#BJP workers support

[townpostin]

INTUC Leader Chandan Kumar Singh Joins BJP with Hundreds of Supporters

Chandan Kumar Singh, along with his supporters, joined the BJP in the presence of State President Babulal Marandi at a ceremony today. In a significant development, INTUC’s State Co-Secretary and Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) State Vice President Chandan Kumar Singh, along with hundreds of his supporters, joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) today. JAMSHEDPUR – At a membership…

[metamatar]

Why do you always defend China like that? I mean I get the the world tries to do the red scare, but aren't you defending a nation state when you brush off every criticism? Or does the criticism like target things that hamper capitalists and the actual criticisms regarding China lie elsewhere?

"Always?" All I said India is worse than China on a reblog about censorship on the Monkey Man lmao. There's stuff on my blog this year critiquing: Chinese uselessness on Palestine, involvement in Congo and critiquing workers rights in China through the lens of Foxconn factories trying to replicate their model in India.

I'm getting accused of campism for saying that India's blood and soil fascism is way worse, more dangerous than Chinese high surveillance 'socialism with Chinese characteristics.' India is formenting religious pogroms. The average Chinese citizen is not lynching their neighbours and burning down their homes on suspicion of eating the wrong thing. For Netflix to distort and kowtow to rabid fascists when the United States is strengthening ties with India (for anti China reasons) is really dangerous, given how much influence organisations like the Hindu American Foundation have in US politics. The average Westerner hates China plenty. Liberals do however cluelessly support Indian origin politicians who are funded by the Sangh.

Look man. I'm Indian. India has, since the BJP came to power gotten worse on hunger indexes every year. For countries not at war, we have the highest rate of child hunger in the world: 1 in 5 children are wasting despite the economy growing 6% every year. Journalists are routinely jailed and die in there. Kashmir is still under curfew and internet blackouts. Whatever hysterical story you want to tell about China is reality in India too. Without any kind of economic prosperity.

Why do these lives not matter to you? Why does the fact that Indian govt is passing laws that would enable India to strip muslims of citizenship not seem urgent to you? Is it because you maybe only think that the lives of people only matter in so far as they can be weaponised in some kind of story aligning with american state department?

[mariacallous]

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Ram temple in Ayodhya in the key northern state of Uttar Pradesh in January in hopes it would earn him a massive victory in the national election that concluded in June. That didn’t happen—at least not to the extent that Modi, his Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and their ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) expected.

In what has widely been described as a shock result, the BJP won merely 240 seats in the 543-seat parliament, after setting a target of 400 seats. Modi has formed a government but only with support from other parties.

Like any election result, the outcome had multiple causes that will take time to fully sort out. But one thing is already clear: Modi failed in his long-running bid to homogenize India’s Hindus across castes and cultures and consolidate their vote for his political benefit.

In 2014, Modi came to power on the back of religious nationalism and security issues, and he continued that trend in 2019. This year, in the absence of any urgent security threat from regional rival Pakistan and rising concerns over unemployment, inflation, and authoritarianism, Modi banked on the RSS’s homogenization strategy.

The Ram temple was built on a site long disputed with Muslims, where a 16th-century mosque stood until December 1992, when a group of Hindu nationalists razed it to the ground allegedly on the BJP’s provocation. Experts said the BJP had envisaged the temple would instill pride in Hindus, feed their Muslim animosity, and bring them under the Hindu umbrella to choose Modi.

Even though, by and large, the Hindu community seemed to have been pleased with the inauguration of the temple, that didn’t translate into votes for Modi across the Hindu hierarchy. Instead, the results exposed the weaknesses of the homogenization exercise.

Hartosh Singh Bal, an Indian journalist and the executive editor of the Caravan, said there is “diversity in Hinduism” and the election results prove that it can’t be “papered over by directing attention and hatred outwards” toward Muslims. This election proves that “Hindus are not a monolith” and that “various segments of Hinduism have a successful chance of taking on the BJP,” he added in reference to tactical voting by lower castes in Uttar Pradesh against the BJP.

Karthick Ram Manoharan, a political scientist at the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru, said that in Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India with the second-biggest economy in the country, the BJP did not win a single seat out of a total of 39.

“Hindus are the absolute majority in Tamil Nadu, but they still mostly vote for the secular Dravidian parties,” Manoharan said in reference to local parties that have emerged out of social movements opposed to an upper-caste Hindu order that the BJP and RSS have been long accused of nurturing and propagating.

In March, just a month before voting began, I witnessed saffron-colored flags expressing support for Modi’s party jutting out from rooftops and windows in tightly packed homes in western Uttar Pradesh. Some people I spoke to said that BJP workers had decided to adorn the neighborhoods as they pleased, but underneath the flag-waving, a large-scale discontent was brewing over a lack of employment opportunities.

The upper-caste youth seemed confused, if not yet disenchanted, with Modi and in the absence of industry and strong local economies once again mourned the loss of government jobs to affirmative action. (The Indian Constitution reserves almost half of all state jobs for people from lower castes and others who confront a generational disadvantage and historical discrimination.)

Meanwhile, Dalits, who sit at the bottom of India’s Hindu hierarchy, in hamlets nearby who depend on the quota for their dignity and livelihood were quietly recalibrating their options. The mood was starkly different from 2014 and 2019 when I visited some of the Dalit-dominated parliamentary seats in Uttar Pradesh. Back then, Dalits I met were upbeat and decisively pro-Modi. They said they supported him since they believed that he might raise their stature in the Hindu hierarchy.

But 10 years later, they suspected the BJP was plotting to weaken the constitution, the only assurance of rights for marginalized communities in a country where upper-caste Hindus continue to hold social capital and economic power.

Recent comments by BJP leaders that if Modi won 400 seats, he would change the constitution spread anxiety among lower castes that the party intended to scrap the reservation system. The BJP repeatedly denied this, but the suspicion that it is first a party for upper-caste Hindus is deep-rooted among lower castes, and experts believe the comments were part of the BJP’s political strategy.

