of entering the ranks of this new party in droves, the swamp began to dry out. 

The anarchists put forward an alternative proposal: unite in radical federative unions on the basis of a syndicalist strategy. In summer 2011, the Autonomous Workers’ Union (AWU), which positioned itself against this new ‘party’, was founded. 

By 2011, the Organisation of Marxists had already disintegrated into Stalinist and Trotskyite wings. The former took the name Borotba (the title of a Ukrainian social democratic party active in 1918-1920), while the latter called itself the Left Opposition (a nod to the Trotskyite platform in the Soviet Communist Party of the 1920s). Both groups saw the creation of a leftist party with parliamentary ambitions as their task. 

December 2012: Borotba protests outside Verkhovna Rada. (c) Sergei Kharchenko / Demotix.

The most influential of these new organisations turned out to be Direct Action (Priama diya), a student union anarcho-syndicalist group founded in the mid-1990s.
Beyond the swamp

Wth their different political views and aims, the paths of these organisations naturally began to diverge. And though accusations of sectarianism and opportunism began to fly as the ‘swamp dried out’, this process ultimately benefited everyone. 

In 2012, for instance, anarchist organisations were able to hold their own May Day demonstration, raising their own libertarian agenda; Borotba received the opportunity to found their own parliamentary party, bringing police officers into their ranks, co-operating with Russian nationalists as well as developing other initiatives, previously unthinkable in partnership with the anarchists and Trotskyites. 

Meanwhile, Left Opposition (Liva opozytsiya) strived to remain in the swamp longer than everyone else, trying to maintain good relationships with everyone simultaneously. The events of 2013-2014, however, marked the end of a general left community.
The pro-Putin left

Initially taking a sceptical position (typical for most leftists) towards the Maidan in Kyiv, Borotba went on to break with Ukraine’s other left groups in January 2014. 

As the protests took on an anti-police character, and the Yanukovych regime intensified its repressive tactics, one thing became clear: there was no going back. Instead, what we faced was either the victory of Maidan (and an uncertain future) or a new authoritarian regime in the Russian model.

Despite this, Borotba openly took the side of AntiMaidan, a pro-government movement, which later transformed into pro-Russian separatist movements in the south and east of the country.

Today, Borotba’s leadership resides partly in western Europe, partly in Russia, and has tied its political future to the separatist movement in the east of Ukraine. 

In so doing, Borotba has lost its political appeal for the rest of Ukraine. Have they managed to achieve anything on that side of the frontline? It’s hard to say: separatist authorities have arrested Borotba members on several occasions. The CPU has also found it difficult to enter the ‘political process’ in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). 
Anarchists 

Meanwhile, though it never officially supported Maidan, the position of the Autonomous Workers’ Union’ on Maidan changed after January 2014. 

Many members of AWU participated in protests and infrastructure initiatives, including protecting casualties in hospitals and supporting the occupation of the Ministry of Education (organised by Direct Action). 

Indeed, anarchists from AWU were the first to hold a protest after Maidan—against the new government. AWU is still yet to become a syndicate, as it has not managed to set up cells in factories. But it operates as a propagandist anarchist organisation, protesting and holding consciousness-raising events.

The local Kharkov branch of AWU managed to partner up with the liberals in winter 2013-2014, and became an influential force in the Maidan movement there after pushing out the nationalists. Indeed, Kharkov, despite several splits, is home to several anarchist initiatives, including a squat for ATO refugees.

In Kyiv, the left had no such opportunity: nationalists maintained their monopoly on public pronouncements, and pushed the leftists and feminists aside as soon as they unfurled their human rights and socio-economic banners. Nevertheless, Direct Action stubbornly tried to promote its agenda on Maidan (and on the walls of the occupied education ministry). It was in violent confrontations with left activists that the far-right group Right Sector was born. 

After Maidan, Direct Action underwent personnel changes: a third generation—young students of an anarchist bent—replaced the second, who were, at last, destined to leave the lecture halls. Today, Direct Action is involved in fighting an anti-religious campaign, resisting the creeping influence of the church in educational institutions, as well as defending the interests of students against neo-liberal education reforms. 

Meanwhile, Free Earth, an anarcho-ecological organisation founded in Kyiv, continues to fight against the development of shale gas in Ukraine, and building on Kyiv’s green sites. Several activists from this group are currently fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The initial post-Maidan period seems to have produced several new anarchist groups. In autumn 2014, an anarchist initiative called Black Rainbow sprung up in Kyiv, and local anarchists in Zhytomyr managed to set up Chaotic Good, despite nationalist resistance.

