Daily Archives: March 23, 2022

Political positions have become a reason for discussion around the world. On social networks, the debates are even more profound and often even tend to exchange insults in a more aggressive environment. A necessary reflection, in the Christian scope, is the relationship between the thought of political ideologies and the biblical worldview.

To address the issue, the South American Adventist News Agency (ASN) spoke with David Koyzis. He holds a PhD in government and international studies from the University of Notre Dame (South Bend, IN, USA). In addition, he is the author of Political Visions and Illusions (2019), We Answer to Another: Authority, Office, and the Image of God (2014), and several articles. He currently writes for First Things, Christian Courier, Kuyperian Commentary, and Cateclesia Forum. He taught political science at Redeemer University College for 30 years.

Koyzis maintains a growing relationship with the Christian community in Brazil, which he visited in 2016 and where the second Brazilian edition of Vises e Iluses Polticas (2021) was published by Edies Vida Nova in So Paulo. He has given many remote lectures to audiences in Brazil in recent years on subjects related to his two books. A Spanish translation of Political Visions and Illusions is currently in progress.

Born near Chicago in the United States to Greek and American Cypriot parents, Koyzis now lives with his family in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Interviewer: In your book Political Visions & Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, you talk about political ideologies and show weaknesses in these systems, especially compared to the biblical worldview. What do you highlight, for those who have not read your book, as the main shortcomings of ideologies that are very much defended today, even by Christians?

Koyzis: Well, the main flaw is that ideologies spoil by excess. This fits with a general human tendency to esteem the creature more than the Creator. Liberalism properly values the rights and freedoms of the individual, but makes the individual will the source of all other social phenomena, including the basic institutions necessary for a society to remain healthy and flourish. It tries to make each community a mere voluntary association, thus erasing the distinctions between these communities.

Various forms of collectivism, from socialism to nationalism to democratism, properly value community, but in so doing tend to neglect the legitimate interests of individuals and other communities. For example, socialism pretends that only one form of community can monopolize property, and that usually turns out to be the state. But a society dominated by a single community will be an artificially restricted society where everyone follows orders rather than initiating a variety of activities.

In effect, followers of ideologies create a god out of something created, failing to worship the true God and to express gratitude for the created goods He has given us. But more than that, ideologies tell a story of redemptionof how we humans are going to save ourselves from some perceived evil, be it foreign rule, class inequality, government, or oppression by an outside authority of some sort. Seldom do followers of ideologies examine their own hearts to see if they can take responsibility for the world's ills themselves. This is one of the main reasons why ideologies lead to conflict.

Interviewer: What do you think motivated a more recent phenomenon of strong polarized discussions, especially in the environment of digital social networks, about partisan and political aspects?

Koyzis: I think the polarization arises in part because we make different prudential judgments about which political group or party comes closest to seeking public justice. But I think there's more. Even when we claim to belong to Christ, we inevitably become captivated by the stories these ideologies tell us. Our hearts are divided when they should be united in loyalty to the kingdom of God. The only effective way to break through this polarization is to look into our own hearts and determine whether our loyalty to God's kingdom is genuinely sincere or whether we place our faith in something in His creation.

Interviewer: How do you see the importance of the Christian acting as a responsible citizen, also in your community, which certainly involves issues related to public policies?

Koyzis: Attention to our responsibilities as citizens is of utmost importance to Christians. We cannot brush them aside as intrinsically secular concerns that keep us from worship, prayer, church attendance, and so on. Indeed, a biblical understanding of life in Christ implies that we belong to Him in all that we are and do. This includes the many positions of authority we occupy throughout our lives. We are at once fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, teachers, students, employers, employees, colleagues, pastors, elders, church members, and citizens. Our calling before God is to be faithful in the exercise of each of these offices, recognizing that we are not our own but belong to God in Jesus Christ.

Interviewer: Finally, what do you suggest should be the attitude of Christians in the face of the political reality that surrounds them? What would be a biblically acceptable way?

Koyzis: We need to exercise our citizenship responsibly out of love for God and neighbor. We should not approach political life with an attitude of What do I and my family get out of this? We must rather recognize and support the legitimate role that government plays in our society, pray for our rulers as the Bible instructs us, and be ready to participate in public affairs.

This article was originally published on the South American Divisions news site

Originally posted here:

How to Deal with Political Ideologies in the Face of the Biblical Worldview - Adventist News Network

As the Telangana Rebellion began taking shape in the 40s, members of the movement deployed rural folk art as their weapon of dissent. In Andhra Pradesh, burrakatha became such a strong tool against feudal landlords and an unjust government that it was banned by two spheres the British government in Madras, and the Nizams government in the princely state of Hyderabad.

The Paperclip wrote that the rural community of oral storytellers, was banned by bothbecause they posed a significant threat to imperialism and feudalism. Burrakatha reached regions in India that governments could not, mobilising and uniting rural Andhra Pradesh against caste and class oppression.

Burrakatha evolved from another art form called jangam katha, which was thought to have been derived from bands of roving minstrels (jangam) who sang the praise of Lord Shiva as they travelled rural areas in ancient times, wrote the Cambridge Guide to Theatre (1995). When listeners social and religious affiliations shifted, the minstrels responded by absorbing secular materials into their shows.

Burra refers to the tambura, a stringed instrument worn across the right shoulder of the performer. Meanwhile, katha means story. The main performer, kathakudu, play the tambura and dances rhythmically, as he narrates his story. He also wears a hollow ring with metal balls inside on his thumb and holds another one in his hands. These ring to the beat of the basic tempo of the song. The drummer, called the rajkiya, stands alongside, commenting on contemporary political and social issues, even if the story concerns historical or mythological events.

In the 40s, the Indian Peoples Theatre Association, then closely associated with the Communist Party of India, used burrakatha to convey its political and social message. In Andhra Pradesh, the Praja Natya Mandali (formed to revolt against the Nizams during the rebellion) also used the art form to reach a vast number of voters.

During the Telangana Rebellion, burrakatha became a loud voice that punctured the silence and suffering that rural communities had been enduring for years. They sang songs to celebrate and praise how farmers toiled for decades to cultivate their lands and were beaten down by landlords who asked for taxes even during the time of famines.

Kashtajeevi, the first burrakatha, to be performed in Telangana, narrated the tale of how farmers were forced to roam about with rocks tied to their backs when they told the dora (landlord) that they couldnt pay tax because they had no produce that year. In 1954, the film Aggi Ramudu also narrated the story of Alluri Sitarama Raju, the leader of the Rampa Rebellion in 1922.

Like this, many examples exist of how the art form was used to express the lives of oppressed castes and classes. Sheikh Nazer referred to as the father of modern burrakatha, used the art to mobilise masses during the Telangana Armed Struggle and Indias freedom movement. For him, it was more important to highlight the caste struggle without involving mediums of violence.