“They were testing the waters to see what would be the reaction,” said Sushil Kumar Pandey, an assistant professor of history at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University in Lucknow and the author of Caste and Politics in Democracy.

“The opposition picked it up and campaigned on it, telling people a change in the constitution could mean losing your livelihood, your jobs,” Pandey added. “That worked at a time [when] people were also scared of privatization” and in government-run sectors.

For Dalits, it was about more than jobs. The Indian Constitution is nearly worshipped by the community and celebrated en masse on the birth anniversary of the Indian intellectual who wrote it. B.R. Ambedkar was no fan of Ram and advocated against the caste discrimination inherent in Hinduism all his life, even converting to Buddhism when he felt there was no escaping caste-based prejudice. While he couldn’t annihilate the caste system, he ensured that the constitution offered lower castes a quota in government jobs to gradually uplift them.

In his honor, and as an ode to the progressive document, Dalits sing songs in praise of the constitution and hail it as the upholder of their dignity in a society where they continue to be belittled. Any change to the text was unacceptable. “Their cultural identity is linked to this book,” said Ravish Kumar, a journalist and the host of a popular YouTube news show.

In the south, too, there was a fear of culturally being subsumed by a Hindi-speaking upper-caste elite. Indian federal units, or states, were defined in the 1950s on the basis of language, and to this day south Indians identify themselves on the basis of the language they speak. The Ram temple had no resonance in the southern states, particularly in electorally significant Tamil Nadu, with the highest number of seats regionally. Tamils were wary that the RSS’s homogenization agenda would drown out their cultural ethos and impose a secondary status on the Tamil language.

Manoharan, the political scientist, said that in Tamil Nadu, it was “not so much religious but fear of cultural homogeneity” and “a language policy which will give importance to Hindi speakers over Tamil speakers and upper-caste Tamils over other backward castes.”

In a state where “88 percent people come from so-called lower castes” and “69 percent have jobs under affirmative action through a special act,” people were also extremely worried that the BJP may “water down” the employment quota promised in the constitution, Manoharan added.

The southern Indian states have a longer history of resistance to upper-caste domination, a higher literacy rate, better economies, and a tradition of secular politics. While the BJP maintained its tally of 29 seats from the last election, it is being seen as a poor result considering the inroads the RSS has made in the south.

For instance, in the southwestern state of Kerala, the RSS has more than 5,000 shakhas, or branches, second in number only to Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state—yet “despite the fact that the RSS has thousands of training grounds in Kerala, they are unable to get influence,” said K.M. Sajad Ibrahim, a professor of political science at University of Kerala. “That’s because while religion is important, communal harmony is more important to people here. BJP tries to create tensions, and that doesn’t work here.”

The BJP managed to gain one seat for the first time in Kerala, but that isn’t being attributed to its ideological success or expansion of homogenization project but to the winning candidate’s personal appeal. Suresh Gopi, the winning candidate, is a popular movie star.

In many states in the Hindi belt and even in the south, the BJP did well. The upper castes and urban voters are standing firmly behind Modi. Kumar, the journalist, said it would be foolhardy to dismiss Modi—and the bigger Hindutva, or Hindu nationalist, forces backing him—just yet. He said Hindutva hasn’t lost and only faced a setback. “The BJP was trying to dominate caste politics with Hindutva,” he said, “but the election result shows that dominance has cracked.” However, he added, “it has only cracked—the ideology still has wide-scale acceptance.”

Everyone else Foreign Policy spoke to concurred but added that Hindus are far too diverse to be homogenized. Manoharan said the results exposed the weakness of the homogenization agenda and its faulty premise. “Hindutva’s aim for homogeneity is confounded precisely by a structural feature of the religion-culture it seeks to defend—caste,” he said.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

By Lallan Schoenstein

India’s economic growth is not only supported by U.S. investment, it is closely tied to Israel and the Zionist military. It funds the Zionist regime with $3.7 billion a year. An Indian company owns the Haifa Port. Workers from India are recruited to replace the Palestinian workers from the West Bank. Indian police train in Israel and purchase Israeli security systems. Israel is supporting India’s development of high-tech weapon industries such as the manufacture of drones.

[beardedmrbean]

An 18-year-old schoolboy was shot and killed by so-called cow protection vigilantes in India after they chased him for miles over suspicion of being involved in cattle smuggling.

The incident took place in Faridabad in the northern Indian state of Haryana on 23 August, days after a migrant worker was beaten to death by another cow vigilante group in the state’s Charkhi Dadri district over suspicion of consuming beef.

Cows are considered sacred and worshipped by many Hindus, the religion that makes up a large majority of India’s population. Cow vigilante groups are accused of enforcing, often violently, Indian laws banning cattle slaughter and beef consumption.

Scores of cow “protectors” in recent years have been accused of using violence to carry out extra-judicial activities, often finding themselves at odds with law enforcement. Yet their activities have also received a degree of public support from those who believe they are defending the Hindu faith. Their activities have seen an increase since prime minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 as the head of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The vigilantes were allegedly searching for cattle smugglers when they chased Aryan Mishra’s car for about 18 miles (30km) before opening fire, reported NDTV.

Five members of the group have been arrested in connection with the incident. The accused, identified as Anil Kaushik, Varun, Krishna, Adesh, and Saurabh, claimed they had received information that smugglers were active in the area in large Renault Duster and Toyota Fortuner cars, hoping to pick up cattle.

Mishra and his friends, Harshit and Shanky, were in a Renault Duster car when they were stopped by the vigilantes. The occupants of the car are said to have had a prior dispute with another individual, mistook the vigilantes for their rivals and sped away.

