Daily Archives: February 15, 2022

The Kazakhstan Parliament approved in September 2021 a draft law to restrict the use of foreign social media. The bill is ostensibly designed to protect children and prevent cyberbullying. But the law also offers a tool for the government, already infamous for its persecution of political opponents, to limit criticism of itself.

The draft law says that foreign social networks and messaging services will be obliged to register in Kazakhstan and open local offices in order to receive permission to operate in the country. Companies currently operating in the country will have six months to comply once the law is passed. It will then be the job of their local Kazakh employees to flag content they deem illegal.

This approach could be seen as mirroring the actions of the Russian authorities push to strangle civil society and neutralize, in particular, human rights defenders. In Russia, the so-called foreign agents law requires all organizations with foreign funding to register with the Russian state. This law has been modified frequently since its inception to become a broad and repressive piece of legislation, making it very difficult to report on any controversial topics involving the Russian government. The law was extended in October to encompass any organizations studying or reporting on the Russian military, space or intelligence agencies.

Freedom of assembly is already heavily restricted in Kazakhstan, with police regularly breaking up unauthorized protests and arbitrarily detaining participants, as they did in February and March 2021. Therefore, opposition political discourse overwhelmingly takes place on social media platforms or via messaging groups, so it is likely that Kazakhstans leaders are preparing to follow the path of Russia in expanding their ability to stifle dissent. In fact, as a result of the bill, Facebook now has had to deny that it is helping the Kazakh government to censor online content.

One of the people that the Kazakh government is worried about organizing such protests via social media is former opposition leader Mukhtar Ablyazov. He has been subjected to a worldwide campaign of litigation with Kazakhstan seeking to discredit and humiliate him and his associates by accusing them of a $6 billion fraud.More commonly known as the BTA bank litigation, a worldwide hunt for the alleged stolen billions is still ongoing, but almost no money has ever been found. Across Europe, a number of Ablyazovs associates have been given political asylum as their liberty has also been threatened.

Kazakhstans authorities have a long history of attacking anyone connected to one of their opponents, political or otherwise. The Kazakh regime will use any means necessary to secure their aims while purporting to comply with the rule of law. The recent uprising and suppression of protesters with lethal force and assistance from the Russian military has received widespread international criticism. Additionally, the Kazakh regime has been shown to participate in extraterritorial renditions, as well as using private security firms to spy on individuals. As told by the Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis in his book Kleptopia, Kazakhstan has a history of using both the courts and black PR to change the narrative and try to create some sympathy with their cause.

Following each incident, individuals are writing articles casting doubt on the events and trying to brand the Kazakh dissidents as criminalstactics that are difficult to detect unless you know where to look. For example, in the BTA litigation, without proper context, it is very easy to skew the story as being just about fraud. In reality, it is much more terrifying than that and involves an assassination attempt on Ablyazov. The Kazakh regime also kidnapped his wife and child and continue to put pressure on his associates, all while trying to spin the focus on the fraudnot on the egregious breaches of international law.

The Kazakh regime is extremely proficient when it comes to arbitration, which is highly susceptible to the use of political pressure and subversion by the pressawards and proceedings are not always public, and the evidence presented is often difficult to challenge. In a notable case, now known as Tristangate, Kazakhstan has refused to pay a fully adjudicated $500 million arbitral award to two Moldovan investors as compensation for the forced nationalization of their companies in 2010.

In the Tristangate case, Stati et. al. v. Kazakhstan, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the enforcement of the arbitral award in May 2021. Berman said in a ruling on the Kazakh regimes failure to disclose information:

Dont get me wrong, the Republic of Kazakhstan had every right to litigate the petition to confirm the arbitral award, and they had every right to appeal my decision. But those proceedings are over. These are post-judgment proceedings. And the Republic of Kazakhstan and its counsel needs to get that into their heads because the level of intransigence that weve seen to date is not acceptable and it officially ends today.

In spite of those warnings, the Kazakh government has decided to go after anyone associated with the case and has launched satellite proceedings against the bondholders, the investment firm Argentem Creek Partners, which continues to have an interest in the payment of the award. In Kazakhstan v. Chapman, Argentem Creek and others, filed in New York, the Kazakh regime alleges that a murky web of companies were used to hide investments. They also have challenged the proceedings in a number of European jurisdictions but have lost every case so far. These collateral attacks on the award are combined with the use of experts and negative press to distract from the fact that there seems to be no evidence to support their contentions.

Further, in litigation, Kazakhstan regularly pays for academic opinions that support its narrative and use them to condition the media environment. The interesting issue with arbitration is that, because it is not always possible to see the evidence, it is difficult to tell how much money experts are getting paid over a period of time for different cases. The payment is important because the huge sums paid to experts are essentially contingent on them agreeing with one party. Some academics and politicians therefore make a substantial living from presenting repressive regimes such as Kazakhstan through rose-tinted spectacles. By way of example, in October the press reported that Jonathan Aitkin was paid 166,000 for a flattering biography of former Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. The same is, of course, true for many lawyers and journalists.

