By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

After liberating Aden and Al-Anad, voices demanding the establishment of a South Yemen Republic have emerged. These voices have always been there, and are due to the disappointments of the unified Yemen that was established in 1990.

Back then, the South Yemen government was going through a struggle over governance, and the Marxist system was teetering.

Then-President Ali Salem Al-Beidh requested unity with the north, in an attempt to escape the inevitable repercussions of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, unity occurred without a political arrangement, so the experience of Egyptian-Syrian unity was repeated, with one party, former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, trying to dominate.

The only real unity was manifested via government correspondences, as well as the currency, flag and other official formalities. However, on the ground Saleh’s forces were running the south, many of whose leaders were assassinated or forced to flee to foreign countries. There were failed attempts to rebel against Saleh’s governance.

Based on this sad historical background, it is normal for unity to be a negative symbol and for separation to be popular in the south, but most of those who call for separation are either patriotic dreamers or opportunists. They justify their desire by saying it is a restoration of the natural historical situation when there were two Yemens for most of the past centuries.

They believe that the north suffers from crises that are difficult to resolve, and that it is better not to export them to the south. They say separation is a popular desire in the south. They also say separation has become more than just an idea as it is currently a politically and militarily organized movement, and is a fait accompli that must not be confronted or else the Yemeni crisis will escalate.

Some may find these arguments convincing enough to support separation as an easier solution to today’s crisis, which required a massive war to stop the collapse of Yemen. Some may think that separation is the only solution if it is hard to liberate Yemen of rebels, Houthis and Saleh’s troops within a reasonable timeframe.

Despite difficulties such as the incapability of imposing legitimacy over all of Yemen, a country with rugged terrain, a complicated tribal system and a lack of resources, we must still oppose its division. Logic is to insist on adopting the model of one Yemeni state, to consider the separation that is happening as temporary, and to view the southern regime being established as incomplete and the northern regime as illegitimate.

There are many reasons to do so. Forcible separation on the desire of one category without the consent of others lacks justification in international law, and sabotages a legitimate entity that is internationally recognized. According to political logic, separation of the south will not result in its stability, but in new crises due to struggles among rival southern parties and leaders. Such bloody conflicts were a reason to resort to unity with the north in the first place.

Dividing Yemen into two states, and perhaps more states later, means the entrance of regional and foreign powers in a struggle that will last for decades. This will threaten the security of the Gulf states, increase regional tensions and wars for years to come, and make 25 million Yemenis suffer from long-term infighting, misery and poverty.

Separation is a destructive and stupid idea in a world that prefers rapprochement. Refusing to support it does not deny the right to separate later if that is really the desire of the entire Yemeni people, not just a few of them.
One can address achieving this desire when there is stability, and when everyone can rationally think and decide what serves their interests in the long run.

Perhaps they would choose a federal system that maintains the state. Separation is an idea produced by an emotional outburst, or resulting from instantaneous revenge.

You can read the entire article in the New York Times Tuesday business section reporting on Puerto Rico’s default on a payment on its staggering $72 billion debt without once learning that the little Caribbean island, home to 3.5 million US citizens, is a territory of the United States, or more properly, a colony, insofar as its residents have no representation in Washington, cannot vote for national candidates for office, and furthermore, are subject to US federal courts, whose judges are all appointed by the federal government.

At least USA Today made the story its page one lead, instead of just a business story, but it too just notes that the island is a “commonwealth” and that as such it cannot be bailed out as Greece hopes to be, by such international bodies as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the European Union. The meaning of the term “commonwealth” is not defined.

The Wall Street Journal ran its report on the bankruptcy on the front of its Money & Investing section, making it clear that the only significance of this story was to the many institutional and individual investors who hold Puerto Rican tax-free bonds in the municipal bond allocation of their investment portfolios. It too failed to explain what it meant to call Puerto Rico a “commonwealth.”

US citizens outside of Puerto Rico, most of whom don’t even know Puerto Ricans are fellow citizens, and not potential “illegal immigrants” to their shores like the Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans and other residents of neighboring islands, are no doubt understandably confused about Puerto Rico’s status, given that Kentucky, Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania all refer to themselves as “commonwealths” and not as states.

But Puerto Rico is no “commonwealth,” a term which the Oxford dictionary defines as “an independent state or community, especially a democratic republic,” and which Websters dictionary defines as a nation or state or alternatively — in a special category for Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, presented without any sense of irony — as “a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the United States.”

I’m not sure how that last definition got past the editors, though. Puerto Rico is can never, with a straight face, be said to have been “voluntarily united” with the United States. The island was a spoil of war when the US defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and it instantly became a colony under brutal military rule, its indigenous independence movement crushed, and even its native Spanish language barred from public education from 1898 until 1948.

When Puerto Rico’s purely symbolic but powerless elected delegates assembly voted in 1914 to call unanimously for the island’s independence, the US Congress responded in 1917 with the Jones Act, which declared all residents of Puerto Rico to be US citizens, whether they liked it or not (people were given a one-time chance within the next 30 days to renounce that citizenship forever, but nobody since then has had that right).

The Jones Act allowed islanders some local autonomy (all laws are subject to Congressional veto) but it also imposed crippling colonial policies, many of which continue to this day, and have contributed mightily to the island’s current debt crisis. Puerto Rico’s local farming was destroyed in favor of a deliberate US policy of monoculture. It’s women were involuntarily sterilized. And while Puerto Ricans had no vote, its young men were ordered to serve in America’s wars, beginning with WWI. (Actually, at the time of Puerto Rico’s “liberation” from Spain by US forces in the 1898, islanders had more political power and autonomy than they ever have gotten under US domination. Under pressure from a powerful and growing independista movement, Spain had already granted Puerto Rico 18 voting delegates in the Spanish parliament. Yet even today, as a US colony, Puerto Rico only has one non-voting “observer” in the US House of Representatives.)

On the economic front, under the Jones Act, while ships from all over the world pour into US stateside ports delivering cheap goods from abroad, Puerto Rico can only ship its own goods and produce to the mainland on US-flagged vessels — about the most expensive way to ship goods in the world. US goods shipped to Puerto Rico must likewise travel on US vessels. This one act alone has been a principle reason that the island’s Maquiladora-style manufacturing system has collapsed, causing unemployment to soar.

Puerto Rico has no control over its own borders, is forced to use the dollar, making devaluation — the classic way to get out from under crushing debt — impossible, and yet it is also barred by US law from doing what municipalities and other public entities can do when they can’t repay their debts: seek bankruptcy protection from creditors.

In some ways the crisis in Puerto Rico is like that facing Greece: both places are seeing their economies collapse as government services are cut and public assets are sold off to private investors at fire-sale prices. Both places are at the mercy of a larger polity which is seeking ever greater austerity measures — in Greece’s case, the European Union and the European Central Banks, and in Puerto Rico’s case, the US Congress, the US Federal Court, the US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank. But the similarity ends there.

While its political leaders have thus far shied away from the step, Greece has the option of quitting the Eurozone and re-establishing its own currency, the drachma, and of renouncing its foreign debt. Puerto Rico, as a colony of the US, cannot short of a bloody rebellion leave the clutches of the US and the US dollar.

And as unlikely as a “bailout” of Greece by the IMF may be, as USA Today notes, even that option is closed to Puerto Rico, since the only agency that could bail it out is the US Treasury, and US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has already said such an option is not under consideration. Even a bill that would grant Puerto Rico the right to file for bankruptcy protection is stalled in a Congress that is wholly owned by the US banking industry.

Given all this, most Americans I’ve talked with immediately assume Puerto Rico has dug its own debt hole. But the truth is different. The island was battered by the fiscal crisis far worse than the rest of the country, though that crisis was not of its own making. To add to the problem, a tax break — technically a tax credit on profits earned by Puerto Rican operations of US companies — long granted to US businesses that set up manufacturing facilities on the island (where there is no US income or business tax in a small bow to the old “no taxation without representation” legacy of the US revolution) was ended in 2006. This was just the final blow following a shift already underway by companies away from the island to cheaper-labor countries in Latin America following the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

It’s not surprising that over one-third of Puerto Ricans living on the island depend upon Food Stamps to get by (that compares to 15 percent of the US population). So ubiquitous is the use of Food Stamps that it is effectively a second currency in Puerto Rico, used for all manner of commercial transactions between people and with various shops and businesses.

Unable to pay its bills or to raise more local tax revenue, or to devalue its currency, Puerto Rico’s island and local governments have been forced to make drastic cuts in public services, from education to health care to road maintenance. And worse is in store, with word that the governor has hired the “expert,” Stephen Rhodes, who as a bankruptcy judge in Michigan, crafted Detroit’s notorious bankruptcy plan — the one that has the city reneging on and stealing the pensions of its public workers. There are also calls for getting the island exempted from the US federal minimum wage law.

While there surely is plenty of corruption in San Juan just as there is in Washington, this was not, by and large, a matter of profligacy, but of survival. Puerto Rico’s borrowing binge was how the government had to pay for needed services while the island’s economy and tax collections has tanked over the past decade.

It is often pointed out that Congress has allowed the people of Puerto Rico to vote on four occasions — 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012 — in non-binding plebiscites on their choice of status for the island. The available choices have always been: independence, continued commonwealth status, statehood or “none of the above.” Independence has always received only a token vote, as independence activists have boycotted these meaningless ballots, while commonwealth status has always beaten the pro-statehood vote. Election turnout for local contests is usually quite high on the island, but with these plebiscites, between a quarter and a third of the electorate has always stayed home — probably a reasonably good measure of pro-independence sentiment. (Lest one think that there is no real support for independence on the island — and among the Puerto Rican diaspora on the US mainland — recall that in 1976, when President Jimmy Carter issued a clemency to Puerto Rican revolutionary nationalist Lolita Lebron, releasing her after she had served 21 years in federal prison for her participation in the shooting of five US Representatives in Congress in 1954, she was welcomed back to the island like a conquering hero.)