As the nation gained independence, burrakatha, too, began evolving. Towards the 70s, it began its descent to obscurity, and the advent of televisions put the art at grave risk. In modern times, it has been used by various governments to spread awareness about electrification, toilets, social issues like child marriage, etc, but its cultural and historical significance remains virtually untold. The inception of the internet, which brought ease of accessibility to movies and plays, has only pushed burrakatha further into obscurity. Those who practice the art today barely earn enough to feed their families, and for most, it is no longer the primary source of livelihood.

The Paperclips full Twitter thread can be found here.

Edited by Yoshita Rao

Read more here:

The Ancient Art of Oral Storytelling That Struck Fear in the British Raj Government - The Better India

The Khwe (San) community living in Bwabwata National Park has claimed oppressive practices perpetrated against them when it comes to their rights as Namibians.

The claims come at the time when many celebrate the fruits of Namibias 32 years of independence.

The alleged oppressive practices range from selective application of the policy of national reconciliation to dispossession and disregard of land and land rights of the Khwe by government and fellow Namibians, loss of access to land rights and growing inequality and poverty.

Other alarming concerns are lack of due diligence in land-based investments; reduced quality of land governance services; refusal to recognise the Khwe Traditional Authority; prohibition to perform cultural practices; denial and violation of the rights of the Khwe to own property; and the seizure of Khwe lands to use as a prison farm.

These concerns are contained in a petition initially aimed to be submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that undertook a fact-finding visit to Bwabwata in Kavango East from 14 to 16 March 2022.

Kletus Karondo, who is the chairperson of the parliamentary standing committee, yesterday confirmed they did not receive the petition, as it did not speak to the Hambukushu petition, which is why the committee undertook the visit.

The parliamentarians visit is in response to a petition submitted by the Hambukushu Traditional Authority in October last year.

The senior traditional leaders demand that the environment ministry come out clear and tell them where they should go, arguing Bwabwata is their ancestral land.

Karondo explained there are two sets of Khwe communities, one situated in the Zambezi and the other in Kavango East regions, extending along the Caprivi Strip.

We received the submission of the Khwe people living in the Zambezi. The Khwe of Kavango East region, their petition did not talk to the issue we went for on the Hambukushu, hence we didnt receive it and we advised them on the right channels to follow to raise the issue to the National Assembly, Karondo said.

Since the refusal to recognise Khwe Traditional Authority is among the raised issues, the petition was signed by the community headman Paulus Rambo; and community activists Calvin Kazibe; David Mushavanga, and Tienie Mushavanga.

The activists accuse the government of proclaiming Bwabwata, where the Khwe people lived since time immemorial, as a national park. Because of this, the Khwe feel effectively stripped of their right to land and their ancestral home. The enforcement of these policies violates a lot of rights, including our freedom of movement and right to practice our cultural traditions and customs. With the restriction of movement in the park, such rights are violated, reads the petition.

Furthermore, they said the resolutions of the first national land conference of 1991 have not been implemented.Most pertinently, they mentioned the resolution on access to land that all citizens should be able to settle anywhere in the country, provided they have regard to the customs applicable to the host communities, stating that priority is given to the landless.

The same resolution states there is a need to differentiated protection of the land rights of the disadvantaged communities such as the San and people living with disabilities.

Government dismally failed to implement these resolutions for more than three decades as they relate to the Khwe people, they said.

They reminded the government that Article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) unequivocally declares thatindigenous people shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous people concerned and after agreement on fair and just compensation and, where possible, with the option of return, read the petition.

Equally, they accuse the government of consistently refusing to recognise the traditional authority of the Khwe people. In response to an application for recognition of Khwe Traditional Authority, the government rejected the application through the council of traditional leaders, claiming the Khwe do not have an area of jurisdiction and the area of jurisdiction in which the impoverished Khwe live belongs to the Hambukushu Traditional Authority.

The community argued governments decision and inaction in this regard is in stark contrast and inconsistent with Article 8(2)(a) of the UNDRIP.

It is historically known and accepted that the San people were the first inhabitants of southern Africa, way before the Bantu migration. It follows that Bwabwata, logically, has been occupied by the San, specifically, the Khwe people as their ancestral home. It is grossly inhumane to force people who are having their distinct tribe, culture, and tradition to practice their culture and traditions under a different ethnic group. We are Not Hambukushu, we are Khwe, stated the community.

anakale@nepc.com.na

Follow this link:

Khwe community claims oppression - Truth, for its own sake. - New Era

Various states have enacted laws limiting the teaching of "critical race theory" by various government institutions. Florida has recently limited "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Keith Whittington has written about some of these laws as applied to universities; I'll speak about that in a separate post. But I thought I'd talk more about the big picture, and particularly K-12 teaching at government-run schools (though similar arguments arise as to internal training by government offices and the like).

[A.] Let me start with three hypotheticals, just to put the matter into broader perspective.

[1.] A state tells public schools (and therefore teachers) that they can't teach "critical race theory," defined for instance as "the theory that racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but that racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality." (I'm quoting here a North Dakota statute enacted recently.)

[2.] There's a movement to teach students Coastal Elites Theory, a theory that various coastal elites (in national government, higher education, Wall Street, Hollywood, and other such institutions) have been wrongfully exploiting Heartland Americans in what some label "flyover country." This has gone on, the theory goes, from the 1700s to now; "heartland" Americans have resisted it at various times throughout (note the echoes here, for instance, of complaints about New York financiers in Alexander Hamilton's day), but the oppression continues.

There is also a countermovement that argues that, though there are some plausible arguments for some such complaints, the theoryespecially when taught in K-12 schoolsis (1) in various respects mistaken, (2) exaggerates the magnitude of the problem, (3) foments divisions both among Americans generally and within each school (since in all places some students and families may be more linked to supposed Coast Elites and some to Heartland Americans), and (4) counterproductively undermines the education even of the students it aims to benefit, by causing them to focus on grievances and obstacles rather than on opportunities. As a result, a state tells public schools that they can't teach Coastal Elites Theory.

[3.] There's a movement to teach students Free-Market Capitalism, the theory that on balance economic liberty is a huge boon for mankind, and that regulations of free markets are usually counterproductive. (I should add that I think this is an important and respectable theory, and I'm inclined to think that it's mostly correct, though the question is always which regulations, however rare, are necessary.) But many in the Legislature disapprove of it, and tell public schools that they can't teach Free-Market Capitalism.

[B.] Now naturally one can conclude that one or more of these proposals is a bad idea because the underlying theory is a good theory and should be taught. But from a legal and constitutional perspective, they strike me as similar.