Returning to Tristangate, the Kazakh government is using an opinion written by George Bermann, a professor from Columbia Law School, to support its case. Of course, the opinion is no more than that: It contains no sworn oath, but it is used as if it is the truth. It has even been posted on the Kazakhstan government website and has been used as one of the key pieces of evidence that the government is presenting to try and stop payment of the award. It will almost certainly, however, never be tested in court and the narrative that it creates is difficult to challenge in the media. It is no wonder that if the Kazakh regime can pay people to agree with them, they will do whatever it takes to prevent criticism.

Beyond limiting social media or manipulating the court process to pursue opponents or avoid the rule of law, the Kazakh authorities often use criminal courts directly to further their agenda. One such case is that of my client, Barlyk Mendygaziyev, a U.S.-based Kazakh businessman and avid user of social media, who has been financially supporting the families of political prisoners in Kazakhstan. Not only did the Kazakh government launch prosecutions against him, but it tried to use a bogus Interpol red notice to have him arrested. His family and business assets in Kazakhstan were also directly targeted, and Kazakh prosecutors have charged him with a host of crimes, including tax evasion, financing terrorist activities and drug possession.

Whether claiming to protect children via social media bans or accusing political or business rivals of drug possession, fraud or even terrorism, Kazakhstans authorities are interested in only two things: stifling criticism of their actions and avoiding accountability. They use the veneer of law and legal cases to justify their actions when, in fact, they are the ones who should be facing criminal investigation. This pattern of repression and use of sophisticated lawfare has spilled over into their commercial dealings, making conducting business with them almost impossible to those who value the rule of law.

See more here:

Using the Law to Advance Oppression: How Kazakhstan Presents a Veneer of Due Process to Silence Opposition - Lawfare

The Ching-kuo Chi-hai Cultural Park and Chiang Ching-kuo Presidential Library officially opened on Jan. 22. In her opening remarks at the event, President Tsai Ing-wen () praised former president Chiang Ching-kuos () firm anti-communist stance and his determination to safeguard Taiwan, a position shared by Taiwanese in the face of the threat posed by China.

Attended by opposition and government figures, the ceremony to commemorate someone representative of the authoritarian period has not failed to cause uproar, even though Chiang passed away 34 years ago.

However, Tsais speech refrained from passing judgement on Chiangs character.

Its up to the public to judge former presidents, Tsai said, a comment that received mixed reactions.

Some considered her words to be a display of magnanimity to further harmony and solidarity, while others considered it a deflection of Chiangs authoritarianism and oppression of human rights.

For some, Tsais remark was akin to endorsing an autocrat, while others thought her support of Chiangs stance was a ploy to provoke conflict within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

It is doubtless that Chiang was against communism and loyal to Taiwan. After losing in the Chinese Civil War, he refused to concede to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and acceded to the new political regime the KMT on Taiwan. In his final years, Chiang proclaimed himself to be Taiwanese.

Facing external and internal pressure, Chiang sided with Taiwanese and declared that his family would renounce hereditary succession. To build an independent regime in opposition to the CCP, Chiang tried to Taiwanize the Republic of China (ROC) government by launching democratic reform.

A declassified document shows that Chiang in June 1973 told then-US ambassador to the ROC Walter Patrick McConaughy Jr: The ROC will not negotiate, engage in talks or contact the CCP now or ever, for this is a definite, absolute and final decision. The ROC government will not threaten the CCP under any circumstances.

Then-Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew () visited Taiwan one month earlier.

Chiang, who was then premier, told Lee firmly that any talk with the CCP would be the overture for annexation, leading to internal turmoil and the collapse of the government.

When the US established full diplomatic relations with China in 1979, Chiangs resolve did not waver.

As president and chairman of the KMT, he insisted on the principle of three noes no negotiating, no compromising and no contact with the CCP a principle adhered to by the state and the party.

In contrast to Chiangs steadfast attitude, the naivety and self-interest of some KMT members at the presidential library opening is truly ludicrous and despicable. While some are colluding with the CCP in oppressing Taiwan, others are naive enough to think that engaging in talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping () could bring peaceful unification.

These members and their pro-China stance is proving to be the KMTs most significant problem. The partys actions are usually a far cry from Chiangs principles, and, more often than not, insult the intelligence of Taiwanese.

While China has been oppressing Taiwan in different ways for the past few years, there are KMT members who labor under the delusion of joining China. By stirring up pro-China and anti-US sentiment, these politicians are going against the public will and the core belief of their party hero by pushing Taiwan toward unification.

On the other hand, Chiang played a part in a few dark chapters in history.

Chiangs people-loving image and his well-acknowledged accomplishments such as the Ten Major Construction Projects, political moves in response to fluctuating international relations, political reformation, localization, lifting martial law, and ending bans on new newspapers and political parties were not done without good reason.

It could be said that Chiangs idiosyncratic style to rule with enlightened absolutism was the result of internal and external pressure.

Externally, Taiwan has had its fair share of diplomatic impediments since the 1970s.

The ROC lost its UN seat in 1971. Then-US president Richard Nixon paid a historic visit to China in 1972 a geopolitical game changer and, that same year, countries such as Japan and Australia followed the US lead and broke diplomatic ties with the ROC.

Internally, political appeals for democratization by non-KMT members began to flourish, and the legitimacy of the Chiang familys state-party rule was called into question.

Chiang escaped assassination during his visit to New York in 1970, became premier in 1972 and assumed the presidency in 1978.