But there is in any event a reason for at least some of the reluctance to support independence too: the poor of the island, after over a century of destructive colonial rule, are deeply dependent economically upon the US. Puerto Ricans fear that with independence they would lose their critical Food Stamp assistance, and perhaps even their Social Security benefits as well as other transfer payments. That is a life-and-death matter that for many poor people trumps politics, nationalism and cultural identity.

This is why the UN General Assembly has consistently denounced the US for failing to properly grant genuine self-determination to Puerto Rico and its people. The many former colonies that fought for their freedom and are now member nations of the UN know that Puerto Rico’s non-binding plebiscites have been a sham, especially without any prior promises of compensation and economic transition by the US following over a century of colonial domination and repression.

Viewed in this light, it is clear that while there may be some similarities between the Puerto Rican and the Greek debt crises, the situation faced by Puerto Rico is far, far worse. The ultimate decision on Greece’s fate is still in the hands of the Greek people. If they want to break away from the imperial grip of Germany and the northern European countries, they have the means to do it: just vote in a government with the political spine to pull the country out of the Eurozone.

In Puerto Rico’s case, the ultimate decision on the island’s fate lies in the hands of the politicians in Washington, DC and the banksters in New York.

The decision by the government of Tripura’s Manik Sarkar on recently revoking the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) was much hailed in public and intellectual circles, however, the ripple effect as expected was the fresh revival of the incessant demand for its revocation in Jammu and Kashmir.

While it was argued that the much hyped, much maligned and controversial law in Tripura was revoked through a consistent effort by the State government on the basis of decreasing militancy (violence) related incidents, it is now expected by the masses in Kashmir that such a positive development should pave the way for the Mufti Mohammad Sayeed led PDP-BJP coalition government to get the law repealed either fully or partially at least from the less or no vulnerable areas.

For an impact assessment the key questions that arise are how often has AFSPA been used by Armed Forces as a shield against the violation of Human Rights and other aberrations, or is it the excessive politicization of the issue in the State by the mainstream as well as the separatist ideologies which keeps the AFSPA tussle always fresh, and lastly why is it that the people still view AFSPA through the prism of the past and as a symbol of constant oppression?

The questions are many, but with no clear answers. It would not be wrong to maintain that irrespective of the merits and demerits of AFSPA, the act has been highly politicized and therefore perceived as a draconian law by all except the army and the establishment. Perhaps the Centre and the Armed Forces have not done enough to explain the real essence of the act or the fact that despite the act being in place, what measures have been adopted to ensure that there are no misuses of the act. The Army has time and again said that over 97% of the allegations made against them have turned out to be false and actions have been taken against those who erred — however there has been no proactive effort to substantiate these claims and the trust deficit and sustained enemy perception among the masses has also played a disastrous role thereby sustaining confusion and distrust.

Contrary to this, and adding fuel to the fire, the Defence Ministry finds it proper to opine that the law is a must if the Army is to operate in the State. Partially due to the lack of communication and partially due to past acts of omission and commission or excessive politicization, a tremendous trust deficit has been generated between the people and the security apparatus which should be addressed as a priority. This perceptual difference, particularly conflicting views on AFSPA, negate all other people friendly efforts that the Army has undertaken to bridge the Army-Civilian dichotomy. As peace permeates through the minds of the people, the demand for dividends of peace including scrapping of the law, even if partially, as yet another people-friendly step, is increasing and therefore needs a serious rethink.

People-friendly voices also opine that the AFSPA revocation should find space in the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering Insaniyat (humanity) and Jamhooriyat (democracy) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, security experts maintain that before analyzing the arguments and counter arguments, it would be proper to take a look at the similar contemporary provisions existing in other countries besides ground realities where insurgency undoubtedly has come declined, as well as active militancy, but the intensity of threats across the border and the terror machine have remained constant. Having seen the provisions adopted by various countries for dealing with insurgency, it would be apt to analyze the views of the Army on AFSPA and its repeal. The Army somewhat seems to believe that AFSPA is neither as draconian as it has been made to look nor it has been used in the manner as it is projected. Any excesses it believes, that may have taken place in the past have been verified and actions against erring personnel have been taken as per the law of the land.

