A recently-emerged militant group called the Hasm Movement claimed responsibility on Friday for an assassination attempt on a senior Egyptian prosecutor, saying it was in revenge for death sentences handed to thousands of convicts.

The organisation, which has claimed four other attacks since July, said it set off the car bomb that exploded near a vehicle carrying assistant prosecutor general Zakaria Abdel Aziz from his office to his home in Cairo on Thursday.

He and his entourage were not hurt but one passerby was wounded.

Hasm, the Arabic word for decisiveness, accused judges of sentencing thousands of innocent defendants to death, or jailing them for life, at the behest of the military. “You will face justice,” it said in a statement that mixed Islamist and anti-government political rhetoric.

Egypt is facing an Islamist insurgency led by Islamic State’s branch in North Sinai, where hundreds of soldiers and police have been killed.

Judges and other senior officials have increasingly been targeted by radical Islamists angered by hefty prison sentences imposed on members of the now-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood, which says it is a peaceful organisation, won Egypt’s first free elections after the 2011 uprising that ended Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

But its presidential candidate, Mohamed Mursi, was himself deposed after mass protests against his rule and replaced by general turned President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in 2013.

Sisi has since overseen a crackdown on opposition in which hundreds of Brotherhood supporters were killed and thousands, including Mursi, jailed or sentenced to death.

Hasm’s statement on Friday included several photographs of what appeared to be Abdel Aziz’s car with the caption “target’s car” as well as his house and guards.

Hasm has also said it was behind an assassination attempt last month on Egypt’s former Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, once one of the country’s top religious authorities.

Gomaa is an outspoken critic of Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and in his previous job had the final say on whether to confirm death sentences.

(Reporting by Ahmed Tolba and Ahmed Aboulenein; Writing by Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Andrew Heavens) Original article

The Clinton campaign is relentlessly focusing on the defects of Donald Trump rather than the defects of the Republican agenda. That’s understandable, and it could be a winning strategy. But it has pitfalls.

The goal is to attract a wide swathe of voters who might ordinarily lean Republican on issues, as well as unenthusiastic Democrats who need the specter of a Trump presidency to get to the polls.

As Hillary Clinton told a crowd a few weeks ago at the American Legion convention, “this is not a normal election” and “the debates are not the normal disagreements between Republicans and Democrats.”

One new Clinton ad, for example, shows young women looking at themselves in mirrors while sexist comments by Trump are played in the background.

Another features clips of GOP leaders criticizing Trump in TV interviews, and closes with the words: “Unfit. Dangerous. Even for Republicans.”

Under the umbrella “Together for America,” the Clinton campaign is highlighting other well-known Republicans who have spoken out against Trump’s character and temperament.

The Clinton campaign is also playing up endorsements by traditional Republican newspapers that have found Trump “unfit” to be president, or, in the words of the Cincinnati Enquirer (which hasn’t endorsed a Democrat in a century), “a clear and present danger.”

Vilifying Trump and creating a broad bipartisan coalition against him are entirely justified. Trump is indeed a menace.

It’s also a winning strategy if Hillary Clinton’s only goal is to get elected president.

But a singular focus on Trump poses two big risks for what happens after she wins.

First, it reduces her presidential coattails that might otherwise help Democratic candidates now running for the Senate and House. Portraying Trump as an aberration from normal Republicanism gives their Republican opponents a free pass. All they have to do is distance themselves from him.

Six months ago, when the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were still linking Trump to the Republican Party, Democrats were well positioned to win back control of the Senate – defending just 10 seats compared with 24 for Republicans.

But the odds of a Democratic Senate takeover have shrunk.

In the key battleground state of New Hampshire, for example, 78 percent of voters now view incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte, a first-term senator who rarely mentions Trump on the campaign trail, as a “different kind of Republican” than Trump, according to a CBS News-YouGov poll of battleground states last month.

In Ohio, 20 percent of likely Clinton voters said in another recent poll that they will vote for incumbent Republican Senator Rob Portman over the Democratic candidate, Ted Strickland. Strickland was leading several months ago but Portman has pulled ahead. Portman has made it clear he wants nothing to do with Trump. When Ohio hosted the Republican National Convention this summer, Portman stayed away.

In Pennsylvania, Republican Senator Pat Toomey is running neck-and-neck with former environmental official Katie McGinty. Toomey should be vulnerable, but he has refused to endorse Trump and is running as his “own man.”

In North Carolina, Democratic candidate former state lawmaker and ACLU lawyer Deborah Ross has a fighting chance to beat incumbent Republican Senator Richard Burr, but Burr is focusing on state issues and is keeping his distance from Trump.

Hillary Clinton needs a Democratic Senate if she becomes president. Without one, her legislative initiatives will be dead on arrival. She may not even be able to count on enough votes to confirm her cabinet choices.

On the other side of Capitol Hill, the odds of Democrats retaking the House – never high – now seem impossible.

Moreover, in pursing Republican voters who have doubts about Trump, the Clinton campaign has gone to great lengths to avoid tainting House Speaker Paul Ryan with Trump – thereby leaving Ryan more powerful than ever if Clinton wins.

The second risk in focusing on the unique disqualifications of Trump is that it may dilute public support for what Clinton wants to accomplish as president. After all, if the central purpose of her campaign and the major motivation of her supporters is to stop Trump, she’ll already have accomplished that before she’s even sworn in.

It likewise makes it more difficult for her, as president, to push back against Republican orthodoxy with a bold vision of what America must do.

The reality is that Trump’s proposals aren’t far removed from what the Republican Party has been trying to achieve for years – cutting taxes on the rich and on corporations; gutting health, safety, and environmental regulations; repealing Obamacare; spending more on defense; blocking immigration and sending more undocumented workers packing; imposing “law and order” in black communities; and preventing an increase in the minimum wage.

Focusing on Trump’s character flaws instead of the flawed Republican agenda is appropriate – up to a point. Donald Trump is dangerous. And, yes, the first priority must be to stop him.

But that shouldn’t be the only priority.

The recent SCO summit in Tashkent may not only be a turning point in the regional configuration of forces. It could potentially affect the strategic balance in the world order.

By Aidar Amrebayev*

On 23-24 June 2016 the Uzbek capital city of Tashkent hosted the summit of leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). This was an important event that could not only become a turning point in the regional configuration of forces but also affect world order.

Interestingly, the SCO was formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union to tackle cross-border issues between the new Central Asian Independent States and China in the context of their fight against the so-called “three evils” (terrorism, extremism, and separatism). The SCO is clearly seeking to play a more significant role in today’s world. But while the trajectory is one of expansion, its growth is not without risks.

Raising SCO’s Global Ambition

The SCO’s expansion to include India and Pakistan was the main issue on the Summit’s agenda. In past SCO agreements, the leaders of these two countries had committed their support for the SCO. After the ratification, India and Pakistan will become full members of the SCO next year. Additionally, Iran may also join following the lifting of UN sanctions.

At the Tashkent meeting, along with the issues of regional security, the heads of state discussed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to assess the global impact of the interactions of three regional groupings: the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), SCO and ASEAN. China’s leader Xi Jinping also tried to promote the SCO as a platform for the implementation of the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB). The summit’s adoption of a joint declaration during the 15th anniversary of the founding of the SCO reflected a new perspective on SCO’s international positioning.

There is potential tension arising from very difficult relations between India and Pakistan. Until recently, the SCO has only one “main game” – between China and Russia in their tussle for influence over the Central Asia states. Now the internal tensions will be more complex, commensurate with the impending entry of India and Pakistan.

The traditional focus of SCO has been on Central Asia’s regional security, economic cooperation, and humanitarian interaction. New members that do not have direct common borders with the region may divert SCO’s attention away from Central Asia and increase the number of new influencing factors. In addition, the traditional “non-Western” autocratic political regimes have prevailed in this region. But with the entry of India and Pakistan, the SCO may undergo major changes arising from their democratically-oriented political systems and enduring good relations with the United States.

Voice of the East or West?

For example, several experts agree that India today may be the “voice” of the West, whose opinion as a whole can undermine the current unanimity of the SCO. Formed on the basis of the so-called “Shanghai Spirit”, the SCO approaches decision-making by consensus. It is also difficult to expect a clear “consensus” between dynamically developing and competing economies of China and India.

This will significantly reduce the weight of the Central Asian countries in the SCO. They will be even more dependent on the ambitions of the different external forces, which include new members India and Pakistan. Big players will press their own strategies and interests in this project. For example, Russia is seeking to consolidate its status quo in the Central Asia region where its strategic interests lie.

Russia aims to coordinate possible projects of cooperation between the SCO and EEU in alignment with its own oil interests. While China hoped that the SCO will implement the strategy of “One Belt, One Road”, with its “Go West” slogan, India and Pakistan want to revive the TAPI project, a gas pipeline linking Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

It is safe to assume that the SCO will come under the scrutiny of extremist groups from South Asia and the Middle East, resulting in a need for an active relationship with the US and the countries of the Western coalition in Afghanistan.

Other Complexities

The prospect of Iran joining the SCO can add greater complexity to the organisation. Having been recently freed from sanctions and now promoting its interests in regional affairs, Iran is unlikely to follow the consensus of the “Shanghai Spirit”. All the more, Iran has the most direct interests in Central Asia; its entry may trigger conflict with some of the SCO member states.

Another potential risk to the SCO’s expansion of its international influence is a retraction of the organisation in the “opposition bloc” vis-a-vis the West. The political-economic strategy of the major players in the SCO – Russia and China – is to oppose, for example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They argue that the TPP directly inhibits economic development opportunities in all the SCO space, even though the SCO possesses considerable potential to develop its own trading group.

In a nutshell, the SCO is emerging as a new factor of diplomacy within the established global order. While it has the potential to compete or complement other regional groupings, the SCO in the long run could lead to a new balance in the international order – if it could overcome the attendant risks of expansion.

*Aidar Amrebayev is Head of the Centre of Applied Political Science and International Studies in Almaty, Kazakhstan. He is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Prohibition was the cause very dear to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi realized that the liquor habit was contributing to indiscipline amongst people and disruption of the peace in the families, particularly affecting the women and children in the lower income group. Mahatma Gandhi launched a strong country wise campaign demanding prohibition and wrote several articles and spoke in many meetings about his conviction that imposition of prohibition is a pre condition to improve the quality of life of people in India.

It would be appropriate for India to remind itself about Gandhiji’s commitment to prohibition on 2nd October, his birth day.

Constitution supports prohibition

In Article 47 of the Indian Constitution, it has been clearly said that the state should endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs ,which are injurious to health and social welfare.

In such circumstances, it is surprising that the Patna High Court in Bihar state has quashed the Bihar government’s notification imposing complete ban on the liquor in the state and struck down the April,5 notification of Bihar government to stop consumption and sale of alcohol in the state. The Patna High Court has said that the Bihar government’s notification was beyond the powers of the Constitution and not enforceable.

Many persons would find it difficult to understand the logic of the Patna High Court ,particularly since Article 47 of the Constitution asking for endeavour to bring about prohibition was very clear in content and objective.

Those who oppose prohibition

Of course, there are liquor addicts and section of media who support the decision of Patna High Court, calling it as a step towards upholding the liberty of individuals and the right to privacy guaranteed by Constitution.

While talking about liberty, such opponents of prohibition do not seem to understand that liberty cannot be a mere personal affair but it has to be a part of social contract and adjustment of the interests of all concerned. The opponents of prohibition should not be unmindful of the harm that is being done to the fibre and fabric of society by large section of people becoming liquor addicts, that severely affect the peace, harmony and economy of thousands of families in the country.

Findings of the study

A recent report prepared by Alcohol and Drug Information Centre and submitted to Government of India has said , on the basis of the detailed study, that 35% of crime, 50% of road accidents and 55% of violence in families happen in India due to the fast spreading liquor habit.

Another report prepared by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has concluded that for every one rupee of income that government would get by way of tax from sale of liquor, the society would incur loss of Rs. 4 due to the consequent health issues, fall in productivity of the individuals , absenteeism etc.

Income appear to be the goal of state governments

The obvious fact is that most of the state governments in India have lifted prohibition to augment their income by way of levies and taxes on sale of alcohol, unmindful of the ground reality that welfare of the society and people are severely affected due to liquor habit.

For example, in Tamil Nadu, the state government has gone to the extent of taking over the entire sale of liquor by forming a separate company for the purpose and it is now earning around Rs.270,000 million every year by way of tax collection due to sale of liquor through the government company. This income due to liquor sale amount to around 30% of the total revenue of the state. There is widespread criticism on the liquor policy of the Tamil Nadu government.

Are the judges right?

What is particularly surprising is that the judges in the Patna High Court did not seem to care to think about the social benefits of prohibition and the demand of women all over the country to curb the liquor habit in the society.

By the judges interpreting the Constitutional provision in a way that gives misgivings, the decision of the Patna High Court has caused set back to the progress of the prohibition movement in the country.

There are so many social evils which are banned by law in India such as trafficking of women, narcotic drugs etc. Will the judges in the Patna High Court argue that such ban should also be lifted, since it denies the right to people to consume narcotic drugs, etc?

Bihar Chief Minister should pursue the cause

The Chief Minister of Bihar should appeal to Supreme Court against the decision of the Patna High Court This would be the best tribute that Mr. Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar, would pay for the memory of Mahatma Gandhi.

By C. Uday Bhaskar

The surgical strike against the terrorist camps announced by the Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO), Lt. Gen Ranbir Singh, has confirmed what had been anticipated over the last few days – namely that the Modi team would ‘respond’ in an appropriate manner to the enormity of the Uri terror attack.

Two aspects merit notice. India has confirmed that the attack was against terror infrastructure along the Line of Control (LoC) – and that the objective had been realized. It was further added by the Indian DGMO that he had informed his Pakistani counterpart.

With this two messages have been conveyed. One, India does not wish to escalate the military operation & the target was terror – and not the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Pakistan. Two, the onus for restraint or escalation is now on Rawalpindi – the GHQ of the Pak military.

And the domestic political message is clear. PM Modi is indeed committed to defend India’s security interests – and will take firm action when required – as promised during his election campaign. However, what needs to be tracked now is the response from Pakistan and the sub-continental trajectory that the post surgical strike days will follow.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

Whatever be the intent and content of much-anticipated Saturday’s New York meeting of the nine-member Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) on Maldives, its decision to delay action may have only boosted the confidence of President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom’s leadership nearer home. Coupled with the hurried and haphazard way former President Mohammed ‘Anni’ Nasheed’s camp tried to convince the world that the end of the Yameen government was round the corner, and got severely rebuffed by the ‘prospective ally’ in predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, half-brother of the incumbent, the next presidential elections may end up becoming a Gayoom family affair.

The presidential polls are not due before November 2018, and the process should commence two or three months earlier. Yet, it’s not unlikely that Yameen could advance the elections by a year or so by getting the cabinet headed by him to resign en masse and hand over power to Parliament Speaker, Abdullah Maseeh Mohamed, for 60 days under the constitution, when fresh polls needed to be concluded.

The idea would be to try and ensure that Nasheed continues to be denied a chance in contesting the elections, citing the Supreme Court upholding his 13-year sentence in the Judge Abdulla case. The sub-text would be have the elections before the impact of any possible punitive action by the Commonwealth, if it came to that, began to be felt by the ordinary voters.

Going by the punishing construction-schedule, Yameen also seems wanting to have the China-funded sea-bridge to the Male International Airport ready by the second half of 2017, for ‘presenting’ it to the voters. It’s also not unlikely that work on a second runway in the Male airport may have reached a decisive stage. Whether commercially viable or not, especially in the medium term, both would be political showpieces, pushing the fading memories of the controversial GMR deal, involving the Indian infrastructure major, to the background.

There is nothing to suggest that such efforts would pay off, and Yameen could get the mandated upper-limit of a second term in a free and fair election. But the Yameen camp is convinced that ‘free, fair and inclusive’ election would mean if and only if Nasheed is given a chance to contest. Citing Nasheed’s own public statement after Judge Abdulla’s midnight detention that also involved the nation’s armed forces, the government seeks to convince whoever is willing to hear that the former President could not escape punishment even if there were another ‘impartial trial’.

To them, punishment for Nasheed means his disqualification from contesting elections. And disqualification of Nasheed could mean that the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) will not want to field any other candidate. This could produce a political deadlock. Alternatively, should MDP conduct party primaries for choosing their presidential nominee, whenever, and if Nasheed’s name were found on the ballot, the election commission could possibly delegitimize the process and may also de-recognise the party.

Already, with Nasheed and party chairman Ali Waheed now in the UK after obtaining political asylum, the election commission’s efforts at streamlining party leadership and membership records could jeopardise the MDP’s future. The opposition is accusing the government/EC of not releasing state funds for political parties, as mandated under the constitution. But when larger issues are thrown up before them, State funding, or non-distribution of the same, could be the least of the opposition’s problems.

Going by ground-level trends, the main stake-holders in Maldivian domestic politics have already launched a psychological war against one another, to push the adversary/adversaries into disarray. Minus the ‘terrorism’ part of the charges against Nasheed, any government in Yameen’s place may still have a case against the former President for Judge Abdulla’s abduction.

Just days ahead of the CMAG’s New York meeting, the government also opened a new and additional front by instituting a fresh case over the ‘illegal detention’ of Yameen when Nasheed was in power. The police have questioned two former Defence Ministers, one of them having held the office for a brief period under Yameen, until last year’s ‘presidential boat-blast’.

Maj-Gen Mossa Ali Jaleel was a senior army official under Nasheed and was High Commissioner to Pakistan when Yameen brought him in as Defence Minister. The other, Amin Faisal, was Defence Minister and National Security Advisor when Yameen was housed in an island resort, so was another opposition leader, Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhooree Party. Faisal was later named High Commissioner to India, but he never took over as the Nasheed leadership had exited office in the subsequent months.

In this background, Yameen’s psy-war on Nasheed is also possibly aimed at trying to divide the MDP-led Maldives United Opposition (MUO), by seeking to convince them all that he was a ‘spoiler’ who would not want others in the ranks to rise without him at the top. There can be no denying that Nasheed continues to be the single-most popular leader in the country, both MDP and outside, but a continued political deadlock centred near-exclusively on Nasheed’s ‘intransigence’ could prove counter-productive.

It’s as if marking this, the Yameen camp launched two erstwhile MDP leaders, one-time party Chairman, ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, and ex-vice-president Allan Fahmy, to target Nasheed and the MDP. It’s not much of a secret that there are ambitious second-line leaders in the MDP who want Nasheed’s votes, but not necessarily Nasheed’s leadership.

Their chances would sprout if and only if Nasheed is not around to contest elections, but is available to extend his whole-hearted support to one of them, even if as an interim arrangement until a new President clears him of all pending court cases and verdict. Getting into Nasheed’s good books, to be named his successor, even if in the interim, is their short-term goal. Nasheed is once bitten, twice shy.

Nasheed’s MDP colleagues are well aware that especially after his ‘bad experience’ with his first-term Vice President, Dr. Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, Nasheed has been nominating only well-trusted and less ambitious personal friends and members of his extended family to sensitive party positions, including previous teams to negotiate with the Yameen leadership. Most MDP cadres too seem wanting it that way, leaving it all for Nasheed, and Nasheed alone, to decide.

If Nasheed and his MDP cadres do not trust the rest, and justifiably so, prospective allies do not trust them either. Barring the present-day partners of the MDP in the Maldives United Opposition (MUO), who have little or no electoral base to call their own, a credibility gap hangs over the heads of the MDP leadership. This flowed from Nasheed’s handling of his second-round electoral allies from his victorious 2008 presidential polls, but the issues refuse to go away.

If anything, the credibility questions vis a vis the MDP leadership has since resurfaced, and may have also impacted on the party’s international backers after the recent fiasco attending on Nasheed’s claims over a political deal with predecessor Gayoom to have the latter’s estranged half-brother Yameen out of office. Promptly did Nasheed make such claims; promptly did Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) denied any contact whatsoever, so as to make any political deal even remotely possible. Post-CMAG, Gayoom’s daughter and former Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has said as much.

The Gayoom-Yameen rift within the PPM has sort of stabilised, and not widened, for now. However, there does not seem to be any going back for either, or the factions that each of them now head. Gayoom is still the party president, and the Yameen camp does not seem to have either the numbers or the stomach to challenge the same. Likewise, the Gayoom faction does not seem to have the numbers in Parliament, to try and impeach Yameen, even with the support of the MDP-MUO, which includes the lone woman member of the religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP).

It is not known if Nasheed’s inability to strike a deal with Gayoom, as claimed, was also among the reasons for the CMAG to give Yameen a longer rope than the MDP-MUO had expected. If anything, the Gayoom faction also maintained a pregnant silence over la affaire CMAG. Whether Nasheed could strike a deal with Gayoom, or if he could alternatively produce the two-thirds numbers in the 85-member People’s Majlis, or parliament, to have Yameen and his Vice-President, Abdulla Jihad, impeached together or separately, is the question.

It is not unlikely that such domestic political considerations too might weigh on the CMAG, or any other international organisation of the kind, before proceeding with taking its current ‘agenda’ items forward in the March session. If nothing else, the international community, especially India’s neighbour, has the stomach for a politically unstable Maldives. India is a leading member not only of the Commonwealth but also of the larger ‘democracy alliance’ the world over. In the immediate context, it is an important member of the nine-nation CMAG just now.

*N. Sathiya Moorthy is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

Fortune magazine noted in February 2016 that sales of video games in 2015 in the United States reached $23.5 billion, “a 5% jump over 2014, according to the Entertainment Software Association.” More than 1,000 new games are released each year. Although sales and user reviews might point to gamer satisfaction, consensus is lacking in what exactly constitutes a “good” game. Now there is a scientifically validated means of gauging satisfaction, the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale, or GUESS.

As described in their upcoming paper in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, human factors researchers Mikki H. Phan and Barbara S. Chaparro of Wichita State University and Joseph R. Keebler of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University developed the GUESS to help game developers and researchers gather quality feedback from playtesting and game evaluations.

The comprehensive multiphase study examined questionnaire responses about more than 450 popular commercial games from more than 600 gamers. Phan et al. found that the GUESS can be used with players at any experience level and with a variety of entertainment game genres to assess satisfaction on nine subscales:

• Usability/playability
• Narratives
• Play engrossment
• Enjoyment
• Creative freedom
• Audio aesthetics
• Personal gratification
• Social connectivity
• Visual aesthetics

Phan and colleagues are gathering data to further validate the GUESS and explore its use across multiple game genres. “We’re very excited for practitioners and researchers to start using the validated GUESS,” the authors noted. “This tool has the potential to become the standard when measuring video game satisfaction.”

To further that goal, they have made the GUESS available under under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) License. The instrument can be freely copied and redistributed in any medium or format for any purpose as long as it passed along unchanged and in whole, and appropriate credit is given.

Moscow police have arrested a man who attacked a synagogue in the Russian capital yesterday, wounding a guard and attempting to set the building afire while shouting anti-Semitic slogans. But Yury Kanner, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, says it is important to determine whether the man acted on his own or was directed by others.

Kanner points out that this is his synagogue, the one he goes to on Saturdays and holidays, and “for many, especially elderly Jews, it is their second home. It would not be an exaggerate to say that from the synagogue on Arkhipov street “began Jewish communal life in Russia” and helped individual Jews recover a sense of membership in “a great people.”

This incident, he points out in a blog post (echo.msk.ru/blog/y_kanner/1848484-echo/), is “out of the ordinary. According to preliminary reports, the man who carried out the attack was mentally ill. However, this is the typical diagnosis of anti-Semites.” Consequently, he says, he “very much wants that in the course of the investigation the authorities clarify whether he decided on this attack on his own or ‘good people’ pushed him in this direction.”

The Moscow police said initially that the perpetrator was a 40-year-old man from the Moscow suburbs (interfax.ru/moscow/530746). Later it came out that he has been working as a concert meister at the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University and has been diagnosed and undergone treatment as a schizophrenic (interfax.ru/moscow/530775).

Aleksandr Boroda, the president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, told Interfax that the incident was an offensive manifestation of xenophobia, but he added in his view the attack “must not become the occasion for incitement of hatred in society” (interfax.ru/moscow/530748).

But both Yury Kanner’s question, the way anti-Semitism has often been the default setting of xenophobic elements in Russia, and the facts already known about this case are likely to suggest to many that some in circles “close to the Orthodox Church” could either intentionally or because of their own xenophobia have led this mentally unstable individual to act as he did

(For more details on the attack, see especially ixtc.org/2016/10/podrobnosti-napadeniya-na-sinagogu-v-moskve-video/ and ixtc.org/2016/10/srochno-napadenie-na-sinagogu-v-moskve-video/.)

By Tarun Basu*

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to show to the people of India that he could live up to his braggadocio – and he did so when he authorised Thursday’s “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan territory to take out seven terrorist “launch pads” and causing what officials are calling “significant casualties”.

What the consequences of this action will be remains to be seen.

Right throughout his election campaign, Modi had mocked his predecessor Manmohan Singh for letting Pakistani transgressions go unanswered, and had said if he came to power, he would throw protocol to the winds and “teach Pakistan a lesson” that it would not forget. In heated campaign rhetoric he had bragged about his “56-inch chest” that any putative enemy needed to fear while his party colleagues, now ministers and senior functionaries in the government, had called for 10 Pakistani heads when one Indian Army soldier was found beheaded on the border.

Amit Shah, Modi’s closest aide and the president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had even grandly announced that “not a rat would be allowed to cross the LoC if Modi becomes PM”. And since not just one rat but, in Indian eyes, any number of Pakistan and Pakistan-supported “vermin” had been repeatedly transgressing the LoC, killing Indian armed forces personnel and generally cocking a snook at the government and security establishment, Modi could not but respond in kind – and announce it to the world.

Although the Modi government has been discussing various “options” that India can take in terms of a “befitting reply” to Pakistan, with senior and influential ruling party leaders even calling “for one tooth, the complete jaw”, Modi knew also that an inflamed Indian public would not be appeased, particularly hardline elements in his own rightist party and its ideological affiliates, unless the government was able to show some kind of muscular, retaliatory action in addition to any other diplomatic or economic measures it may take. Thursday’s dramatic announcement of “surgical strikes” should be seen in that context.

Indian Army Thursday held a rare press conference, in the company of Ministry of External Affairs officials, to announce it had conducted surgical strikes across the LoC – the de facto ceasefire line in Kashmir between India and Pakistan – in which they neutralised launch pads of Pakistan-based terrorists who were, according to intelligence reports, planning a strike on Indian soil.

This action gives a new dimension to the political and military tensions between India and Pakistan, although Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, India’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), said the operation had stopped as its objective had been reached. He also said he had called up his Pakistani counterpart to inform him of the Indian action, which meant that the hotline between the two armies was operational to ensure that the cross-borders tensions did not go out of control.

Modi on Thursday morning chaired a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) where he was briefed on the Indian operation and the decision taken to go public with it — the much-awaited “fitting response” to the Pakistani aggression that had killed 18 Indian Army soldiers, an action which Islamabad not only denied but claimed had been “staged” by India.

Will this lead to a dangerous escalation in South Asia, a fraught region marked by the least level of regional cooperation among its countries? There is no doubt that the rest of the world is extremely worried about what is happening between the two nuclear-armed neighbours with many wondering if the region is teetering on the brink of what many in the West had described as a “nuclear flashpoint”.

India said its action had caused “significant casualties” though there was no word on whether the Indian side had suffered any casualties in the operation. The India Army statement justified it by saying, “Despite persistent urges to Pakistan to not allow territory under its control to not be used for terrorist activities nothing was done.” Usually, when such actions are secretly undertaken, these are done without public announcements to ensure that they have what in strategic vocabulary is called the “deniability factor”.

Pakistani Army has flatly denied the Indian “surgical strikes”, insisting that what had occurred was a ceasefire violation of cross-LoC firing in which two Pakistan army personnel were killed, adding that, “Pakistani troops befittingly responded to Indian unprovoked firing on the LoC in Bhimber, Hotspring Kel and Lipa sectors (of Jammu and Kashmir).”

There is no doubt that Pakistan is going to weigh the actions it needs to take to publicly appease its own population. Islamabad has disowned the Uri strike, but now that India has gone ahead with announcing today’s cross-border action it has to also show to its public that it cannot be taken for granted. Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif responded with alacrity to the Indian announcement to say: “Our desire for peace should not be seen as a sign of weakness.”

*Tarun Basu is President, Society for Policy Studies (SPS). Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

By Lisa Ferdinando

The United States and its Asian-Pacific allies reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen defense cooperation in areas including maritime security and counterterrorism, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in Hawaii.

Defense ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations met Friday in Kapolei, Hawaii, where they deepened their countries’ partnership and renewed pledges to address shared security challenges, Carter told reporters following the talks.

“We all recommitted our militaries to keeping the region’s waterways open and secure and to help all our nations see more, share more and do more in Southeast Asia’s vital waterways,” he said.

The ministers, Carter said, had productive discussions.

He said the Asian-Pacific nations’ cooperation with the U.S., as well as among themselves, will further enhance regional security.

“We discussed the path forward for the Asia Pacific’s principled and inclusive security network, which will help us all to connect, to cooperate and to contribute to regional security,” he said.

‘Certain and Lasting Defeat’ for ISIL

The ministers spent a considerable amount of time discussing the threats posed by terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as well as from returning foreign fighters and other extremists in the region, Carter said.

The secretary said he briefed participants on efforts of the counter-ISIL coalition.

“I was able to share with the ministers the accelerating campaign to deal ISIL a certain and lasting defeat in its parent tumor in Iraq and Syria and everywhere it might metastasize around the world, including Southeast Asia,” Carter said.

US-ASEAN Partnership ‘Stronger Than Ever’

Carter applauded ASEAN for its enduring commitment to peace and stability over the years, saying it has helped provide the security and uphold the principles that have benefited nations and the entire region.

“ASEAN will be just as central to the Asia Pacific’s principled future as it has been for the last half century,” Carter said. “The United States looks forward to partnering with ASEAN and its member countries for decades to come.”

The U.S.-ASEAN partnership is now “stronger than ever,” according to Carter, who noted the ministerial meeting built upon the ASEAN summit held in Laos in September. He thanked Laos for its contributions to both meetings.

Rebalance to Asia Pacific

Carter said he shared with his counterparts the U.S. plans and commitments of the third phase of the rebalance to the Asia Pacific, which is meant to cement the progress of the previous phases that enhanced and improved the U.S. military force posture there.

As part of the third phase, the Defense Department will take steps to “help catalyze our shared principles and inclusive security network,” he said.

That will happen, Carter explained, even as the U.S. qualitatively upgrades its force posture in the region and prioritizes investments and advanced technologies.

“The U.S. rebalance and the burgeoning security network are important at a time of regional change and challenges,” he said.

Coordination within and among the militaries will be improved as well, he said. He announced a number of upcoming events, including an ASEAN maritime dialogue and a maritime domain awareness exercise both hosted by the U.S.

In addition, he said, he invited his counterparts to visit the U.S. Joint Interagency Task Force South in Florida to see how U.S. military law enforcement agencies work there with partner countries.

To build on these discussions, Carter said he asked the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, a DoD institute, to host a workshop next year to identify and address any gaps in U.S.-ASEAN cooperation.

By Gaurav Dixit*

The killing of the Hizbul terrorist ‘commander’ Burhan Wani and the series of incessant violent protests in the Kashmir Valley have again opened a Pandora Box of troubles for the Indian government.

Despite having witnessed similar form of violence in the past, the Indian government has not managed to grasp the dynamics of the new wave of protest in the Valley. Evidently, the centre has failed to receive new wisdom from past experience and has been unable to counter violence that has been going on for long. The Kashmir conflict has always thrown a new challenge to Indian state. The dimensions, level and the intensity of violence may vary, but the challenge has always been to bring all the stakeholders on the table of talks together to find an amicable solution to the problem of violence in the Valley.

Like other conflicts in the world, South Asian conflicts too are shaped by interplay of external and internal players. Conflict has both responsible and irresponsible stakeholders. In the case of trouble in Kashmir, Afghanistan and to some extent in Bangladesh, external players have been important destabilizing factors. In Kashmir and Afghanistan, Pakistan is an important external factor and is inevitably a crucial stake holder.

Amid growing tension between India and Pakistan in the recent months, it appears that Indian government is rethinking about the ‘stakeholder’ approach, and trying to internalize the peace process as much as possible.

Pakistan’s demand for separate talk with India on the issue of Kashmir on the basis of the UN resolutions on Kashmir has been thoroughly rejected by India.

“We have seen statements from Pakistan on the situation in Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. They reflect Pakistan’s continued attachment to terrorism & its usage as an instrument of state policy,” was the response of Indian MEA spokesman Vikas Swarup.

However, India has not retracted from its stand on Kashmir being a bilateral issue. In fact, Minister of State for External Affairs M J Akbar has recently said that Pakistan should not internationalise the Kashmir issue, adding that it is a bilateral issue.

As far as the role of some of the internal stakeholders is concerned, it is often shaped by the views and stand of external stakeholders. In Kashmir, the separatist involvement is regularly influenced by the stand dictated by Pakistan.

The question often asked is whether separatist like Hurriyat Conference has been a legitimate and responsible stakeholder or not. The peace process since the armed rebellion in Kashmir in 1989 has witnessed a considerable number of stakeholders, but Hurriyat, it appears, has assumed exclusive and sole role to represent Kashmiris’ aspirations.

Hurriyat’s past record has supposedly raised question over its commitment to peace process. In 2006, it boycotted two Kashmir Roundtable Conference initiated by then PM Manmohan Singh on flimsy grounds. It has flip flopped on various occasion, when it comes to composite dialogue. The ordinary Kashmiris and other civil society groups have been regularly overlooked as major stakeholders in the issue and their exclusion from dialogue exercises has a huge impact on their confidence in the dialogue process.

According to Ajai Sahni, “the government should ensure that people who are benefiting from violence are brought to a stage where they can secure no benefit instead of trying to reward them with a privileged place in the negotiating process.”Such an approach demands a fresh perspective to understand the concept of ‘stakeholders’ in the Valley and it also highlights the gaps in Indian approach in the past, where those who were engaged in flaring violence has been rewarded with stake in dialogue process.

In practical terms, it is nearly impossible to have internal communication with groups whose interests are devious and does not align with the interest of the people. Secondly, multi dimensional stakeholders approach requires involving new groups, extremely negative and conflicting stakeholders rarely have been productive.

An attempt should be made at integrating the new and separate strands of stakeholder to achieve a convergent stakeholder. As often seen, the growing number of genuine stakeholders reduces the number of potential spoilers or destabilizers. Kashmiris Pandits can be one group that may be given larger say in the peace process.

Finally, the intensity of the violence surges from the confusion and frustration among the masses over poorly communicated government policy. The central government must come out clearly with its policy for the valley. Any flip-flopping will not only undermine its reputation but will also give leverage to the irresponsible stakeholders.

Governments currently appear to follow a hard-line strategy with an assumption that the crisis will fade away as it cannot be sustained beyond a point. The approach might work for the current phase, but it is highly unlikely that violence will not erupt again in the Valley. For any permanent solution, government needs to sit down with the responsible, positive and non-conflicting stakeholders and find a solution which is acceptable to all.

*Gaurav Dixit is an independent analyst. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

Former Israeli Prime Minister and President Shimon Peres, was a very successful brand. He was presented to the world as stately, wise, a relentless advocate of peace, and a sane voice amidst a conflict deemed senseless and unending. Now that he is dead at 93, international media are rife with touching tributes and heartwarming eulogies of the Nobel Peace Prize winner, one of Israel’s most sagacious ‘founding fathers’, who was also seen as a ‘giant among men.’

These attributes were mostly based on sentiment rather than fact, however, full knowledge of the man’s legacy certainly lingers among many Palestinians, Lebanese and advocates of peace and justice in the Middle East.

The truth is, Peres was never truly a peacemaker — he never labored to achieve fair and just political compromises that would preserve the dignity and rights of the Palestinians, along with securing the future of his people. In fact, he was a maximalist, a man who blatantly shoved his ideas forward in order to achieve his goals, no matter what the method or the price.

Nor was he a leader with a specific qualities that allowed him to excel in particular fields of politics. Instead, he was the embodiment of the archetypical Israeli politician who swapped roles, and rebranded himself as the occasion or role required.

“Over seven decades, Peres served as prime minister (twice) and president, though he never actually won a national election outright,” wrote Ben White in Middle East Monitor. “He was a member of 12 cabinets and had stints as defense, foreign and finance minister.” He was also characterized as a ‘warrior’ at home, and a peace ‘dove’ in global forums. He came across as kind and stately, and Western media often embraced that erroneous image with little questioning.

Fearing that his reputation as ‘too soft’ to lead Israel — which is often led by battle-hardened generals — would affect his standing among voters, Peres often meted out severe punishment on the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples. His history was rife with brutal war crimes that went unpunished.

Although he is remembered for his ordering of the bombing of a UN shelter in the Lebanese village of Qana in 1996 — which killed and wounded hundreds of innocent people — the list of war crimes associated with his name is as long as his career. He remained, until the very end a staunch supporter of the Israeli right-wing government’s wars on Gaza and the perpetual siege on that impoverished, forsaken region.

Even as a ‘peacemaker’ he failed terribly. He championed the Oslo Accords as a political treaty that would entrench the Israeli occupation and turn the little that remained of historic Palestine into disjointed Bantustans, as was the case, if not to a worse extent, in apartheid South Africa. Yet he certainly never took responsibility, or expressed any remorse for the resultant plight of the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, the brand of Shimon Peres is an old one. It spans over the course of his long career, starting with him joining underground Zionist militias prior to the establishment of Israel on appropriated Palestinian land. His militant group, the Haganah, was entrusted with the implementation of Plan Dalet, which essentially aimed at the ethnic cleaning of the Palestinian population of its historic homeland.

As one of the ‘disciples of David Ben-Gurion’, the first Prime Minister of Israel, Peres “spent his long political career in the public spotlight,” although “his greatest successes were engineered in the shadows,” according to Yaron Ezrahi, a politics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, as quoted by Jonathan Cook.

One of these ‘successes’ was the nuclear bomb. Although various Middle Eastern countries are often derided for nuclear weapons they never possessed, Peres was the founding father of weapons of mass destruction in the region.
“Peres, like his mentor, believed an Israeli bomb was the key to guaranteeing Israel’s status — both in Washington DC and among the Arab states — as an unassailable Middle East power,” Cook wrote.

Dodging American protests, Peres enlisted the clandestine support of Britain, France, Norway and other countries to realize his ambition.

Yet throughout his career, Peres never ceased speaking of ‘peace.’ His rhetoric and rehearsed face of ‘sincerity’ suited even his political rivals very well, for the juxtaposition of peace-loving Peres vs, for example, warmongering Ariel Sharon presented Israel as a country with healthy, democratic institutions.

The true mockery though is that the differences between Peres and his rivals, who also included former Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, were barely even apparent, and only relevant within Israel’s own political and historical contexts.

For example, Shamir, who led the government between 1983–84 and, again between 1986–1992 was a member of the terrorist Zionist paramilitary group, Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, at the time when Peres was a member of the Haganah. Throughout their militant and political careers, both collaborated on the subject of ethnic cleaning, waged wars, expanded illegal Jewish colonies, and entrenched the military occupation of Palestinian land after 1967.

However, ‘stately’ Peres chose his words carefully, and was indeed a cunning diplomat, while Shamir was a blunt and disagreeable character. As far as practical differences are concerned, however, the end results of their policies were practically identical.

These two individuals who stood at the helm of the Israeli leadership constituted the worst possible combination from the point of view of Palestinians in the occupied territories. While Shamir and Peres served the role of the hard-liner and peace-seeker respectively before the international community, both men and their governments presided over a legacy saturated with violence, illegal annexation of Palestinian land and settlement expansion.

In October 1994, Peres, along with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. While Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist and Arafat died from suspected poisoning, Peres lived to be 93, advocating Israel’s interest at the expense of Palestinians to the very end, justifying Israeli wars, siege and military occupation.

The Israelis and many in mainstream Western media may very well praise Peres as a hero, but for Palestinians, Lebanese and a multitude of others he is another war criminal who escaped any accountability for his countless misdeeds.

By Sudip Bhattacharyya*

The third North East Connectivity Summit was organized in Agartala from September 21-23, 2016 against the backdrop of a number of positive developments. These are the unprecedented focus on development of roads, inland waterways, railways etc in the Northeastern region, the emergence of a democratic Myanmar, improving ties with Bangladesh, a resurgent foreign policy and above all the emerging potential of Northeast (NE) India as a connecting frontier for the South-East Asian economy.

The recently announced plans of awarding road projects of 1 lakh crore rupees in the NE in the next five years and the declaration of 18 national waterways in the region have put the NE in developmental focus. Along with the initiatives like Make in India, Skill India and the increased attention in improving international economic ties with countries like Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, etc. with NE and West Bengal (WB) at the helm of affairs, there is now a positive and concerted plan of action.

The development of connectivity will have a multiplier effect on the region’s growth besides paving the way for industrial development. It aims to increase economic ties with Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bhutan with the Northeast region. The specific areas for investments in the Northeast region include transport infrastructure (roads; inland waterways; air connectivity), agro-food processing, tourism, energy, IT & ITES, telecom and textile, hand loom & apparel.

The Kaladan Multimodal project, the trilateral highway, Trans-Asian Railway and the Asian Highway Network are some of the game changing projects at various stages of progress. At the same time, the rise of a democratic Myanmar, the improving bilateral ties with Bangladesh, the growth of South Asian rconomic engine-all this has drawn attention of not only India but also the developed world. India and WB stands to gain from the progress of its eastern neighbourhood if they focus on the efforts to capitalise on the crucial advantage it has through the frontier of Northeast India. The timely completion of ongoing infrastructure projects, creation of new green field infrastructure to aid connectivity and trade, policy reforms, cooperation with neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc. would be key to the future of the region as a hub of international trade and commerce.

Bangladesh Industry Minister Amir Hossain Amu said at the summit on September 22, 2016: “The Bangladesh government would like to bring substantive changes in terms of connectivity with India. We would restore the pre-1965 railway links on priority basis.” He said: “Air connectivity between Guwahati and Dhaka and Shillong and Agartala via Dhaka could be explored after examining the commercial viability.”

“To boost trade and commerce between Bangladesh and India’s Northeast region, we are improving trade infrastructure, immigration, customs facilities, developing land ports. Bangladesh is Northeast India’s natural business partner,” the minister added. India’s External Affairs Ministry’s Joint Secretary Partha Satpathy said India’s ‘Act East Policy’ has been extremely successful in terms of diplomacy for development, regional security, energy security, political aspects and other vital issues.

“Several connectivity-related projects are now underway to connect Northeast India with South-East Asian countries. India is playing a vital role in important regional bodies like the South East Asian nations or ASEAN and Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) to provide greater global exposure to the regional grouping,” Satpathy added.
For economic development, West Bengal has to look east with Northeast as its hinterland. Having regard to current geo-politico-economic scenario, the strategic importance of WB and NE is only going to increase with increased sub-regional cooperation in India’s north-eastern neighbourhood. The Kunming Initiative, or the Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar (BCIM) Forum, is a robust effort for economic and cultural cooperation between these four countries that are geographically contiguous and economically complementary. The broad goals of the Kunming Initiative are substantially improved regional connectivity for goods and people in the region, through a network of roads, railways and waterways, and establishing the Kunming-Mandalay-Dhaka-Calcutta economic corridor.

For instance, trans-Bangladesh connectivity will mean that the distance between Kolkata and Guwahati will go down from the current 1300 km to 587 km and the distance between Agartala and Kolkata will go down from 2000km to 350 km.

North East Connectivity Summit is a cross-sector initiative highlighting the connectivity gaps and proposing a comprehensive connectivity agenda apart from encouraging private sector investment in connectivity infrastructure. The summit brought into focus the opportunities in developing connectivity of NE and its associated strategic and economic advantages for the entire India. That apart, this year the summit has also highlighted the opportunities in international trade and commerce that improved connectivity will bring about especially with countries like Bangladesh which is a strategic partner for not only the Northeast but the whole of India. Among other issues, the summit has put a major focus on development of international trade and commerce of North-Eastern states including Assam, and also West Bengal, improving connectivity with Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries with a special emphasis on developing connectivity in border areas.

*Sudip Bhattacharyya is a former banker and commentator on contemporary issues. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

By Amitava Mukherjee*

India has shown praiseworthy restraint in the aftermath of the Uri attack by not dancing to the tune of jingoistic voices within the country as there are conflicting signals from across the border so far as mutual relations between various terrorist outfits operating from Pakistani soil and the government of Pakistan are concerned. The Uri attack has taken place at a time when the Pakistan army and the Nawaz Sharif administration are taking punitive measures, albeit on a selective basis, against some terrorist outfits in that country. However the most populous and economically advanced Punjab province, particularly its southern part, is now becoming a hub of terrorist activities posing a direct threat to the power base of the Pakistani elite.

In recent past 70 terrorist groups, big and small, with support networks of regional and international terror organizations, have mushroomed in Punjab. Prominent among them are the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi(LeJ) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Although the JeM mostly operates from the Pakistan occupied Kashmir yet it has significant presence in Punjab also. Their thriving has been made possible by the fact that the Punjab province in Pakistan is heavily dominated by two highly conservative Sunni sub-sects named the Barelvis and the Deobandis, although the province was once known for its allegiance to Sufism. These two sub-sects follow the ‘fiqh’ of Abu Hanifa. There is another influential school called Ahle-e-Hadith whose adherents are known as Wahabis in general terms.

Understanding the prevailing religious dynamics of the Punjab province is necessary for analyzing its sustained existence as a focal point of militant activities as all the Sunni sects mentioned above remain almost on a same wavelength and therefore provide a solid theoretical fulcrum for all Sunni militant groups. Punjab’s militancy is different from that in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in the sense that while the latter is ethnicity based the former is totally based on religion.

Today southern Punjab has become the largest recruitment area for the Punjab Taliban particularly for Jamaat-ur-Ahrar, its splinter faction. The Taliban is using local illiteracy, indebtedness and crop failure to attract young boys, mostly in the age group 8 to 15, for jihadi purposes. It is pertinent to note here that only half of the Pakistanis can read and write, every one in three Pakistani children do not attend schools and a third of all Pakistani school students drop out at class V. Girls’ enrolment in schools is among the lowest in the world, behind even Ethiopia and Yemen. It is not surprising therefore that in the Dera Ghazi Khan division of southern Punjab the Ahl-e-Hadith faction has been recruiting girls for militant purposes.

The Pakistan army is now in an unenviable position in Punjab. It took up the duty of enforcing law and order after attack on Christian minorities in a Lahore park in March last. But the army’s connection with the JeM and the LeT, particularly the latter’s front organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah(JuD), is neck deep. Therefore it has taken only some cosmetic steps by launching strikes against some petty criminal gangs like the one led by one Ghulam Rasul alias Chhotu who has his base in the ‘katcha’ area or islands in the Indus River near the border of Punjab and Sindh. Masood Azhar, the JeM chief, now lives under protective custody of the Punjab provincial government. But its cadres roam freely. The Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat, reincarnation of the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba, has gone underground but very little arrests of their militant cadres have taken place.

Neither the army nor the civilian administration in Pakistan is in a position to take decisive steps against the militants as Pakistani society has undergone a thorough change after the Dars-e-Nizami or the degree given by the Madrasa Board was declared equal to Masters degrees given by secular universities in the 1970s and 1980s. It opened the floodgates of entry of madrasa-educated students into the army and the civil administration. It is not that none of the Pakistani leaders understood the inherent danger. Pervez Musharraf tried to modernize the madrasas and wanted to introduce general subjects in their curricula. But he failed. Shabaz Sharif, the head of the provincial Punjab administration, had once declared that he would release USD 75 million to build free model schools close to large madrasas. What came out of his promise is not known.

Nowadays Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan divisions of southern Punjab have become breeding grounds of terrorist activities. The process has been facilitated by numerical superiority of the Barelvi and Deobandi, two extremely conservative sects of Sunni Islam, in Punjab province. Together these two sects constitute nearly 76 percent of population in Punjab. The Deobandi, more rigid of these two, constitute 30.33 percent of population in Bahawalpur and 25.93 percent in Multan. Together they form more than 56 percent of population in these two divisions. It is no wonder that both Multan and Bahawalpur are now known as nurseries of terrorism in Punjab.

This sectarianism-militancy equation is noticeable in the distribution of madrasas also. Pakistan has around 35,000 madrasas of which nearly 12,000 are situated in Punjab. Of them Multan has 1895, Bahawalpur 1618 and Dera Ghazi Khan 1225. In all the three divisions the Barelvis and the Deobandis constitute overwhelming majorities. It is again noteworthy that the Deobandi madrasas enjoy a numerical superiority of 86 percent more than their ratio in the population of Punjab.

According to Pakistan government’s own estimates, 86 madrasas in Punjab are suspected to be involved in militant activities. Of these 81 are known to be Deobandi in character. Moreover, of the 13,849 religious seminaries 56 have been placed under Category-A which denotes direct involvement in militant activities.

*Amitava Mukherjee is a senior journalist and commentator. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on : editor@spsindia.in

By Jai Kumar Verma*

In complete contrast to his previous trip, the recent two-day visit of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to India, which ended on September 15, was very fruitful for both the nations. India agreed to commit USD 1 billion further for various developmental projects in Afghanistan. Besides financial assistance, both the parties signed three agreements including an extradition treaty.

Extradition treaty with Afghanistan is important because the masterminds of terrorist attacks in India or Afghanistan would not be able to take shelter in other’s country. Economic offenders in either of the countries too would be brought to justice under this treaty mechanism.

India’s USD 1 billion would be an addition to already committed (and spent) assistance of USD 2 billion. All the assistance is expected to be utilized in the development of infrastructure, education, energy, agriculture, skill development, health, supply of world class medicine, solar energy etc. Ghani also stated that both countries should work in harmony so that in five years bilateral trade between India and Afghanistan becomes USD 10 billion.

So far Ghani and Modi have met about eight times and both the leaders have inculcated good understanding. The visiting President was very warm in the current visit because his illusion that Pakistan would pressurize Afghan Taliban to abandon the path of terrorism and negotiate with Afghan government has been completely shattered. The military controlled Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is the prominent source of assistance to Afghan Taliban and Pakistan uses these Taliban groups to pressurize the Afghan government. Overtly, the Pakistani government has told Ghani that it lacks the requisite influence to compel Taliban to negotiate with the Afghan government while covertly it continues its assistance to Taliban so that it weakens the elected government in Afghanistan.

After being disillusioned with Pakistan, Ghani now wants to improve relations with India as, firstly, India genuinely wants to assist Afghanistan and, secondly, it does not want Afghanistan to be too close to Pakistan lest it becomes the epicentre of terrorism once again.

At present Pakistan-abetted terrorist groups are carrying out terrorist activities in India as well as in Afghanistan; hence both countries, without specifically mentioning the name of Pakistan, denounced use of terrorism as state policy and gave a very stern message to Pakistan. The joint communiqué mentioned that both the countries agreed that terrorism “presented the single biggest threat to peace, stability and progress in the region and beyond.” It was also stressed that “elimination of all forms of terrorism, without any discrimination, is essential” and no support should be extended to the terrorists.

Pakistan obstructed India from sending 1.7 lakh tones of wheat to Afghanistan. Under the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA), trucks carrying fruits and dry fruits from Afghanistan to India can reach up to Wagah border but these trucks are not allowed to carry Indian goods to Afghanistan. Ghani has warned Pakistan that if it blocks Indian goods from reaching Afghanistan it will also not allow Pakistani goods for Central Asian to transit from Afghan country.

Both the leaders stressed that the construction of Chabahar port facilities in Iran must be expedited so that both India and Afghanistan can bypass Pakistan in bilateral trade. The visiting President also agreed to visit Amritsar in December to attend the ministerial conference of the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process to determine development and security of Afghanistan.

The joint communiqué had not mentioned anything about military assistance to Afghanistan. Indian Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar too did not respond to the question about supply of arms and ammunition to Afghanistan, but analysts claim that Afghan Army Chief, General Qadam Shah Shahim, who had already paid a four-day visit to India beginning August 29, had come to India with a ‘military wish-list’. In his visit General Shahim met all three Services Chiefs, General V K Singh, Union Minister of State for External Affairs, and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. The visiting Army Chief also went to Indian Military Academy and met Afghan cadets who are undergoing training in the academy.

General Shahim wanted to send more Afghan army personnel for training and requested for more helicopters, tanks, artillery and other military equipments including their ammunition. Although the commitments made by Indian authorities were not made public in view of rising tension between India and Pakistan and between Afghanistan and Pakistan, analysts claim that India has assured supply of military hardware to Afghanistan liberally.

So far India has not been supplying armaments to Afghanistan because of pressure from the United States which never wanted to antagonize Pakistan. Nonetheless, now the scenario has changed US has stopped supply of F-16s to Pakistan and it is learnt that US Secretary of State John Kerry and NATO commander General John Nicholson recently visited India and insisted that India must supply armaments to Afghanistan.

The Americans have now realized that Pakistan is a focal point of terrorism and the rogue ISI renders all type of assistance to various terrorist outfits who carry out terrorist acts in India and Afghanistan. Pakistan does not want a strong Afghanistan and hence will continue with terrorist attacks on Afghan and NATO forces.

The Afghan army is familiar with Russian arms and India is in a position to supply armaments and spare parts of weapons of Russian origin. India also wants a strong Afghanistan which is not under the influence of Pakistan.

Besides meeting President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and other dignitaries he delivered a exciting lecture at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) on ‘ Fifth Wave of Political Violence and Global Terrorism’. He stated that more than 200,000 personnel of Pakistani military had waged war in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces. He mentioned that there is no civil war in Afghanistan but nine internationally accepted terrorist groups are creating trouble in the country. He also said that an international effort is required to trounce terrorism and the concept of good and bad terrorists is a short term strategy and terrorism is like a snake and it will bite whosoever feeds it. He also mentioned that it is erroneous to perpetrate terrorism in the name of Islam as no religion permits killing of innocents on the name of Islam.

*Jai Kumar Verma is an independent strategic analyst based in New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

What is the function of the media in the system of professional ethical standards? The mass media are among the most influential companies in a democratic society, at the crossroads between citizens and their political, economic and social institutions. How can we, when we are faced with a situation of being overwhelmed with social networks, overcome the problem with which journalism faces? Problems of rumors, gossip, manipulations with misinformation, lies, deceits and hypocrisy of politicians who are willing even to change the laws if it is personally suitable for them, or in other words – to adapt the legislation to their own interests and by that directly or indirectly usurp all possibilities of shaping the society of deliberative democracy, which may be the only way out for the world as global sin1.

How to be ethical in the world, where, regardless of which political option they belong to, exist the principle “in a society where everyone steals, nobody steals”?2

However, as stated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenthal in “The Elements of Journalism”3, the biggest confusion about journalism is the concept of objectivity. As the concept evolved in the original sense, this does not imply that journalists were freed from bias, but on the contrary. Only the name of “bias” appeared as part of journalism in turn of the millennium, from the XIX and up to the XX century, especially in the twenties of the last century, when there was a really extreme recognition of journalists as a people full of bias, usually unconsciously4 making mentioned. Objectivity “invited” journalists to develop a consistent method for assessing the checking of the information – transparent access to evidence – so precisely that personal or cultural bias will not impair their accuracy and their work. At the end of the nineteenth century, journalists prefer to talk much more about “realism” than on objectivity. This was the idea that, if a reporter came to the evidence and if they are stacked in a specific order, the truth itself will come to the surface in a natural way.

Realism has surfaced at a time when journalism separated itself from the party affiliation and became more accurate and more true. Coincided with the invention of what journalists call the reverse pyramid, where journalists are represented facts from the most important and up to least important, thinking how it would help the public to understand the nature of the conveyed information.

However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of journalists started to worry about the naivety of journalism. Especially because the reporters and editors become more conscious of developing of propaganda and the role of press agents, what we nowadays call “public relations”. At a time when Freud developed his theory of the unconscious and when Picasso5 experimented with Cubism, journalists are also developing recognition of human subjectivity.

The method is objective, not a journalist. Yes, back in 1919 journalist Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, editor, for the newspaper “New York World”6, wrote an influential and sharp text on how culturally blind people distorted representation of the Russian Revolution in the New York Times …

“Most of the time, the news about Russia were not what it was, but about what people wanted to see. “… end quote – they wrote. Lippmann and others have begun to look for ways for individual journalists to … quote: “stay clean and free from its irrational, unreliable, ignorant attitudes within its own observations, understanding and presenting the news.”

Journalism was, as they stressed, practiced by the “not taught / untrained accidental witnesses”. Good intentions, or what one might call “good faith” by journalists, were not enough. Faith in harsh individualism of tough reporter was not enough. Even the innovations that have come in time were not that, as a byline, or signature of the columnist. The solution was certainly, according to those authors, that reporters need …

“scientific spirit … The answer is in a one kind of possible unity in a world that is filled with diversity as ours7. It is the unity of method, rather than a unity of a goal; unity of disciplined experiment. “

These are certainly thought, by this, that journalism should strive for a common intellectual method and a common area of valid facts.

To begin, they are thinking, it was necessary to transform journalism education from “trade school shaped with people with high salaries in existing structures” towards the education of proving and certifications of the facts.
Although it was a time of believing in science, they had few illusions …

“It does not matter that the news was not subject to mathematical statements. In fact, precisely because news are complex and confusing ones, good reporting requires the implementation of the highest scientific virtues. “

In the original concept itself, in other words, the method is objective, not a journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not of a goal. This position has some important implications.

One is that an impartial voice that is employed by many of the media – to a close, we assume a neutral style of writing news –is not a fundamental principle of journalism. Rather, it is often a means to help the media which use to emphasize that they are trying to produce something that could be objective method.

Another implication is that this neutral voice, without the discipline of verification or confirmation, creates glaze which covers something hollow. Journalists who choose their sources to express what really their position is and then use it as a neutral voice to make it look objectively, are involved in a form of deception. This implication harms the credibility of the craft making it unprincipled, unfair and biased.

Professional journalists went to the goal of redefining this concept that Lippman and Merz shaped up, but usually as individuals and on a personal level, and in the name of art or reporting routines and not for the larger goals of journalism. The term, for which I am really ready to spend hours and hours in conversations with colleagues with a view to shaping the same, objective method of reporting exists in parts, and transmits only in personal contact, direct and immediate conversation between journalists.

Developmental psychologist William Damon8 was at Stanford, USA, for example, has identified a variety of strategies developed by journalists to verify the report. Prof. Damon asked interviewees where they learned these concepts. The largest number of responses was: through testing, but also based on own mistakes or from friends.

Very rarely the journalists admitted that they referred taught in journalism school or by their editors.
Many useful books have been written about above. IRE (Investigative reporters and editors)9 are trying to develop a methodology how to use public archives, read documents, and ways to apply the requirements of targeted use of the Law on Free Access to Information10.

But all informal strategies are not put together within a single discipline which was imagined about for almost 100 years ago by Lippmann and people like him. There is no way about the standard approach to the rules when the evidence in question, as to what the law is, or there is no agreed method of observation, as it is carried out with scientific experiments.

Even the old conventions of the ratifications are not extended in order to be adapted to new forms of journalism. Although journalism may have developed different techniques and conventions to determine the facts11, less has been done to develop a system of testing of the reliability of journalistic interpretation.

And, of course, the logical question follows: why do we, after all, require ethics?

It takes …:

Because of the need for social stability if we do not want to have an organized anarchy, even within journalism. Regardless that there is no formal agreement to:

1. Do it and in doing like that, readers, listeners and viewers – consumers of media, expect from journalists to report the truth. With the aim, of course, shaping the development of a healthy society. A true first of all because there is a need for moral hierarchy because ethical system serves as a moral guardian which inform the society about the relative importance of certain customs12. There is a tendency when we describe the specific acts with which we disagree as immoral, although most social arrogance is nothing but a clear violation of normal behavior. Ethical system recognizes these practices for which there is a lot of social disapproval so that they can be considered immoral.

2. Due to the need for conflict resolution bearing in mind that the ethical system is important social institution for solving a cases that are presenting opposing demands within personal interests. For example, perhaps the personal interest of students is to copy the work of his colleague, but at the same time the interest of his colleague that he does not allow. This should take into account the social rules against plagiarism when it comes to assessing the moral practices arising from this situation.

3. Due to the need for confirmation of the value. For example, the controversies over human cloning – the pros and cons of scientific achievements with unimaginable ethical consequences.

As I stated earlier, the realization of the common good is the assumption of the really prosperous individual well-being, in the general sense. The most important question is HOW to define the common good, which will satisfy all levels of society, and to prevent the possibility of being accused of Unitarianism, Nationalism and / or Communism in the society in which we are living within.

