Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Aurora Borealis – Christmas Edition

A happy new year to all !!

Picture of the Day: Aurora Borealis – Christmas Edition

http://twistedsifter.com/2013/12/aurora-borealis-christmas-edition/

Suspended IAS officer Sharma gives Snoopgate transcripts to Supreme Court

Suspended Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Sharma has submitted to the Supreme Court the transcripts of a taped telephone conversation to bolster his case that Chief Minister Narendra Modi kept him and a woman under "all-pervasive" and "intrusive" surveillance. 
The transcripts, which run to 90 pages, are part of the affidavit Sharma filed in the apex court recently. The affidavit alleged that Modi wanted to keep him in jail after framing him in false cases as he apprehended that Sharma possessed information which could "damage his electoral prospects". 

The court is hearing a batch of petitions filed by Sharma seeking a probe into circumstances under which five criminal cases were slapped on him by the Modi government. 
He has also sought a CBI probe into the alleged violation of the woman's right to privacy and the Indian Telegraph Act by Modi.

Sharma has alleged that he was suspended and framed in the cases between 2010 and 2012 because of Modi's suspicion that he knew about the contents of a VCD allegedly involving Modi and the woman. He also alleged that he was targeted as he happened to be the younger brother of Kuldip Sharma, who functioned as Additional Director-General of Police and did not obey directions from Modi's office to go slow against rioters during the Godhra carnage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2531405/Suspended-IAS-officer-Sharma-gives-Snoopgate-transcripts-Supreme-Court.html


Snoopgate and the Gujarat Model of Governance

Muzaffarnagar riot victims forcefully evicted from camp; take refuge at bus stand

Muzaffarnagar: The Akhilesh Yadav-led Uttar Pradesh Government has done everything abominable when it comes to riot victims temporarily living in relief camps. In a fresh move, the government officials have evicted over 70 families from a relief camp in Muzaffarnagar. They are now forced to live in a bus stand with no electricity, water or toilet.
 
After being evicted from Loi relief camp allegedly without any compensation, the families have taken shelter in the bus stand at Neem Kheri village. It was the last batch of families evicted in the last three days from the Loi camp, where over 300 families had taken shelter after the communal riots killed over 60 people and displaced more than 40,000 in September. When contacted, Moumin, a riot victim living in relief camp, says some sort of pressure is being exerted on those who run the camp. For the first time, they are telling us to leave. Moumin along with his sister, Moumina, had to leave the camp after government official exerted pressure on them. They have 12 children and a disabled father in the 20-member joint family.
 
The Uttar Pradesh Government is allegedly demolishing its camps and forcing the victims out so that enough media attention is not paid over the lack of medical and other facilities at the make-shift camps. The UP Government has admitted that at least 34 children have died in the relief camps since September. Many victims have refused to leave without getting the promised compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. They fear they may be cheated out of their compensation if they leave the relief camps. The Akhilesh Yadav government has promised Rs. 5 lakh to the riot-affected persons.
 
Earlier, the Uttar Pradesh Government was severely criticised for organising Saifai Mahotsav attended by Akhilesh Yadav and SP chief Mulayam Singh. The young chief minister had defended the event, calling it a decade-old Samajwadi Party tradition. "I know you have not come here to cover the festival, but instead you have come here to show in one window that people are suffering in the camps and on the other, you will show the festivities," Akhilesh Yadav had told reporters.

Monday, December 30, 2013

CHAITANYA KALBAG - Has the media lost the plot?

It was a year bracketed by the Delhi gangrape and the Tehelka train wreck, and you would be hard put to find another period since our colonial masters departed when journalism was in worse odour in India. It is not just the mediocrity of information assaulting us that is of concern; it is also the titillation, ignorance and bias to which our attention-deficit audiences are subjected. Every sensation is momentary and can obliterate objectivity, balance, common sense before we move to the next bit of Broken News. Sober inquiry is rare, and rarer still is level-headed follow-up.

Even when our media “adopts” a seemingly just cause, as in the Nirbhaya case, the embrace is overpowering and even menacing. As much in that story as in the hysteria over the Tarun Tejpal episode, or the Aarushi murder verdict, or at year’s end the Khobragade ‘humiliation’ in New York, we have been assailed by the certitude of media judgement. Woe betide the person who comes under attack via Twitter and Facebook—the explosion of vitriol is so frightening that it obscures temperate discussion, demolishes privacy and destroys reputations.

