LOWKEY on Eurovision; accurate, as always
Modi is the first non-Congress prime minister in India to return to power after a full five-year term.
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is leading in nearly 350 of the 542 seats that went to the polls.
The opposition United Progressive Alliance (UPA) headed by the Indian National Congress (INC) is leading in less than 100, while the party itself leads in about 50. In 2014, the Congress had won 44 seats.
The party or coalition with a simple majority (272 seats) is invited to form the government. The MPs from the winning party or coalition elect their leader, who then becomes the country's prime minister.
About 67 percent of more than 900 million eligible voters cast their ballots in the staggered elections that the ruling party fought on issues of national security and a hardline Hindu agenda.
The opposition parties raised issues such as a massive job crisis and farming distress, with the Ciobngress party levelling allégations of corruption over the purchase of French Rafale fighter jets buy the government.
To no avail, although more than 80 percent of Indians work in jobs without regular pay or social benefits, according to the International Labour Organization. In the cities, they are employed as street vendors, construction workers and in mom-and-pop shops, or as labourers on farms and in fields. The World Bank says agriculture accounts for 42 percent of the workforce.
And a recent survey by Aspiring Minds, a skills assessment and research firm, employers said 80 percent of Indian engineering graduates did not meet the minimum requirements of the companies looking to hire them. Many such firms say prospective candidates lack sufficient industry experience because their courses are too theoretical.
Poorly-trained teachers, an exam system that rewards rote learning and teaching institutions that don't meet the needs of industry, are some of the reasons graduates face a skills deficit, the reason why even students are vulnerable to Bollywood stars propaganda of Modi.
Gujarati nationalists were agitating against the domination of the Marathi-speaking ethnic group in what, at that time, was known as Bombay state. Young Modi was fascinated by their street action.
He joined the men-only processions which crossed his village almost every day. A friend of his father distributed political badges and he proudly wore one, as he chanted along with Gujarati slogans. He would watch with excitement as effigies of Congress leaders were set on fire.
The protests were not backed by any political party but had a strong presence of Hindu nationalists. Although the goal of the agitation was distant from the ideological objective of establishing Hindu supremacy, it provided an opportunity to regain the political legitimacy, lost when independence struggle leader MK Gandhi, popularly known as mahatma Ghandi, or Great Man, was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic in January 1948.
The assassin, a man by the name of Nathuram Godse, had cut his political teeth with the fountainhead of Hindu nationalistic politics, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps - RSS). The organisation propagated the belief that Hinduism is the basis of Indian nationalism and followers of other faiths, mainly Islam and Christianity, are Hindus because Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life or the culture of the land. Its aim was to transform India into a Hindu state.
Although the RSS was absolved of conspiring to assassinate Gandhi, the majority of Indians had still turned hostile towards it. Participating in the amorphous protest for a separate state for the Gujarati-speaking population provided the RSS much needed political camouflage.
The strategy paid off. RSS branches mushroomed in several parts of India, including in Modi's village. Soon, he started attending daily assemblies held especially for children. Besides indigenous games, the kids were taught rudimentary callisthenics and asked to pray for their country, Bharat Mata, or Mother India, portrayed as a Hindu goddess. From an early age, Modi adopted patriotism cast through the Hindu prism and it was just a matter of time before he would vow to spend a lifetime in the RSS and advocacy of Hindu nationalism.
When he was a teenager, his family arranged a marriage for him with Jashodaben Chimanlal, a girl from the same village. A few years later, however, the ambitious Modi separated from his wife and embarked on building his career.
When he formally joined the RSS while in his early twenties, he withheld information about his marriage. Had he disclosed this, he could not have become a pracharak or preacher of the organisation because celibacy was an unofficial requirement for such a position.
Two decades later, the media discovered his "abandoned" wife, but by that time the deception had already payed off; Modi had become a state-level apparatchik in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a rising political star, and so the RSS-BJP leadership had to look the other way.
Since his early years in RSS, Modi was more ideologically driven than his peers, but he was also pragmatic and knew that he could rise in the hierarchy through steadfast loyalty to important seniors.
The first opportunity to publicly display commitment to Hindu nationalistic politics on the national stage came in the early 1990s when he was still a mid-level party leader in Gujarat. He was tasked with coordinating a vital leg of a crucial campaign led by then-party president, LK Advani, for building a Hindu temple in place of the Babri Masjid, a 16th-century mosque in Ayodhya, in the state of Uttar Pradesh which was eventually forcefully demolished.
This agitation was central to the BJP's emergence from the periphery into the political centre stage. It was due to Modi's efforts that Hindu zealots across India welcomed Advani by applying the red ritual mark on their foreheads with blood drawn after slicing their right thumb.