To come up with an appropriate response in the deep today’s separated world today we must accept the fact that professional journalists are (those who practice respect for professional ethical standards), crucial for the transmission of cultural and non-cultural values – depending on the kind of ethical and / or unethical values they are leaning on within a particular society and themselves. By doing everything that the world as a global sin become as realistic as possible within its incidence. Although the exact opposite is on the scene in the first two decades of the XXI century.

Notes:
1. Eurasia Review, USA (14.6.2016), author SabahudinHadžialić: http://www.eurasiareview.com/14062016-world-as-global-sin-deliberative-democracy-as-the-only-way-out-essay/
2. Prof.DrMladenMirosavljević, Banja Luka (RS &BiH) – „Corruption as a way of life“ – Al Jazeera, 19.12.2015: http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/korupcija-kao-nacin-zivota … Translation of the part of the article: „ I love Bosnia and Herzegovina. Imagine a country where not even a single news is a news. In which the main driver is not the economy, but the hatred. Country in which politics is most desirable job, and most capable person is the one who steals the most. State under an international protectorate in the middle of Europe, as the one like that does not exist anywhere in Europe, not even in her immediate surroundings. In which corruption is a way of life, and the elections are won on a goal who is bigger nationalist and who will separate his own people other and different ones In the country in. which is all make-believe things and not even closet to be like in normal world. From the social order, through democracy and up to the economy.” Check out the above sentence in your country whenever you are and you will see a lot of similarities – at least the important ones (just think about immigrants and reactions of nationalistic parties against them anywhere in Europe and not to mention Mr. Donald Trump and his ridiculous statements about “other and different” ones in USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JsiGQMMoe4 (and not only about them).
3. “The Elements of Journalism” Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel, Publisher Crown publishers, 2001.
4. There are plenty examples today where they are doing that with extremely conscience – Examples of bias in American media from January 2005 and until May 2016 are presented by the side of
StudentNewsDaily.com, WWW portaa: https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/archive/example-of-media-bias/ which has a goal of building up of student knowledge in regards current happenings and making stronger their critical thinking.
5. DIOGEN pro culture magazine, Editor in chief S.H., No 12, July 2011: http://www.diogenpro.com/pablo-picasso.html
6. Info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Test_of_the_News
7. Chinese proverb: “Road to hell is paved with good intentions”
8. Info: http://www.williamdamon.com/about/ i https://ed.stanford.edu/faculty/wdamon
9. Info: https://www.ire.org/
10. For example, In the region of South_East Europe, that Law is not so used Law. http://www.mpr.gov.ba/pristup_info/default.aspx?id=2574&langTag=bs-BA , exactly by the side of professional journalists, with few exception.
11. This book is example: “Investigative journalism“, co-authors Mladena Mirosavljevića, Gordana Vilović and Michale Kunczika, Publisher Fridrieh Ebert Stiftung, Sarajevo, BiH, 2009: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/sarajevo/06911.pdf
12. Luis Advin Dej „Ethics in Media Communication: Cases and Controversies“, pg.. 24. Publisher Media center, Belgrade and Plus, Belgrade, Serbia, 2004

Bhutan may be in the middle of a power play between regional rivals – long-time protector India and China.

By Bertil Lintiner*

China has begun courting the only neighboring country with which it does not yet have diplomatic relations – Bhutan. Throughout modern history, the Himalayan kingdom has depended heavily on India, which is following events closely.

Bhutan, a 38,394 square kilometer country with 750,000 inhabitants, is in the unenviable position of being squeezed between the two most populous countries on earth that are also regional rivals. China is keen to establish diplomatic relations with Bhutan, although authorities in Thimphu recognize that such a move could not be done without at least tacit approval of India.

In August, Bhutan’s Foreign Minister Damcho Dorji visited Beijing, and the discreet diplomatic dance follows years of quiet contact. In the early 1980s, foreign ministers of China and Bhutan held talks at the UN headquarters in New York – officially about the border issue. China claims a few hundred square kilometers of Bhutanese territory. In 2012, then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and his Bhutanese counterpart Jigme Thinley met on the sidelines of a UN conference in Brazil and expressed willingness to establish formal diplomatic relations. In Beijing, Dorji discussed the still unsettled border and met with China’s deputy foreign minister, foreign minister and vice-president.

Attempting to gain influence in Bhutan, China has deployed its usual “soft diplomacy.” In recent years, circus artists, acrobats and footballers have traveled to Bhutan, and a limited number of Bhutanese students received scholarships to study in China. Tourism has expanded: 19 Chinese tourists traveled to Bhutan a decade ago, and last year, the figure was 9,399, or 19 percent of the total.

The August meeting – the 24th in a series of border talks that also covered trade and diplomatic recognition – was a step forward for China. According to an August 15 statement issued by the Chinese foreign ministry: “Although Bhutan and China have not established diplomatic relations yet, it will not hold back the mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries. The Bhutanese side is willing to continue to deepen exchanges in such fields as tourism, religion, culture and agriculture and further lift the cooperation level with China.”

India watches the developments with concern. In July 2014, Bhutan became the first foreign stop for Narendra Modi, two months after he became India’s prime minister. Later that year, India’s President Pranab Mukherjee visited Bhutan, underscoring the value New Delhi’s places on its relations with the small but strategically located kingdom in the Himalayas. High on the agenda was China’s attempts to gain a permanent presence in Bhutan.

Bhutan would find it difficult to act independently when it comes to its foreign relations. Imports from India account for 75 percent of the total, and 85 percent of all exports goes to India. The largest export consists of hydropower from plants on rivers flowing down the Himalayas, and India is the sole importer. The Bhutanese currency, the ngultrum, is tied to the Indian rupee, with which it is on par. Strategically, Bhutan’s border with China follows the crest of the Himalayas, which separates the Indian subcontinent from the Tibetan plateau. Between Bhutan and Bangladesh lies a narrow strip of land connecting India’s volatile northeastern region with the rest of the country.

Bhutan’s special relationship with India goes back to an 1865 friendship treaty between Bhutanese rulers and the colonial masters of British India. In 1910, Bhutan and British India signed a treaty whereby the British Raj recognized Bhutan’s internal sovereignty while maintaining control over its foreign relations. Bhutan and independent India signed a similar treaty in 1949. Bhutan’s way out of its de facto status as a protectorate of its southern neighbor began in 1963 with a new constitution that changed the monarch’s title from the Indian maharaja to the more indigenous druk gyalpo, underscoring that Bhutan was not among the former princely states of pre-colonial India but an independent kingdom. In 1971, Bhutan, supported by India, became a member of the United Nations.

Nevertheless, under the terms of the 1949 treaty, Bhutan agreed “to be guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations.”

That was the case until 2007 when a revised treaty was signed, stating: “the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interests of the other.”

That treaty was concluded after two major crises in relations between India and Bhutan. The first was the flight of more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalese from Bhutan in the early 1990s. Claiming discrimination, they crossed the border into India, which did not want them. They were compelled to continue to Nepal, a country that does not share a common border with Bhutan. India did not want to jeopardize relations with Bhutan, especially since some of the ethnic Nepalese had been involved in activities deemed hostile to the Bhutanese monarchy. Most of the refugees have since then been resettled in third countries including the United States.

Second, land left behind by the refugees was taken over by militants from the United Liberation Front of Assam, ULFA, and allied separatist forces from northeastern India. Camps were established in remote jungle areas and raids launched into India from these cross-border sanctuaries into Bhutan. In December 2003 the Bhutanese army drove the militants out. Indian troops were deployed on their side of the border and helicopters assisted the Bhutanese troops, largely Indian-trained. Since then, ULFA was also driven out of another Indian neighbor, Bangladesh. ULFA military camps are now limited to northwestern Myanmar, while its commander, Paresh Barua, resides mostly in China’s Yunnan Province.

Given a long history of close relations, Indians only recently saw China as a possible player in Bhutanese affairs though Bhutan has long avoided offending the Chinese. Following a failed 1959 uprising against the Chinese in Tibet, thousands of Tibetan refugees poured into Bhutan. The Bhutanese, who practice a form of Buddhism similar to the Tibetan version, allowed the refugees to stay. Unlike the Tibetan refugees in India, those in Bhutan were not allowed to engage in political activity. In 1981, they were told to accept Bhutanese citizenship, or leave the country. Most left for India. Bhutan remains today one of few Buddhist nations in the world which the Dalai Lama has not visited.

China was not slow to reciprocate. The first exchange between Bhutan and China occurred as early as 1974, when a Chinese delegation attended the coronation of the former king, Jigme Singye Wangchuk – described by China’s official news agency Xinhua as “a new page in the friendly contacts between the two countries.” That “page” now includes regular top-level interactions on the top level as well as people-to-people contacts.

Tiny Bhutan risks being caught in the middle of a regional power play that it might not be able to handle. China’s charm offensive with Bhutan may also deepen the mutual suspicion with which Asia’s two giants view each other. That does not augur well for a part of the world already under siege by a new Cold War, with an increasingly assertive China on one side and a host of other countries, among them India, on the other.

*Bertil Lintner is a former correspondent with the Far Eastern Economic Review and author of several books on Burma/Myanmar, including Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency Since 1948 (published in 1994, 1999 and 2003), Land of Jade: A Journey from India through Northern Burma to China, and The Kachin: Lords of Burma’s Northern Frontier. He is currently a writer with Asia Pacific Media Services.

The deaths of many thousands of elephants at the hands of poachers in recent years has led some to conclude that the ban on ivory established in 1989 should be lifted, allowing for tight regulation of the ivory trade. But, according to a new analysis reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology, there is no way to sustainably harvest ivory. The demand is far too great.

“We simply can’t lift the ivory ban,” said David Lusseau of the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom. “Doing so would have catastrophic consequences for elephant populations across Africa, even those currently well protected in Southern Africa.”

“But,” he added, “we must also acknowledge that poaching is not going away, and we need mechanisms to address the anticipation of trade which is created every time there is a regional sale of stockpiles or a significant outcry against the trade ban.”

Prompted by the fact that CITES is now considering the possibility of a legal ivory trade, Lusseau and colleague Phyllis Lee of the University of Stirling, United Kingdom, set out to produce a realistic model defining how much ivory could be sustainably harvested from elephant populations.

“Before we can even consider whether we should lift the existing ban on trade in ivory, we need to figure out how much ivory a population of elephants can produce in a sustainable manner,” Lee explained.

Existing models treat each individual as “average,” meaning that they supply an average amount of ivory, she explains. The trouble is that this isn’t the way it works. In reality, some elephants supply much greater volumes of ivory than others. Males produce more ivory than females. The amount of ivory also tends to increase as an elephant ages.

According to the researchers’ calculations, the sustainability space for harvesting ivory is incredibly small. Out of a reference population of 1,360 elephants, only 100 to 150 kilograms (about 220 to 330 pounds) of ivory could be harvested–a level well below the current demand.

This means that to maintain a healthy, well-protected, and growing population, “we could take roughly one big male every year,” Lusseau said. Then consider that a big male might be 45 to 55 years old. It would take a very long time–two to three generations–to replace those big ivory-bearing males once they were lost.

“Once you take the big males out, you then need to take several smaller animals to harvest the same amount of ivory the next year; and so on,” Lee added.

And, it gets worse when you consider the insatiable demand for ivory. If only one old male per 1,500 elephants can be harvested sustainably, “then there is simply no way to meet current demand,” Lusseau said.

The only solution then, they say, is to manage the demand for ivory more effectively. That can’t be achieved by selling off stockpiles of ivory, either.

“Sales of ivory have been promoted as a source of revenue that could be used for elephant conservation and as a means to satisfy–and thus reduce–demand for ivory, but the opposite has occurred,” Lee said. “Poaching has increased! There is no evidence that revenue from past ivory sales made any significant impact on protecting elephant populations in any African country. In fact, the main consequence of prior sales has been to give the impression to consumers that the ivory trade has been, or will be legalized, leading to spiralling demand and greater poaching.”

Instead, the researchers recommend efforts to develop alternative sources of income for those living with elephants. They say it’s also critical to change people’s perceptions about buying products containing ivory. “We must show that there is more value to have a live elephant than an ivory ashtray,” Lusseau said.

The findings come just days before the CITES World Wildlife Conference to be held in Johannesburg. Lusseau says that it is now vital that CITES sends a “clear signal to poachers, traders, and consumers that the ivory trade is ‘closed.’ Then work can focus on halting the illegal trade, curbing demand, and protecting elephants and their habitats.”

Lusseau and Lee said that they will continue to improve upon their model by adding in environmental and other factors. They also intend to build on the model to develop a more thorough understanding of the socioeconomic drivers behind the ivory supply chain.

Ahead of China’s National Day celebrations, the relatives of several detained rights lawyers issued an open letter criticizing the government’s actions against them and their families, reports RFA.

“On the eve of the Oct. 1, 2016 National Day celebrations, we are taking our complaint to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate,” said the letter issued by the wives of four rights lawyers held by the authorities since July 2015.

“Why are we being smeared in the official media? Why aren’t we allowed to hire lawyers … for our husbands?” asked the letter posted on the rights website weiquanwang.org.

“Is it illegal for us to lodge a complaint over this slander by the media? Why are we being called in [by police] for questioning over this?”

The four wives were detained in Tianjin for 24 hours in June after protesting against their husbands’ detention, which is part of the communist government’s wider crackdown on rights defenders.

According to rights groups, the authorities have also targeted the lawyers’ families, with children not being allowed to attend school and or families being forced to move from their homes being some examples of the tactics used.

Myanmar, formerly Burma, is a resource rich country in south-east Asia, bordering Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand. The country of nearly 52 million people is going through a mammoth change these days. The old men of the military that ran the country for more than half a century have been displaced by a popular, elected, civilian government of National League for Democracy (NLD). Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the founding father Aung San, is the de facto leader of the government with the title of the State Counsellor.

The transition to democracy did not come that easy. Its path was stained with blood and sacrifice since 1962 when General Ne Win came to power through a military coup. Fifteen student protesters of the capital’s Rangoon University were killed. The country was ruled by a revolutionary council headed by the general. Almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control under the Burmese Way to Socialism. As a result, the Rohingya people of Arakan state and the prosperous Indian Hindu-Muslim-Sikh business community of Rangoon became the worst sufferers in this experiment; many non-Buddhists were forced out of Burma. A new constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma was adopted in 1974. Under the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) Burma became one of the world’s most impoverished countries.

There were sporadic protests against the military rule during the Ne Win years (1962-1988) and these were almost always brutally suppressed. In 1988, unrest over economic mismanagement and political oppression by the government led to widespread pro-democracy demonstrations throughout the country known as the 8888 Uprising. Security forces killed thousands of demonstrators, and General Saw Maung staged a coup d’état and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In 1989, SLORC declared martial law after widespread protests and changed the country’s official English name from the “Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma” to the “Union of Myanmar”.

In May 1990, the SLORC government held free elections for the first time in almost 30 years and the NLD, the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won nearly 80% of the seats. However, the military junta refused to cede power and continued to rule the nation as SLORC until 1997, and then as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) until its dissolution in March 2011. It was an attempt to rebrand the old order; the power remained with the junta. Then came the 2007 Saffron Revolution, a non-violence: national movement, led by Buddhist monks, which was violently suppressed. An international condemnation of this peaceful revolution led to further isolation of the government.

A fraudulent election was held in 2010 in which the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, declared victory winning nearly 80% seats. The military junta was replaced on 30 March 2011 by a quasi-military government, led by former General Thein Sein, with the goal of putting the country back to the path of democracy. Suu Kyi was released from house arrest and her party allowed to participate in the by-elections in 2012 in which it won 43 of the contested 45 seats.

Then came the general election of 8 November 2015 in which the NLD won an absolute majority of the seats in both the houses. And the rest is history! Recently, Suu Kyi visited the USA and gave speech at the UN General Assembly session. She was also awarded the Humanitarian of the Year award from Harvard.

The question that begs an answer is: how was it possible for the military to rule this multi-ethnic, – racial, and –religious country for so many decades? What ideology boosted its credibility to rule almost unopposed for all those years?

The answer is provided by Dr. Shwe Lu Maung (Shahnawaz Khan) in his latest book – The prima materia of Myanmar Buddhist Culture: Laukathara of Rakhine Thu Mrat, published in the USA by Shahnawaz Khan (2016). The author, a diaspora Burmese from Arakan (Rakhine), has been living in the USA for decades. He is an acclaimed author of six books on his native country that have helped us immensely in our understanding of the complex political landscape of modern Myanmar. This book – a translated work – is an excellent source to understand the very treasure trove from which the ex-generals reportedly drew their inspiration to ruling the country. After all, in 1990, Sr. Gen. Saw Maung, the military ruler of the country at the time (who reportedly believed himself to be the reincarnation of an 11th-century warrior-king), famously said that he would rule the country according to Laukathara.

As Dr. Maung shows, Laukathara – a popular literary work – provides the cultural fabrics of Myanmarism – an ideology in which religion and race mingle to define how Buddhists in Myanmar should behave and conduct their affairs from a layman to the ruler. Literally, the phrase Laukathara means the essence of the world. Written originally on palm leaves with the Rakhine phonetics, it was taught by a Rakhine monk by the name of Thu Mrat of Theravada Buddhism in the early 14th century. He was the teacher of King Mun Hti (Laung Krut dynasty) who had entrusted him with the education of three princes of the Thet (or Chakma) king Lyin Saw. The latter had lost his kingdom (Thayet or Thet Yet) – located near central/lower Burma – in 1333 CE to the Rakhine King Mun Hti.

Later Laukathara reached Myanmar from Arakan and became a royal handbook of administrative philosophy – very much like what The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli (16th century Italian) had become in Europe to guide its rulers. It has been a guiding source of law and order, rules and regulations, ethics and philosophy, and traditions and culture in Myanmar society. It essentially constitutes the prima materia of Myanmar’s Buddhist culture, or perhaps, more correctly, the Buddhist political theology – based on the Buddha, the Dhamma (religion) and the Sangha (community). It is a very popular literary work with many Buddhists in the country growing up with it.
The SLORC chairman Sr. General Saw Maung, a devout Buddhist, promoted Laukathara in Myanmar administration, a trend that was to continue by his successors. Essentially it defined Myanmarism.

The traditional Myanmarism has been Buddhism and militarism since the days of King Anawrahta (ca. 1044-1077 C.E.). In the hands of military rulers of our time, the new Myanmarism became a toxic cocktail of ultra-nationalism and religious fanaticism (or religio-racial ultra-nationalism, as coined by Dr. Shahnawaz Khan).

If the old one regressed from the teachings of Buddha – being often violent and ugly, the new Myanmarism revealed itself to be brutal, dirtier and uglier. In this, the ends justified the means; lies and deceptions became all too natural and acceptable strategies to rule and govern a Buddhist majority country like Burma. It turned out to be a feudal recipe for disaster, which shunned pluralism, diversity and multi-culture – the very trend-setters for progress in our time.

Mixing of religion in politics in our time has often seen the devastating consequences of how such otherwise good religious teachings can become weapons in the hands of ‘cherry-picking zealots’ to ethnically cleanse the ‘others’ who are different. The 1982 Citizenship Law thus provided the very justification for the Myanmar regime towards elimination of the minority races like the Rohingya. It was no accident that Myanmar had witnessed, since 2012, a series of genocidal pogroms, mostly directed against the minority Rohingya and other Muslims. The terrorist monk Wirathu, who heads the fascist organization Ma Ba Tha, became the Buddhist face of terrorism, xenophobia, intolerance and hatred. In the name of protecting Buddhism nearly a quarter million of Muslims were violently displaced from their homes all across Myanmar; many were killed, and others forced out of the country. The eliminationist policy – endorsed from the top and preached and justified by Buddhist monks – became THE national project inside Myanmar, enjoying moral and material support at every level of the Buddhist society. So powerful was the influence of Wirathu and Ma Ba Tha that four controversial race and religion bills were signed into law by President Thein Sein to further heighten the racial and religious tensions.

Succinctly put, the teachings of Laukathara became the eliminationist policy – adopted by the military governments. However, as one reads the translated work of Dr. Maung, it was not meant to be such.

For any westerner interested to understand the very driving force behind the moral imperative (if any) of the rule by the ex-generals of Myanmar, who saw themselves as the reincarnations of King Anawrahta, this translated work of Dr. Maung is a must. I recommend it wholeheartedly.