Social media is now anti-social blunderbuss, and the hash-tag is a marker for slander and defamation. Well-written and edited reportage backed by facts and solid research is the exception. Instead, we have opinion and commentary masquerading as journalism on the front pages of our most powerful newspapers and on our most-watched TV news programmes. India’s millions teem in silence; we are told what is worth knowing by the shouting, bullying “anchor” or the front-page editor who deli­ghts in tabloid puns and crass wit. There is good news, but it has to be teased out. At one media group, editors had to be ordered to play up at least one good news story a day.

India’s media economics is topsy-turvy. The tyranny of TRPs and carriage fees and the hanging sword of a cap on advertising of 12 minutes an hour have made our television stations uneconomical. On the print side, the Indian Readership Survey is reinventing itself under fire from angry publishers. At the same time, recession-hit businesses have slashed ad budgets and caused thinner newspapers and magazines. Across the spectrum, newsgathering budgets have shrunk, with little or no travel in search of better stories. We boast that India is a major player on the world stage, but our journalism is extremely parochial and our worldview uninformed and half-baked. The Hindu is the only newspaper with a respectable network of overseas correspondents. But its owners recently carried out a putsch against its editor. Indeed, several professional editors bit the dust in 2013. They had few mourners.

Three major trends stand out from this bleak landscape—media ownership, government regulation and the abysmal state of journalism training. Some of the nation’s most powerful media conglomerates are now controlled by powerful business conglomerates. It’s no longer blasphemous to talk about the business of journal­ism. The profit imperative means that these conglomerates, with formidable print, television and digital footprints, censor or distort what you read, view or click on. “Private treaties”, the practice of bartering ad space for equ­ity in a company, are now common in major media companies. Meanwhile, the besieged government is flailing at its media tormentors with a vigour that may not stop with the general election. It has squeezed its advertising, putting a chokehold in particular on the vernacular and small-town media. The information minister even suggested that journalists be lic­e­nsed through a qualifying examination like lawyers or acc­o­u­ntants. And the government is proposing amendme­nts to the Press and Registration of Books Act which among other thi­ngs lays down that media titles pronounced guilty of diss­em­inating paid news three times by the Press Council be closed. Journalists nationwide are a sorry lot.. 
read more:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288986



Ulema now demand expulsion of Taslima Nasre - Let's defend her right to live & speak in peace

"She is spreading anti-Muslim feeling in the country and should be told to leave the country immediately" Noori Miyan. But he and his followers are contributing to the spread of anti-Muslim prejudice. Defenders of democracy should make it clear to the ulema that they are fuelling the growth of communal hatred. This is not in the interests of Muslims as a community nor of their fellow-Indians. Do they have nothing better to do than keep hounding a writer for her views? Is it against the law to criticise Islam (if indeed she is doing so)? Are we to be hounded, threatened & punished for criticising religion? Do clerics have the right to attack someone's freedom of speech? The ulema have done this repeatedly, including preventing Salman Rushdie from attending the Jaipur Literature Festival and sabotaging academic research on Rushdie. Their fanatical & intolerant ideas are a menace to democracy. They are free to preach & practice religion - but indulgence in intimidation undermines democracy itself. 

Yet again, their 'sentiments' are offended - but there is no such thing as a right not to be offended.  I can do nothing if my sentiments are offended by the rantings of religious fanatics. Without blasphemy the human mind would atrophy. Those who value secular ideals should defend Taslima against this relentless & vicious campaign

See: Taslima moves Supreme Court against FIR over tweet // SC accords protection to Tasleema Nasreen from arrest
Communal fanatics continue their assault on free speech & expression - Kolkata TV serial based on Taslima Nasrin's script put off indefinitely
'POSTPONING' OF A TV SERIAL SCRIPTED BY TASLIMA NASREEN AND THE REFUSAL OF THE INTELLIGENTSIA TO SPEAK OUT FOR HER

BAREILLY: On the last day of annual Urs-e-Razwi of Imam Ahmed Raza, commonly known as Aala Hazrat, a Muslim cleric drew support of lakhs of Ulemas for expulsion of Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the community. Hasan Raza Khan alias Noori Miyan, who had lodged a police complaint against Nasrin on December 4, said the author had hurt the religious feelings and launched a campaign against her with thousands of Ulemas, who had gathered at the Islamia College ground, raising their hands in support. "She is spreading anti-Muslim feeling in the country and should be told to leave the country immediately. We would soon stage a series of protests against Nasrin. If needed, we will go to Supreme Court for her expulsion from India," said Noori Miyan who is son of the Sajjadanasheen of Bareilly"s Aala Hazrat Dargah, Maulana Subhan Raza Khan. Nasrin had criticised on Twitter a meeting between Aam Aadmi Party- founder Arvind Kejriwal and Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, a mufti who had issued a fatwa against her in 2007 for the writer"s staunch pro-woman stance. Noori had lodged an FIR against Taslima for using abusive language against Muftis and hurting the feelings of Muslims. Similarly, Noori"s uncle Tauqeer Raza Khan, the chief of Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) had allegedly announced a reward of Rs five lakh on Nasrin"s head if she remains in India. On December 17, the Supreme Court ordered UP Police not to take any coercive action against the author in connection with the FIR filed against her.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cleric-draws-Ulemas-support-to-expel-Taslima/articleshow/28159865.cms