All these groups categorically separate themselves from the ‘People’s Republics’ in Ukraine’s east, seeing those movements as far-right puppet dictatorships, which are controlled by the neo-liberal Putin regime. At the same time, though, they are against any form of nationalism. 

Refusing to lay equal blame for the breakout of conflict on the Russian and Ukrainian governments, Ukrainian anarchists come out against the neo-liberal and conservative initiatives of their ‘own’ state. 
Digital democracy

The departure of Borotba from Ukrainian politics opened up a space for a young left party—one which, just like Syriza and Podemos, could unite grassroots social movements and promote a social democratic agenda. 

Left Opposition decided to take this mantle. Shortly after the victory of Maidan, which they supported, they launched the Party of Social Revolution, declaring the principles of digital democracy. In order to avoid the usual bureaucratic hiccups of registering a new party, they reached an agreement to essentially buy a formal party structure created by other people.

This party has had no shortage of scandals. Under pressure from activists in Odessa, Oleg Vernik—leader of the Defence of Labour trade union—found his way into the party management. In the early 2000s, Vernik, a union leader, was suspected of conning international socialist organisations.

Vernik’s biography is a full one: during Ukraine’s parliamentary elections in 2012, he worked closely with Alexei Kochetkov, the Russian political technologist responsible for CIS-EMO, an election-monitoring organisation. Indeed, Vernik has long tried to establish partnerships with nationalist groups.

In May 2014, however, the organising committee decided to build the party from scratch under the name Social Movement. According to the organisers, they consciously decided to avoid the word ‘revolution’ in the name, given its lack of popularity among today’s electorate.

This new party hopes to repeat the successes of the Greek and Spanish parties—to become a platform for grassroots socio-economic protest, and eventually get into parliament and promote Keynesian economics and progressive politics. 

As to their position on the current war in Ukraine, this party tries to please everyone at once: they are smooth in presentation, declaring that both sides are at fault. Yet a scandal over one member of this new party’s management, who had been serving in one of the pro-Ukrainian police battalions, has sharply divided the party: for some, this was fine; for others, it was impermissible.

Have Social Movement made the right choice? Only time will tell. After all, larger political projects, with better financing and administrative resources, have already appropriated socio-economic slogans against austerity, rising communal charges and the fall in citizens’ income.

These populists have very good chances at the coming local elections in October

These populists have very good chances at the coming local elections in October, and Social Movement will have to fight them on the same ground. 
Left nationalists

The Autonomous Resistance (AR) movement stands apart in Ukraine’s left scene. Founded in 2009, this group has undergone a political evolution in the past six years. 

The founders of AR used to be in charge of the Ukrainian National Labour Party – a national socialist movement, which looked up to Hitler. Gradually, though, a new group emerged with a ‘left Nazi’ ideology. They were particularly enamoured with the Strasser brothers, and their ideology shifted towards defending the rights of workers (ethnic) and resisting the oligarchs (Jews). 

In reality, the rather odious Yury Mykhalchyshyn—a member of Svoboda—used to run this party, but broke off contact after becoming a people’s deputy in 2012. A conflict between Svoboda and AR took hold, manifesting itself in regular street violence in Lviv (AR’s ‘stronghold’). Svoboda, which brought the majority of classic neo-Nazis groups under its wing, sent them to fight AR, the ‘communists’. As a result of this conflict, AR swung further to the left.

Currently, this group positions itself against capitalism in its texts, and considers the key contradiction in society to be class, rather than nationality. It condemns xenophobia, though its members desire a ‘proletarian’ government after the social revolution has taken place (instead of the immediate abolition of the state), and resists progressive social agendas such as feminism, LGBT, and reproductive rights. They have, for all intents and purposes, remained nationalists.

During Maidan, AR was active in Lviv, occupying the regional administration building. After conflict broke out in the east, many AR members set off for the front to fight against ‘a more reactionary regime’ (they do not support the Ukrainian government).
The Greek crisis

The Ukrainian left is often accused of lacking unity: the bringing together of everyone with everyone else is fashionable, and those who resist it are branded ‘sectarians’.

Although all the groups mentioned above are on the left of the political spectrum, they have, at times, expressed very different views. For instance, take their views on Greece. 