The vigilantes, convinced that the occupants were cattle smugglers, chased the car and opened fire, hitting Mishra. When the car finally stopped, the attackers fired another shot into Mishra’s chest, resulting in his death, reported India Today.

According to the police, the suspects initially attempted to mislead the investigators, saying they threw the weapon into a canal. However, it was later recovered from Kaushik’s home, police said. The arrested men are currently in police custody, and further investigation is underway.

The killing of Mishra comes on the heels of another brutal incident in Haryana where Sabir Malik, a migrant worker from West Bengal, was beaten to death by a group of cow vigilantes on 27 August on suspicion of consuming beef. Authorities arrested seven individuals, including two minors, in connection with Malik’s death, as the state grappled with the rising tide of such crimes.

Hardline Hindu groups have been demanding a complete ban on cow slaughter across India, with several states enacting strict laws against it. Critics say that these laws have emboldened the vigilantes, leading to an increase in attacks on those accused of killing cows for meat or leather – predominantly people from the minority Muslim community and those on the lower rungs of India’s ancient caste system.

Last week, a 55-year-old woman died, reportedly of a panic attack, after police raided her home in Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh state to see if she was storing beef. In the end their searches showed she wasn’t.

Uttar Pradesh enforces strict laws against cow slaughter, with violations punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to Rs500,000 (£4,500). The state’s anti-cow slaughter law not only bans the animal’s killing, but also the sale and transport of beef.

In the neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh, authorities bulldozed the homes of 11 people in June after allegedly finding beef in their refrigerators and cows in their backyards. Police later claimed that the homes were demolished for being illegally built on government land, without providing evidence.

In September last year, police arrested Mohit Yadav, better known by his alias Monu Manesar, after he was accused of inciting deadly religious violence in the north Indian state of Haryana in July.

The head of a unit set up by a hardline Hindu group to protect cows, he was detained for allegedly uploading “objectionable and inflammatory” posts in the run-up to religion violence in Nuh in which at least six people were killed and several injured. He was also accused in the murder of two Muslim men in the neighbouring state of Rajasthan.

In April last year, four members of the right-wing group All India Hindu Mahasabha were arrested in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly slaughtering cows to falsely implicate Muslim men. The arrests were made after police uncovered the group’s involvement in filing a false complaint against four Muslim men for alleged cow slaughter.

In March 2023, police in Bihar arrested three men in connection with the death of a Muslim man, Naseem Qureshi, who was attacked because he was suspected of carrying beef.

On 1 September, an elderly Muslim man was assaulted by his co-passengers on a moving train in Maharashtra’s Nashik district on suspicion of carrying beef. Police arrested three men allegedly involved in the incident after a video of the assault went viral on social media.

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

[shut-up-rabert]

not sure how relevant this is, but im gonna go off anyway coz im in a mood. to the previous anon who said that bjp is being extremist by removing the ABUNDANCE of mughals in textbooks.

you know what would be extremist? if they purposefully blacked out all paragraphs relating to a particular religion or dynasty.

which is what happens if you study in an indian school in some middle eastern countries. we had all (which is already the barest of bare) information related to chhatrapati shivaji maharaj, the cholas, the vedic ages etc. blackened out with thick markers. and if that wasn't enough, if they missed out on blacking something out, they'd make us do it with black or red pens. sounds fucking dystopian doesn't it? that's what extremism is.

removing chapters that glorify the rule of barbarous invaders, that too in the name of avoiding repetition, is not extremism lmao.

Lmao, not even surprised.

The truth is that Indians give too much credit to middle east because of how MBS tackles extremism in his country, which is a frustrating problem here, and UAE because they are “friendly” to other religions, right wing often uses it to put down indian muslims in various issues, but midst all this we forget that these are the same people who give their minorities the bare minimum rights so they will work, who ask immigrant workers to convert, who fund these muslim organisations that throw dirt onto us, fucking attacked Israel in support of a Palestine that wanted all Jews of the region dead.

Their communal bias is not as obvious as Pak or Bangla, because they do not have a cultural crisis ig that’s why, but believe me, their dislike for us even if we are not their priority is there.

As of what you say about Mughals being abundance and how removing them is not extremism, what can I say to that anon other than that with privilege comes ignorance. People really act like Mughal Courts singing and dancing is more important than learning about the Chola expansion, something so crucial to our history that we know nothing about, or even the dynasties of Rajputs, Marathas that played a big role in pre mughal history and mughal resistance.

These Mughals have basically eaten up our textbooks, and there’s supremacists nations out there using it to an advantage by completely deleting our indegenious history given its scarcity, because it won’t affect the current syllabus much.

[personal-ly]

Don't forget that the current Indian government and its capitalist cronies are also trying to support Israel. It was our unions who condemned the export of workers to Israel to replace Palestinian workers. Adani has major investments in Israel. Fuck adani and fuck the maniacs in bjp and rss. Pro Palestinian protestors were arrested in India

[waheedawolf]

i need all non-indians who posted about hindutvawadis' blind support of israel to also post the fact that all major Indian workers' unions, representing over 100 million people (bizarrely also including a BJP affiliated union) have refused to send any workers to replace the dead or "unavailable" Palestinians who worked mostly in israel's construction sector, and called what is happening a genocide explicitly.

[absartakespictures]

How social media is being used to build political communities.

Building political communities has benefited greatly from the use of social media. Regardless of where they live, it enables people to connect with others who share their political opinions. Additionally, it makes it simpler for people to band together and support political issues.

Social media is being utilised in a variety of ways to create political communities. Using groups and forums is one popular method. People may organise events, share information, and discuss politics in these groups and forums. For instance, there are Facebook groups for people who support certain political issues as well as groups for fans of each of the main political parties.

Utilising hashtags is just another way that social media is being utilised to create political communities. People may use hashtags to search for and connect with others who are discussing similar political concerns. For instance, the #MeToo hashtag has been utilised to create a community of those who have been the victims of sexual harassment or assault.