Someone has to make the decision about what the government says and doeswhat public schools teach, what training government employers require, and the like. Usually it's done by administrators within the relevant government agency: school boards and principals in education, department heads in other departments. Sometimes it's done by line employees, for instance if a school gives teachers considerable authority over a particular class (common in universities, less so in K-12 schools, I think). Sometimes it's done by local officials, such as city or county governments or school boards.

And sometimes it's done by the legislature, either in the first instance or, more often, in reaction to what executive officials have done. In my view, this is a complicated policy question, with no one answer being clearly the right one as a matter of general principle.

For instance, most legislators (and even often local school boards officials) don't have much experience with educating people; principals and individual teachers generally do. On the other hand, legislators and school board members are more representative of the people, including people who are paying for the schools and who are sending their children to the schools. School board members are generally closer to the voters than state legislators. State legislators can provide more statewide uniformity, which is sometimes helpful (and perhaps sometimes not).

Perhaps the right solution might be to leave most decisions to teachers or principals, and to have school boards or legislatures step in only in rare situations where the elected officials think the lower-level decisions are far wrong. Or perhaps it might be to do something else. But again some government officials have to decide what is going to be taught in government-run schools. The question is which government officials they should be.

[C.] But whatever the sound policy might be, the First Amendment generally doesn't speak to these questions (except in the narrow and different context of the teaching of evolution or intelligent design, which has been governed by Establishment Clause principles, see Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), and which I set aside here). While teachers have considerable rights, for instance, to say what they want outside class, when they are teaching on behalf of the school, their speech in class is the government's speech, and they have no special First Amendment right to dictate what that speech would be. To quote some federal appellate courts,

In very rare cases, courts have struck down such curriculum restrictions as being not "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns"; most prominently, the Ninth Circuit so held as to an Arizona law that "prohibits courses and classes that '[a]re designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.'" But even that decision reaffirmed the government's broad authority over the curriculum, upholding, for instance, other provisions that forbade public school classes that "[p]romote resentment toward a race or class of people" or "[a]dvocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Again, it may sometimes be unwise to micromanage teachers on their choices of what and how to teach. But if higher-ups, whether principals, school boards, the state board of education, or the legislature, wants to control such speech, the federal Constitution doesn't constrain them.

Nor is there a First Amendment problem with a state legislature asserting control over the curriculum rather than leaving it to local school boards. Generally speaking, from the perspective of the First Amendment and the rest of the federal Constitution, local governments are subdivisions of the state, and subject to control by the state:

"Political subdivisions of States never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities." They are instead "subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions." State political subdivisions are "merely department[s] of the State, and the State may withhold, grant or withdraw powers and privileges as it sees fit."

Indeed, this is true even of charter schools, when those schools are operated as government schools:

The First Amendment's speech clause does not give charter school teachers, Idaho charter school students, or the parents of charter school students a right to have primary religious texts included as part of the school curriculum. Because [the] charter schools are governmental entities, the curriculum presented in such a school is not the speech of teachers, parents, or students, but that of the [state] government.. A public school's curriculum is "an example of the government opening up its own mouth," because the message is communicated by employees working at institutions that are state-funded, state-authorized, and extensively state-regulated. Because the government's own speech is not subject to the First Amendment, plaintiffs have no First Amendment right to compel that speech.

[D.] Finally, it's possible that a state constitution may give some institutions some autonomy from the state legislature, but I set that state separation-of-powers question aside for this post. And again it's possible that it's wiser or fairer to leave such questions at the local level rather than at the state level, a question that of course arises as to a vast range of public policy and not just school curricula.

But I don't see why in principle the state government, which often pays a huge portion of the cost of public education, shouldn't have a say hereand, indeed, given the constitutional structure of our states, the ultimate control. (Whether federal government should exercise such control, including with conditions on federal funds, is a more complicated matter, because the Constitution doesn't generally view states as just subdivisions of the federal government, the way it views local entities such as school boards as subdivisions of states.)

UPDATE: I added the parenthetical that briefly mentions the evolution / intelligent design cases, which are governed by specialized Establishment Clause rules related to the religion-related motivation for the laws involved in those cases.

Read more:

Who Decides What Is Taught in Government-Run K-12 Schools? - Reason

The historic annual session of All India Muslim League from March 22 to 24 in 1940 at Lahore was called to scrutinise situation that had evolved due to the outbreak of the World War II and India's enforced entry into the war without consulting Indian political leaders, as well as to examine the rationale for the Muslim League's defeat in the general election of 1937 in the Muslim majority provinces. The Muslim League's general session adopted the Lahore Resolution in this three days session which was later pronounced as Pakistan resolution by the Congress influenced media. The events that steered towards the Pakistan Resolution traced back not only to the Round Table Conferences (1930-1932) and the brutal Congress ministries but also brewed deliberately since the mutiny in 1857 and even prior to that event.

Muslim rule in India is delineated to Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh and Multan followed by Ghaznavids in Punjab and Ghoris in the northern India. Turko-Mongol Muslim dynasties, such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, began to establish themselves throughout the subcontinent from the late 12th century onwards; they adopted local culture and mingled with the natives. The Mughal dynasty materialised by Babur, controlled most parts of the subcontinent after 1526 when he vanquished Ibrahim Lodi, the last Pashtun ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, at the First Battle of Panipat.

English East India Company was founded as a monopoly trading entity on December 31, 1600, by a royal charter, so that England may participate in the East Indian spice trade, however, trade and colonisation for the English were intrinsically tied. The Mughal Empire after 1707 lost strength and territory to the Marathas and the EIC. The company later in 1757, following the last Battle of Plassey, embarked on ruling the subcontinent until 1858 when it lost its administrative powers as a result of the Government of India Act 1858, which was introduced following the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. The government of India shifted from the directors of the company to a secretary of the state, so began the direct British imperial rule on India.

Muslims were dismantled of their livelihood in the aftermath of the mutiny. Despite the fact that the last Mughal king, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was a reluctant front man for the anti-British struggle, the Muslim population as a whole was blamed by the vindictive British Empire. Thousands of Muslims were hanged to death and shot, entire localities in Delhi were razed. Many more were exiled and died in prison, including the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. Hindus, on the other hand, faced no all-out consequences and welded themselves to bureaucracy and politics in the British Raj. Events like the Urdu-Hindi controversy was yet another issue that escorted the Muslims to acknowledge the petty-minded manoeuvring of Hindus who were in majority.

Muslims were devastated and retreated inwards. Few Muslims were able to compete when western education became a necessity for government posts. With his Aligarh University, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan attempted to reverse this thinking, but Muslims in general, were hesitant to accept their surrender of authority to the British Raj. He also laid the foundations of Two Nation Theory and made the Muslims aware that their political involvement is a prerequisite if they wish to exist meaningfully.