Of course, all Ukrainian leftists condemn the policies of the Troika, which, as they see it, continues to insist on senseless and merciless austerity, stigmatising Greeks as ‘lazy natives’. But there are serious differences.

Of course, all Ukrainian leftists condemn the policies of the Troika 

Borotba and similar groups underline the geopolitical aspect, ‘exposing’ the role of the European Union, which is stripping the Greeks of all they have, and will soon do the same to Ukrainians. 

Autonomous Resistance emphasises the destructive role of usury, and believes that Greece should liberate itself from this yoke—after all, they say, the parasite bankers have trapped Greece in a web of debt. 

Social Movement proposes complete solidarity with Syriza, and hopes for a further radicalisation of its politics—the nationalisation of the banks, and reforms in the style of Lenin’s NEP.

Anarchists express solidarity with Greek workers, but do not support Syriza as a party (it heads a bourgeois government). For them, there’s no point in the proletariat relying on this government: they have to organise themselves and take the initiative. Several of them would add that the problem here resides in capitalism itself, and not the populist dichotomy ‘people/oligarchs’, and that there is a latent anti-Semitism in the stories of greedy bankers who are at fault for everything.

These are all different positions, and belie the radically different political philosophies at work here. Many on the European right, of course, also ‘support Greece’. 
The next political battle

For Social Movement, clearly, the next political battle is the upcoming local elections. Given the domination of populist rhetoric heard from their more powerful opponents, they shouldn’t expect much in the way of electoral success this autumn. That said, they themselves take a more long-term view, seeing the coming elections as an opportunity for agitation.

The current patriotic hysteria that has swept Ukraine—unavoidable in times of war—is helping left-wing nationalists to gain ground.

When it comes to AR, their political programme is close to that amalgamation of left and right slogans which dominates the minds of many people in Ukraine. Aside from nationalism, AR’s demonstrative radicalism and insurrectionism also attracts attention: it draws people who wish to defend the ‘achievements of the Maidan revolution’, but who are not prepared to work with right-wing movements. 

That said, surveys show that the overwhelming majority of people in Ukraine are tired of radicalism and violence: thus, ‘ultra-radical’ political forces can appeal only to a minority. 

Anarchist organisations are aware of this, and opt for different tactics: without hiding their radical programme, anarchists believe their main goal is to help raise the consciousness of workers and build organisational structures.

As Maidan showed, without organisation, there’s no point thinking about more ambitious aims.


=========================================
16. MUSK, HAWKING WARN OF 'INEVITABLE' KILLER ROBOT ARMS RACE
by Michael Rundle
=========================================
(Wired - July 15)

A global robotic arms race "is virtually inevitable" unless a ban is imposed on autonomous weapons, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and 1,000 academics, researchers and public figures have warned.

In an open letter presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aries, the Future of Life Institute signatories caution that "starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control".

Although the letter, first reported by the Guardian, notes that "we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so", it concludes that "this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow".

Joining Professor Hawking and SpaceX founder Elon Musk below the letter are Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple, linguist Noam Chomsky, cofounder of Sky Jaan Tallinn and Stephen Goose, director of Human Rights Watch's arms division.

The UK says it is not developing lethal AI, but the potential to build such weapons already exists and is developing fast -- a recent report into the future of warfare commissioned by the US military predicts "swarms of robots" will be ubiquitous by 2050. In response, experts and high-profile figures like Musk have made repeated calls to limit the development of deadly AI, even as peaceful autonomy grows more central to virtually every other area of tech and industry. The Future of Life Institute announced in June it would use a $10m donation from Elon Musk to fund 37 projects aimed at keeping AI "beneficial", with $1.5m dedicated to a new research centre in the UK run by Oxford and Cambridge universities.

The latest letter starts by defining autonomous weapons as those which "select and engage targets without human intervention", including quadcopters able to search for and kill people, but not remotely piloted missiles or drones. It also lists the arguments usually made in favour of such machines -- such as reducing casualties among soldiers.
Don't miss
Gun-toting drone is probably legal, police confirm Gun-toting drone is probably legal, police confirm

But for the academics and figures who signed the letter, AI weapons are potentially more dangerous than nuclear bombs.

"Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc.

"Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilising nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity."

The letter also notes specifically that most AI researchers do not want to "tarnish their field" by contributing to lethal AI and "by doing so, potentially creating a major public backlash against AI that curtails its future societal benefits".

"Indeed, chemists and biologists have broadly supported international agreements that have successfully prohibited chemical and biological weapons, just as most physicists supported the treaties banning space-based nuclear weapons and blinding laser weapons."

Prompted in part by anti-autonomous weapons pressure groups, the United Nations debated the potential for a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons earlier this year -- which the UK has officially opposed. The Foreign Office stated earlier this year that "at present, we do not see the need for a prohibition on the use of Laws, as international humanitarian law already provides sufficient regulation for this area".

Also earlier this year, Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkley, wrote in the journal Nature that two programmes commissioned by the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) would -- if successful -- "foreshadow planned uses" of killer robots, and potentially contravene the Geneva Convention.

"As flying robots become smaller, their manoeuvrability increases and their ability to be targeted decreases," Russell said. "They have a shorter range, yet they must be large enough to carry a lethal payload -- perhaps a one-gram shaped charge to puncture the human cranium."

=========================================
17. UK: PROTECT ABORTION CLINICS FROM HARASSMENT, JEREMY HUNT URGED
by Tracy McVeigh
=========================================
(The Observer - 25 July 2015)
 
Dr Susie Orbach, Richard Dawkins and Diane Abbott MP among signatories to open letter demanding government action after protesters force closure of clinic

An anti-abortion group protest outside parliament. Photograph: Janine Wiedel/Rex Shutterstock

Britain’s health service is being “held hostage” by anti-abortion protesters who have forced the closure of one clinic and put another under threat, say campaigners.

In an open letter, a group of MPs, academics, health workers, authors and women’s rights campaigners have called on the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to protect NHS staff and services from “harassment”. Among the 30 signatories are Dr Susie Orbach, Richard Dawkins, Diane Abbott MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Baroness Gould, Kate Green MP and Dr Evan Harris.

Led by Kerry Abel, chair of Abortion Rights, they expressed concern at the closure and called for support for patients and staff. “It is surely the government’s responsibility, within the legal framework set by the Abortion Act 1967, to ensure access to safe, legal abortions for women, regardless of where they live.”

The letter’s authors say this principle is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which stipulates that states must “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to healthcare services, including those related to family planning.”

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) confirmed last week that an abortion services clinic had been forced to close “as a direct result of protest activity”. It has not named the clinic, but a second, in Southwark, south London, is also on “the brink” of closure due to security fears.

Abel said there was widespread concern that the closure would encourage the anti-abortion campaigners to escalate activities. The picketing of clinics with huge posters of bloodied medical procedures and foetuses has already become common. “They want to increase stigma,” said Abel, “and because they can’t win in parliament they want to whisper in women’s ears and frighten them with graphic and vindictive images.
Advertisement

“It’s unacceptable that perfectly legal medical services are being shut down because of a few bullies outside. But what’s worse is the government are standing by and letting it happen.”

She urged the public to sign the letter. “There needs to be action taken before things escalate,” she said, adding that “hotspots” of activity at clinics don’t seem to be showing up in a drop in the number of abortions, but may be pushing up the length of time before women have abortions by scaring them away until they really have no options.

BPAS, Abortion Rights and others are asking for “buffer zones” similar to those in Canada and France, so that lawful protests can go ahead without the intimidation of staff and women attending appointments. Clare Murphy of the BPAS said last week: “There’s no doubt that a small number of people who are against abortion are able to have a serious knock-on effect on women’s services. We know the police feel relatively powerless to do anything about this, as there’s nothing in law that means they can move them away.”

Surveys continue to show that most Britons are pro-choice, although split evenly over whether or not the current 24-week limit should be lowered.

A spokesperson from Abort67, which has faced criticism for its tactics during protests outside clinics, said: “We have been subject to a relentless campaign of false accusations about our behaviour. If the closure of an abortion facility is now being used as part of a parliamentary effort to introduce unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression, then there needs to be transparency. We invite any politicians with concerns to come and visit one of our public education campaigns and to see what we are doing, rather than rely on hearsay.”


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

South Asia Citizens Wire
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. Newsletter of South Asia Citizens Web: 
www.sacw.net/

     #####
    #### _\_  ________
    ##=-[.].]| \      \
    #(    _\ |  |------|
     #   __| |  ||||||||
      \  _/  |  ||||||||
   .--'--'-. |  | ____ |
  / __      `|__|[o__o]|
_(____nm_______ /____\____ 

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
=====================================