Social media is also being used to create political communities by giving political figures and activists a forum to communicate with their followers. Political leaders may mobilise their fans, offer their opinions, and make announcements on social media. Social media may be used by activists to organise protests, gather money, and spread awareness of vital topics.

The development and organisation of political communities has been significantly impacted by social media. It has made it simpler for individuals to interact with political leaders and activists, organise and mobilise around political issues, and connect with those who share their political beliefs.

Here are some concrete instances of how political communities are being formed through the usage of social media:

Social media has been utilised by the Black Lives Matter movement in the US to create a network of activists opposing racial injustice. The campaign spreads awareness of police brutality and violence against Black people using hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India has amassed a sizable following among young people thanks to social media. The party mobilises its members through social media to propagate its message of Hindu nationalism. The Workers' Party (PT) in Brazil has reached out to its followers in rural regions through social media. The party posts information about its initiatives on social media and also share information about its programs.

Benefits of building political communities on social media

Building political networks on social media has several advantages. First, social media facilitates communication amongst people who hold similar political beliefs. People may feel less alone and more a part of a larger community as a result of this.

Second, social media facilitates the organisation and mobilisation of individuals behind political issues. This is so that individuals may more quickly exchange information, plan activities, and find supporters thanks to social media networks.

Third, social media gives political figures and activists a way to communicate with their followers. This might encourage people to take action and raise public knowledge of political concerns.

Challenges of building political communities on social media

Even while there are numerous advantages, creating political communities on social media has certain drawbacks. The transmission of false information and disinformation via social media is a problem. This can lead to polarisation and conflict within political communities and make it difficult for individuals to determine which information to believe.

The potential for echo chambers in social media is another issue. People in this situation are only given information and viewpoints that support their preexisting ideas. This may cause people to solidify their opinions and become less receptive to novel concepts.

[mithliya]

The thing about that hyperdemona is that she actually comes from a privileged background from her country. A lot of christians from kerala(her state, which is also mine) were from upper caste backgrounds and were casteist feudal lords like their upper caste hindu counterparts. She also admitted to some of her ancestors owning slaves back in the day here,

https://www.tumblr.com/hyperdemona/732628331223302145/do-you-come-from-any-kind-of-noble-family-just?source=share

A lot of kerala christians are very islamophobic and support the BJP,

https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/chrisanghis-rise-christian-right-kerala-170777

It was revolting how she kept trying to defend her racism by citing her father being an immigrant worker in UAE. Trust me, most people from privileged backgrounds like hers who migrate to Gulf countries from kerala are very different from the lower caste and exploited Indian labourers. These NRIs(a term for non residential Indians) usually work white-collar jobs and are one of the richest demographics in kerala.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/nris-and-jewellers-top-keralas-rich-list/articleshow/42655846.cms

That she mixes the experiences of these privileged sections with those of poor, lower caste Indians who actually suffer from racism and discrimination is just further proof of her bigotry. And she really don't care for these exploited workers either, she just want to use them to one-up the middle eastern women who called out her racism. She loves using the experiences of underprivileged people from our country to paint herself as a victim when she never suffered from any of that.

yeah bahrain also has a lot of migrant workers and there absolutely is at least two groups of south asians in the country, the people who work in awful exploitative jobs like construction, domestic work, kitchen work, delivery drivers, etc and then the people who work more prestigious & valued work such as engineers, doctors, even teachers (the latter aren't valued as much but certainly have it a lot better than the people in the first group). of course, in general people are racist regardless but when they realise you're a south asian from a more educated and respected background, the racism is more toned down compared to how they treat domestic & construction workers for example. i grew up being perceived as south asian & ppl still assume im south asian in bahrain and people have directed all sorts of racism at me. even other south asians were racist to me bc i was darker-skinned than my south asian teachers who would look down on me. its a real problem, for sure, regardless of class. but class does make a difference. the way people will be overtly racist about "bengali workers" (from my experience bangladeshis & sri lankans are the ones dehumanised the most, it might also be bc a good number of pakistanis and indians in bahrain can be quite upper class) is quite shocking tbh, like i cant even put into words how vile they can be.

im not going to assume anything about her beliefs based on her being a christian from kerala, i didnt see her expressing the stuff you mentioned ppl of her background often believing in and i think assuming she does believe that falls into stereotyping anyways but. her saying her family had slaves until the mid-1800s is pretty wild to me, especially saying they enslaved a whole caste of people in her area... and yeah i think based on that, her father probably is not one of the people who faced exploitation akin to slavery in UAE, the type of exploitation that has claimed the lives of up to tens of thousands of south asians in the gulf per year.

i do want to emphasise again tho that i think even more well-off south asians can face racism in the gulf, in general people in the gulf are quite racist and ive had to grow up facing that directed at me a lot. quite colourist and classist too. but my light-skinned, south asian, well-off friends have generally not faced that kind of prejudice so.. i do think the racism is several factors combined and if you have a certain background as a south asian in the gulf, you can have it a lot better than for example black/part-black arabs & dark-skinned people of colour, or even filipinos & indonesians, in the gulf will. and certainly worlds better than what a lot of south asians in the gulf experience.

south asians in the gulf do not have one shared experience ultimately. but i think many will notice the contempt people have for south asians, even if they don't face that contempt directly and have privileges protecting them from that level of racism.

all that said.... palestinians are in a different region and have literally nothing to do with that stuff. palestinians get treated like shit in the gulf too. it makes no sense to say racist shit about palestinians and then justify it by saying its ok bc arabs in UAE are racist to south asians, it really doesn't. it doesnt make sense to justify being racist by pointing to arabs also being racist, but like, using it against palestinians is nonsensical.

[odnewsin]

Clash over political enmity leaves four of a family critically injured in Nayagarh

Tension erupted at Chandibasta village under Town police limits in Nayagarh after four members of a family were allegedly attacked by BJD workers over political enmity on Monday. As per the allegation, several BJD workers attacked the members of the family, which supports BJP, with sharp weapons leaving four of them critically injured. The injured were first rushed to Nayagarh hospital and later…

[metamatar]

i mean i already count the farmers' victory as "shoving institutions aside" protests and militancy can evolve after all. thank you for your answer. i still don't see how that's any different from reformism (although you mean to use it as a temporary policy) but i kind of get how india is in a dire situation where anything plus and inch is considered sedition and treason

i dont think so. the farmers protests articulated pretty much an improved vision of the status quo – higher minimum support prices set by the state, better rates on loans and such. perhaps a little pushback on major corporations but thats it. this is not really a radical vision of the agriculture ministry or historical food security policy. it is a response to rural distress. the protests didn't even succeed at articulating a coherent vision to protect precarious, seasonal agricultural workers (mostly bc farmer includes peasants and landlords) which is what was such a sticking point complicating the involvement of a lot of the dalit groups.

all the big protests over the last few years have been desperate attempts to roll back some new horror the bjp has brought up – their has been very little radicalism in vision ideologically. and not much in tactics either. nobody even created their own cool zone. it was still really really hard! but they did win because they were exceptionally brave and strategic about their demands. it didn't really succeed at setting up the stage for abolishing any institutions because it wasn't what they were aiming to do imo.

[mariacallous]

India’s Middle East policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is often seen as both successful and perplexing. The governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to which Modi belongs, has a nationalist Hindu-right bent, and yet India’s outreach toward the Persian Gulf region under the current government, particularly to the Arab world, has been a defining success over the past decade.

The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, sparked by the latter’s audacious strike on Oct. 7, has brought under the spotlight New Delhi’s diplomatic balance between a “new” Middle East and its traditional support for the “old.” The new is defined by New Delhi’s increasingly close proximity to the security ecosystem of the United States, while the old is highlighted by a visible shift away from the idea of nonalignment. India’s participation in new tools of economic diplomacy—such as the I2U2 minilateral between India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United States, as well as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC) announced on sidelines of the G-20 summit in September—are evidence of these not-so-subtle changes in posture, led by a burgeoning consensus between New Delhi and Washington to push back against an increasingly aggressive China.

India has been a steadfast supporter of the Palestinian cause since its independence, viewing the crisis through moral support for Palestinian sovereignty and as an anti-colonial struggle. In 1975, India became the first non-Arab state to grant full diplomatic status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Its then-chief, Yasser Arafat, regularly visited New Delhi. That relationship has become more complicated.

Last month, Modi condemned Hamas terrorism just weeks before the youth wing of Jamaat-e-Islami in the southern state of Kerala, which has close ties with the Gulf, hosted a virtual talk by former Hamas leader Khaled Mashal—showcasing the wide range of views that have long existed within India.

After decades of leaning toward the Arab world, in 1992, then-Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao established full diplomatic ties with Israel. This was done at a time of great change in the across the subcontinent, marked by the country’s economic liberalization following years of crisis. However, Israel was quietly building a strong foundation for this eventuality over the previous decades, supplying India with military aid in two crucial wars that it fought against Pakistan in 1971, before normalization, and then again in 1999, after full diplomatic ties were established.

This normalization forced India to perform a balancing act between three poles of power in the region: the Arab world, Israel, and Iran. All three remain important to Indian interests. The larger Arab world hosts more than 7 million Indian workers, who send back billions of dollars into the Indian economy as remittances; Israel remains a critical technology and defense partner; and Iran’s strategic location helps promote Indian interests in both Central Asia and a now much more volatile Afghanistan under a Taliban regime.

Fast-forward to 2023, and Indian foreign policy toward the region increasingly looks more pragmatic in design, balancing opportunities and challenges in an increasingly fractured global order, or what scholars Michael Kimmage and Hannah Notte have aptly termed “the age of great-power distraction.” As India’s economy rapidly grows, setting its sights on becoming the third largest in the world by 2030, so does its desire for influence. And the Middle East, from a foreign-policy perspective, is where a lot of this influence is being tested.

A recent spat between India and Qatar offers an interesting example for managing inflection points. In October, Doha announced a verdict of death sentences for eight former Indian Navy officials who were working for a private contractor involved with Qatar’s defense modernization. They were charged, according to reports, of spying on behalf of Israel. Since then, New Delhi has responded legally, appealing the Qatari court’s verdict while both countries continue to keep the judicial verdict confidential.

This is not the first time New Delhi has become embroiled in the regional fissures of the Middle East. In 2012 and 2021, Israeli diplomats were targeted in bombings in the capital, and in both cases, India hinted at Iranian involvement and having to delicately manage the situation behind closed doors—effectively telling Iran and Israel not to let their conflict spread to Indian soil.

Today, India is becoming more of an economic stakeholder in the Middle East, and by association, its security postures. This is not just the result of New Delhi’s reoriented foreign policy designs, but also depends on the personal involvement of Modi himself.

In 2017, Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel. Considering his brand of politics, he also visited Ramallah in the West Bank in 2018 to maintain India’s diplomatic consistency. He hosted Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2019 at the height of the Jamal Khashoggi murder scandal, when the Saudis were not welcome in most capitals. And finally, Modi has visited the United Arab Emirates (UAE) five times since taking charge in 2015, and is often found referring to UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan as “brother.”

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, Modi has talked to six regional leaders to put India’s position across, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. The Modi government has attempted to walk a fine line between Israel’s counterterrorism aims against Hamas and the Palestinian humanitarian crisis. Countering terrorism has been an important tool for Modi’s international diplomacy, coming from India’s efforts to isolate Pakistan internationally for its state-sponsored terrorism.