Concurrently, an ex-English ICS officer A.O. Hume had the vision of organising a political party in India and met prominent English administrators for this aim, resulting in the formation of Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885 under the British supervision and with local Indian contributions. Congress was formed with the aim to represent the people of India alike, regardless of their faith but its top tier was monopolised by the extremist Hindu leaders like Tilak, Rash Behari, Medan Mohan and Banerjee who pushed Muslims to the wall for their religious customs including cow slaughter. Congressmen endorsing movements like Shuddhi and Sangathan of the Arya Samaj for conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism unveiled their hypocrisy and verbal claims of equality and emancipation of all ethnic groups residing in India.

Despite the Congress anti-Muslim initiatives, a number of Muslim politicians remained committed to Congress and the idea of a united and equal India. Important political figures like Mohammad Ali Johar, Maulana Azad, and even Jinnah believed that despite the freshly growing Hindu-Muslim tensions, there was likelihood for them to unite.

During the All-India Muslim Education Conference's annual meeting in 1906, the Nawab of Dhaka, Khwaja Salimullah, proposed the formation of a political party to serve the interests of Muslims in British India. The conference unanimously passed a resolution, resulting in the creation of the All India Muslim League (AIML).

On October 10, 1913, Jinnah joined AIML and was influential in convincing the party to revise its constitution to include an acceptable form of self-government under the British Crown. At Lucknow, in 1916, while being a member of both INC and AIML, he facilitated a pact for separate electorates for the Muslims and Hindus. Sarojini Naidu, a dynamic political figure of the time, called Jinnah as the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

Demand for self-rule gained fame in India after a million Indian soldiers fought on behalf of Britain. To pacify the people GOI Act 1919 was passed which due to its exclusive diarchal nature, confronted cosmic opposition from both the leading parties. The Jalianwala Bagh incident and Khilafat movement proved momentous in coaxing Indians towards independence. Congress in 1920 launched Non-Cooperation Movement while Jinnah, an adherent of political struggle, resigned from Congress calling the move political anarchy and moved to London where he spent most of the roaring 20s.

PM Baldwin appointed a commission under John Simon in November 1927 to present a report on the GOI Act 1919 but this commission too got repulsed by both Congress and Muslim League as none of the seven members were Indian. Lord Birkenhead who was the then secretary of state on Indian affairs challenged Indian political parties to frame a constitution for themselves if they were capable enough and this underestimation resulted in All Parties Conference (1928) which in its fourth session at Bombay presented Nehru Report as preamble for the constitution of united India. Muslim League rejected Nehru Report and Jinnah came up with his famous fourteen points demanding provincial autonomy, one-third Muslim representation in the central legislature and reserved seats for Muslims in Punjab and Bengal's provincial assemblies. Jinnah who was once an Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity was now convinced that in a Hindu majority India, rights of Muslims cannot be sheltered in true essence.

Sir Muhammad Iqbal too was once an enduring enthusiast of Indian nationalism but soon recognised the existential threat that loomed over the Muslims of India and in his presidential address in the 21st annual session of AIML at Allahabad on December 29, 1930. He critically advocated Muslim identity and religious nationalism. Iqbal recommended that Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, Balochistan, and Sindh be amalgamated into one state as a lasting solution to the Muslim Hindu conundrum.

Three Round Table Conferences were called on by Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald to shape a future constitution for India after it was felt that Nehru Report alone was deficient. To summarise, the first Conference ended in failure due to the absence of the Congress, and the second Conference failed due to the arrogant attitude of the Congress, which elevated the level of resentment between Hindus and Muslims, and the communal award confirmed to be the death blow to relations between the two communities of the Indian subcontinent. On July 4, 1935, a new constitution was ratified by both houses of the English Parliament and through royal assent enacted in India. The GOI Act 1935 proved helpful regarding separate electorates and provinces were empowered as the diarchy introduced in GOI Act 1919 was axed but the strings of power remained entangled.

Though not immediately noticeable after the Act's enactment, the provincial elections held under its provisions in I937, and the outcomes thereof, brought this crossroad in Indian nationalism to light. Congress formed government in eight out of 11 provinces while AIML cracked into divergent ideological factions, lagged to gain public credence and was not able to form government in any province. Although, Congress and ML failed to procure a conclusive Muslim majority but Muslims still anticipated the Congress government to be fair and religiously neutral, given their overwhelming support. The new government, however, treated Muslims with oppression and despotism, which was dismaying for Muslims who underpinned Congress in the polls. Hindi became the national language, the Congress flag became the national flag, cow slaughter was outlawed and Vande Mataram became the national anthem adapted from Chandra Chatterji's novel Anandamath. Warda Teleemi Scheme was aimed to engineer Muslim youth against Two Nation Theory. Congress made a colossal error and misjudged the consequences, which manifested themselves as Muslims alienated from the Congress.

Muslim League was not dormant during this time; the organisation mobilised the Muslim youth politically, made them aware of the Hindus proclivity for theocracy. Several reports including Pirpur Report and The Sharif Report and Muslim Sufferings under the Congress Rule by A.K Fazul ul Haq were issued during this time to accentuate the dissatisfaction Muslims had with the Congress rule.

The British were battling the Axis Powers once World War II broke out and Indias involvement was proclaimed by the Viceroy without engaging Indias ruling party. Congress was unhappy over the move, the party resigned from government in 1939, while Quaid-i-Azam seeing a promising opportunity for Muslim political empowerment asked them for honourable co-operation at the critical and difficult juncture. The nightmare regime that had tormented the Muslim population beyond imagination came to an abrupt end. Jinnah urged Muslims to commemorate 22nd December as a Day of Deliverance without malice against other nations.

A year later in Lahore during the three-day annual convention of AIML, Lahore Resolution was passed demanding a separate homeland for the Muslims of India which was projected as Pakistan Resolution by Indian press while taking the word Pakistan from Choudhry Rehmat Alis pamphlet during the third Round Table Conference (1932) by which he referred to the five northern units of India. The struggle for a separate homeland continued till 1947 but the resolution and its history provided a blueprint for the future course of action.

Today, Two-Nation Theory is revised in India as Narendra Modis government is branded with anti-Muslim sentiments and religious intolerance peaking high. However, todays Pakistan characterised by extremism and political disability too has deviated by miles from the ideals envisioned by the founding fathers. Muslim League and Jinnah particularly had facilitated womens proactive political involvement but instead of evolving for better with the advancing intellect and human reason, we evolved for the worst and today the rights of minorities and women exist only on papers.

History has the power to guide the future, unfortunately though, in todays Pakistan where landmark events are memorised for the sake of profession and the fourteen points of Jinnah for a college degree, the true essence of non-violent struggle, diplomacy and tolerance is burdensome for the youth to translate. We all have to contribute in blocking the chaos and diffusing peace so that no human has to fear for their lives. We will have to strive together, by eliminating discrimination and internal biases among ourselves to thrive as a nation.

-The writer is a grad student of Political Science at SPIR, QAU. He can be accessed at: kashifafridiinfo@gmail.com.

See the article here:

The building blocks of 23rd March - The News International

Breadcrumb Trail Links

I've been typing this column through tears of frustration, anger and sadness at this bitter news

On Nov. 2, I asked Rachel Pulfer the executive director of Journalists for Human Rights, a small but mighty NGO in Toronto if there was any update regarding a young Afghan journalist Id been trying to help, who was hiding from the Taliban in Kabul. I had previously sent his information to her in an encrypted file.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Pulfer responded almost immediately that there was one spot left on a plane JHR had chartered to fly out of Afghanistans chaotic capital city headed for Islamabad, Pakistan, in two days.

It was the first good news Fahim had heard since his country that hed worked so hard to improve was seized by the Taliban on Aug. 15, 2021. Two days later, Fahim was safe in Pakistan.

I had met Fahim in December 2003 when I travelled to Afghanistan to cover how our troops helped liberate the people of that country from the Talibans tyranny and oppression. Fahim was just 12 years old then, a student at the Children of War School in Paghman, and asked me to write my contact information in his notebook which he had just received from Samaritans Purse during an Operation Christmas Child gift box distribution. Our compassionate and professional Canadian Armed Forces troops handled the logistics of the distribution of the boxes filled with school supplies, toys and hygiene items.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In a recent interview, Pulfer called the work JHR has done helping Afghan journalists and their families a minor miracle, considering all the challenges.

From their list of 500 Afghan journalists JHR has evacuated 388 people, of which 178 have landed in either Canada or another safe country for permanent settlement. Another 20 have Canadian visas and should arrive in Canada in the next several weeks.

Sadly, 112 are still in Afghanistan, being hidden and supported in safe houses paid for entirely by JHR. Fahim is one of the 144 Afghan journalists waiting for his paperwork to appear as he waits in Pakistan.

Since the air bridge went down in Afghanistan, JHR has done more to get Afghans out of Afghanistan than our federal government, a fact that Pulfer says is pretty shocking when you think about it, cuz were a non-profit held together with love and chocolate.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Taliban, added Pulfer, have used the opportunity of the Wests distraction with the buildup in Ukraine and then the breakout of war in Ukraine to crack down. In particular, theyve been cracking down on women activists travelling without male guardians. That has been a major issue.

The Taliban have indicated that they want to have the right to appoint a male guardian for a woman who has to travel. They have required that people provide them with a clear reason for why they wish to travel out of the country, and Taliban have also been going door-to-door removing women activists passports, women journalists passports and also arresting prominent women.

So, the West is focused on Ukraine and the Taliban is reverting to type, said Pulfer.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The only support the federal government has provided to JHR and the veterans groups helping to get Afghans out of their country including Aman Lara (which means sheltered path in Pashto) is to support people who already have a coveted Canadian G-number.

The numbers I shared with you of the original list of 500 journalists and their family members, were helping them with private donations from Canadians and that money is running out, said Pulfer.

We have ongoing discussions with the Canadian government but nothing ever seems to happen, added Pulfer. I wish I could be more positive than that. But, you know, now theyre all focused on Ukraine.

Canada should help as many Ukrainians as possible. But surely the same should be done to help Afghans who acted as interpreters to our brave troops and for journalists whose lives are at risk for writing about Taliban atrocities and advocating for human rights.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Tom Kmiec, the MP for Calgary Shepard, has been trying to help Fahim but found out this week that despite Fahim receiving an email from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada back in August, the government cant find any record of his application.

On Monday, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Sean Fraser recommended that Fahim reapply for refuge through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Ive been typing this column through tears of frustration, anger and sadness at this bitter news.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said back in August and September that Canada would clear the way to accept 40,000 Afghan refugees after he called an unnecessary election on the very day that Kabul fell to the Taliban. Other than doing paperwork in Ottawa, the federal government is doing nothing to help those who are languishing and waiting for some kind of word people like Fahim.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I could talk to you for a long time about the difference between how those brave Afghans who patrolled with our troops are treated and how Ukrainians are treated, said Kmiec, a Polish-Canadian, who is in favour of helping as many Ukrainians move to Canada as possible but who also thinks Afghans should be helped.

And how the Kurds were treated even though they fought side by side with our allies in Northern Iraq against ISIS, its the same and the way we treated the Yazidis, same, said Kmiec.

A spokesperson for the federal immigration minister wrote: Canada remains firm in our commitment in resettling at least 40,000 vulnerable Afghan nationals and to date more than 9,400 are already beginning their new lives in Canada.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

IRCC utilizes a referral process with partners like the United Nations Refugee Agency to identify individuals who are eligible for our Government Assisted Refugee spaces. This system supports IRCC in validating applications received and ensures a rigorous screening process. A referral to IRCC by the UNHCR indicates that the UNHCR has assessed the case and concluded that resettlement is the best option.

It would have been nice if the automated reply Fahim received in August and which Ive seen would have told him that. Instead, he relied on the virtue signalling of our government and prime minister and the online forms for Afghans he filled in on the federal immigration website. Now, six months later, this government is telling Afghans to stop going through the government and to go through the UN? Its disgusting.

As for Pulfer, she says her organization only has enough money to keep those theyre trying to help supported for another month or two.

So, please, readers, donate what you can to Journalists for Human Rights. Help bring Fahim and others like him to safety.

Licia Corbella is a Postmedia columnist in Calgary.

lcorbella@postmedia.com

Twitter: @LiciaCorbella

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Calgary Herald, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Calgary Herald Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See the rest here:

Corbella: Small but mighty non-profit does the heavy lifting to help Afghans while feds do little - Calgary Herald

Washington, D.C. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dick Durbin (D-IL), James Lankford (R-OK), and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced legislation to reauthorize the independent, bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) through fiscal year 2024.Freedom of religion is a God-given right afforded to all individuals. Our nation is blessed to have a constitution that protects this right and a proud tradition of defending this principle since its founding, Rubio said. Tragically, many around the world are deprived of this fundamental protection. Christians in Nigeria, Nicaragua, and Cuba, Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, and many more risk persecution and even death because of their beliefs. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom plays a critical role in shining a light on religious freedom violations worldwide. Im proud to lead my colleagues in this bipartisan effort so that men and women across the globe are free to safely and peacefully worship.As we bear witness to dangerous global trends toward authoritarianism and democratic backsliding, religious freedom, like other human rights, is increasingly imperiled worldwide, Menendez said. From Chinas genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and horrific abuses against Buddhists in Tibet, to Irans totalitarian restrictions and undeniable violence against religious minorities, the United States action to advance and support free religious expression is more crucial than ever. Todays reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reflects our enduring commitment to safeguard human rights, and I remain deeply committed to continue our work to build on and strengthen the ways the U.S. government elevates the voices and causes of marginalized religious communities everywhere.Religious freedom is increasingly under attack around the world, Risch said. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is working to advance and protect the right to practice ones religion of choice in peace and without fear. This reauthorization will allow USCIRF to continue promoting religious freedom globally and investigate violations, such as the genocide of Uyghurs in China, attacks on Jehovahs Witnesses in Russia, and the persecution of Yazidis, Baha'is, Christians, and others in the Middle East.The United States has a long tradition of promoting religious freedom abroad, and this Commission is dedicated to advising Congress and the Executive Branch about how to successfully ensure religious freedom is protected and that religion is not exploited to justify human-rights abuses, Durbin said. As the global refugee crisis worsens, the United States must do more to address the scourge of religious persecution, including holding perpetrators accountable and providing a safe haven to refugees. Its heartening to see a bipartisan group of Senators come together on this pressing issue to ensure that the Commission can effectively fulfill its mission.The United States has the responsibility to call out religious persecution around the world. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom conducts crucial research and provides vital information on the status of religious liberty worldwide so we can ensure that religious freedom is protected and promoted for people of faith around the world, Lankford said. The right to practice any faith, change faiths, or have no faith is a fundamental human right of all people everywhere. It is vital that the U.S. stand up for religious freedom and unequivocally denounce violence, oppression, and genocide against people of faith worldwide. Im grateful for the continued work of USCIRF. We need their work to continue to help shine a light on bad actors who do not protect the unalienable human right of religious freedom for all people.Im proud to support this legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and continue the vital work to monitor and prevent the persecution of religious minorities around the world,"Coons said. From Uyghur Muslims in China to diverse faiths across Nigeria to those who practice no religion at all, there is a clear, urgent need for this organization and continued U.S. leadership in championing human rights around the world. Im glad to join a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce this reauthorization of USCIRF and reaffirm our commitment to international religious freedom.Background:

Original post:

Rubio Leads Colleagues in Introducing Bill to Reauthorize the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom - Senator Marco Rubio

By Mike Fegelman

In the mid-1960s, psychologist Abraham Maslowfamously wroteI suppose it is tempting if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. His adage, now more than a half-century old, could just as easily have been written today about anti-Israel activists, who seem to look for an opportunity to drag Israel into any subject.

In anopinion column in the Georgia Straight on March 5 entitled B.C. governments decision to ban Russian liquor exposes its doublespeak on human rights, Gurpreet Singh discussed the recent decision by the British Columbia government to ban Russian alcohol from the provinces liquor stores in protest of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But Singhs column was not largely about Russia or Ukraine, but it also focused on Israel, and why Russian alcohol could be banned, but not alcohol from the Jewish state.

such massive outrage remains missing whenever Palestinians come under attack from Israel. Even as the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues for years, Canadian politicians have largely looked away. B.C. politicians are therefore no exception,Singh wrote.

When Singh later observed that the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues for years, he apparently takes this statement as an indisputable fact which requires no supporting evidence.

There is a reason Singh provides only rhetoric, not facts, when accusing Israel of occupying Palestinian land: because it is empty rhetoric utterly devoid of supporting evidence.

The Jewish peoples history in the land of Israel stretches back three thousand years, and this tiny strip of landsmaller than Vancouver Islandhas been the indigenous homeland for Jews ever since then. It is the land where the Jewish prophets walked, where Hebrew has been read, studied and spoken for millennia, where two Jewish temples stood, and where observant Jews face when they pray, no matter where in the world they are today.

Israels legal basis for land ownership is well established in international law. The San Remo Declaration in 1920, which was the foundation for Israels legal land claims, came nearly half a century before Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat claimed that the Palestinians were a defined people who owned the land.

Clearly, the State of Israel is not occupying Palestinian land. If Singh is perhaps referring to Judea and Samariacommonly referred to as the West Bank in media coveragethen he is still wrong. Judea and Samaria were occupied by the sovereign Kingdom of Jordan, and was lost to Israel in 1967 when, under the leadership of King Hussein, Jordan attacked Israel. Today, Jordan does not claim the land as its own anymore, and international law simply does not allow the Palestinianswho do not represent a sovereign state that has ever been in existenceto claim the land as their own.

Perhaps even more remarkable than his claims about Israels alleged land theft is Singhs statement that BDS has received mostly hostile press. It is unclear on what basis Singh argues that BDSor the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement against Israelhas been all but rejected or ignored by the news media. In fact, BDS is regularly covered by the news mediathanks to anti-Israel detractors who propel its cause, including a recent CTV News Montreal story about a Russian pianist whose performance was cancelled by the Montreal Symphony Orhestra in protest of the war in Ukraine.

Whether at the United Nations General Assembly, where Israel is condemned more than all other countries combined,yearafteryear, or at college and university campuses, whereanti-Israel BDS votesand initiatives are regularly introduced, Israel, Israelis, and indeed quite often Jews, are favourite targets of boycotts, divestments, sanctions, and opprobrium. In fact, each spring, campuses around the world are home to events and programs related to Israeli Apartheid Week, a cacophony of anti-Israel misinformation and bigotry under the guise of anti-oppression politics.

Singh appears to live in a world where Israel is a brutal occupier and attacker of the Palestinians, and where the BDS movement is ignored or rejected. But in the real world, Israel is a tiny country under constant threat from a constellation of groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Iran, as a small sample, and which despite 3,000 years of habitation in its historic homeland, continues to have its very right to exist questioned and challenged on an ongoing basis.

Singhs concern for the well-being of the Palestinian people is admirable, but his commitment to factual accuracy leaves much to be desired.

See the rest here:

Mike Fegelman: Jewish people's history in the land of Israel stretches back three thousand years - The Georgia Straight

Outside two world wars and the protracted Cold War, what most defined 20th century geopolitics were two competing global projects: imperialism and anti-colonialism. Totalitarian rulers embraced both banners, launching wars of aggression that crushed the ambitions of free peoples and those yearning to be free.

Today, those malignant projects are back, once again setting the world aflame. Extinguishing the fires will take both might and moral clarity. It will also require the radical left to admit its been radically wrong. The free world will have to tack right to win.

End of the Beginning

InThe End of History and the Last Man(1992), Francis Fukuyama confidently declared that threats to a liberal world order were waning, never to rise again. That fanciful notion is now dead: trampled by Russian tanks, flattened by Iranian missiles, and paved over by Chinese belts and roads. China, Russia, and Irancollectively and individuallyrepresent grave threats to the liberties, security. Underpinning these physical dangers are a dangerous set of ideas that held sway throughout much of the 20thCentury.

The worst impulses of imperialism are nothing new. The last century started with the struggles of competing imperialist powers. Though Europe was ground zero for the Great War, the impact stretched globally as the fate of the Great Power combatants rippled across their vast empires. (See Michael Howard,The First World War,2003.)

>>>North Korea: Getting Ready To Test a New ICBM and More Nuclear Weapons?

Then came fascism, a new imperialism on steroids from Italy, Germany and Japan. Those powers instigated World War II. If there are any doubts where these monsters were headed read Gerhard Weinbergs 2005 book,Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders.Their conquests would have left the world looking like a horror show.

After World War II, formal empires declined, leading to a new force to be reckoned with: decolonization. The U.S. championed this movement. So, too, did the Soviet Union and China, but for very different reasons. American foreign policy viewed the dismantling of empires into nation-states self-governed by their peoples, as a natural evolution toward a more stable world order.

The Soviet Union used decolonizations language of liberation to mask its imperialist designs, ultimately enslaving half of Europe in an iron grip. Mao implemented his communist ideology by slaughtering 20 million of his countrymen during the Cultural Revolution, all the while dismissing opposition from the free world as effort of colonialists to shore-up the old world order. By the iron laws of Marxist history, opposition to the Communist system was, by definition, a feudal and futile attempt to suppress the masses that Stalin and Mao purported to liberate.

This was a new war: a war of ideas. And the U.S. position was challenging. Unlike in World War II, the world wasnt simply black and white, where siding with new or old powers would axiomatically further the cause of freedom.

The best exemplar of this dilemma was President Eisenhowers struggle to find a sure path through the Suez Crisis in 1956, juggling independent nations (backed by the Kremlin) against former regional powerbrokers Britain and France. This dilemma is described well in Mike Dorans book,Ikes Gamble: Americas Rise to Dominance in the Middle East(2016). The crisis demonstrated that the U.S. had a real fight on its hands to keep the free world free and that figuring out how to do thatlet alone explain it to Americans and the rest of the worldwas very hard indeed.

For one thing, the U.S. had to fight off Soviet efforts to weaponize decolonization as a propaganda tool to undercut American promotion of democratic governance. Some critics in the West and the non-aligned world (a movement that claimed independence from either sides in the Cold War, but was heavily supported and influenced by Moscow and Beijing) simply parroted Communist propaganda.

Other leftist scholars derived the same conclusions from Marx and Engels, their passions and intellect fueled in part by the Vietnam anti-war movement and later the radical environmental and anti-nuclear campaigns. The most extreme examples included the likes of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground, as described inDays of Rage: America's Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violenceby Bryan Burrough (2015).

Marxist ideology was the basis of an interpretation of history championed William Appelman Williams and the Wisconsin School. (See, for example, hisEmpire as a Way of Life,1980). They accused Washington of everything from cultural imperialism (jazz music and Coca Cola) to running an informal empire.

Thus, the U.S. found itself continually fighting two fronts in the Cold War of ideas: one against the physical expansion of Soviet imperialism (clothed as Communism), the other against the canard that democracies were themselves the real imperialists battling decolonization every step of the way.

These debates became largely academic when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, giving Fukuyama free range to run with his geopolitical imagination.

Prologue is Past

Today, we are back in a dangerous place.

There is no question that Russia, China and Iran have imperial designs, visions that are far more dangerous than winsome musings of past glories. Putin has launched a campaign of brutal conquests to reclaim lands in the West. Xis goal is to reestablish the Middle Kingdom, not by isolating it from the outside world, but by using every tool availablefrom military threats and cyberspace to debt diplomacyto seize near dictatorial control over markets, information, territory, and supply chains. Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, in large part because Tehran views the country as the only real obstacle to the expansion of its power and influence throughout the Middle East.

Anti-colonialism has also returned. The ideals of popular sovereignty are under assault again at home and abroad, denounced as artificial constructs imposed on others. In America, everything woke from ANTIFA and BLM to the most radical of the radical left, condemns our constitutional order as fascist. If that seems like history repeating itselfwell, it is. Many radical left leaders propound ideas are entrenched in Marxist-Leninist ideology and the legacies of Stalin and Mao. The radical roots of Black Lives Matter, for example, are exposed in Mike GonzalezsBLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution(2021).

Wokeness has also been weaponized against American allies, attacking our friends for not being liberal enough because that dont share far left ideology on topics from gender identity and abortion to climate action. Many of these critiques are steeped in the same impulses of Marxist critiques from the Cold War attacking religion, economic liberalism, history, traditions, culture, and democratic practices as institutions of Western oppression and racism.

A New, New Beginning?

Once again, the West is in a two-front ideological war from within and without. One is a physical struggle, a new kind of war against the likes of Russia, China and Iran. We must defend not just our territory, but our economies, supply chains, and infrastructure from their malicious and malevolent designs. That starts with rebuilding our military, striving for energy independence, freeing the free world from economic exploitation by Communist China, and checkmating Chinas efforts to overtake and corrupt international organizations. In short, we cant win without being proactive and securing our freedom, safety, and prosperity.

>>>U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement Turns 10. It Is Key to Further Elevating Both Countries Alliance.

The second war is one of ideas. To prevail in this fight will require a common moral and ethical compass. That wont come from compromising in the center. The right and left sides of the political spectrum are not equipoised. The modern left has been sucked far toward its extreme Marxist flank, like a planet swallowed by a black hole.

The left must wake up. They are on the wrong side of historyagain. When it comes to the threat they pose to freedom, Communists and fascists are a distinction without a difference. The only difference between Antifa and Putin is that Putin has tanks.

In the 1950s, the U.S. achieved bipartisanship in foreign policy not by splitting the difference between right and left. Democrats returned to national power only by becoming more anti-communist than the anti-communists. JFK, for instance, could only follow Ike in office by showing as much determination to take on Moscow as did Richard Nixon (who took second place to no one as an anti-communist). The left will not be relevant in todays new kind of war unless they tack right, embracing peace through strength, empowering economies by freeing them from unnecessary regulation and excessive government spending, and respecting the popular sovereignty of states.

Unhappy with this administrations progressive agenda, the American people already are moving in that direction. It the left doesnt tack right, their party might not survive. If the West doesnt tack right, it might not survive.

Visit link:

In a New Kind of War, the Old Wars of Ideas Are Back - Heritage.org

BY Tatenda MazaruraSOUTH Africa is home to millions of immigrants, mainly from Lesotho, Nigeria, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The regional giant has played an immense role for more than a century in attracting labour for its economy. However, this has come at a cost. While the influx of migrants continues as a result of several push-and-pull factors, the question arises: how will coexistence with increasingly anxious locals be possible?

One of the major challenges facing migrants in South Africa is xenophobia and xenophobic violence. The worst wave to date, the nationwide attacks on migrants and refugees in 2008, was followed by a second round of nationwide xenophobic violence in early 2015 when migrant-owned businesses were targeted by mobs. Scores of people died unimaginably violent deaths.

Over the years these attacks have increasingly targeted migrants and refugees, including many Zimbabweans seeking to make a living in that country.

Now, Operation Dudula, a Soweto-born movement comprising Soweto and Alexandra residents is wreaking havoc, reportedly targeting foreign traders and alleged criminals spreading the call to #PutSouthAfricansFirst.

Migrant-owned informal businesses are being systematically targeted while illegal migrants are being forcibly evicted from their rented homes and marketplaces in areas such as Johannesburgs Turffontein, Alexandra and Hillbrow.

The hashtag #PutSouthAfricansFirst has become prominent on social media (trending almost daily), calling on government and the private sector to prioritise locals over foreigners, while accusing undocumented foreigners of being responsible for rising crime in communities, as well as running drug and prostitution syndicates, among other social ills.

As Operation Dudula intensifies, many immigrant traders and shopkeepers now live in fear. For most Zimbabweans, returning to Zimbabwe is not a viable option because of the economic and political conditions in the country.

Last week, the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which comprises more than 75 civil society organisations and focuses on democracy, human rights, good governance and sustainable development, hosted a Twitter space to reflect on the possibility of coexistence among South Africans and other Africans in the country.

Vusumuzi Sibanda, president and CEO of the African Diaspora Global Network said in order to address the challenges of the migration crisis, one needs to look at the causes of xenophobia and the natural hatred of other Africans in South Africa. As in many parts of the world where a significant and in most cases growing portion of the population comprises migrants, immigration is an emotive issue and, to politicians delight, an election issue.

Sibanda criticised right-wing extremists and politicians in South Africa for often using political opportunism and populism to blow issues of migration and poor service delivery out of proportion by attributing government failure to service its people to the influx of migrants.

For a while now, there are people in government and in opposition parties that prey on the issue of migration. They blame migrants for crime and as the people that make it difficult for the government to deliver housing and adequate hospital facilities, noted Sibanda.

While acknowledging that migrants do commit crime, he insisted that crime must be addressed as a human phenomenon, not an exclusively migrant phenomenon, arguing that, just like natives, if migrants commit crime they must face the full wrath of the law.

Sibanda bemoaned the resurgence of xenophobia in South Africa, which he believes is hinged on the principle of divide and rule by incumbents and those trying to get into power, in order to mislead the people, diverting their attention from real governance issues.

While Africa may have attained political independence, there remains a gap in terms of properly applying effective public policy, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law. The failure of governments in the region to abide by even the minimum governance standards sets in motion the phenomenon of forced or involuntary migration from ones country to another.

When migrants arrive in South Africa, which is facing its own economic and governance challenges, the stage is set and all that is required is for immigrants to be blamed for everything. All that is required to detonate the bomb is a simple trigger in any form.

Sibanda accused politicians of brainwashing communities by controlling access to information and interfering with Press freedoms.

The information put out there by our leaders is information that is meant to vilify certain groups of people and make other people feel inadequate rather than educate people and make them realise that they are the ones that can hold governments to account, because they vote governments into power and can always take them out of power.

The ability of South Africans and migrants to coexist lies with removing the prejudices that have been sown into peoples minds, such as the simplistic microphone statements that if migrants are kicked out of South Africa there will be better job opportunities and better service delivery, among other things. Targeting foreigners is just a fallacy and a diversion from the governments failure to deliver on its promises and obligations.

Sibanda concluded by urging civil society organisations to provide adequate civic education to the people of Africa so that they understand and appreciate the power they have. The people must be empowered so they can hold African leaders, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union to account for presiding over sham elections and poor democracies and start demanding political and economic stability instead of fighting among themselves.

Speaking on the same platform, Trevor Ngwane, one of the Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia organisers, a movement formed in February 2022 in response to attacks on immigrants, added that the struggle against xenophobia is a struggle to complete the revolution and end all forms of exploitation and oppression in South Africa, the African continent and throughout the world.

Xenophobia presents an attempt to use the old colonisers tactic of divide and rule, instead of us uniting with each other and demanding land, jobs, our factories and our minerals back. Instead, we start fighting over scraps from the masters table.

Ngwane expressed concern that these tactics of fighting poverty and inequality favour the exploiter, the oppressor and the former coloniser.

Certainly, the minds of the ordinary people are still owned by the bourgeoisie. Many ordinary working-class people find themselves without skills, without hope, and many of them are still stuck in the ghetto, in the shacks and townships.

But instead of challenging their government, they are now being influenced by the bourgeoisie, especially the black bourgeoisie who are enriching themselves by scapegoating immigrants. So, this is part of a bigger strategy to defend capitalism, the new black elite and the old white monopolycapitalism.

Ngwane said winning the fight against xenophobia hinges on collective efforts by the ordinary people of Africa.

We must abolish colonial borders that force us to view our African brothers and sisters as illegal foreigners and go with the pan-Africanism spirit of Kwame Nkrumah and Patrice Lumumba. We must unite against the bourgeois class, our former exploiters, and the new aspirant black bourgeoisie. We must unite as the exploited and the oppressed and fight for a better life. Whether you come from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Malawi, South Africa, let us unite as the oppressed, speak with one voice and say no to xenophobia!

The now predictable cyclical episodes of xenophobic violence in South Africa is an embarrassing blight on the very idea of African solidarity and oneness that the regional leaders espouse at every opportunity. Besides being responsible for fanning the flames, it is tragic that there seems to be no real political will to address this phenomenon from a systemic and genuineposition.

As long as selfish politicians put a premium on whipping up emotions for narrow political gains, the noble dream of a united Africa so gallantly fought for by the continents late icons such as Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Robert Mugabe, Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah, will forever be delayed.

In the main, governments in and around South Africa have an urgent obligation to reset their governance systems in a manner that is people-focused through deliberate broad-based development agendas. Countries like Zimbabwe are so rich in minerals; in normal circumstances there shouldnt be such a daily influx of illegal immigrants to South Africa.

Xenophobia is unnecessary and avoidable and the solution is not even magical: we just need to get back to basics in the form of good governance in the region as well as responsible leadership, especially at the epicentre South Africa.

Read the original:

The political agency of xenophobia, violence in SA - NewsDay