It was not until the late 1980s that he began promoting localization and democratization. In the meantime, various political events, such as the 228 Incident, the Jhongli Incident, the Formosa Incident, the Lin family murders, the suspicious death of Chen Wen-chen () and Henry Lius () murder have demonstrated that Chiangs iron-fisted rule was intended to keep himself in power.

Therefore, the democratization and localization that Chiang had been pushing for in his final years were forced upon him in response to non-KMT citizens appeals and pressure from the US.

The autocratic KMT regime run by a few members in the Chiang family was forced to concede to the majority of the non-KMT public through localization.

Under the banner of Free China, the ROC government retained legitimacy by democratization. The efforts of non-KMT party members, especially those expatriates who had been tirelessly lobbying the US Congress to pressure the ROC government, could not have been more significant.

There is no denying that Chiang made fair contributions to Taiwan when he set Taiwan on the path of democratization and localization.

However, the White Terror era in the 1950s and 1960s when Chiang was one of the main culprits and Director-general of the Political Warfare Bureau should not be ignored.

Premier Su Tseng-chang (), at the time a defense attorney following the Formosa Incident, could not have put it better.

Just because the autocrat decided to turn over a new leaf in his final years does not mean the citizens can forget the brutal and bloody oppression that took place in his time, Su said.

The foreign political regime introduced by the Chiang family has not yet fallen. There is still a long way to go before transitional justice is fully realized, notwithstanding occasional backsliding.

Closure needs to be rooted in the disclosure of the truth, and in admittance of past mistakes and wrongdoings.

Anyone who wishes to judge should have such an awareness.

Translated by Rita Wang

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Original post:

The Liberty TImes Editorial: The two sides to Chiang Ching-kuo -

According to Richard Hanania, trade sanctions are ineffective, immoral, and politically convenient:

Sanctions have massive humanitarian costs and are not only ineffective but likely counterproductive. On these points, there is overwhelming agreement in the academic literature. Such policies can reduce the economic performance of the targeted state, degrade public health, and cause tens of thousands of deaths per year under the most crushing sanctions regimes. Moreover, they almost always fail to achieve their goals, particularly when the aim is regime change or significant behavioral changes pertaining to what states consider their fundamental interests. Sanctions can even backfire, making mass killing and repression more likely, while decreasing the probability of democratization.

He makes a convincing case, but this gets me thinking. When countries impose sanctions, they barely even mention consequences. Instead, they focus on the sheer evil of the targeted regime:

When the EU extended sanctions against Syria, they averred:

The Council today extended EUrestrictive measures against the Syrian regimefor one additional year, until1 June 2022, in light of the continued repression of the civilian population in the country.

Similarly, heres how the Congressional Research Service rationalizes sanctions against Venezuela:

For over 15 years,the United States has imposed sanctions in response to activities of the Venezuelan government and Venezuelan individuals. The earliest sanctions imposed related to Venezuelas lack of cooperation on antidrug and counterterrorism efforts. The Obama Administration imposed targeted sanctions against individuals for human rights abuses, corruption, and antidemocratic actions. The Trump Administration significantly expanded economic sanctions in response to the increasing authoritarianism of President Nicols Maduro

Observation: If sanctioned regimes are so monstrous, then virtually all of their subjects have a good reason to fear them. In technical terms, this plausibly amounts to a well-founded fear of persecution the essential legal ingredient for meriting asylum.

Which brings me to my modest proposal of the day. Namely: If a country is bad enough for sanctions, it is bad enough to grant all of its citizens asylum. For the U.S., this would at minimum include all citizens of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela.

If embraced, this norm would have two main effects, both good.

First, governments would be more reluctant to impose sanctions and more eager to end them, to avoid the responsibility to accept large flows of refugees. Per Hanania, this is a big win. Sanctions cause immense harm, and the humanitarian exceptions for food and medicine do little to mitigate this harm.

Second, all citizens of the very worst governments would suddenly have viable exit options. So even if sanctions make monstrous regimes go from bad to worse, they also almost automatically reduce the number of people who actually live under such regimes. Total oppression can easily go down as per-capita oppression goes up.

Im not saying that the my modest proposal is going to happen. Im saying it should. If Hanania is right about sanctions, the main reason sanctions persist is that politicians barely care about the well-being of foreigners. Alas, this also predicts that my modest proposal wont happen. Sure, it would allow the worlds most oppressed people to find a better life. But who cares about them?

Here is the original post:

Sanctions and Asylum - Econlib

Having just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day last month, Im reminded of a chilling statement made by the civil rights leader just over three years after his landmark 1963 I Have a Dream speech: I saw my dream turn into a nightmare. King had come to see the progress of the civil rights movement as superficial, as his peaceful ideology had begun to be overshadowed by violent Black power movements, and he had grown pessimistic in his evolving realist outlook on the true state of equality.

In his famous 1963 address, King drew a correlation between the strength of a democracy and the state of its racial equality. Unfortunately though, our democracy itself is a contradiction; our nation was founded on freedom and equality, yet has fostered systemic oppression since its inception. According to King, our democracy built under the premise that all men are created equal cannot succeed until there is full racial equality. This dream hadnt been achieved during Kings lifetime, and, though strides have been made, hasnt yet been fully realized.

