Daily Archives: December 3, 2021

The Prime Minister pitched a new Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021 as a way to keep people safe online. The bill that has been proposed will do little to achieve that. It isnt about safety at all. It is about defamation law.

In some dramatic respects, it undermines the ability of people who have their reputation harmed to get a positive outcome through defamation law.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, rebranding as Meta.Credit:AP

For one thing, it would undo the High Courts judgment in the case of Dylan Voller, which found that media companies were the publishers of defamatory material posted to their social media pages by members of the public and so potentially liable for damages. A by-product of the Voller case was that media companies now needed to take a more active role in moderating comments, or turning them off, to avoid defamation liability. It made social media safer for the people being trolled. This new law would undo that.

It would also undo the ability to sue an online platform, such as Facebook, to prevent it profiteering from a business model that harms reputation. Under current law, platforms can be sued but have defences if they are unaware of the content. Those defences would be replaced with effective immunity under the proposed law.

Why is the government gifting American multinationals rights that arent enjoyed by other Australians? If you publish someone elses defamation, you wont have immunity.

Loading

The introduction of a complaints resolution process for social media is a good thing, and a long time coming. (Academic Kim Gould argued for small-claims dispute resolution for defamation in 2018.) Increasingly, as a UTS report showed in 2017, defamation litigation is between normal people rather than public figures or media companies. A complaints-resolution process would encourage regular punters who dont want to spend money on lawyers to solve fights themselves. That part of the legislation could be salvaged while other parts should be thrown in the bin.

It could be fairly argued that compelling individuals to reveal their identities online, as proposed this legislation, would lead to censorship and oppression of minority voices. It may have a chilling effect on reports of corporate and government misconduct, and allegations of a #MeToo nature, if the people raising the alarm are forced to identify themselves. Perhaps that was the point.

A weird part of the legislation is the ability to obtain unmasking orders from the Federal Court to identify the real humans behind complaints. We can already seek to unmask trolls by various court orders, in some cases subpoenas and, in others, a special kind of injunction called a Norwich Pharmacal order. The weirdness of the proposal is also reflected in its undermining of a law-reform process led by the states that had been running for years. I attended a roundtable meeting led by the NSW government on this very issue just months ago. The experts have seemingly been ignored, except for those lobbying for Facebook et al and Newscorp.

Read more from the original source:

The government is trolling us with its anti-troll bill - The Sydney Morning Herald

India, the nation long being under colonial oppression started its journey of foreign policy with the ideology of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehrus Non-Alignment; abstaining from taking sides of the bipolar power blocs and securing its newly gained national sovereignty and independence. But soon after, it realised the crux of surviving in the internationally interlinked world that the countries were fast approaching towards. Therefore, in 1971, India joined hands with the Soviet Union in a Treaty of Friendship, but with the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991 and the United States emerging as the sole superpower, India felt back into the state of isolation and helplessness.

As the famous saying goes on to say dont put all your eggs in one basket, India soon learnt from its mistakes to not put all its might and trust into one entity as concepts such as trust and no strings attached are non-existent elements of global politics and international relations.

Today, the 21st century is largely seen as an Asian century, the century where Asias burgeoning economy and demographic dividend will make it rise to everyones notice and be the talk of the center stage. This is what is envisioned by experts and to no surprise it is what is slowly molding to be the fact; a fact that is greatly favoring the Peoples Republic of China.

Despite the pandemics birth from Wuhan and the global economic stagnation in 2020, China managed to log 2.3 percent growth for 2020, becoming the only major economy that grew during a year when the virus exacted a devastating global toll (Gerry Shih, 2021). This shows the success rate of the country into turning its far-sighted China Dream a reality. It is of no surprise that the rise of China is rampant, aggressive in some instances, strategic and far-sighted into changing the existing world order; posing a threat to the rest of the major power houses today.