By the time BJP went from being India's largest opposition to being the leading party in the ruling coalition after the 1998 general elections, Modi had been transferred to New Delhi and appointed as one of the general secretaries, thereby gaining entry into the top echelon of the party.
He soon earned notoriety for his vitriolic language. During India's military conflict with Pakistan in 1999, he famously said New Delhi would not "give them chicken biryani, we will respond to a bullet with a bomb". That was the beginning of Modi's image-building as a strongman, an "Indian patriot who is out to get India's enemies abroad and at home", chiefly Indian Muslims and their liberal friends.
Modi's image as a "protector" of Hindus was consolidated during the Gujarat riots, which broke out in February 2002, less than five months after he was appointed chief minister of the state in place of another BJP member. He seized the opportunity to polarise the local population along religious lines and deepen decades-old prejudices against Muslims. He was, in fact, accused of giving Hindu mobs a free hand.
In the aftermath of the riots, Modi justified the idea of shutting down shelter homes for Muslims rendered homeless by the violence by claiming that these refugee camps were functioning as "baby producing factories". His assertion gave a crude expression to a pet RSS theory: Muslim fertility rates in India were supposedly higher than that of the Hindus because of an Islamic conspiracy to inverse India's demographic status-quo.
Riding on this Hindu nationalist wave, Modi led the BJP to victory in the Gujarat elections in December 2002, and then again in 2007 and 2012. But midway through his second tenure, he began displaying ambitions to shift to the national stage.
An astute leader, Modi knew India was not yet ready to accept a leader with a marked majoritarian bend. Consequently, he recast his persona - from being a Hindu nationalist leader to a stalwart of economic development. Instead of wooing Hindus, he began courting big businesses and sought to secure fresh investment in local industries.
He facilitated business deals, made single-window clearance the hallmark of his administration and bent rules on acquiring land for business projects. Backed by professional image builders, Modi pursued visible infrastructure projects such as road and canal building and electrification which veiled the serious deprivation the countryside was suffering from.
Well before the general elections in 2014, Modi eliminated all competition within the party and built a campaign centring on his twin slogan "development and change". A highly publicised Gujarat-model, which was much more talked about than understood, became the cornerstone of his political platform, as he underplayed his Hindu nationalist politics. This enabled him to secure the support of a significant number of liberals.
At no point, however, did Modi forsake his ideological commitment. As prime minister, he alternated between pursuing development programmes and majoritarianism. As the 2019 elections neared, he realised his bid for another term was hamstrung by the not-too-impressive performance of his government, rising unemployment, growing rural distress and a deepening farm crisis.
This has pushed Modi to come a full circle. In this election campaign, he sounded very much like the man who led the BJP's electoral charge in Gujarat in the aftermath of the 2002 riots. He displayed his childhood hatred for adversaries and their politics of socioeconomic inclusiveness.
For the first time after Modi demonstrated his national and international political ambitions, there is nothing dichotomous about his launching pad. His heart and head are finally completely in sync with one another.
Modi is a man nourished by prejudice and by hatred. He is not as dumm as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, but just as bigot and hateful. And unlike Bolsonaro, who only had the support of what Brazil's has of worst in the cultural and artistic field, he got plain support from Bollywood. Which is the Indian version of Hollywood, which is no less damaging for progress than Hollywood.
So as the country was voting in one of the most important elections of its history, embroiled in increasing political polarisation, growing social discontent and serious economic problems, the Indian prime minister was being interrogated about his penchant for mangoes, movies and jokes.
Of course, it was expected that Kumar would be asking only the questions Modi wanted to answer. After all, he is not only an ardent supporter of his but in recent years has also made a number of films focusing on "patriotic" themes very much in line with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) hyper-nationalistic ideology. That he gave up his Indian citizenship in favour of a Canadian one a few years back appeared not to bother his interviewee.
That was perhaps because Kumar's latest nationalistic film, released just a month before the elections began in April, reflected so well the BJP's main electoral strategy: the demonisation of Muslims.
In the two-hour feature called Kesari, meaning saffron - a colour associated with the ruling party and the right wing in India - Kumar plays Havildar Ishar Singh, the commander of a Sikh regiment within the British imperial army which fought to death against rebelling Pashtun tribesmen from Afghanistan. Based on the historical battle of Saragarhi in 1897, the film portrays the Sikh soldiers as brave patriots and the Muslim Pashtun as fanatic jihadis, all as the context of colonial oppression is almost completely erased.
Kumar is not the only Bollywood star to have so ardently supported Modi and the BJP. Over the past five years, the Indian film industry has grown increasingly compliant with the political agenda of the ruling party, while many of its best-known actors have come out in full support of its members. Those few who have dared speak out against the threat that Hindu nationalism poses to the cohesion of Indian society have faced severe public harassment and little support within the industry.