Glaring proof of this came from last years insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to interfere with certification of the 2020 presidential election. The effects of this continue to shake our country, representing the threat our democracy faces. Some have theorized that mistrust in government caused the eruption of a full-scale insurrection. I argue that theres more to the backsliding of our democracy by connecting this phenomenon of mistrust in government weakening the state with King's theory that racial prejudice leads to the failure of democracy. As long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having recurrences of violence and riots over and over again, he said. He predicted that those who disregard the problem of racial inequality are those who condone events that collapse democratic systems like the Jan. 6 insurrection, which is a further example of the nightmare of violence hindering progress Dr. King mentioned in 1967. If racial inequality results in a weak democracy (as postulated by Dr. King), and low trust in government results in weak democracy, then low trust in government and racial prejudice are covariants. Lets explore how racial prejudice is actually the driving force behind the lack of faith in government institutions.

Surveys conducted by the American National Election Studies (ANES) during elections between 1992 and 2020 have proven that racial prejudice is a predictor of lower trust in government. Studies also indicated that such biases have links to skepticism about the fairness of the 2020 election. The theory that racial prejudice is further backed by a separate study done on faith in previous elections shows a higher level of distrust during the Obama elections of 2008 and 2012 than in the 2016 election and previous elections. An elevated level of skepticism when a Black president was elected suggests a correlation with racial prejudice. Distrust in government hinders the success and ability of the federal government to function. Just as King warned, democracy is compromised by the continued existence of racial prejudice.

A Reuters poll shows that 53% of Republicans believe the election was tainted and that former president Donald Trump actually won. Dangerous rhetoric from the former president and his supporters has spurred skepticism regarding elections with the tactic of appealing to racial prejudices (i.e. the idea of illegal voters, violent agitators, etc). Trump catalyzed fears of some white Americans who have long viewed the attempt to promote racial equality as anti-white and discriminatory. (This motivated many white Americans to vote for Trump; a study published in the Washington Post stated that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials.) This sentiment is directly linked to mistrust in the election system and results, as seen in the ANES study. It again suggests that views on racial equality are behind the lack of faith in the government.

Blossoming anti-government paranoia is a problem on both sides. The harmful phenomenon of distrust exists in African Americans facing systemic racism through inequality in workplaces and police brutality. There are those in the community who therefore become wary of government agencies and law enforcement. Their difficult history in the country causes their distrust; it disenfranchises people, causing discouragement that leads to lower voter turnout, skewing the key institution of democracy that is fair elections.

A major detrimental ramification of mistrust in the federal government is inefficiency. With public distrust and little support, its hard for the government to effectively achieve goals. As political theorist David Easton argued in his Systems Analysis of Political Life, democracy cant function without cititzens trust in institutions. Low election faith leads to low faith in the entire democratic system, driving people to violent anti-democratic methods and ideals, such as an insurrection attempt like the one we saw on Jan. 6.

Id like to draw a connection between the current state of distrust and Dr. Kings message. If racial prejudice fuels mistrust in elections and government, and since democracy cant function without trust in such institutions, then Dr. Kings hypothesis of racial prejudices preventing the success of democracy has proven true. Jan. 6. was a materialization of Kings nightmare of violence and racial supremacy movements overpowering his peaceful ideology due to dangerous distrust in government. To strengthen our democracy, we must face the problem of racism and work to actively solve it. We must continue to fight to bring Dr. Kings dream, rather his nightmare, to fruition.

Photo Caption: The 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, site of Martin Luther King Jr.s now-famous I Have a Dream speech.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons/ Library of Congress

View post:

The Pundit: MLK's Nightmare and the Link Between Racism and Opposition to Democracy - The Commentator - The Commentator

The issue of cash bail has garnered more attention after a rash of deaths of people in custody at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections in recent months. Some state lawmakers are proposing changes to the bail process, but not the kind sought by reform advocates who want to lower jail populations.

Several bills in Indiana and Kentucky would limit the power of charitable bail organizations. The groups crowdsource money to get people out of jail.

Bail fund advocates argue that people who commit low-level, nonviolent offenses are often kept in jail for long periods of time, simply because they cant afford their release.

Bail was meant to be a condition of release, it was not meant to be punitive, said Shameka Parrish-Wright, a mayoral candidate who works with the Bail Project in Louisville. And it was not meant to hold people just because theyre poor.

The Louisville Bail Project started in 2018, but rose to prominence during the 2020 protests over the police killing of Breonna Taylor. The group has bailed out 3,500 people in Louisville and Southern Indiana since it launched four years ago.

But some lawmakers say those types of organizations shouldnt be allowed, at least not in their current form. Indiana State Sen. Aaron Freeman, a Republican from Indianapolis, authored a bill that requires bail funds to receive government certification or be limited to a bailing out no more than two people every six months.

The legislation would also prohibit taxpayer money from going towards the funds, among other measures.

They dont have the same connections to the community that other groups do, Freeman said. So I do feel it very appropriate, if these kinds of people, if these kinds of organizations are going to exist and theyre going to do this kind of work, we should limit them to misdemeanors and cap them at $2,000 bond.

Freeman said the oversight and limitations are needed because the funds are run by non-local groups. Thats an argument thats been echoed by Kentucky lawmakers, who have proposed legislation to ban charitable bail funds altogether.

Chanelle Helm, co-founder of the Louisville Community Bail Fund and an organizer with Black Lives Matter, takes issue with that.

I live here, she said. My people came from the plantation of Lancaster and Spalding in Lebanon city here in Kentucky. How dare somebody try to say just because these things are very radical and underneath Black liberation, that I dont belong in Kentucky, that it doesnt belong in Kentucky?

Helm said lawmakers should work to improve jails and community support systems instead of villainizing incarcerated people and those trying to help them.

Since late November, six people have died in custody of Louisvilles jail. TaNeasha Chappell, a Black woman from Louisville, died in a Southern Indiana jail in July.

A study by the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College and Pew Charitable Trusts found that Black people accounted for 39% of jail admissions in Louisville in 2019, despite only making up 24% of the population. Helm said many remain in jail because they cant afford bail.

In a place where the GOP values less government, youre willing to issue more government against the people who are doing stuff for their communities, she said. Its not regulation at all, its oppression. What were watching is modern-day oppression.

Sen. Freeman rejects that criticism. He said his bill was a response to the City of Indianapolis giving money to the Bail Project through a crime prevention grant. He and other lawmakers have also used instances where people released by bail funds have gone on to commit violent crimes as justification for the proposed changes.

If anybody else wants to make it any other issue, God bless them, he said. Theyre welcome to do that. The bill here for me got started because we were using public tax dollars to bail people out of jail. Now, if we cant agree thats not a good use of public tax dollars, were probably not going to agree on much else.

The Louisville Bail Project said more than 90% of its clients return for their court date without issue. The group also provides people with services ahead of court dates, like transportation, employment and housing.

But Parrish-Wright doesnt want charitable bail organizations to be a permanent part of the justice system. Their main goal is bigger than bailing people out: they want to alter cash bail entirely.

We set out to do this work to close our doors eventually, Parrish-Wright said. Ive always said from the beginning, that the best way to close our doors is to have meaningful bail reform and legislation, more administrative releases with community support. And weve seen that work. I think that there is no real proof that people getting out pretrial are a direct link to the uptick in crime and the things that were seeing.

Bills limiting charitable bail operations in Indiana have already cleared the House and Senate. Kentuckys version of the legislation was introduced in committee last month.

Kentucky Rep. John Blanton, a Republican from Salyersville, and Rep. Jason Nemes, a Republican from Louisville, did not respond for comment. Indiana Rep. Peggy Mayfield, a Republican from Martinsville, and Sen. Michael Crider, a Republican from Greenfield, declined interview requests as well.

Follow this link:

Activists concerned over bills that take aim at charitable bail funds - 89.3 WFPL News Louisville

The row on hijab that initially began as a protest by six students has rapidly snowballed into a major crisis in Karnataka, threatening the law and order situation. The international community too has raised concerns on the issue which has been discussed in the Parliament as well.

B C Nagesh, who was recently named Karnataka's minister for education, is in the thick of things surrounding the hijab row. He has been strongly propagating the idea of uniform minus hijab. In an interaction with IANS, the minister explained his perspectives on the raging controversy.

Also Read |Does uniformity bring about equality? Think again

Q: How do you see the developments unfolding in the state over the hijab issue?

BC Nagesh: It is not a good development that young minds are getting polluted. Common man is observing how society is behaving. They are also seeing how the young ones, who have been normal students these days have changed suddenly. What has filled up the minds of these boys and girls? It is okay that they have approached the court. But, they forced the court to issue an interim order on that very day and reject the government circular. And even as three-judge bench of Karnataka High Court gave the interim order, the way that order was being challenged in the Supreme Court and how the transfer of case was sought, the attitude of their requirements are to be fulfilled at any cost and the way how court is being pressurized, I am taken aback. I am sad that schools were closed.

Q: Do you think the hijab row which has been discussed at international level has brought disrepute to the state?

A: When it becomes an international issue, it is the duty of each one to bring clarity about the issue. We have to put out the truth. Many people have attempted to bring out the truth. Falsehoods can prevail for a temporary period. Ultimately, the truth will come out. We have been making an honest attempt to address hijab row. The true colours of the elements involved in creating this controversy. There may be multiple layers of lies, but truth will emerge. It is not possible to uphold what is false.

Q: The developments surrounding the hijab row have deeply hurt student mindset. How are you going to address the issue?

A: It will take many days to bring mindsets back on the right track. The students who remained friends till yesterday have developed the psyche that one is a Muslim and another is a Hindu. This is not good. If the norm of Uniform is practiced without any hindrances of religious practices it is possible to heal these divided mindsets. They will continue to have bitter memories but somehow they will come to the right track after sometime. But, it is a difficult process and it takes time.

Also Read |Amid hijab row, steady increase in Muslim girls going to colleges, schools: Report

What does it mean when a girl from Mandya can raise the slogan of Allah Hu Akbar? Where the mindsets have reached? I am not talking about what is right and what is wrong here. Everyone will have their emotions and they react to certain things. But, the reactive mindset has been developed already. How tenable is it for such developments to take place in college campuses?

Q: You have been saying hijab row is the result of international conspiracy, can you elaborate on that?