But Indian diplomacy in the Gulf also has another objective: strengthening India’s position on Kashmir, which defines the India-Pakistan conflict, and weakening Islamabad’s case within organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In February 2019, India’s then-Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj became the first Indian minister to be invited to speak at the organization since 1969, an event hailed as a major victory of Indian diplomacy; Pakistan was represented by an empty chair during Swaraj’s speech.

New Delhi’s other expanding relationship has been with the United States. In Asia, the institutionalization of mechanisms such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has brought Washington and New Delhi closer than ever before as both look to work together to counter an increasingly erratic China. India’s buy-in with the United States has not been just about the Asian theater, but the Middle East as well, with measures such as the I2U2 and IMEEC taking shape.

However, India’s own domestic politics have often also presented a challenge. In 2022, comments made by a BJP spokesperson against the Prophet Mohammed invoked widespread condemnation by Islamic nations, including those building close partnerships with India. Previously, in private, Anti-Muslim narratives in Indian domestic politics have been an area of discussion between Arab states and New Delhi. During this period, India has also pushed back against reports by the U.S. State Department on what the department described as the country’s deteriorating religious freedoms, criticizing them as “biased.” Despite these differences, strategic cooperation has remained steadfast.

The establishment of I2U2 was a direct result of the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2021. Both Israel and the UAE have been quick to establish a strong economic bilateral relationship since then. The accords have also helped countries such as India to increase economic and political cooperation with greater ease.

It is important to note here that while the I2U2 is seen as an economic cooperation platform, all member states, have taken part in expansive military maneuvers in the region in some shape or form. And this includes India, where all three services of its armed forces, the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, have increased their outreach and participation.

Beyond the I2U2, the announcement of the IMEEC is New Delhi’s latest sign of alignment with U.S. geoeconomic objectives. Already positioned by some as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the idea is to connect the Middle East with Europe and India through a trade corridor that can rival the centrality of the Suez Canal.

But countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, central to IMEEC, are also members of the Belt and Road Initiative and have interest in developing close partnerships with Beijing. Propaganda outlets of the Chinese Communist Party have already labeled IMEEC as a mere “castle in the air” The European Union, the United States, and India alike have marketed the corridor as the next intracontinental highway for digital and economic connectivity. However, IMEEC is in nascent stages of development, and no blueprint is currently on offer on how it is going to function.

These new economic highways, minilaterals, and reoriented geopolitics are transforming Indian foreign policy from one that has always been risk-averse to one that is willing to be a little more adventurous. Today, India is much closer to the United States than it has been at any point in its independent history.

Between its increasingly West-centric defense and technology shopping list—a historical break away from having a predominantly Soviet-era military ecosystem that continues to rely on Russian know-how even today—and the India-U.S. 2+2 dialogues regularly setting new precedents, it is not that surprising to see India partner with the United States in theaters such as the Middle East, where the Abraham Accords have leveled the playing field in a limited fashion between Israel, the United States, and a part of the Arab world.

Simultaneously, a counterargument against deeper U.S. collaboration from India also comes from the time that India helped the United States with the Iran nuclear deal prior to its unceremonious end in 2018. New Delhi had let go of significant diplomatic access to align with U.S. requirements by ending nearly all oil imports from Iran, which has vast reserves, offers good deals, and is geographically conveniently located. This fed into the then-U.S. policy of strong sanctions against Tehran to push it to negotiate with the U.N. Security Council’s group of permanent members. Experiences such as the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the deal continue to fuel a strong undercurrent of distrust toward Washington in Indian political circles.

India’s own position of upholding its strategic autonomy and self-styled leadership of the global south may find it often at odds with its strategic role in the Middle East as a partner of the United States. One of India’s longest-serving successes in this region has been its embrace of nonalignment. The fact that the I2U2 was almost immediately identified by some observers as the Middle East Quad gave it a texture of being an extension of a core U.S. interest—that of containing China. While India has never officially used such terminology, these portrayals in the media were detrimental to the kind of neutrality that New Delhi still hopes to preserve.

Finally, India’s outlook toward the Middle East is looking beyond the traditional centrality of energy and migration. Today, from the beginning, it wants to be a partner in the region’s post-oil growth designs. Indian diplomats in the region, earlier almost exclusively bogged down with migrant matters, are now tasked to secure foreign direct investments from the large Arab sovereign wealth funds. Modi’s majority government, in power since 2015, has been palatable to Arab monarchs who do not have to navigate a labyrinth of India’s coalition politics looking for fast decision-making, which they are accustomed to.

Whether its own leaders like it or not, India has bought into aspects of future security architectures with its membership of the I2U2 and IMEEC in one of the world’s most flammable regions. This is a bold and commendable posture for an economy that will require significant global input for its challenging future economic goals. It is also palatable for the Middle East to have India as a major energy market to diversify its exports and offset Chinese influence over critical commodities such as oil and gas.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 8th November. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated an inquiry into Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, intensifying a politically charged debate with significant implications for Bharatiya politics. This investigation follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a BJP supporter in the Allahabad High Court, raising questions about Gandhi’s citizenship. The Delhi High Court is also involved, currently hearing a separate but related petition led by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. As these legal proceedings unfold, they could impact Gandhi’s political future and the broader landscape of Bharatiya politics. The Basis of the Investigation: Dual Petitions At the center of the case are two concurrent petitions filed by BJP members, each questioning Gandhi’s citizenship. The Allahabad High Court petition, filed by BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir, calls for a criminal investigation, while Subramanian Swamy’s petition in the Delhi High Court urges the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to review Gandhi’s citizenship status. Swamy alleges that Gandhi is not an Bharatiya citizen but a “citizen of Britain.” This distinction in petition goals underscores the complexity of the case and raises concerns about the legitimacy of Gandhi’s political role if he holds dual citizenship. Legal Perspectives: The Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court Cases The Delhi High Court, led by a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, has opted for a cautious approach, aiming to avoid duplicative legal orders. To that end, the court instructed Shishir to provide an affidavit detailing progress in the Allahabad High Court, where proceedings have reportedly advanced, with Shishir submitting confidential evidence to the CBI. Meanwhile, Swamy has argued that his petition focuses solely on the revocation of Gandhi’s citizenship, while Shishir’s petition seeks criminal prosecution. The overlapping yet distinct objectives of these cases have led to procedural delays, with the Delhi High Court rescheduling the next hearing for December 6 to allow for additional documentation. Subramanian Swamy’s Claims and the Ministry of Home Affairs Subramanian Swamy has long alleged that Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen, a claim that he has pursued legally since 2015. He argues that Gandhi’s citizenship disqualifies him from holding public office in Bharat. Swamy’s petition requests that the MHA respond to his concerns, but the ministry has yet to issue a conclusive statement. Given the sensitive nature of the case, the MHA’s involvement is crucial, as any decision they make on citizenship could have serious political consequences. This case thus brings to light legal questions about nationality, political eligibility, and the legal boundaries governing Bharatiya citizenship. Political Ramifications of the Investigation The investigation into Gandhi’s citizenship has sparked widespread debate in Bharat, with significant political implications. Gandhi, a prominent leader of the Congress Party and currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, holds a critical role in opposing the ruling BJP. Allegations questioning his nationality could undermine his legitimacy and fuel political narratives against the Congress Party. The BJP has seized upon the investigation, using it to bolster claims of alleged corruption and dishonesty within the Congress Party. However, Congress supporters argue that the inquiry is politically motivated and intended to undermine Gandhi’s influence in national politics. Public Opinion and Media Coverage Bharatiya media has heavily covered the case, sparking intense discussions on news channels, social media, and public forums. The public’s reaction is split, reflecting the country’s polarizing political climate. For some, the inquiry is a legitimate investigation that seeks to ensure adherence to constitutional standards. For others, it represents a diversionary tactic by the BJP to damage the opposition’s reputation.

The investigation has revived debates over nationalism, integrity in public office, and transparency in political leadership, highlighting issues that resonate strongly with voters. Legal and Constitutional Concerns Surrounding Citizenship in Bharat At the heart of the case lies Bharat’s strict stance on citizenship and the legal framework that bars individuals with dual citizenship from holding public office. The Constitution prohibits non-citizens from serving in Parliament, a rule intended to safeguard national interests and ensure the loyalty of public officials. Should evidence surface supporting the claims of Gandhi’s dual citizenship, it could lead to severe legal consequences, including disqualification from office. The legal standards set by the Constitution aim to prevent conflicts of interest, especially concerning foreign allegiances or influences. Congress Party’s Defense Strategy In response to the allegations, Congress leaders have accused the BJP of launching a politically motivated campaign. Congress has consistently asserted Gandhi’s Bharatiya citizenship and his right to participate in Bharatiya politics. Legal experts for the Congress Party argue that there is no substantial evidence supporting the claims, describing the investigation as an attempt to shift public attention from issues like inflation, unemployment, and economic reform. In the coming months, the Congress Party is likely to escalate its defense, possibly mobilizing legal and political resources to counteract the allegations. The Broader Implications for Bharatiya Politics This case carries significant implications beyond Gandhi’s political career, touching on fundamental questions about Bharat’s democratic values, political transparency, and the role of citizenship in defining national identity. The investigation’s outcome could set a legal precedent for the eligibility of political candidates, particularly those with international ties. If the courts rule in favor of revoking Gandhi’s citizenship, it could lead to increased scrutiny of political leaders and their affiliations. Conversely, if Gandhi’s citizenship is upheld, the ruling could be seen as a vindication for the Congress Party and a potential setback for the BJP’s strategy. Conclusion: A Case That Will Shape Bharat’s Political Future The investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status is more than a legal matter; it is a critical juncture that could reshape Bharatiya politics. With the CBI’s involvement and the dual proceedings in the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the case underscores the highly polarized nature of Bharatiya politics. The outcome could either bolster the Congress Party’s position or serve as a decisive blow to one of its key figures. The focus on citizenship reflects broader societal questions regarding national loyalty, the integrity of political leadership, and the standards to which public officials are held. From an objective viewpoint, the investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship appears to be as much a political maneuver as it is a legal inquiry. While allegations of dual citizenship are serious and deserve careful scrutiny, the timing and nature of the petitions suggest that political motivations are likely at play. In a democracy, the principles of accountability and transparency should apply to all leaders, regardless of political affiliation. However, cases such as this one often raise concerns about whether such inquiries are used strategically to weaken political opponents. For Bharat’s democratic values to remain robust, it is essential that any legal action taken is grounded in factual evidence and not used as a political weapon. Ultimately, the decision of the courts will determine not only Gandhi’s political future but will also signal the degree to which Bharatiya politics can rise above partisanship to prioritize the rule of law. As this case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for the resilience of Bharat’s democratic institutions and their ability to balance political interests with legal integrity.

  The post Dual Citizenship Allegations Against Rahul Gandhi: Inside the CBI Investigation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 8th November. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated an inquiry into Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, intensifying a politically charged debate with significant implications for Bharatiya politics. This investigation follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a BJP supporter in the Allahabad High Court, raising questions about Gandhi’s citizenship. The Delhi High Court is also involved, currently hearing a separate but related petition led by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. As these legal proceedings unfold, they could impact Gandhi’s political future and the broader landscape of Bharatiya politics. The Basis of the Investigation: Dual Petitions At the center of the case are two concurrent petitions filed by BJP members, each questioning Gandhi’s citizenship. The Allahabad High Court petition, filed by BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir, calls for a criminal investigation, while Subramanian Swamy’s petition in the Delhi High Court urges the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to review Gandhi’s citizenship status. Swamy alleges that Gandhi is not an Bharatiya citizen but a “citizen of Britain.” This distinction in petition goals underscores the complexity of the case and raises concerns about the legitimacy of Gandhi’s political role if he holds dual citizenship. Legal Perspectives: The Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court Cases The Delhi High Court, led by a bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, has opted for a cautious approach, aiming to avoid duplicative legal orders. To that end, the court instructed Shishir to provide an affidavit detailing progress in the Allahabad High Court, where proceedings have reportedly advanced, with Shishir submitting confidential evidence to the CBI. Meanwhile, Swamy has argued that his petition focuses solely on the revocation of Gandhi’s citizenship, while Shishir’s petition seeks criminal prosecution. The overlapping yet distinct objectives of these cases have led to procedural delays, with the Delhi High Court rescheduling the next hearing for December 6 to allow for additional documentation. Subramanian Swamy’s Claims and the Ministry of Home Affairs Subramanian Swamy has long alleged that Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen, a claim that he has pursued legally since 2015. He argues that Gandhi’s citizenship disqualifies him from holding public office in Bharat. Swamy’s petition requests that the MHA respond to his concerns, but the ministry has yet to issue a conclusive statement. Given the sensitive nature of the case, the MHA’s involvement is crucial, as any decision they make on citizenship could have serious political consequences. This case thus brings to light legal questions about nationality, political eligibility, and the legal boundaries governing Bharatiya citizenship. Political Ramifications of the Investigation The investigation into Gandhi’s citizenship has sparked widespread debate in Bharat, with significant political implications. Gandhi, a prominent leader of the Congress Party and currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, holds a critical role in opposing the ruling BJP. Allegations questioning his nationality could undermine his legitimacy and fuel political narratives against the Congress Party. The BJP has seized upon the investigation, using it to bolster claims of alleged corruption and dishonesty within the Congress Party. However, Congress supporters argue that the inquiry is politically motivated and intended to undermine Gandhi’s influence in national politics. Public Opinion and Media Coverage Bharatiya media has heavily covered the case, sparking intense discussions on news channels, social media, and public forums. The public’s reaction is split, reflecting the country’s polarizing political climate. For some, the inquiry is a legitimate investigation that seeks to ensure adherence to constitutional standards. For others, it represents a diversionary tactic by the BJP to damage the opposition’s reputation.

The investigation has revived debates over nationalism, integrity in public office, and transparency in political leadership, highlighting issues that resonate strongly with voters. Legal and Constitutional Concerns Surrounding Citizenship in Bharat At the heart of the case lies Bharat’s strict stance on citizenship and the legal framework that bars individuals with dual citizenship from holding public office. The Constitution prohibits non-citizens from serving in Parliament, a rule intended to safeguard national interests and ensure the loyalty of public officials. Should evidence surface supporting the claims of Gandhi’s dual citizenship, it could lead to severe legal consequences, including disqualification from office. The legal standards set by the Constitution aim to prevent conflicts of interest, especially concerning foreign allegiances or influences. Congress Party’s Defense Strategy In response to the allegations, Congress leaders have accused the BJP of launching a politically motivated campaign. Congress has consistently asserted Gandhi’s Bharatiya citizenship and his right to participate in Bharatiya politics. Legal experts for the Congress Party argue that there is no substantial evidence supporting the claims, describing the investigation as an attempt to shift public attention from issues like inflation, unemployment, and economic reform. In the coming months, the Congress Party is likely to escalate its defense, possibly mobilizing legal and political resources to counteract the allegations. The Broader Implications for Bharatiya Politics This case carries significant implications beyond Gandhi’s political career, touching on fundamental questions about Bharat’s democratic values, political transparency, and the role of citizenship in defining national identity. The investigation’s outcome could set a legal precedent for the eligibility of political candidates, particularly those with international ties. If the courts rule in favor of revoking Gandhi’s citizenship, it could lead to increased scrutiny of political leaders and their affiliations. Conversely, if Gandhi’s citizenship is upheld, the ruling could be seen as a vindication for the Congress Party and a potential setback for the BJP’s strategy. Conclusion: A Case That Will Shape Bharat’s Political Future The investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status is more than a legal matter; it is a critical juncture that could reshape Bharatiya politics. With the CBI’s involvement and the dual proceedings in the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the case underscores the highly polarized nature of Bharatiya politics. The outcome could either bolster the Congress Party’s position or serve as a decisive blow to one of its key figures. The focus on citizenship reflects broader societal questions regarding national loyalty, the integrity of political leadership, and the standards to which public officials are held. From an objective viewpoint, the investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship appears to be as much a political maneuver as it is a legal inquiry. While allegations of dual citizenship are serious and deserve careful scrutiny, the timing and nature of the petitions suggest that political motivations are likely at play. In a democracy, the principles of accountability and transparency should apply to all leaders, regardless of political affiliation. However, cases such as this one often raise concerns about whether such inquiries are used strategically to weaken political opponents. For Bharat’s democratic values to remain robust, it is essential that any legal action taken is grounded in factual evidence and not used as a political weapon. Ultimately, the decision of the courts will determine not only Gandhi’s political future but will also signal the degree to which Bharatiya politics can rise above partisanship to prioritize the rule of law. As this case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for the resilience of Bharat’s democratic institutions and their ability to balance political interests with legal integrity.

  The post Dual Citizenship Allegations Against Rahul Gandhi: Inside the CBI Investigation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[6nikhilum6]

Internal Tensions Surface in Pune BJP as Allegations of Sabotage Emerge; Party Worker Behind Modi Temple Resigns

Mundhe accused BJP MLAs of appointing office-bearers to strengthen their personal support base, overlooking long-serving party members. “Former office-bearers are insulted, excluded from meetings, and ignored during the election process,” he added. Mundhe further alleged that development funds were being spent in areas represented by newer BJP members, leaving out the areas of long-term party…