Another recent blockbuster which served BJP's nationalism-themed electoral campaign quite well was Uri: The Surgical Strike released in mid-January this year. The film is based on events that took place in 2016, when India launched a "surgical strike" against Pakistan in response to a Deadly attack on the Indian army base in Jammu and Kashmir state the same year.
The motion picture of course portrayed Modi in a positive light, as a patriotic strongman bound on pursing revenge against the enemy state (Pakistan) for harbouring anti-Indian terror groups. With its nationalistic narrative and feel-good revenge theme, it became so popular that it topped the box office with spectacular earnings of 2.4 billion rupees ($34m). Cinemas across the country reverberated with chants like "Bharat mata ki jai!" (Glory to the motherland!) during screenings.
A short exchange between a commander and a soldier in one of the scenes even coined a now widely used patriotic phrase - "How's the josh [energy/enthusiasm for defending the country]?" In the weeks following the release of the film, the prime minister, the defence minister and almost every other member of the Indian cabinet used the popular phrase in official tweets and government events to boost its image of a resolute leadership.
A month after the film was released, the public josh for revenge was re-ignited once again after a rebel group attacked an Indian military convoy killing dozens of soldiers. Staying true to his cinematic image, Modi immediately ordered another "surgical strike" against Pakistan, targeting a military camp allegedly belonging to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) armed group. "How's the josh" filled Indian social media yet again, as Indians celebrated the valour of their prime minister who "saved" the country and its pride.
Apart from Uri, a number of other recent films have pandered to BJP's political agenda, particularly its smearing of the opposition. Both The Tashkent Files and The Accidental Prime Minister, released just ahead of the elections, portrayed the Congress party as weak and divisive and unable to lead the country in the right direction.
But Bollywood's increasingly noticeable political bias is not limited to writing scripts that propagate certain political ideologies. In January, just three months before the elections, the BJP released a photo of Modi surrounded by leading lights from the film industry including Karan Johar, Ranbir Kapoor, and Ranveer Singh, which seemed to be an image-building exercise for the prime minister ahead of the vote and was widely shared by BJP-controlled social media accounts.
Other Bollywood "luminaries" have gotten directly involved in BJP's campaigns. Actor Anupam Kher, for example, who plays the lead role in The Accidental Prime Minister and is married to Kirron Kher, a member of Parliament from the BJP, has been actively endorsing the candidature of the Indian prime minister and quite busy campaigning for his wife in Chandigarh in the state of Punjab.
Another superstar, Sunny Deol, who joined the BJP in April this year, is contesting the election in the province of Gurdaspur, Punjab. Unsurprisingly, Deol also released a film ahead of the elections which appeared to support BJP's political agenda. His feature Blank focuses on Islamic terrorism and the threat of jihadis roaming around the country as "normal Muslims" plotting deadly bombings.
Under the leadership of the BJP, India has witnessed a systematic campaign of othering Indian Muslims, frequent lynching, communal riots, farmers' protests, growing impoverishment due to failed fiscal policies, etc. Yet those in Bollywood who have not openly endorsed the BJP have remained remarkably silent on these issues.
In fact, leading "lights" of the Indian film industry who have expressed admiration for Hollywood stars speaking truth to power (specifically against the Trump administration) in the United States have had nothing to say about the hate crimes and bigotry raging in their own country.
That Bollywood has swayed between silence and praise of the BJP is perhaps not surprising. After all, the Indian film industry has historically had a rather compliant relationship with politics. Actor Amitabh Bachchan, for example, who is an icon in the country, helped Modi whitewash his image while he was still being accused of complicity in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, also campaigned in the past for Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress party.
Another Congress prime minister, Indira Gandhi, who imposed a state of emergency on the country in the 1970s, ruling by decree and curbing civil liberties, was a favourite of the film industry which would clamour around her for group photo-ops.
The important difference is that today India is at a crucial juncture where the multiculturalism and secular nature of the state is being put to the test. The Indian film industry plays a significant role in shaping young minds and propagating certain political narratives. By throwing its weight behind the BJP and its ideology, it contributes heavily to the normalisation of hate politics and the promotion of Hindu nationalism.
If Bollywood does not stop and reconsider, it risks not only losing whatever creative independence it has so far enjoyed, but also going down in history as an industry that displayed remarkable sycophancy and cowardice in supporting a destructive ideology.
IRAN
A dangerous flashpoint has emerged in world politics at the moment. There is widespread fear that the United States and its allies might launch a military operation against Iran at any time. A US aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers are already deployed in the region. The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers, two of them Saudi, and the attack on a major oil pipeline are being linked in certain circles without an iota of evidence to Tehran. There is no need to repeat that scenarios of this sort are often manufactured to justify military aggression.