India, being the largest rival neighbour to China has a lot at stake, for which it has shifted its foreign policy from hedging for to strategically hedging against the collective threat imposed by China. Contemporary geopolitical and strategic circumstances present a multifaceted challenge to Indias foreign policy, with regards to its neighbourhood, border and the Indian Ocean region, for which incorporating a pragmatic realpolitik approach is the need of the hour.

What balancing China means is to strengthen Indias capacity and linkages in order for it to be well-equipped to counter Chinese aggression. India has been working towards this aspect in the following ways-

-India has embarked on its own Diamond Necklace policy to counter Chinas String of Pearls through which it is building ports in strategic points such as Singapore, Indonesia, Oman, Seychelles and Iran and strategically cooperated with Mongolia, Japan, Vietnam and the Central Asian regions.

-India-Russia and Indo-Pak relations although sour, have been tried to reconcile in the recent past as maintaining a somewhat cordial relationship with Chinas ally should be one of Indias priority as both the nations are militarily heavy. India has built its defence cooperation with Russia and Putin recently told that there is no contradiction in the relationship with India, giving it a stronger tie. Russia has also managed to show great support to India during its fight for Pandemic. Maintaining this cordial relationship is of great benefit to both and is a way towards balancing relations.

-In addition to all this, what is more important today to withstand international threat is the coming together of like-minded states that are willing to support each other and target China with a common motive. India has therefore, signed bilateral and multilateral agreements on different fronts to achieve its hedging goals, which will be further looked upon ahead in the paper

-Along with external ties, India needs to be well-equipped domestically as well by building up its defence capabilities. It is here that Indias atmanirbhar (self-reliant) initiative plays importance.

However, on the flip-side, India cannot manage independently without China. The two being giant players in Asia with the two largest populated countries in the world and more so, being geographically in close proximity and economically dependent on each other, it is inevitable for them to have zero contacts. Therefore, whilst battling Chinas String of pearls and border disputes, India must also be wary of having a middle ground with China wherein it can conduct its peaceful coexistence and continue its trade relations.

Overall, it can be said that New Delhis policy of strategic hedging works on a mode of attempting to find a modus vivendi with Beijing, while also slowly moving towards building security and political links with other regional and international powers as an insurgence against China. The Modi government has adopted a mixed strategy towards asymmetric rival China by maintaining a relationship of cooperation at the regional level (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), competition at the regional level (Indo-Pacific), rejection of Chinas unilateral initiatives (Belt and Road Initiative), and deterrence along the Himalayas and in the Indian Ocean (Manjeet S. Pardesi, 2021).

When the survival of a state is threatened by a hegemonic state or a coalition of stronger states, they seek to join forces with other states and establish an alliance to preserve its own independence by keeping in check the power of the other state. This is the Balance of threat theory (Stephen M, 1985), wherein the threat levels can be affected by geographical proximity, offensive power, and aggressive intentionsand when all this is together met with one nation alone, the severity of forming coalition and strategically hedging speaks for itself.

The United States

If the rise of China poses a direct threat on someone, it is United States hegemony. US being the super power in the globalized multipolar world, while India being the largest democracy, an emerging economy and a key important player in Asia proves both the states to be in a mutually benefitting coalition.

The two biggest democracies have joined hands on various fronts such as pursuing the joint interest in freedom of navigation in the highly contentious South China Sea where China has shown a great deal of interest as well. The US recently has shown a shift in their focus to the Asia-Pacific region through its new policy of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its decision to station 2500 marines in Australia. This has been regarded by China, who staked claim over South China Sea, as a hedging strategy if not outright containment by the USA. In 2020, Indo-US ties have elevated to a comprehensive global strategic partnership. This has been a great achievement in Indias vision for development. Moreover, both the nations have successfully concluded three 2+2 dialogues, wherein USA reiterates to support India in defending its territorial sovereignty against the greater threat, referring to China. In addition to these, the highlights also follow the four foundational agreements between the two nations, which are Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) and Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). The two nations have also released a Joint Statement on shared Indo-USA goals in the Asia-Pacific region. The developments so far have been quite beneficial on both sides and are a great strategic hedging handling on Indias part. And to top this policy of strategic hedging is the establishment of QUAD (Quadrilateral Strategic Dialogue) between the four members- United States, Japan, Australia and India with their common vision of securing global order, liberal trading and freedom of navigation between the countries. The informal dialogue between these four nations has seen to be a driving force is curtailing a rising China.

Japan

Indias foreign policy is built on its three foundational pillars, which are security, economic development and status and Japan plays quite a significant role in all three aspects. This bilateral relation is of great benefit to India. Japan and Indias upward trajectory gives it a status of being Special Strategic and Global Partnership, transforming the relation into a cornerstone of Indias Act East Policy. The relationship between Asias largest democracies is deemed to be Asias fastest growing relationship as well. Japan was the first country with which India held its 2+2 ministerial level dialogue which along with military and defence talks, also shared concerns of Chinas rise in the region. As Japan acquires world class navy and high-tech capabilities; if the two countries continue to add concrete securities, a high hope is instilled in this strategic relationship of becoming a game-changer in Asia. The two countries have already deepened ties in the field of maritime defence and infrastructure such as the construction of Indias first high speed railway corridor between Mumbai and Ahmadabad.

Australia

The two nations have had a cordial relationship even before independence and continue to share common interests in trade, sustainable development, and student-to-student ties. It has been building its strategic partnership and recognizes Indias critical role in the Indian Ocean and therefore, the two nations are committed to working together to enhance maritime cooperation, along with engaging in a naval exercise called AUSIDEX since 2015. Trilateral engagements with crucial nations like Indonesia and Japan, deeper engagement with regional groups like the Indian Ocean Rim Association and East Asia Summit and the very efficient quadrilateral dialogue with Japan and US have all contributed in strengthening the ties between India and Australia. A cordial relation with Australia will help India in the long run as by 2027, India is expected to have worlds largest population and henceforth require the up-skilling of 400 million people. Australia is well-equipped to assist with this huge need for knowledge-sharing, education and skill development. The two countries also have enormous potential to build on their people-to-people links and thus their soft power influence (Parakkal, 2018). India is the third largest source of immigrants to Australia and the second largest source for skilled professionals. The pandemic is seen to have exacerbated Sino-Australian relations and this further strengthens Australias relations with India is managing China.

European Union

The recent past has seen a reboot in the relations between India and EU which have both embarked on the journey of resuming the long stalled talks on a free trade deal with an aim to strengthen their economic cooperation in the face of an increasing Chinese assertion.

In 2013, trade talks suspended between the two nations but today it rises together to hedge strategically amidst the pandemic. The nations aim to double the trade by 2030 which shows the optimism it withholds for the future endeavours.

In a speech, Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar highlighted how the pandemic has shown the necessity of diversifying supply chains, especially for the EU. He says Europe is looking at strategic autonomy, looking at a multipolar world, which is actually hedging its risk (Jaishankar, 2021). This was told in the backdrop of repercussions faced by EU and more so, for the majority of the world for being overly dependent on China for trade. Glorifying on this aspect, India has an edge to build connections in the European world and sustain Chinese growth.

In addition to the trade boon, EU countries also signed the Indo-Pacific Strategy that aims to impose greater European influence in areas of Chinese superiority. Keeping this in hand, the two nations remain steadfast on building infrastructure across Europe, Asia and Africa in the name of connectivity partnership. It doesnt brand it to be an anti-Beijing plotting, but a mere alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative of china, a way of disallowing Chinese investments.

Conclusion

Today it can be said that the world has come up together, galvanised in order to counter China in the changing world order. This pushback against China has been manifesting itself in multiple ways and in particular, by the regional players who have been successful in persuading more coordinated actions along the way so as to create a more stable balance of power in these highly tumultuous world that we live in.

The complex rivalry between India and China has led to hedging strategically by a mixed approach of cooperation, deterrence and balancing, which is seen to be working efficiently for India till now. After all, Indias ultimate aim is to build its own capabilities without overtly provoking China and silently transform itself to be a competition. To achieve this, India is building its relation with Chinas neighbours such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, along with maintaining a cordial relationship with Russia and mending relations with Pakistan and ultimately gaining support from the western nations in strategic cooperation with a common aim.

It is evident today how Chinas belligerent agenda on regional states has caused it a greater pushback with the unity of the rest of the world against it. The BRI is confronted with numerous fault lines, the Indo-Pacific is well-established, QUAD resurrected and various regional players are beginning to engage with each other much more cohesively.

The only concern that remains today is the growing influence China has over Indias neighbours through its debt-trap diplomacy and its aggressive wolf-warrior diplomacy, for which India needs to make sure to make the neighbouring countries believe in the hidden agenda and bring unity with India in countering the spread and rise of China. Indias vaccine-maitri initiative was a good way of handling the neighbourhood, but more needs to be done in this aspect.

The way forward is to accept each others legitimacy in certain aspects and hedge accordingly in others. Military escalation such as in 2020 Ladakh is to be prevented in order for both to maintain its relations. To paraphrase Deng Xiaoping (1988), unless China and India are able to co-exist peacefully, there will be no Asian century.

Related

Read more:

Chinas rise in power and Indias rise in fear: Strategic hedging amidst growing threat - Modern Diplomacy

Editorial: Will we revert to some semblance of the old normal in 2022? Should we want to?

The pandemic has brought us no end of idioms, old and new, from social distancing to covidiot. Few, though, have served us as well as the before timesa bit of wistful shorthand for life before masks and border closures and denialist mobs who regard hospitals as symbols of state oppression.

The expression is a mainstay of apocalyptic sci-fi, whose origins are pleasingly on point. Its been traced to a 1966 episode of the original Star Trek, in which the crew of the Enterprise encounters a planet full of children whose parents have been obliterated by a deadly pathogen; to them, the before time is a period when adults inhabited their world. Today, we use it for comic effect, as in: Remember the before times? When we could sit inside a restaurant and eat brunch?

But even a phrase used in jest can reveal something about our hopes and fears, and if were still resorting to words of longing in 2022, it is surely a sign of our shared anxiety about what lies ahead. Will we revert to some semblance of the old normal? Should we want to?

READ:Macleans meets the moment: Our new magazine look, explained

In the movies, the survivors of global catastrophe emerge blinking in the daylight to build a new society, leaving behind the problems of the old one. But look around Canada in 2022 and its pretty clear thats not in the cards; the great challenges facing it before the pandemic havent gone away. Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples remains an unfulfilled aspiration. Our biggest trading partner, the U.S., seems indifferent to its commitments under the new NAFTA. Our second-biggest, China, is also our greatest international antagonist.

Most importantly, the country remains riven over the challenge of addressing climate change, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 45 per cent below 2005 levels within a decade, even as construction continues on pipelines to carry oil and gas to tidewater.

None of these issues lies beyond our capacity for creative solutions. And Canada appears uniquely poised to thrive in a post-pandemic world: its resources, educated population and stable government point to a future as a rich country whose prosperity arises from economic liberty, plurality and rule of law.

But as the pandemic recedes, new faults and barriers come into view. The polarization of our politics has accelerated, dividing our electorate by region, values and identity, to the point that one major party appears hopelessly fractured, and another governs with just 32.6 per cent of the popular vote, the least for a winner in Canadian history.

READ:How the pandemic hasrewired our brains

Not coincidentally, political extremism has migrated from the swamps of the web to the mainstream, breathing life into a party that disparages immigrants and denies science. Technology has abetted these forces, transmitting the lies that are the extremists currency, while undermining the principle of privacy on which freedom rests.

All of this has occurred amid a growing awareness of atrocity that lies at the centre of our founding myths as a country. If truth and reconciliation are part of a continuum, were only beginning to come to grips with the first piece, truth, symbolized by unmarked graves of Indigenous children who died while attending residential schools.

Yet truth, painful as it can be, is an answer unto itself. This might be the greatest takeaway of the last two years: when our scientists publicly shared their findings; when our public health agencies published data showing the extent of danger; when our politicians left the varnish off their words and acted on evidence, the vast majority of us took our cues, masking up, staying home, getting vaccinated. In doing so, we avoided the worst COVID-19 could bring.

Here lies the solution to the conspiracy theories infecting our politics; to the devastation inflicted on First Nations; to the fantasy that we can fight climate change while building a fossil fuel economy. Lets renew our shared commitment to what we know to be true, to what can be proven.

The sooner we get going, the better. We can start with the following hard and necessary truth: the before times are not coming back.

This editorial appears in print in the January 2022 issue of Macleans magazine. Subscribe to the monthly print magazine here.

See the original post here:

What our longing for the 'before times' reveals about our hopes and fears for 2022 - Maclean's

The Centre through a written reply in the Rajya Sabha Thursday said the Paika rebellion cannot be called the first War of Independence. Union Culture Minister G Kishan Reddy stated this in a written reply to a question by BJD MP Prashanta Nanda. Since 2017, Odisha has demanded that the rebellion of Odisha be declared as the first war of Independence. At present, the Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 is called the first war of Independence against British Rule.

The Paika Bidroha (Paika Rebellion) of 1817 took place nearly 40 years before the first sepoy mutiny. The Paikas were peasant militas of the Gajapati rulers of Odisha who offered military services to the king.

The British established themselves in Odisha when the East India company dethroned the King of Khurda, Raja Mukunda Deva in 1803. The following year, in 1804, the king planned a rebellion against the British and roped in the Paikas for the same. But the plan was discovered by the British who confiscated his entire territory.

The Paikas lost their estates when the new colonial establishments and land revenue settlements of the British came into force. The continuous interference in the economy and revenue systems led to exploitation and oppression of the peasants and farmers eventually triggering a rebellion against the British. A large number of Paikas were mobilised under the leadership of Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar, who then confronted the British on April 2, 1817. A 400-strong party of Kandhas crossed over into Khurda from Ghumsur and declared rebellion. The uprising spread like a wildfire across the state resulting in several confrontations and encounters between the British and the Paika forces.

Government buildings in Banapur were set on fire, policemen killed and the British treasury looted. Over the next few months, the revolt continued but was eventually overpowered by the British army. Bidyadhar was imprisoned in 1825 and died while still in jail four years later.

For the first time in 2017, the Odisha state cabinet under the leadership of CM Naveen Patnaik had passed a proposal to formally urge the centre to declare the Paika rebellion as the first war of Independence. In his letter to the then Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Patnaik had said, I request the Government of India to consider this proposal positively so that the people of India appreciate, in correct perspective, the events that led to the Indian freedom struggle and our historic independence from foreign rule.

In the state cabinets proposal, the rebellion was described as a mass agitation and the first struggle for freedom in the country against the foreign rule in which the people of Odisha had actively participated. In 2019, CM Patnaik had reiterated the demand at the foundation stone laying ceremony for the Paika rebellion memorial at Barunei by President Ram Nath Kovind.

The Centre had considered the proposal and examined the matter in consultation with the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, now renamed Ministry of Education. And as per recommendations from ICHR, the Paika Rebellion cannot be called the first War of Independence, Union Culture Minister had informed the Rajya Sabha.

However, considering that the rebellion which started in 1817 continued till 1825 and is one of the beginnings of popular uprisings against the British in India, the minister declared that it would now be included in the curriculum of Class VIII history textbook of NCERT.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

Read more from the original source:

Explained: Why Centre has refused to accept Paika revolution as first war of independence - The Indian Express

Inclusive tune

Sir After 52 years of being on air, Sesame Street has finally welcomed its first Asian American muppet, a seven-year-old Korean-American named Ji-Young. The decision to introduce her was apparently taken in light of the rising hatred against Asians in the aftermath of Covid-19. Recently, there has been a spike in the representation of Asians in the American media. But this may be a publicity stunt rather than an actual change in the industry. While it is too early to determine the truth of this allegation, an atypical representation Ji-Young is an avid guitarist and skateboarder will go a long way in instilling a sense of belonging among those who rarely see themselves on mainstream television shows.

Mohana Chakraborty,Calcutta

Hasty retreat

Sir The Centre repealed all three contentious farm laws on the first day of the winter session of Parliament, ignoring the Oppositions demand for a discussion (Modi in a hurry to bury, Nov 30). This is reminiscent of the way in which the three farm laws were passed to begin with. The Narendra Modi-led government has, time and again, exhibited its aversion to discussing issues of national importance in Parliament.

The withdrawal of the farm laws is a major victory for the farmers. But hundreds of farmers, including those at Lakhimpur Kheri, had to lose their lives before the government came to its senses. It is evident that the Bharatiya Janata Party government withdrew the laws with the upcoming assembly elections in mind. However, people have already lost their faith in the government. This will reflect in the results of the polls.

Bhagwan Thadani,Mumbai

Sir It is evident from the hasty revocation of the farm laws without any discussion or debate in Parliament that the Central government has scant respect for democratic practices. This was in stark contrast to the assurance given by the prime minister earlier in the day that the government is ready for meaningful debates in Parliament.

It is being speculated that the BJP backtracked on the laws because of the upcoming assembly elections. The Uttar Pradesh polls are considered crucial and could determine the fate of BJP in the 2024 general elections. The BJP seems to be doing what it can to regain its diminishing support.

Bhaskar Sanyal,Hooghly

Sir The repeal of three farm bills should have been debated in Parliament. It is unfortunate that the government did not deem it necessary to follow democratic processes.

D.V.G. Sankararao,Nellimarla, Andhra Pradesh

Sir The BJP governments decision to forego debate while repealing the three farm bills must be condemned. The veteran Congress leader, Adhir Chowdhury, is right to ask why the government shied away from a discussion even when it knows that the Opposition will not object to the repeal.

Arun Gupta,Calcutta

Solitary struggle

Sir Anupama Chandran, a young mother from Kerala, has waged an unprecedented battle to locate her child, who was stealthily given away for adoption by her parents without her consent (Mother courage, Nov 29). After months of struggle, Chandran and her partner, Ajith Kumar, were able to regain custody of their son. Chandran must be lauded for her unwavering courage and determination.

There is no doubt that Chandrans parents decision was tantamount to abduction. Chandran has alleged that the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare and the Child Welfare Committee were complicit in the act. This must be investigated, and, if true, strict action must be taken against those in charge.

It is appalling that the notion of family honour Chandran was unmarried when she gave birth to her son was the driving force behind this decision. It seems that even in Kerala, a bastion of the Left and the state with the highest literacy rate, there are limits to a womans autonomy.

G. David Milton,Maruthancode, Tamil Nadu

Sir We often presume that those who are politically progressive are sensitive to the historical atrocities faced by women and other marginalized communities. But the plight of Anupama Chandran, a former leader of the Students Federation of India, the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), proves that it is simply not true. So far, facts suggest that the CPI(M) leadership including the chief minister and politburo members were aware of the situation and did not intervene because Chandrans father was a party member. Having a Left government in power means little if women continue to be oppressed.

Nandini Srivastav,Lucknow

Break free

Sir On the 55th anniversary of its Independence, Barbados became the worlds newestrepublicbyofficially removing Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. Sandra Mason became the first president of Barbados, marking a new era for the island nation.

The United Kingdom has a long and dark history of colonialism and racial oppression. It was, thus, good to hear Prince Charles acknowledge the atrocities inflicted by slavery on the occasion. It is time for the remaining 15 nations to sever their constitutional links with the UK as well.

Jang Bahadur Singh,Jamshedpur

Sir The citizens of Barbados must be congratulated for breaking their ties with the UK. Although the Queen was only a nominal head, the office was still a reminder of the brutal history of colonialism in the island nation. Barbados must now script its history independent of its former colonizer.

Archana Ghosh,Calcutta

Excerpt from:

Letters to the Editor: On Sesame Street, an Asian American muppet - Telegraph India