A: There are three things. Firstly, when it was not even known to the state that students wearing hijab were not sent to schools. No news was covered in this regard. Before the local media could pick up, few international media took it up. Secondly, ruling that hijab is not a part of uniform was not new at all. Karnataka was not the first state to make this rule. In 2015, Bombay High Court gave a ruling and banned hijab. No international agency spoke about it... so called secular leaders from New Delhi have also remained tight lipped. In 2018, the order was given in Kerala in this regard, but that did not emerge as an international issue. There, Muslim Education Society had approached court, the court said hijab is not allowed and students have to wear prescribed uniform by the institution. Thirdly, Delhi Apex Court and the Supreme Court stated the same, however, these did not make into international news. How come it has become an issue now? How can making uniform compulsory in one of the colleges of Karnataka become an international issue? Many nations have banned hijab. Muslim nations have banned hijab. Why didn't it become an international issue?

Also Read |Hijab row: As high schools reopen tomorrow, Bommai confident about peace

The country is making progress under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The country is being respected. The country is overcoming the Corona crisis, no one expected it. Why did Pakistan, which has not reacted till date, react on the issue? Every day that country faces such problems on a daily basis. Asking six students not to wear hijab as per rules is a major international issue? We have just asked students to maintain prescribed uniforms, why can't students just follow?

Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel laureate herself, said that these things are holding back women, and these are the instruments which take away their freedom. They (protesting students) open Twitter accounts on the same day, tweet on the same day? These are matters of investigation, I should not go deep into it. If the act of making uniform compulsory for six students is being portrayed as oppression of Muslims, in a large country like ours which has a huge Muslim population, what else is this?

I do not have the capacity to depute a senior lawyer in the High Court for arguing my case. How can these children afford them? Three senior counsel in the Supreme Court are arguing for them. Honourable Chief Justice when assures that the case will be taken up on an everyday basis and give ruling, what is the meaning of them approaching the Supreme Court?

The media propagated falsely that the rule on hijab was not there all these days, if you observe this, one group must be working behind all this. It is natural to get suspicious about it and people are observing it.

Q: RSS and Sangh Parivar are squarely blamed for the hijab crisis. What do you have to say about the allegation?

A: Initially what they thought was there was no rule on uniform in the state. They were under the illusion that there is no uniform for PUC. They initially questioned it first. The government gave clarification about the act and rule. After that they went to the court. In court also they did not get relief. Slowly, they are realizing that the issue is boomeranging on them. People are also against them, the media by and large in general except for few national televisions are realizing that it is wrong. They are blaming RSS to get an escape route. From where does RSS come in the issue? Students wearing saffron shawls is a natural reaction, like how the girl (college student in Mandya PES College) spontaneously shouted 'Allah hu Akbar' slogan in front of the crowd. She is now being felicitated by Mumbai MLA, Karnataka leader C.M. Ibrahim visits her, why do they go?

Q: First it was Covid crisis, now it is the hijab. How are you managing?

A: I am getting cooperation from everyone. It's a team decision, all are involved. Our teachers responded and conducted classes, we boosted their morale. I have chosen good officers.

Q: What is your message to students and parents?

A: Please come to classes in uniform like before in a disciplined manner. Examinations have been declared, I request them to focus on studies and build their career. For those girls who took up agitation, no one has a fixed opinion on you... If you start coming to classes, everything will be alright in sometime. Please leave the ego behind and attend classes. Their parents should also give good guidance to their wards and send them to schools.

I am very happy to see concern for education among Muslim girls who are not wearing hijabs and attending classes. In spite of all this crisis, they are not bothered about anything, they are with their friends and showed the nation and the world that we are all one and proved that they will follow discipline. I appreciate those girls. There are 9 colleges in Udupi, among them barring these 6 girls, no other students took part in the matters like this.

Check out DH's latest videos:

Visit link:

Compulsory uniform being portrayed as oppression of Muslims, says BC Nagesh - Deccan Herald

Last month, the United Nations put out a funding appeal asking for more than $5 billion of aid for Afghanistan, the largest such appeal ever for a single country. Since the Taliban took over last August, the countrys economy has crumbled and its currency has lost about 20 percent of its value. The evacuation of foreign humanitarian workers and the freezing of government funds by Western countries that refuse to recognize the Taliban government set the stage for the crisis, and an especially untimely drought have made matters worse.

Half of Afghanistans population now faces acute hunger, and as many as 9 million are on the brink of famine. Odds are that the current humanitarian crisis will soon have a death toll far greater than the 20-year Afghanistan war. Despite this, it would be a great mistake to accede to the U.N.s request for funding.

Itsnot that foreign aid is wasteful (though it can be), or that we do not have an international responsibility to help those in need (we do). Rather, I would argue that Afghanistans particular situation cannot be solved by foreign aid, and that in fact, foreign aid in all likelihood would make matters worse.

What then makes Afghanistan such an exception?

One might think that the answer could be the Taliban regime, and the horrors and oppression it is inflicting upon its own population. This would be a partially correctbut incompleteanswer. Most Third World countries are either dictatorships or highly flawed democracies. That has never stopped the West from providing foreign aid, as it is generally recognized that providing foreign aid to a country is not the same thing as endorsing the actions of a government. The US and its allies have even provided humanitarian aid to North Korea.

There are two crucial differences between the Taliban regime and Kim Jong-uns: The first is that there is no internal power competition in North Korea. There are no opposition parties, nor any obvious leader who could step in in the event that Kim Jong-uns regime were to fall. A collapse of North Koreas regime would almost certainly result in a power vacuum, with unpredictable consequences. Thus, even if the humanitarian aid does help keep Kim Jong-un in power, it may be worth it at least for the time being.

This is not the case with the Taliban. In fact, despite its brutality, the Taliban has faced open protests. We know that the regime has almost no support among the population in the capital of Kabul, nor in Panjshir and surrounding areas. It also helps that millions of Afghans, unlike their North Korean counterparts, have access to both internet and radio that can be used to coordinate resistance and get information from outside the country.

In short, the Taliban can still be destroyed. They have been in power for only a few months, and their hold on power is weak, completely unlike North Korea or in fact most other dictatorships. A famine could very realistically topple the regime.

The Taliban came to power because of its ability to rally tribes and, in particular, tribal leaders to its side. In a perverse way, the Taliban government is governing by consent, except not by the consent of the average Afghan citizen but rather by the consent of these powerful local leaders.

What might persuade these leaders to withdraw their support? A mass famine just a few months after the Taliban takeover, caused by misrule (and the international sanctions prompted by that rule) might do the trick. While tribal politics is a tricky subject, its easy to imagine it would be hard for tribal leaders to explain to their subjects why they are supporting a government that is letting them starve.

While tribes may not be an ideal form of government, the existence of the tribal system also ensures that, if the Taliban were to fall tomorrow without a successor government in place, (most of) the country would not descend into anarchy. Alternative power structures exist. The same is not true for North Korea, which likely would descend into anarchy if something were to happen to the ruling Kim family.

The other difference is, of course, access to nuclear weapons, or, for that matter, any kind of military that could threaten another country. Even if it were possible to starve out North Korea, there is no telling what kind of last ditch measures the regime might take to either hold onto power, or get revenge against those countries they deem to have wronged them. The Taliban can hardly be said to pose a threat to any other country, and certainly no Western country, as internal strife keeps them busy.

Crucially, however, these differences are temporary. If the Taliban is allowed to stay in power, it will inevitably consolidate that power. It will hunt down real and potential resistance fighters and leaders, ensuring there is no domestic movement that can take control of the country if the regime were to fall. The first target would be the National Resistance Front, which even now is just barely holding out in pockets around the Panjshir valley. If the NRF were to be truly and permanently wiped out, the odds for a regime change get dramatically worse.

Once its power is fully consolidated, the Taliban will be able to return to supporting and harboring terrorists who can then attack other countries from their safehold in Afghanistanexactly what the U.S. wished to prevent when it first invaded in 2001.

Of course, the United Nations and other proponents of providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan stress that the aid would not be given to the regime or used to help the regime. That is a nice thought, but in reality, it does not work that way. It is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would allow humanitarian aid to be distributed without its input. The U.N.s track record when dealing with corrupt, totalitarian regimes is not the best.

But even assuming the U.N. could distribute aid based on need and not based on where the Taliban believes the aid should go, it is a fact that the Taliban regime relies on the passivity of the Afghan people. This passivity is only aided by the assurance that, no matter how evil their government may be, they will always have their basic necessities provided by the international community.

Should the United States and other countries agree to the U.N. request, it risks saving the Afghan people today, only to condemn them to generations of Taliban oppression.

That is not to say that nothing can or should be done. First and foremost, a plan needs to be drawn up to deal with the massive refugee flows that are already beginning to stem from this famine. Europe will not tolerate another refugee crisis like the one in 2015 that saw more than 1 million asylum seekers arrive on its shores. To avoid this, refugee camps need to be set up in neighboring countries, allowing starving Afghans to escape without the help of refugee smugglers and without overwhelming First World nations. These camps need to be financed by wealthy nations (as no neighboring country has any chance of shouldering the cost). This is also the only way to provide aid and keep it from falling into the hands of the Taliban. Furthermore, these camps could ideally serve as bases to organize the resistance against the Taliban.

Other than in these camps, aid should be provided only to the provinces not controlled by the Taliban, and ideally administered through the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, to help it build support among the Afghan population. The message should be clear: Join the resistance and overthrow the Taliban, and no one in your province will starve. Accept Taliban rule, and you are on your own.

As unfortunate as the current situation is, humanitarian aid will only worsen the prospect of Afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban and building a future as a stable democracy. For the sake of Afghanistan, the West must turn down the U.N.s request for humanitarian aid.

John Gustavsson is a conservative writer from Sweden and has a Ph.D. in economics.

Follow this link:

Foreign Aid Is Not the Answer to Afghanistan's Woes - The Dispatch

Last month, six students in Karnatakas Udupi district were barred from entering a college because they were wearing hijab. The incident soon snowballed into a controversy with raging debates on whether the hijab a veil worn by some Muslim women should be part of uniforms at educational institutions.

Over the next few weeks, the Karnataka government announced a three-day closure of all educational institutions amid increasing protests. On February 5, the state government passed an order stating that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice for Muslims that can be protected under the Constitution. The states High Court is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the government order.

While some said women should have the freedom of choice, others argued hijab is a form of oppression against women.

So, what does wearing a hijab mean to Muslim women?

Hijab has been a part of my life for more than 11 years now. I remember when I took admission in Hindu College, I met a girl who was surprised to meet a Muslim, as she had never come across one in her school life. She later shared how her parents have certain prejudices against the community. The conversation left a deep impact on me and also highlighted the Islamophobia that exists in Indian society.

When we started classes after a few weeks, I decided to wear the hijab as a representation of my community in a university where students from all over the country study a place where it is not an alien concept to befriend a Muslim. It was also my way of making them aware of my existence and an attempt to break stereotypes. But, this small step became quite prominent the moment I joined the dramatics society as I was the only one doing theatre wearing a hijab. I feel it is unfortunate that Muslims who have been pushed to ghettos through systematic othering have to be the ones to make an effort to be seen, heard and understood.

But, hijab is the confidence I have in my faith. It is not only a cloth covering my hair but a representation of who I am and where I come from. There have been times, especially post 2014, where I have faced blatant Islamophobia at work places, on trips, at restaurants or even in the markets, but my faith and my purpose is bigger than all the Islamophobia, and with time, this thought has become stronger. My hijab is my comfort and confidence in all the chaos around me.

-Mariyam H Siddiqui, 29, experiential educator, Delhi

I started wearing a hijab during my internship days, four years ago. It was completely my decision one that I reached on after reading a lot of books and thinking logically; until I was fully convinced. Then I accepted this blessing. Now, hijab is like my identity. Its the symbol of my love towards my God.

In the last four years, I have done my internship and postgraduate training in the field of paediatrics. Never did I feel I was not able to do any work or activity because of my hijab. Rather, the hijab is a sign of empowerment for me. I am a proud Muslimah and a proud hijabi. In my opinion, if someone wants to wear hijab or dress modestly an essential practice of Islam preventing them from doing so is against the fundamental and constitutional rights.

-Dr Sayeeda Zahan, paediatrician, Kolkata

Hijab is that valuable piece of cloth that gives us freedom to be selective of what we want the world to see. Its more a symbol of modesty than anything. Its our basic right to dress whichever way we want. As for me, my father didnt want me to wear a hijab. Hence, its my personal choice and not something I am forced to do. Hijab ban in the name of uniformity is communal hatred-inciting propaganda. Like you cant force similar dress code for males and females, you cant impose on Muslim women what we should or shouldnt wear.

-Mariyam Khan, student, Uttar Pradesh

I started wearing hijab in school after I saw most of my classmates wearing it. It was fascinating to me and I wanted to try and fit in. It did bring a certain sense of freedom from gaze, comments and judgment. There is a certain respect that comes with it. Eventually, it was both cultural and religious, so I never questioned it and wore it on and off until I was in my 20s.

If you wear a hijab, people assume you are pious and that was something I didnt want to be associated with. I wore a hijab not because it represented my moral character or my intelligence, my backwardness or my modernity, but because it made me feel grounded and whole. It is a part of my personality and identity. That doesnt give me the right to judge women who dont wear hijab; it doesnt make me a better Muslim than them.

Sometimes, I have worn it as a political statement in places where my identity as a Muslim woman needed to be established. I have chosen it not as an obligation, but as a choice, and that is something a lot of people find difficult to understand. The task of finding a job is certainly challenging in these times when appearance is as important as qualifications. As for the hijab, I have chosen to wear it not out of obligated servitude, nor as a symbol of oppression, but out of freedom.

-Mehwish, 25, engineering student, Kashmir

I started wearing hijab when I was 13 or 14 years old, because I wanted to. My parents never forced me; they supported me. At that time, I didnt know why people wear hijab. But the more I learnt about it, the closer I felt to Allah.

Hijab, for me, is absolutely a part of my identity now. I feel it is the most powerful tool that gives me courage and makes me fearless. It makes me feel I have a voice. Its up to me what I choose to do with my body, and not anyone else to tell me what I should and should not be doing, to not dismiss my intelligence but to accept it, to respect it.

But it is sad that in India today we dont have that respect, or acceptance. People dont leave any stone unturned in disrespecting Muslim women. There is this understanding that women who practise purdah are oppressed, illiterate or backward. Is that something we are going to allow to perpetuate in our society? People need to broaden their horizons, open their minds to realise there is a diverse culture behind what you are making a monolith of, that Islam in itself has diverse culture like any other religion.

The hijab is my right, my choice, and my life. It is not symbol of oppression, but a tool of empowerment for Muslim girls. This is the crown and the identity of us, and if you try to question our identity, then we will fight for it.

-Sadiya Riyaz Shaikh, 19, director and founder of Rahnuma Welfare Foundation, Mumbai

Hijab is my pride, it is my identification, and I personally believe hijab is a choice of each individual. It is a choice women, who want to cover their head for their religion, make. It never was, is, or will be a sign of oppression. I have some sisters who started hijab at the age of 5 as a sign of respect, while others chose not to. Its about hidayat (Gods will), making hijab a choice for one and all. I personally believe this is the end of democracy, an end of an era for people whove just started out, for children who are young and are going to schools, as the experience will never be the same again; for girls who have dreams and ambitions. This entire fiasco has left me with a lot of bewilderment as I didnt grow up in an India like this. I knew a different India and its only a matter of time before things go out of hand.

-Maliha Noor Siddiqui, 22, mass communication student, Kolkata

For more lifestyle news, follow us on Instagram | Twitter | Facebook and dont miss out on the latest updates!

Read the original here:

It is my comfort and confidence amid the chaos: Women share what wearing a hijab means to them - The Indian Express