For more than a year now since unilaterally repudiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal forged between Iran and six world powers, the US has not only re-imposed economic sanctions upon Iran but has also forced other states that trade with Iran to reduce drastically their interaction with Tehran. US targeting of Iran is a grave travesty of justice for the simple reason that the UN’s nuclear inspection agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has reiterated over and over again that Iran has complied with the nuclear deal. It should not therefore be punished with old or new sanctions. This is also the position adopted by the other signatories to the deal, namely, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
But US president, Donald Trump is determined to act against Iran partly because of the growing influence of the Israeli government led by Benyamin Netanyahu and a segment of the Israeli lobby in the US upon his administration. Though Israel has harbored deep distrust of the Iranian leadership since the 1979 Islamic Revolution because of the latter’s proven commitment to the Palestinian cause, it is only in recent years that it has begun to sense that a combination of three factors renders Iran and its people a formidable challenge to Israel’s goal of establishing its hegemonic power over West Asia. Iran’s oil and gas wealth has been reinforced by its scientific knowledge and capabilities underscored by a passionate devotion to the nation’s independence and sovereignty derived from both its historical experience and its attachment to a spiritual identity. Besides, the Iranian government is a staunch defender of the Syrian government which refuses to yield to Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, in itself a gross violation of international law. Iran is also linked to the Hezbollah which has successfully resisted Israeli attempts to gain control over Lebanon, thus threatening the tiny nation’s sovereignty.
There is also perhaps another reason why Israel and the US are hell-bent on targeting Iran at this juncture. Very soon, leaders of these two states will announce the so-called “deal of the century”, a farcical attempt to resolve the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict. Because the deal from what little is known of it, is so palpably unjust to the Palestinian people, the Palestinians and the majority of the people of West Asia are expected to reject it outright. According to various sources, the deal condemns the Palestinians to perpetual apartheid. Iran and its allies can be expected to spearhead the opposition. It explains to some extent why Iran has to be hobbled immediately.
As an aside, it is ironical that Israel is showing such hostility to Iran when the Iranian Constitution not only recognizes the Jews as a minority but also provides the community with representation in its legislature. This is unique in West Asia. Israel’s failure to appreciate this is perhaps proof that its real commitment is not so much to the well-being of the Jews as the triumph of its Zionist ideology with its goal of expansionism and hegemony.
It is not simply because of Zionism or Israel that the US Administration is seeking to emasculate Iran. Weakening and destroying Iran is foremost on the agenda of another of Trump’s close allies in the region. The Saudi ruling elite also saw the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as a mortal threat to its position and power because it overthrew a feudal monarch, was opposed to US dominance of the region and sought inspiration in a vision of Islam rooted in human dignity and social justice. As Iranian influence in West Asia expanded especially after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the Saudi elite became even more apprehensive of Iran and wanted the US to curb Iran’s role in the region. In this regard it is worth observing that if Iran has become more influential in the region in the last 15 years or so, it is not only because of the astuteness of the Iranian leadership but also because of the follies of the Saudi and US ruling elite. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein through an Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 for instance paved the way for the ascendancy of Shia politicians more inclined towards Iran.
How and why Saudi and Israeli elite interests and ambitions are intertwined in the US push against Iran is not highlighted in the media including the new media. Consequently, only a small fraction of the public understands the real causes for the escalation of tensions in West Asia centering on Iran. It is largely because the media conceals and camouflages the truth, that a lot of people see the victim as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the liberator. Or as Malcolm X once put it, “If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Robert Fisk: From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, Western States are All Too Happy to Avoid Culpability for War Crimes
PALESTINA
MEMO: Israel has embarked on a massive recruitment drive to support the country’s online propaganda campaign one day after its companies were exposed for spreading disinformation and meddling in the elections of several African, Asian and Latin American countries.
The new initiative, which would see the government funding pro-Israel groups overseas, was unveiled by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, a government arm set up to combat the global rise of pro-Palestinian activism and Israel’s poor global image.
Launching the initiative, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan, who is also the public security minister, was quoted by the Times of Israel saying: “I’m proud to launch the first [government] program to support pro-Israel organizations and activists around the world.”
The plan will “encourage grassroots events and online initiatives against the BDS [boycott] movement and in support of Israel. I’m certain that this program will give a significant boost to all our supporters around the world who are battling this anti-Semitism and the boycott activists,” added Erdan.
Details of the tendering process for recruiting pro-Israeli activists was published in the Jewish Chronicle on 17 May a day after Israeli firms were kicked out by social media giant, Facebook, for spreading disinformation by posing as local journalists and influencers working in several African, Asian and Latin American countries.
Daily survival Under Occupation
BRASIL
The Intercept Brasil
AOS FATOS:Todas as declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas
Entrevista de Glenn Greenwald com Lula na prisão
VENEZUELA
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário