Category Archives: Government Oppression

When Putin set out to invade Ukraine, the world wasnt sure what he intended. But while threats were being exchanged, a variable that wasnt considered in the war effort was something Russia was battling to legislate on: Crypto.

Since the war started, Ukraine has continued to receive donations in crypto. Sanctions have also forced the hands of Russians to turn to crypto. Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc have been put in the spotlight. Over a week, more than $50 million of cryptocurrency have been donated since it opened up bitcoin and Ethereum wallets and announced the addresses on Twitter last week.

But many questions have continued to rage on: should Russians still have access to crypto as a way to circumvent sanctions? Should crypto exchanges ban Russians? Is Crypto truly decentralized if Russians can be abruptly cut off the blockchain?

Since the war began, cryptocurrency trading has increased dramatically in Russia. The increase is due in part to the Ukrainian central banks tight capital controls and SWIFT sanctions, which include limits on ATM withdrawals, a suspension of the FOREX market, and restrictions on official electronic transaction networks.

As Russian President Vladimir Putins army invade Ukraine, two economies that have been in the forefront of adopting the new form of digital currency are now turning to it to gain a competitive advantage in the geopolitical conflict. The first big conflict of the crypto era also means that, for the first time ever, both parties have access to a mechanism that can easily move billions of dollars across borders.

Related article | EU Monitor Crypto Exchanges To Ensure Russian Sanctions Implementation

The Ukrainian government appealed on Twitter for cryptocurrency donations following its invasion by Russia. Ukraines Vice-Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov tweeted the wallet addresses for donations.

The Biden administration and European officials say they are increasing blockchain surveillance in order to capture any activity linked to the Kremlin. Ukrainian officials have requested that all Russian accounts on cryptocurrency exchanges be frozen. Crypto exchanges agreed to put a blacklist in place. However, they refuse to prohibit all Russian accounts, claiming that doing so would jeopardize the cryptocurrency communitys libertarian culture. That doesnt imply the Kremlin will have it easy.

The US Treasury Department announced on March 1st that sanctions on Russia will include checks on digital currency. Large crypto exchanges were also instructed by the White House to avoid doing business with sanctioned companies.

In an executive order, the government says it will take action against anyone who violates Russias sanctions, including through the usage of digital currencies.

During the Russian-Ukrainian war, many politicians, influential people, and government agencies like as the US Department of the Treasury have focused on spreading a narrative that paints crypto in a negative light, however several of their reasons have been proved to be false.

Having financial freedom for anyone is one of the primary objectives of cryptocurrency. Crypto is intended to be an unbiased instrument, free of the ties that bind governments and banks, and a weapon against oppression and dictatorship.

Is your money truly yours if it can be taken away from you by regimes and governments? This is why many people now believe bitcoin is the only true currency.

The basic notion of cryptocurrency is that it is money, but it is uncontrolled. The original cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was established by honest libertarians who cherished their privacy and wanted to keep their money out of the hands of the government.

Its true that cryptocurrencies have been used in the past to circumvent international sanctions. North Korea used ransomware operations to amass significant sums of bitcoin; the regime has converted an unknown quantity of money into usable currency, most likely in the tens of millions of dollars.

Tom Robinson, chief scientist and co-founder at the crypto analytics firm Elliptic said:

Because there is no central controller who can impose their morals on its user, crypto can be used to crowdfund for the Ukrainian army or help Russia evade sanctions.

No one can really prevent it from being used in either way he added.

A spokesperson for the worlds largest crypto exchange, Binance, told CNBC that crypto is meant to provide greater financial freedom for people across the globe and a blanket ban would fly in the face of the reason why crypto exists.

Krakens CEO, Jesse Powell, tweeted that the company cannot freeze the accounts of our Russian clients without a legal requirement to do so.

Because this libertarian principle of crypto, many have criticized crypto exchanges for continuing to facilitate crypto transactions for Russians. Hilary Clinton noted in a recent interview that she was disappointed in so-called crypto exchanges. She said:

I would hope somebody at the Treasury Department is trying to figure out how to rein in the leaky valves in the crypto market that might allow Russia to escape the full weight of the sanctions.

Some philosophy of libertarianism or whatever, she sneered.

Maybe what this demonstrates is that the inability to control crypto is a problem for a world order? Financial freedom and the unbiased nature of crypto are inherently problems for order and a world where a few can decide whose money to blanket ban. It establishes a sort of utilitarian society where the ownership or value of your money doesnt depend on the misdeeds of your national government.

However, it remains to be seen how much of an impact it will have on the conflict. While symbolic, bitcoin donations of a few hundred thousand dollars may not signify much to a Ukrainian army that got $650 million in weaponry from the US last year and is still significantly outmanned.

Last Monday, Vice President Joe Biden announced the delivery of $350 million in military aid to Ukraine. The EU responded with a $500 million commitment of military aid, an unprecedented gesture. In addition, the White House is requesting an additional $10 billion from Congress. Cryptocurrency transactions are a drop in the bucket.

And the hefty transaction fees of cryptocurrency are eating into what Ukraine receives. In the last week, the cost of a Bitcoin transaction has tripled. Gas fees on Ethereum, which trades a variety of coins, have been more consistent, although users have often grumbled about how pricey they are.

Related article | Iranian, Venezuelan OpenSea Users Blocked From NFT Platform Over Russias Attack On Ukraine

See the original post here:

The Russia-Ukraine War Is Becoming A War On Crypto | Bitcoinist.com - Bitcoinist

As I was writing this article yesterday, I watched the UK government announce in Parliament yet another change of policy towards Ukrainians fleeing their country.

The Mdecins du Monde network, of which Doctors of the World is a member, has operated in eastern Ukraine since 2015, just after the conflict started in 2014. When the current hostility broke out, we had to ensure the safety of our doctors, support staff, and vital medical supplies, as well as reassess how we can continue to support the country as it descends further into war. This will include supporting refugees who are fleeing to the neighbouring nations that will provide safe refuge for the majority.

This latest change in the UKs policy came after the government had previously suggested, among other things, that people fleeing for their lives should apply for seasonal work visas, such as to pick fruit in the UK, or that to qualify for sanctuary in the UK, they had to meet a very restrictive definition of joining family members.

While the latest changes, which were announced on 1 March, are certainly welcomed, they do not match either the rhetoric or the effort put in place by Ukraines EU neighbours to welcome refugees fleeing the conflict.

The UK government is asking people who have fled their homes in Ukraine for fear of their lives to go through a lengthy bureaucratic process to apply for a visa to join family members in the UK, when what would be needed instead is to prepare the machinery of government to welcome every Ukrainian refugee who wants to come here in search of safety.

These latest policy decisions come with the backdrop of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is still going through Parliament. As Lord Kerr rightly said in a debate on the bill in the House of Lords, which saw the government repeatedly defeated, the bill, if already in place now, would disqualify the large majority if not all the Ukrainians seeking sanctuary in this country. It would do so by using a very twisted view of the first safe country and regular or irregular means of entry in the country. Both of which are not part of the Refugee Convention, signed shortly after World War II.

As my colleagues and I have previously argued in The BMJ, the bill would massively increase the governments use of institutional accommodation and temporary refugee status.1 Both of which, our experience shows, lead to worse health and wellbeing outcomes for people seeking sanctuary in the country.

More broadly, and even more importantly, the governments approach to Ukrainian refugees represents a dangerous view of the refugee system. One that Priti Patel, the home secretary, states will in the intention of the government be bespoke to the situation at hand.2

As colleagues from Refugee Action have rightly said, the refugee system that was built after the Second World War and the Holocaust wasnt built with the ability for nations to decide which specific group of refugees a nation should welcome, and which one it was allowed to reject.3 The Refugee Convention was built on the key principle of universality, of being available to everyone fleeing violence or persecution.

The latest conflict in Ukraine proves that a bespoke system such as the one that the government wants to build, will never be able to adapt to a world in which conflicts, violence, or oppression are sadly still too diverse to be predictable. Such a system would undermine one significant step of progress that emerged following the shame and horror of the Holocaust and would represent a step backwards at a time of greater uncertainty on the world stage.

This proposed bespoke approach is a direct result of allowing the hostile environment to penetrate and influence the Governments asylum policies and principles over the past decade. This has had deleterious impact on the efficacy and speed in which asylum seekers applications are processed. The hostile environment broke, or at least makes significantly worse, the asylum system and the latest statistics published in the last week prove this key point once again.4

Compounding all of this has been a continuous reference and narrative around genuine vs non genuine refugees or refugees vs economic migrants. This narrative seeks to sow divisions and suspicions in our communities and implies doubt regarding the person living next door or the patient entering our surgeries and our hospitals.

That is a narrative that, as we see every day at Doctors of the World, undermines peoples health and wellbeing and pushes them to the margins of society. A narrative that, as the pandemic has shown, does not represent good public health or basic humanity.

We need to continue lobbying our elected politicians to stop this bill in its tracks, but also continue to evidence how with this bill the government is failing at its own test while further undermining the health and wellbeing of people seeking sanctuary in the UK.

Competing interests: none declared

Provenance and peer review: commissioned, not peer reviewed

Excerpt from:

We need to reject the UK government's bespoke approach to refugees - The BMJ

Young transgender individuals in rural areas have been shown to experience higher levels of discrimination and harassment as well as the negative effects that come with them and can even be discriminated by laws at a national level also.

The rhetoric and public discussion around transgender lives and laws can have lasting, traumatic effects on trans youth, making them feel out of place, unwelcome and less likely to reach out for help.

At an increased risk of death, transgender suicide and abuse is still rampant in many countries even in those which are seemingly more liberal with their gender views.

Understanding how trans youths keep their resilience and resistance is important in advocating and protecting for at-risk populations, and avoiding the common negative outcomes seen among trans youths.

The new study by the University of Kansas found that trans youths not only have strategies for surviving, but they often turned from resilience to resistance a path which can lead the way forward for defending their rights.

The study authors, who had been researching youths in rural areas and throughout the Midwest for several years, were only originally meant to determine the role of families and communities on the youths perceived well-being.

Instead, they found out more about transgender youths and resisting discrimination.

Published in thejournalYouth, the study found the youths resilience and resistance strategies fell into three primary categories: Intrapersonal, interpersonal and community/macro.

Intrapersonal responses or those on an individual, personal level the youths resistance came through as self-affirmation, where they would maintain authenticity by resisting oppressive narratives and finding hope in themselves.

Interpersonal strategies, or those in which the youths resisted oppression in their relationships with others, fit in themes of avoiding hostility, educating others, and standing up for themselves and others.

Community and macro resistance strategies involved the youths taking action and engaging in activism and enhancing visibility and representation.

The strategies were ways to oppose messages meant to disbelieve, harm, or oppress them.

Meg Paceley, associate professor of social welfare at KU, said: We saw youth talking about not necessarily cutting someone off, but saying, I dont deserve to be treated this way, so Im not going to be. Or advocating for others who maybe didnt have as good of an experience as them, so they decided they would stand up for them.

With qualitative research, sometimes we find things we werent originally looking for. In this case, that was resilience and just surviving in difficult or hostile situations. The more we analysed the data within a resilience frame, we realized there was more there, including resisting oppression.

One youth who was interviewed stated: Sometimes I just allow myself to feel sad, and I just say, I know these people are saying these things about me. And I know they dont think that I can be this, even though this is what I amit doesnt matter what they think. Im still valid..

Several respondents to the interviews suggested joining organisations and advocating publicly for transgender rights, as well as being active on campuses often stating that other people did not speaking up about discrimination and their rights, so they were more inclined to take action themselves. Transgender resilience is just the beginning though.

Paceley further explained: Resilience is important for several factors such as health outcomes, how individuals cope or respond to things that shouldnt be happening to them.

But we also need to realize that resilience is often passive while resistance is active. We should also identify how to reduce the harms that come to TGD (transgender and gender diverse) youth in the first place, so they dont have to demonstrate resilience to oppression.

Editor's Recommended Articles

Read the original here:

The social realities behind transgender resilience - Open Access Government

Matt Bellamy has shared an Instagram post expressing his support for the people of Ukraine, as the country continues to fight off an invasion by Russia.

The Muse frontman posted a photo that shows him wielding a guitar bearing a sticker of the Ukrainian flag.

In the caption, he wrote: Humbled and inspired by the brave people of Ukraine fighting for their right to live free and in peace.

Respect also to the people of Russia willing to protest and stand up to their deranged and corrupt government.

The 43-year-old added: We stand for liberal democracy, freedom and power to the individual not state oppression and authoritarianism. What do you stand for?

He also appeared to have dressed in the colours of the Ukraine flag, in a yellow jacket and blue T-shirt.

Bellamy is one of a growing number of artists to call out Russian president Vladimir Putins attack on Ukraine.

Many have announced the cancellation of planned performances in Russia, while other members of the arts community are severing ties with Putin-affiliated artists.

The Eurovision Song Contest announced last week that Russia will be banned from performing at the 2022 competition.

Enjoy unlimited access to 70 million ad-free songs and podcasts with Amazon Music Sign up now for a 30-day free trial

The decision reflects concern that, in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this years contest would bring the competition into disrepute, said the European Broadcasting Union in a statement.

The move constituted something of a U-turn, after organisers were previously met with a barrage of criticism for announcing that they had no plans to prevent Russia from taking part, despite being urged by Ukraines public broadcaster.

Other music artists including Imagine Dragons, Franz Ferdinand, Louis Tomlinson, Alt-J, Twenty One Pilots, AJR, and Oxxxymiron have also cancelled their concerts in Russia.

Follow the latest updates on the Ukraine-Russia crisis here.

Read more here:

Matt Bellamy praises Russians willing to stand up to their corrupt government - The Independent

Since the 2019 Sudanese Revolution that ousted the dictator Omar al-Bashir, the momentous role that women played to shape the historic event has attracted considerable international attention. These women, who came to be known as Kandakat after powerful Nubian queens, have achieved critical acclaim. Their protests in front of the Army Central Command were extraordinary in the face of the systematic 30 years of suppression of their human rights. The Public Order Law that al-Bashir passed in 1996 was not only detrimental to ethnic minorities, but also to women who became ultimate targets of gender-based violence, public flogging, imprisonment, harassment, and confiscation of the property of those who toiled to eke out a living in the market. Although what the world has found to be an astonishing featSudanese womens role in the revolutionit is by no means new in the world of womens rights activism, their revolutionary zeal has, indeed, a long gestation period deeply steeped in history.

When the first Sudanese woman to be admitted in Kitchener Medical School, the formidable Khalda Zahir Soror Al-Sadat, and her schoolteacher friend, Fatima Talib, got together one afternoon in Omdurman, they felt it important to reach out to others in their neighborhood to establish a Sudanese womans union to agitate for the rights of women under British colonialism (1898-1956). Their idea gathered momentum as evidenced in an impressive gathering at the home of their compatriot Aziza Makki Osman Azraq. The effort came to fruition in 1952 with the founding of the Sudanese Womens Union. Far from being an elitist, urban-based effort, the Union succeeded in including women of all regional, religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds throughout the country. Along with significant milestones achieved since then, such as the adoption of equal pay for equal work in 1953, the Union focused on a plethora of discriminatory practices often rationalized as revered traditions. They ended Obedience Laws, which forced a woman to return to her abusive partner and relinquish every right or entitlement due to her as a human being. These monumental struggles, however, were not without adversaries who mounted unjustified criticisms of the Union as foreign innovations that had no roots in Sudanese customs and traditions.

Despite the extraordinary struggle of Sudanese women and their unyielding search for justice, the challenges endure, the most prominent being the climate of impunity in the country.

Notwithstanding, the women of the Union ventured forth with prodigious efforts that mitigated some of the most inequitable acts meted at women in their flagship magazine Sawt Al-Marra (the Womans Voice). These women soon recognized that they were on the cusp of challenging oppression by locating allies and opinion leaders who could shatter the myths about their efforts foreign roots. Indeed, one of the most critical accomplishments of the Union was its success in forging powerful alliances and solidarities across local, national, and international frontiers. At home, they organized workshops and community gatherings to further womens agency in changing their own lives. Such a task warranted a conscious confrontation of prevailing gender ideologies that women accepted as dogma and deployed to their own detriment. Through extensive discussions with men and women, they took up cultural practices head-on and uncovered the political and legal contexts within which they operated. Despite the insurmountable obstacles imposed on the organization by military dictatorships, it managed to leave its mark on the Sudanese political landscape as it continues to do today to localize human rights principles in the Sudanese context underground. In this important historical context of gender activism in the country, it is not surprising to witness the extraordinary courage and fortitude of Sudanese women in protesting military rule. They resisted the systemic racism, classism, and sexism that engulfed the country from North to South, West to East. Nowhere has the impact of the prevailing political ideologies been so damaging than the tearing apart of the country and its entrapment in civil war and communal strife. Since independence, the political violence in South Sudan since 1955, culminated in the regions secession in 2011. In 2003, Darfur has witnessed atrocities that many observers described as genocide. These killing fields left the communities displaced, disseminated, and dead. In 2004, the International Commission of Inquiry confirmed the massive violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Darfur. Although these conflicts have been devastating to the country at large, they have been particularly shattering for women and girls lives. Gender-based violence and crimes against humanity, as evidenced in rape as well as destruction of property and life, continued with impunity.

The Sudanese womens revolutionary fervor has, therefore, a long history. Gender-based violence and curtailment of womens mobility have inflamed womens desire for resistance and change. The most recent example is when General Abdel-Fatah Al-Burhan, the commander-in-chief and president of the Sovereign Council of the transitional government of Sudan, decided to oust the civilian government in October 25, 2021. Sudanese women from all socioeconomic backgrounds rose again. They joined rallies and civil disobedience organized by their local resistance committees and the Union of Sudanese Professionals. Time was of the essence when they jumped into action once more, propelled by the insidious military oppression that loomed threateningly over their lives. They rejected the coup dtat that represented a dangerous setback and would have exacerbated their suffering.

Despite these challenges to womens struggle for gender equality and justice, their determination to bring about a measure of fairness remains unshakeable.

Despite the extraordinary struggle of Sudanese women and their unyielding search for justice, the challenges endure, the most prominent being the climate of impunity in the country. None of the perpetrators of political violence in the South or in Darfur have been held accountable. Not only were these perpetrators not held to account for waging war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they continue to do so as authority figures in the current regime. In the North, the families of the disappeared and summarily executed implored Prime Minister Abdulla Hamdok to intercede in the effort to locate the graves of their sons, fathers, and brothers. So far, these demands were met with silence.

Despite these challenges to womens struggle for gender equality and justice, their determination to bring about a measure of fairness remains unshakeable. The continued participation of Sudanese women in the unfinished revolution is a major resource for hope. Today, their protests in the country are accompanied by others. Sudanese migrants and refugees all over the world joined in solidarity, and in so doing, kept the plight of Sudanese people on the radar as a complex emergency that warrants immediate attention. The strong civil society associations in the country will benefit from systematic media coverage exposing the scale of violence in the country and supporting their plea for democracy and respect for human rights. International womens organizations also have an important role to play in strengthening the role of their local counterparts in Sudan. The quest for gender justice in the country will only succeed if women see justice being served.

Originally posted here:

The women of Sudan will not accept setbacks - Brookings Institution

Is Marxism relevant to envisioning India in the 21st century? The dominant answer in our times is a resounding No. This is a collective loss. I have never been a Marxist. My political socialisation took place in Jawaharlal Nehru University, in opposition to the dominant Left student organisations and as a critic of the Marxist orthodoxy of the day. Yet I believe that those who think of a better world would overlook Marxism at their peril. Once you offload its excess baggage and detect its congenital defects, Marxist ideology is one of the essential resources for re-envisioning and reshaping Indias future.

That is not how it appears to the young, educated Indians today. For them Marxism is the same thing as Communism or Naxalism or Maoism, all captured under the umbrella term Left. Those who know a little more remember that it died with the collapse of the USSR. They associate Marxism with communist dictatorships, mass murders, State control of everything and bloated bureaucracy.

Closer home, people associate Marxism with the declining political fortunes of the official Left Front parties, their average record when they were in power, their stultified language and their failure to understand Indian society, the reality of caste, popular beliefs and Indian culture. In sum, for the younger Indians, Marxism is a weird, extremist and extinct ideology of the past.

How does one recover what is valuable in this ideology? Here is a suggestion: if you wish to learn from the Marxist theory, look past the official communist ideology and its ideologues. Go back to a brilliant 19th century German thinker called Karl Marx. He was very 19th century, very German, very European. Yet, if you dust his books, you can retrieve a toolkit with which you can build your own radicalism for our time and place.

If you wish to learn from Marxist practice, develop a healthy contempt for the ruling communist establishments in India and abroad, and look away from party apparatchik and its cynical manoeuvres. It is best to focus instead on the millions of activists, party workers and revolutionaries who selflessly and tirelessly practice what they consider to be Marxism. Their beliefs may have little to do with official party doctrine or ideas of Karl Marx. Yet, their home-spun ideology can inspire and enlighten us.

Let us examine what we can learn from the Marxist ideology in three aspects: its utopia or the vision of an ideal society; its understanding of the past and present; and its suggested way to travel from the present to the ideal.

Also read: A Communist Ram Rajya? Satyabhakta is a forgotten figure of Hindu Left

If Marxism is at once morally charming and off-putting, it is mainly because Marxism, including Marx himself, has been very shy in using a moral language. Since Marx presented his reading of history as a science of society, he had to present his utopia in the garb of a forecast. Marx did not have much to say about what his ideal society, a communist society, would look like.

Much of what we today understand as communist system government control of everything, absence of markets, lack of political freedom, dictatorship of the party are blueprints developed by his followers, drawing upon some vague, poetic hints in Marxs writings. Marxs misfortune was not just that his hints were turned into a blueprint, but that this blueprint was actually realised in many parts of the world. The communist system exemplified by the USSR thus became the embodiment of the Marxist utopia, the flagship of the Marxist ideology, its unique selling point.

While much of the Left establishment continues to act as its apologist, history has now passed its harsh verdict on the Soviet system: this was no utopia. Not just because its political system was undemocratic and its economics deeply flawed, but also because the communist system was just one variant of a modern European urban-industrial society, enchanted with modernity, attached to large-scale production and its technology. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Marxs utopia is its spiritual vacuum, its inability to speak to or even recognise our inner self and to come up with ethical norms about right and wrong in human conduct.

Some of this failure can be made up by the ethical practice of Marxists that, ironically, continues to be the biggest attraction for the Left. On ground, Marxism offers us the ideal of equality, an ideal that shines all the more brightly as the world becomes more and more unequal. It gives us the courage of conviction to take on capitalist inequalities, oppression and injustice in any form. Over time, Marxist practitioners have not limited themselves to fighting class injustice but also opposing imperialism, racism, patriarchy and caste injustice as well. In popular understanding, and in their own understanding, Marxists are those who stand with the poor, oppressed, and wretched of the earth. This spirit must be the cornerstone of an ideology of our times.

Also read: Indias first republic is all but dead. We the people need to shape the second one

If Marxism is indispensable for any theorist of change in the 21st century, it is mainly because of its unique apparatus for making sense of the society. Above all, Marxism mandates political activists, reformers and revolutionaries to first understand the society that they seek to change. It offers a full-fledged theory, a science of society, that seeks to explain the past, the present and the future. The theory was so powerful that it became not just the staple of revolutionaries but also the base of what we today call social science.

With hindsight, we can see that many of the claims of the Marxist science of society were over-the-top, most of its predictions off the mark and its claims to monopoly over objective truth highly suspect. Its application to societies like India also showed another manufacturing defect of the Marxist theory: its deep Euro-centricity. Therefore, mechanical ways of grafting Marxist theories to the Indian context did more harm than good to the politics of the Left.

Yet Marxs own writings can offer us deeper resources to overcome some of these flaws in the Marxist analysis of the present society. Recently, Sudipta Kaviraj has identified four principles in Marxs thought that constitute his original contribution to social theory. More to the point, Kaviraj interprets these four principles in a way that can rescue Marxist theory for our times.

First, materialism need not be viewed as a crude insistence that ideas do not matter. Rather, it is an ethical lens that draws the worlds attention to material conditions of the poor and that can help us focus on environmental degradation today.

Second, the idea of historicity, meaning things that appear natural to us today are constructs of history, that they could have been very different. Kaviraj argues that this core insight can be used not just to travel across time, but also across spaces and be used to overcome the Euro-centric bias in the Marxist thinking.

Third, the concept of class can be understood in a generic sense to understand any social grouping including caste.

Fourth, the principle of contradiction applies not just to capitalism but to the structure of modernity; it alerts us to the fact that every modern structure builds within itself contrary pulls.

You may or may not agree with Marxs or the Marxist analysis of society, yet you cannot but use the template of analysis that it provides.

Also read: Shripad Amrit Dange, the overshadowed beacon of Indian Communism

If Marxism is the most powerful theory of action in our times, it is not because it is the most successful theory. In retrospect, it is fair to say that most revolutions in the last century did not obey the Marxist theory. The Marxist theory of when, what and how of a revolution tended to overestimate objective factors and underestimate the contingency of politics. The history of the Indian communist movement is a testimony to the often tragic and sometimes comic consequences of this mistaken yet confident theory of action.

The other deeply disturbing aspect of the Marxist theory of action is its amoralism, its indifference to the nature of means adopted to achieve the given ends. This sometimes encouraged a mindless cult of violence among the political activists inspired by Marxism.

Yet, Marxism must be the starting point for any theory of action in our times. Marx was not the originator of revolution or its theory, but he did revolutionise the idea of revolution. The idea that there is nothing given about the world that we live in, that transformation is bound to take place and that fundamental social transformation can be planned in sync with the logic of history is Marxs contribution to the reshaping of the world we live in.

It is easy to damn Marxist ideology in todays world. Yet critics of Marxism, including the present author, owe more to Marxism than they are willing to admit or are even aware. In that sense we are all Marxs children.

This article is part of the Re-vision series by Yogendra Yadav on the isms of 20th-century India and their relevance today. Read all the articles here.

Yogendra Yadav is among the founders of Jai Kisan Andolan and Swaraj India. He tweets @_YogendraYadav. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant)

Originally posted here:

Revisioning India's future? Start with Marxism, without the baggage - ThePrint

Future of non-Hindu communities in India

DISCRIMINATION, persecution, exploitation and mass killings of the non-Hindu minorities has been a routine matter in Republic of India for the last many decades.

All these despotic acts of India are well documented and known to everyone in India and at global level.

The media and human rights organizations have documented all these Indian activities and have been highlighting them in their reports covertly as well as overtly.

Nevertheless, the international power centres have not paid attention towards massive human rights violation and Indian oppression against its minorities.

Indeed, they are doing so deliberately, since the western world has many stakes in India ranging from economic to strategic.

The United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its annual report-2020, declared India as the most dangerous country for religious minorities.

The Commission also recommended the US to designate India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC).

CPC countries are the ones where the states and the governments engage themselves in targeting the minorities through religious victimization and severe violation of religious freedom.

The same Commission also demanded the US Government and the State Department to place India on Special Watch List (SWL).

The countries placed on SWL are found involved in severe violations of religious freedom, thus need to be put under economic and financial sanctions including ban on the visas and travel abroad of key persons involved in the violations.

The US State Department, the President and its powerful Congress ignored this report as well as thousands of such reports since Washington has its political, economic and strategic interest with New Delhi.

India gets similar concessions from all other western states, Russia and even Muslim states of OIC.

Regretfully, the Muslim states of OIC are rapidly coming closer to India for their petty interests despite India is alienating, persecuting and killing the Muslims as an official policy.

India is depriving Muslims of their basic rights; the Indian nationality, and right over their ancestral land.

It is unfortunate that Indian MPs, its government officials, its military and intelligence and security agencies have been found officially involved in the persecution of minorities to the level of killings, torture, rapes and alienation of the minorities.

India has a history of religious intolerance and violations on account of belief and caste system.

Owing to its narrow minded Hindu majority, India has become a very dangerous country for other religious minorities.

The Hindus of India even claim that being Hindu they have exclusive right over the land known as Hindustan and people from other religions have no right over this vast landmass.

Indian narrow-minded approach is being pursued through Hindutva ideology with formulation of laws like Citizenship Amendment Act-2019.

Though the ruling BJP has been officially following Hindutva as its ideology for decades, however majority of the upper Hindu class has conceded this ideology as their religious, nationalistic, cultural and political philosophy.

The famous Palampur Resolution-1989 set the formal agenda against the major religious minority (Muslims) in India.

The Palampur Resolution decided decisive phase of Hindu unity against Muslims and announcement for the construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

The post-colonial India has been hiding itself behind the mantra of secularism and worlds biggest democracy.

Whereas the fact on ground is, the successive Indian governments and their militant wings have been exploiting the Indian minorities throughout; thus negating both: Secularism and democracy.

Through a well-planned strategy, the areas inhabited by people other than Hindu majority were kept backward and deprived of basic facilities of life.

The worst among all was the economic deprivation and providing no facilities for the basic education for these poor religious minorities.

The Sikhs who constitute 1.8% of Indian total population, are being discriminated and relegated in all spheres of life in Hindu-dominated India.

In the post 1980s campaign, the Sikhs are looked down and considered as anti-state and anti-India.

Today, RSS is directly targeting the Sikh community in India.Christians forming less than 3% of Indian population are equally discriminated and humiliated in India.They are also facing the fanatic onslaught of the RSS for conversion into Hinduism.

Through a massive campaign against Muslims, the main minority group in India, forming over 17% of total population is the main target of Indian Government.

Muslims are discriminated, humiliated and forced to convert into Hinduism or else leave India.

In one of its opinion page, the New York Times published an article entitled, Indias Muslims and the Price of Partition.

The prestigious newspaper mentioned salient features of the Indian policies towards Indian Muslims.

As per the contents of this article, the Modis India demands Muslims, They should convert to Hinduism this is a unanimous call from the Hindus, the BJP and its militant wing, the RSS in particular.

A fanatic Hindu group, known as Hindu Jagran Manch, indeed an offshoot of the RSS, has started a campaign to marry the Muslim girls with Hindu boys.

Time has proved that the founding fathers of India were indeed the architect of todays Hindu India.

Prime Minister Modi and his BJP only get the credit of implementing the agenda and vision of Indian forefathers.

Through their well-researched reports, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have been highlighting the massive human rights violations committed by India as a state policy.

Thus, there is a need that the international community must reconcile its relationship with India in the context of its discrimination and oppression against non-Hindu minorities.

Indeed, the non-Hindu communities are fearful of their future in todays India.

The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University, Islamabad.

See the rest here:

Future of non-Hindu communities in India | by Dr Muhammad Khan - Pakistan Observer

Yesterday, the Biden administration granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Ukrainians in the United States. This measure allows Ukrainians who have been in the US since at least March 1 to avoid deportation, and allows them to apply for legal employment. The rationale for the extension of TPS status is, of course, Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and the resulting threat to civilians caused by Russia's indiscriminate bombing, shelling, and disruption of supply lines.

This measure is a good start, but more needs to be done to protect Ukrainians fleeing Vladimir Putin's indefensible aggression. The TPS status granted by Biden lasts for only 18 months (though it could potentially be renewed at that time).

Moreover, courts have ruled that the president has near-absolute discretion to revoke it at any time. TPS status could potentially be revoked whenever Biden (or a successor) finds it politically convenient to do so - as Donald Trump did with respect to TPS holders from several countries, despite continuing violence and danger there. Such uncertainty makes it difficult for Ukrainians and others covered by the status to start new lives, or to make contributions to our economy at a time when we have serious labor shortages.

In addition, the TPS grant only applies to Ukrainians who arrived on or before March 1. It therefore does not help those who came more recently or will arrive in the future, as the war continues.

If the the war in Ukraine continues for a long time, Russia ends up occupying large additional swathes of the country, or some combination of both, Ukrainian TPS holders may not be able to safely return home for a long time, if ever. Thus, Congress would do well to make Ukrainian TPS status indefinite, and abolish - or at least curtail - the president's power to revoke it. It should also extend TPS to Ukrainians entering the US after March 1. By taking these steps, the federal government can simultaneously help Ukrainian refugees and make it easier for them to contribute to US economic growth - a win-win scenario all around.

It's fair to ask why Ukrainian TPS holders should be treated any better than people fleeing similar violence and oppression elsewhere - including those Russians who have no more desire to live under Putin's repressive rule than Ukrainians do. The answer, I think, is that all victims of oppression should be treated equally. I have long argued for eliminating migration restrictions based on morally arbitrary factors like race, ethnicity, parentage and place of birth. In a future post, I will have more to say about the specific issue of Russian migrants.

But the way to achieve fairness here is by treating other migrants better, not by barring Ukrainians. Fix the problem by "leveling up," not "leveling down." In the meantime, we should not allow the best to become the enemy of the good. Even if it isn't politically feasible to have a fully equitable TPS policy, Congress and the White House should do what they can to help Ukrainians.

Follow this link:

Biden Grants Temporary Protected Status to Ukrainians in the US - Reason

Perhaps its the absence of any oppression of their own country that compels Scottish nationalists to latch onto the oppression of others. On Monday, Michelle Thomson, an SNP MSP, retweeted news of Ukraines emergency application for EU membership, adding: Delighted for Ukraine. Its [sic] just goes to show what political will can achieve. Remember this Scotland! The SNPs current position is for Scotland to secede from the UK then apply for membership of the EU, a process nationalists have previously suggested Brussels would fast-track.

Thomson came in for a barrage of criticism and later deleted the tweet, admitting it was insensitive. She is taking all the flack but shes hardly alone in dabbling in such rhetoric. Mike Russell, president of the SNP, blogged on the partys website that the right of people to choose how they are governed and by whom is an absolute and must be universally applied, adding that just because something was, doesnt mean it will always continue to be so, whether that be rule from Moscow, or the result of an eight-year-old referendum.

At the weekend, Alyn Smith, SNP foreign affairs spokesman, wrote an op-ed about Ukraine containing this curious paragraph:

Scotland stands in solidarity with Ukraine because we understand the importance of international law. We support the right to self-determination and for people to decide their own futures. Ukraine deserves its independence and peace from its neighbour. It is not the place for Putin or anyone else to decide what Ukraine wants that is for the Ukrainian people to decide.

Smith is among the most thoughtful foreign policy voices in the SNP, a party with a small but stubborn faction that watches RT and is sympathetic to its framing of the West. Deploying language familiar to the Scottish independence debate to try to reach these people is a fools errand. Anyone who needs Ukrainian sovereignty to be sold to them by reference to Scottish sovereignty is the worst kind of nationalist: an exceptionalist.

Ukraines courageous stand against an invading empire has an appeal to many Scottish nationalists, allowing them to romanticise their wan, managerial cause and to do so from the safety of Edinburgh. Even if Ukrainians have other things on their minds right now, this victimhood appropriation is still tacky and offensive.

Scottish nationalists might see Ukraine as the latest stand-in for an independent Scotland much of the world seems to exist for this purpose but that implies Moscow is a stand-in for Westminster. This is risible, ahistorical porridge. Scotland and the UK are not separate states but a single state and one that exists in large part because Scotland helped create it through the Treaty of Union. Scotland is not under invasion or military occupation and nor was part of its territory annexed by a foreign power eight years ago. Far from being denied self-determination, Scotland enjoys it twice-over through two parliaments and while Crimea was being annexed in 2014, Caledonia was preparing to vote on independence in a referendum the British state fell over itself to facilitate. If youre baffled by their snarling, seething animus towards a Union that furnishes annual subsidies and a powerhouse parliament, you need to understand the psychology of the Scottish nationalist: theyll never forgive the UK for not oppressing them.

Theres another very good reason for nationalists to avoid the Ukraine frame: they dont come out of it well. For if we are to accept the absurdity that Ukraines fight for survival can be translated to British constitutional politics, we might note that Ukraine is a unitary state confronted by separatists who unilaterally declared independence after holding unsanctioned referendums in defiance of central government. Putin predicated his casus belli on the right of nations to self-determination namely, the Donetsk Peoples Republic and the Luhansk Peoples Republic and said his policy was based on freedom, the freedom of choice for everyone to independently determine their own future and the future of their children. The only people talking about independence amid the shelling of Ukraine are the Kremlin and the SNP.

That is not to suggest moral equivalence between Scottish independence and pro-Russian separatism. It is to suggest that drawing ludicrous, self-serving analogies between a constitutional debate and a military invasion is asinine at the best of times and reprehensible when people are being murdered by the worlds second-largest army. There are millions and perhaps billions of things in this world more important than the dismal hobby of Scottish nationalism and Ukraine is one of them.

Read the original post:

No, Scottish independence is not like the war in Ukraine - The Spectator

Protesting Anganwadi workers, attempting to gherao the Vidhan Sabha in Chandigarh, were pushed back by force by police forces on Sunday. The protestors had divided into various groups across the city and the group blocking the Jalauli toll plaza on the Panchkula-Yamunanagar highway saw a tussle break out between the workers and the police.

The states Anganwadi workers have been protesting against the state government for the past several months, demanding wage hikes, better working conditions, and facilities like insurance among other things. The workers had given a call for march to the Vidhan Sabha on March 3 under a pre-decided programme.

As per Vinod Kumar, Treasurer CITU Haryana, To stop the march of Anganwadi workers to the Legislative Assembly Thursday, the state government has come down with great oppression. Hundreds of our sisters coming from Rohtak, Rewari, Palwal, Gurugram, Mahendragarh, etc., who left for Panchkula with their own means at night, were taken into custody by the police and placed under house arrest. Workers who came from other districts at 4 am were treated similarly at several different places. The workers, enraged by police aggression, camped on the streets and raised slogans against the repressive tactics of the government. Yavanika Park of Panchkula, earmarked for the assembly march, was converted into a police camp. Police officers of surrounding districts were in the park and took into custody any protestors were reached there.

Vehicles carrying the Anganwadi workers were stopped by the police in Ambala, following which they walked kilometres to reach the Jaloli toll plaza. Protesters who were to assemble at Yavnika to begin the protest were not able to reach the site of protest. As per the police, mild force was used and they were detained before they were dropped off a kilometre away from the park. Several leaders of various unions were also taken into custody and later let off.

Read the original post:

Bid to gherao Haryana assembly: Cops use force to disperse Anganwadi workers on protest for months - The Indian Express