Taslima moves Supreme Court against FIR over tweet

'POSTPONING' OF A TV SERIAL SCRIPTED BY TASLIMA NASREEN AND THE REFUSAL OF THE INTELLIGENTSIA TO SPEAK OUT FOR HER Who exactly are these vocal opponents of Taslima Nasreen’s serial being shown publicly? Whenever one finds self-appointed spokespersons indulging in shrill rhetoric, it is useful to study their antecedents. Abdul Aziz of Milli Ittehad Parishad and Mohammad Quamruzzaman of the All Bengal Minority Youth Federation are two prime examples who have been extraordinarily active in running the Taslima-denunciation industry in West Bengal. Both these organizations share another distinction. They led a mass-meeting earlier this year in Calcutta protesting the punishment of Islamist leaders of Bangladesh who had directly committed crimes against humanity during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Thus those who defended rapists and mass murderers of 1971 (the victims were Bengalis, of whom a significant proportion were Muslims) have taken upon the mantle of community guardianship of Muslims in West Bengal. It cannot be clearer what kind of interest these folks represent. To even consider that such elements represent the interests of the Muslims of West Bengal is tantamount to insulting the intelligence and humanity of the community... Calcutta’s intelligentsia and youth, once known to take to the streets and chant songs to protest the muzzling of Paul Robeson, a black-American singer and artist, has had nothing but silence to offer on this one. The current and the erstwhile rulers, the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) respectively, seem to be competing with each other in setting a record on muzzling free speech at the instigation of groups in whose worldview free speech has no place. While there may be short-term electoral gain for such posturing, this race to the bottom has no winners. The loser is the idea of a free and democratic society where dialogue and understanding is privileged over violence to ‘solve’ differences...

See also:
Prof Irfan Habib's remark on AMU minority character causes stir
Javed Anand - Ms Wadud, we are ashamed

Joint Statement of Religious Leaders On “Supreme Court order on Section 377”
Academic research on Rushdie's literary work sabotaged by Deoband Ulema
Two persons arrested for Facebook post on Mumbai shutdown after Bal Thackeray's death
Call on the Catholic Archdiocese of Bombay to encourage the withdrawal of complaints against Indian Rationalist Sanal Edamaruku
LUMS fires Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy

Maryam Namazie: Defend Bangladesh's Bloggers
Tableeghi Jamaat members can knock at any door anywhere in the West. But Christian missionaries cannot proselytize the Muslim world
‘Freedom to criticize religion is a touchstone of free expression’ - Interview with Gilbert Achcar
 WOLE SOYINKA: Religion Against Humanity
IHEU Freedom of Thought Report 2013: Death penalty for atheism in 13 countries

Salman Rushdie - ON CENSORSHIP

Communal fanatics continue their assault on free speech & expression - Kolkata TV serial based on Taslima Nasrin's script put off indefinitely
'POSTPONING' OF A TV SERIAL SCRIPTED BY TASLIMA NASREEN AND THE REFUSAL OF THE INTELLIGENTSIA TO SPEAK OUT FOR HER

Salman Rushdie - We're all too easily offended these days
VHP disrupts Hyderabad's Kashmir Film Festival
Gita Sahgal - Bangladesh: Blasphemy, Genocide and Violence Against Women
Taslima Nasreen - ‘Religion Is The Biggest Bane For Any Democracy’
Syed Badrul Ahsan calls for Taslima's return - Our writers, our moral parameters

New Age Islam Website Is Banned In Pakistan
Taksim, Convergence, and Secular Space // Turkey, the end of Islamism with a human face
Khaled Ahmed - A culture of haters
Khaled Ahmed - Rollback nations (NEWSWEEK PAKISTAN)
Interview with Karima Bennoune, author of 'Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here'
Woman filmmaker in Iran sentenced to 18 months in prison
The religious persecution of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (1945-2010)/ Interview: My life fighting intolerance/ Mahmoud Mohammed Taha & the Second Message of Islam


Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (Author of Second Message of Islam); also known as Ustaz Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was a Sudanese religious thinker, leader, and trained engineer. He was executed for apostasy at the age of 76 by the regime of Gaafar Nimeiry(See his Court statement)
THE MODERATE MARTYR - A radically peaceful vision of Islam

Najam Sethi - Pakistan: Pluralism and tolerance

Unfortunately, attempts to rationalize and modernize our education system have continuously foundered on the rock of misplaced, conservative or politically motivated religious elements in society..Two such cases have caught headlines recently. The first is an attempt by Imran Khan's PTI government in KPK to undo the rational cleansing of the textbooks by the previous ANP government by reinserting nations of jihad and "Islamic" vice and virtue into the curricula. The second is an attempt by a section of the media to devalue the teaching of "comparative" religion in schools in which the values of relative compassion, mutual respect and human dignity common to all religions are emphasized

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree. // We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons. // We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights. // We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.  We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights...


Sunday, December 29, 2013

JAVED IQBAL on the killing of Sai Reddy - Murder and Maoist rationalisations

The Quiet Man: Sai Reddy (1962-2013)
The murder of the man who kept quiet, for reasons best known to him, reasons we could only guess; killed for reasons that are not justifiable in accordance to any decent human law.

The second killing of a journalist this year by the Maoists in Bastar is further revealing a pattern in arrogance, hypocrisy, and a roaring of silence over endless streams of noise. 
One doesn’t need to be a state apologist to find something extremely perturbing about just another murder of an unarmed man. Nor does one need to be a Gandhian, or a revolutionary, or an armchair intellectual drowning in anxieties about growing fascism. A man was killed again, an oft-repeated sad truth of Bastar, and there must be a further engagement with the idea of killing informants: which the Maoists use as their own justification of murder, as the state would do with ‘national security,’ or ‘development’.
‘National security’ is ‘informant’ and ‘informant’ is ‘national security’. 

Rationalisation of murder is murder itself. We’re stuck in a time-warp of redundant language, and I often wonder how many times must the same thing be repeated until it is the truth, as an edge of an axe, or a meaningless epitaph for a life that disappears to the sound of nothing. It has become superfluous that every justification of murder and atrocity by the Maoists only seem to be in relation to state atrocities: ‘We’re sorry we burnt a train, but your government burns more trains,’ ‘We apologise for killing bystanders, but Mahendra Karma was a monster ’, ‘We don’t really apologise for killing a Salwa Judum foot soldier because the Salwa Judum has burnt, looted, murdered and raped countlessadivasis since 2004.’ Somehow it seems impossible for any introspection when one lives in relation to the violence of the ‘other.’

Sai Reddy, 51-year-old journalist of the Hindi daily Deshbandu, was killed on his way from the Basaguda market on December 5, 2013. A note by the South Regional Committee of the CPI(Maoist) claimed him to be an informer, a ‘reactionary journalist’, a murderer, a recruiter. But the fact of the matter is that he was no Mahendra Karma, nor was he a Brahmeshwar Singh of the Ranvir Sena, who stood by his politics of bludgeoning to death countless Dalits who stood up for their rights in Bihar, whether it was in Bathani Tola or Laxmanpur-Bathe.  

Mahendra Karma was killed in retaliation for his politics, his identity, and the opportunism of his kind, those ‘other’ adivasis, a contractor class to which he belonged till his last breath. Brahmeshwar Singh who was executed on the street by two riding pillion on a motorcycle, was the unofficial murderous prophet for the landlord Bhumihars.

Sai Reddy was a quiet man, who kept himself out of controversy, and often avoided meeting outsiders, and if he did, he wouldn’t say what was already known. He faced the wrath of both a state that had charged and arrested him with the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act in 2008, and the Maoists. His house in the town of Basaguda was burnt down in 2006. It was a block which was emptied and burnt down, in response to a Salwa Judum rally that led to killings and rapes in the nearby interior villages. That incident further led to an enraged adivasi population and the Maoists attacking the block headquarters of Basaguda, which was mostly populated by non-adivasis and big farmers, leading to the death of four people.   

It was in 2009, that this block was rehabilitated after Supreme Court orders, and on June 28, 2012, another massacre by the security forces was perpetrated in the village of Sarkeguda, a walk away from Basaguda. In 2009, I would watch Sai Reddy’s mother walk through the remnants of their broken down home, while others started to rebuild their lives, pledging that they would rather die at the hands of the state or the Maoists, than leave again. But Reddy’s family knew that it wasn’t safe to live so far across the Talperu river, the unofficial line of control, lands that the CRPF would refer to Pakistan, where on some nights abuses were hurled across the waters by passing Maoist cadres and the CRPF watchtowers: ‘M********d police’ vs. ‘M********d maovadi.’

That was 2009. Sai Reddy lived and worked with an axe over his head. What justifies a hit list, how does one get himself off it once he is on it? If Reddy felt the only way he could live on a hit list, was to deny the Maoists an agenda, would it not then be understandable if he even was an informant, or anti-Maoist? It doesn’t even matter. For Reddy had just recently begun to start talking about rebuilding his home at Basaguda, and a marked man doesn’t travel cognito through a war zone.

The press release issued by the Maoists after his death would go on to accuse Sai Reddy of recruiting Special Police Officers, of arson, murder and of creating a spy network. If that was true, then Sai Reddy was the bravest journalist in the subcontinent, for unlike the people who actually recruited, murdered and created spy networks, who roam around with large entourages of armed men in Boleros and Sumos, Sai Reddy would walk alone, work alone and move alone. More so, did any of Reddy’s actions lead to the killing of innocent adivasis in Bijapur? Did the party ever try to engage with Reddy? If it did, why is it not mentioned in the Maoist communiqués justifying his murder?

Furthermore, is there any evidence to support that he was a threat? Every local journalist is usually an anti-Maoist reporter, because they live in the other side of the Stockholm Syndrome, in areas under control by the police, under their watchful eyes. What reports or information did Sai write or report that led to his murder, when everyone has to lie or keep quiet out of fear? Did his reports about local health and corruption bother the Maoists? His reports about development needs, were they reactionary? If Sai Reddy was another journalist who wrote about the cosy and invisible relationship the Maoists held with contractors, does it justify murder? Was Sai Reddy also being blackmailed out of a contract he held? Was it just another renegade local group that killed him for profit?

The Maoists are probably not going to stop killing people they deem informants, but they should try and be a little more intelligent or imaginative about bumping off journalists: ‘Javed Iqbal, was killed by our Dalam because he was a dolt, and we wanted to save the Chhattisgarh police the trouble.’ But the killing of Reddy is filled with nothing but lies and deadly clichés that relegate human beings to statistics, and outrage to a deafening disgust.
After the murder of a journalist, it makes no sense to hear this from their statement trying to justify his death: “It is not a policy of the party to assassinate journalists who would write against us. We do not encourage any policy to jeopardize the independence of the media … rather we strongly support freedom of speech and the right to write.”

What’s the point of freedom of speech if you don’t respect the right to life?

Read the PUDR statement here:

See also









Jonathan Derbyshire - Heidegger in France: Nazism and philosophy

One of the distinctive features of French intellectual life in the post-war period has been the influence of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Heidegger’s standing among French philosophers, especially those working in the phenomenological tradition (who are more numerous in France than anywhere else in Europe, let alone the Anglophone world), contrasts dramatically with his reputation in the country of his birth, where his legacy is tainted irredeemably by his political compromises with National Socialism in the 1930s.
The precise nature and extent of those compromises remain a matter of controversy—not least in France, where the murky subject of Heidegger’s political affiliations convulses the intellectual class roughly once a decade. Last week, Nicolas Weill, a journalist at Le Monde, wrote on his blog that the latest volume of Heidegger’s complete works (the Gesamtausgabe), which will be published in Germany in March next year, promises a definitive answer to the question whether “Heidegger was an intellectual led astray by a temporary will to power or whether his political itinerary reflects a more profound tendency”.
Eric Aeschimann, writing in Le Nouvel Observateur, reports that Heidegger’s Schwarzen Hefte (“Black Notebooks”) will trouble even the most faithful of his acolytes in France. It appears that the German editor of the notebooks, Peter Trawny, has written an essay entitled “Heidegger: ‘The Black Notebooks’ and Historial Antisemitism” (“historial” being one of those neologisms of which Heidegger, and Heideggerians, were and are fond) in which he argues that these manuscripts, written between 1931 and 1946, contain ideas that are “clearly antisemitic, even if it is not a question of antisemitism of the kind promoted by Nazi ideology.” One of Heidegger’s French translators, Hadrien France-Lanord, has read Trawny’s essay and has pronounced himself dismayed by many of the extracts from the notebooks that it contains. We are, Aeschimann writes, on the verge of another “Heidegger affair”.
The last time the question of Heidegger’s politics became a matter of public debate in France was in June 2005, when a number of eminent philosophers and historians wrote an open letter to Le Monde expressing their support for Emmanuel Faye, whose book about Heidegger, Heidegger – L’introduction du nazisme dans la philosophie, had attracted a considerable amount of favourable press coverage. The signatories (including Jacques Bouveresse, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Serge Klarsfeld) denounced the attempt by those they described as “radical Heideggerians” to discredit Faye’s book “by all means”, including attacks on its author broadcast on a dedicated website set up by the writer Stéphane Zagdanski. “We do not accept these dishonourable procedures,” they wrote, “and believe that critical research into the relationship between Heidegger’s work and Nazism must carry on.”
François Fédier, Heidegger’s principal French translator and an ally of Zagdanski, referred derisively to Faye carrying on the “family business”. In 1966, Fédier wrote an article defending Heidegger against charges made in several German books which generated a number of responses, including one by Faye’s father Jean-Pierre. Twenty years later, an even more intense querelle was set off by the publication of Heidegger et le nazisme, written by a former student of Heidegger’s, the Chilean Victor Farias. The facts that Farias assembled were already well-known, thanks largely to the immense archival labours of the German scholars Hugo Ott and Guido Schneeberger, while his treatment of Heidegger’s philosophy was highly tendentious. Yet the impact his book had in France was enormous, with major figures such as Pierre Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard being drawn into the fray.
To see why disputes of this kind have been a more or less permanent feature of the French intellectual landscape since the war, one needs first to understand how a distinctively gallicised version of Heidegger’s thought came to enjoy a position of pre-eminence in France, especially, and perhaps paradoxically, on the left.
In November 1945, as he awaited the verdict of Freiburg University’s denazification commission, Heidegger wrote to a former colleague describing the unusual situation in which he found himself. Stripped of his chair and shunned by his compatriots, Heidegger was buoyed by news from Paris of his burgeoning reputation there. Elements in the French military, which was overseeing the épuration in Freiburg, had assured him that in France his work “guides and inspires people’s thinking, and in particular the attitudes of the young”. And the philosopher Edgar Morin, then a lieutenant in the French army, had conveyed to Heidegger a letter from the editor of a leading Parisian journal inviting him to write on a subject of his choosing. But Heidegger was reluctant to “promote” his thought in France as long as his position in Germany remained uncertain. Soon, however, he would have no choice... read more:

Saturday, December 28, 2013

HAIFA PEERZADA - China and the Great Game

The conflict in Afghanistan is becoming more complex by the day, spreading beyond its borders into south Asia. There are four main parties: the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan itself and the Afghan Taliban. Others, previously remotely involved, are increasingly drawn in—the most prominent being China.
China’s growth rate of close to 10 per cent per annum makes it a global economic hub with which to reckon, second only to the US. This may not however be socially sustainable as it perpetuates inequality in income, heavily concentrated in China’s southern coastal area. Moreover, the country’s ethnic cohesion is uncertain: apart from minority tensions, the Han majority is itself fractured among ethno-linguistic communities which have experienced sustained segregation.
Fear of becoming a target of non-state actors has put the authorities in Beijing on their guard. That fear was exacerbated by the recent violent attack in Tiananmen Square, allegedly by members of the Muslim Uighur community from Xingiang province in the north-west. While the Turkish Islamic Party claimed responsibility, the authorities blamed the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a group affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Such incidents exacerbate the socio-economic problems which may in the final analysis prove destructive for the instrumental legitimacy on which the power of the Communist Party rests.
The state has for long has been concerned about the separatist movement in Xingiang—a concern enhanced by a fear of Afghanistan providing safe havens for Uighur militants. China sought to counter this by maintaining good connections with the Afghan Taliban and the Quetta Shura. For their part the Taliban are not keen on isolating China as it is the only non-Muslim country that has promised to give them political recognition and respite from UN sanctions—in return for not allowing any group to conduct any violent activity on its territory. This understanding seems however to be falling apart, with China fearing that Afghanistan may be slipping into another civil war, thereby creating space for militants to launch attacks on it. That may be why China supported the US-Taliban talks in Doha, however unsuccessful they proved.  .. read more:

Friday, December 27, 2013

मोदी जी ने फिर किये झूटे वादे – महाराष्ट्र केंद्र शासन दे जवाब

मोदी जी ने फिर किये झूटे वादे – महाराष्ट्र केंद्र शासन दे जवाब

* सरदार सरोवर की बिजली मुफ्त नही | हजारो करोर पूंजी हजारो हे |
* ज़मीन आदिवासी का त्याग एवं विस्थापन की परवाह नही करते मोदी जी |

मोदी जी, एक मंच पर बहस करे !
मुंबई कल (22 दिसम्बर) के रोज़ आयोजित विशाल जन सभा में नरेन्द्र मोदी जी ने फिर सरदार सरोवर (नर्मदा परियोजना) की बात छोड़ी और अपने झूटे दावो/ वक्तव्यों पर आधारित राजनीति का परिचेय फिर एक बार दिया | यह बात भी समझने लायक है की उन्होंने नर्मदा किनारे बडवानी जिले में मध्य प्रदेश चुनाव के पूर्व हुई उनकी सभा में जो सरदार सरोवर का ही प्रभावित क्षेत्र है इस पर परियोजना का ज़िक्र तक नही किया नाही कोई दावा सरदार सरोवर से महारष्ट्र और मध्य प्रदेश को मुफ्त बिजली देने का |

कल मोदी जी ने पुन और भोपाल में हुई सभाओ के वाही फिर दोहराया के सरदार सरोवर से महारष्ट्र को 400 मेगावाट तथा मध्य प्रदेश को 400 मेगावाट मुफ्त मिलने वाली है लेकिन राज्ये के मुख्यमंत्री (श्री चौव्हान) और प्रधानमंत्री ही रोड़े दल रहे है | यह सरासर झूट बात मोदी जी दोहरा रहे है क्युकी महाराष्ट्र या केंद्र शासन या कांग्रेस/ यूपीए की बोझ से कोई सच्चा सशक्त जवाब नही दे रहे है | समझ में नही आता की जो बात कागजातों / रिपोर्ट के आधार पर साबित है और मोदी जी की झूट की पोल खोल कर संभव है वह क्यों नही ज़ाहिर करते है ये सरकारे किसकी दबाव में है ?

नर्मदा बचाओ आन्दोलन के लाखो किसान, मजदूर, आदिवासी, कुम्हार, मछुआरो की और से हम खुलेआम मोदी जी को चुनोती देते है जिन्हें नर्मदाकी सच्चाई का पता नही है ऐसे लाखो के सामने इस तरह बरतने के बदले वह हमारे साथ खुले मंच पर बहस के लिए तैयार हो जाये ताकि सरदार सरोवर की सच जनता समझे | वह ही अपना समय और दिन तय करे स्थान सर्वसहमति से हो |

कल के मोदी जी के वक्तव्य से यह भ्रह्म फेला कर की महारष्ट्र और केंद्र भाजपा शासन को नुकसान पहुचने तथा लाभ न मिलने देने के इरादे से सरदार सरोवर को आगे नही बढ़ने दे रहे है | मोदी जी की गुजरात शासन बांध की ऊँचाई 122 मी. से आगे 17 मी. बढाकर उसे 138.68 मी. तक पूरा करना चाहते है |

सच तो यह है की गुजरात से नाही पुनर्वास नाही पर्यावरण जांच शर्तो की पूर्ति हुई और नाही डूब क्षेत्र के सही बेक वाटर लेवल लगाये गये है | आज भी 2.5 लाख लोग डूब क्षेत्र के बड़े पके मकानों के, हरी भरी खेती-फल के खेती के गाँवों में बसे है | आदिवासी गाँव में आज भी दो हज़ार से अधिक परिवार खेती/ घर डूबने के बाद भी पुनर्वसन में ज़मीन नही मिली है, इसलिए वहीँ डट कर लड़ रहे है |

जबकि महाराष्ट्र और मध्य प्रदेश की प्रतियेक 9,500 मीटर्स और 20442 हे. ज़मीन स.स के लिये डूब रही है 51000 से अधिक परिवार प्रभावित है आज भी करोरो पेड़ डूब क्षेत्र में है , सेकड़ो मंदिर, मस्जिद ही नही धर्मशालाए, पंचायते, दावाखाने, दुकान-बाज़ार सब कुछ डूबना बाकि है और कानून तथा सर्वोच्य अदालत के फ़सलो के अनुसार बिना वैकल्पिक पुनर्वास इन तमाम सुविधाओ के बिना इन्हें डुबोया नही जा सकता केंद्रीय प्राधिकरण भी इसे मंज़ूरी केसे दे सकते है |
आज भी न्यायालयों में याचिकाए जारी है |

ओदी जी छुपा रहे है की यह परियोजना अंतर्रज्ये परियोजना है न केवल गुजरात की हर राज्यों ने लाभों की मात्रा अनुसार ही आर्थिक पूंजी निवेश भी किया है महाराष्ट्र ने आजतक 1300 करोड़ रूपये और मध्य प्रदेश ने 2,065 करोड़ रूपये लगाये है जबकि दोनों मिलाकर 2,000 करोड़ रूपये का खर्च विवाद ग्रस्थ है | गुजरात की अपनी दादागिरी बिना मंज़ूरी निचले स्तर पर बाये पास इरीगेशन ट्रिब्यूनल बनाया इसका कारन है | साथ ही इन राज्यों ने अपनी ग्रामीण तथा मध्य प्रदेश के धर्मपुरी नगर के आदिवासियों के, किसान, दलित मजदूर, मछुआरे और मछली जंगल इत्यादि पूरी सम्पदा भी आहुति दी है | बिजली भी बांध 110 मी. तक बदने के बाद सही मात्र में गुजरात से महाराष्ट्र को प्राप्त नही हुई है इस इस्तिथि में मोदीजी ने 400 मेगावाट ( जो केवल बिजली निर्मित की क्षमता महाराष्ट्र शासन ने पूना की उनकी सभा के बाद ही तत्काल जवाब नही देना ही क्षमता में महारष्ट्र का हिस्सा है) मुफ्त में देने की बात करना सरासर झूट है | इसे महाराष्ट्र शासन ने पूना की उनकी सभा के बाद ही तत्काल जवाब नही देना ही बड़ी भूल हुई है |

केंद्र शासन को दोषी पकड़ने वाले नरेन्द्र मोदी जी अच्छी तरह से जानते है की AIBP केंद्र शासन की योजना से डूब से अधिक रुपया सरदार सरोवर को पञ्च से दस सालो में मिला है AIBP को सहयेता रकम सही उद्देश्य पर खर्च न होने का निष्कर्ष रिपोर्ट में है | आज तक अधिकाँश सहयेता के बावजूद राजनितिक स्वार्थ से ही नरेन्द्र मोदी जी केंद्र को दोष देते रहे है गुजरात के कांग्रेस डसल के नेताओ ने भी इस परियोजना की 400000 हे. लाभ क्षेत्र की ज़मीन बहार करके कंपनियों के लिए अरक्षित होने का विरोध नही किया है | नाही गुजरात ने 30 से अधिक नाहर निर्माण 30% सालो में किया है गुजरात हिस्से में सरदार सरोवर का 91% पानी होते हुए उसका बड़ा हिस्सा मूल योजना के खिउलाफ़ जाकर कंपनियों के 3 शहरों के (बड़ोदा, अहमदाबाद, गांधीनगर)ओर मोड़ने का उससे कच्छ सौदान को पर्याप्त पानी न देने का अपराध मोदी शासन ने किया है यह सब सामने लाने के लिए केंद्र और महाराष्ट्र शासन अगर तैयार नही है तो चुनौती केवल आन्दोलन ही ले सकता है |

हमने ली है मोदी जी हिम्मत करे की वह उन क्षेत्रो में नर्मदा किनारे आकार मुंबई में ऊँचे मंच से कही बाते धरातल पर उतर कर कहे | वे जानते है की बडवानी की आम सभा में वेह सरदार सरोवर के बारे में एक लव्ज़ भी क्यों नही बोले | वेह जानते है की उनकी पार्टी उन्हें कुछ भी बोलने से मन क्यों किया और मोदी जी तथा शिवराज सिंह चौव्हान भी जानते है की बडवानी, कुक्षी, अंजर विधान सभाओ में मोदी जी ज़ाहिर सभा बावजूद भाजपा की हार क्यों हुई?
मोदी जी जवाब दे?

योगिनी खानोलकर   कैलाश अवस्या    चेतना साल्वे    मेधा पाटकर 

Genocide is a foreign term, says Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate // Text of International Covenant on Genocide, December 9 1948

In her petition challenging the 'clean chit' given by a special investigation team to Narendra Modi and others in the Gulberg Society killingsZakia Jafri had used the expressions "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide". On Thursday, Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate B J Ganatra dismissed both "foreign terms" as not applicable while rejecting Zakia's petition.

NB - For the benefit of the magistrate, here is the foreign term ethnic cleansing used to describe the plight of Kashmiri Pandits:
And here are the contents of the international convention on the foreign term 'genocide' (ratified by India in 1949)
Here is another foreign term for our judiciary to consider:
SUPERIOR OR COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Ganatra also rejected the "larger conspiracy" argument raised by Jafri. Excerpts from his order: "Based on all the witness statements and documents on record, this court has to see whether the Gulberg Society incident was because of a conspiracy by powerful people in the state government or not. And whether, as the complainant says, this can be called 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'. "The court goes into the origin of the expressions and notes that "ethnic cleansing" was first used during the struggle that broke out over the division of Yugoslavia, where people were killed based on community. And "genocide is a Greek and Latin usage which means the killing of people on the basis of race," reads the order, going on to define the term. "For this, we have to see the definition of 'genocide' as per the dictionary.. read more: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2002-riots-ethnic-cleansing-genocide-are-foreign-terms...-cannot-be-considered/1212232/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
The following acts shall be punishable:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948
List of signatory nations (including India)

See also:
Probe larger conspiracy says Zakia Jafri's counsel, reminds SIT of SC order regarding 2002 riots
Public Appeal by R.B. SREEKUMAR, FORMER DGP, GUJARAT
Ishrat Jahan link (that never was): Untold story of a J-K encounter
Modi says Congress committed 'sin' of partition // The Non-politics of the RSS