However, for reasons of empowerment, morale and fear of excessive caution on part of the troops operating under life threatening conditions, such a provision is important. While forces believe that to check misuse of the powers bestowed on Armed Forces, there are do’s and don’t’s, the Army Chief’s ten commandments and force ethos that various levels of headquarters have been enforced and there is no question of any violations. However, in the chaos ridden valley numerous violations have occurred in the past and innocents have suffered. Moreover, if the Army believes that it cannot and it should not operate without the enabling act, there would be a need to build a political consensus between the State and the Centre on the needs of today’s security situation. Also two elements of the nation’s executive cannot have opposite views on such a crucial provision of the security domain. Even as Kashmir reaches the stage of conflict stabilization, fresh threats loom before it in the form of the effects of the turbulent situation in Afghanistan, increasing radicalization, the entry of the Islamic State and the new trend in Kashmir-young educated joining militant ranks.

Therefore a general opinion is held that considering the magnitude of the perceived false allegations, it will be impossible to handle the cases without having serious implications on operational efficiency and morale. However, with the rising consciousness of human rights the very language of the law is considered offensive and treated by civilians as simply against human rights. Arguments about dwindling number of active militants and counter arguments about the uncertainty of turbulence continue to occupy the mind and media space of Kashmir, however without much clarity of thought and action but just a sea of perspectives and battle of perceptions.

AFSPA Tussle: Some Questions

Why was the law enacted is not difficult to answer. From 1989 onwards Kashmir witnessed a collapse in law and order and the circumstances in the State turned so grave that Army had to be called in, which needed enabling legal provisions such as the AFSPA. The question of why is it considered draconian, simply citing certain acts of excesses and mishandlings by the Armed Forces justifies the label.

The question of who does it suit to label it draconian, not only all those who like to whip up the emotions of the public for their vested interests, but those who suffered under its garb. Given the labels it clearly seems that AFSPA supporters have failed to portray the act correctly. The question also arises whether the Army and the Centre has lost the perception battle on AFSPA and If so, why? We know that the main protagonist in the perception battle is the Army which is pitched against host of key players like mainstream political parties and the parallel ideologies but army should never take AFSPA revocation debate like an attack.

The question also arises that can a fresh perception battle be undertaken on a different set of ideas? The supporters argue that it is rather an issue of information and awareness and not a perception battle but has become a perception battle today, rather a clash of egos. While sane minds understand the excess of hue and cry on the AFSPA as propaganda and politicization, but they equally acknowledge the people’s suffering over the past 26 years amid laws like AFSPA and PSA and therefore a fresh debate is needed on the subject. Also the pressing question arises that would a fresh legislation with less offensive language pass muster, along with a fresh label?

I think the Army must not be averse to any such move as it is true that AFSPA employs objectionable terminology. Also the question of the Supreme Court’s Do’s and Don’ts, the SOPs of the Army incorporated in 1994 and the Force Ethos of formations? Can they be used to dilute perceptions of the law being draconian? Possibly this is a direction that could lead to acceptance. The Do’s and Don’ts enunciated by the Army, the SOP’s for conduct of operations, the Rules of Engagement of the Army and various Force Ethos that are adopted  need to be clearly explained to the people which is yet to be effectively done. The Army has  been traditionally shy of media and therefore partially responsible for the lack of adequate knowledge of people about information which could be game changing.

The last question is how much has the situation changed from 1990 when it was first enacted? Is it sufficient to warrant removal of the law? The issues that need to be addressed at this juncture are not AFSPA but at societal level, radicalization especially of youth needs to be curbed. At political level, a lot including rehabilitation of ex/surrendered/released/returned militants, development of opportunities, management of education, generation of more economic infrastructure, etc, must be addressed. At diplomatic level, India must use the diplomatic channels to force its hostile neighbor to shun terror as an instrument of foreign policy.

Last but not the least, resolution of Kashmir issue as such is a must for lasting peace. The State Government needs to enhance the capabilities of the Police and allied security agencies to take on the Public Order challenges. The question remains that how many times has AFSPA issue been discussed in the Unified Headquarters Meetings or Corps Group Meetings?

On the legal front, it is believed that the law was enacted based on the definition of ‘disturbed’ , thus giving security forces a mandate and enabling powers to achieve the national security objectives. There is also a feeling that such an unneeded hue and cry is for political diatribes and such a message has gone across and needs to be corrected.  However, given the fact that Kashmir has already suffered for decades together sustaining peace and public relief is far more vital than political rhetoric or AFSPA in itself. Therefore, the Centre and Army must adopt a pragmatic approach towards the necessity and possibility of revocation of AFSPA from the areas where it is no more needed.

We must acknowledge that any Act of this nature cannot remain in force for ever and the fallouts of the prolonged continuation of the law on the society and even on the image of the Army. Constant army-civilian trust deficit in Kashmir needs to be abridged, and that will only happen if the concerns of the people are addressed and at the moment the AFSPA issue is perhaps the biggest.

Simultaneously, the real concerns of the people relate to the PSA, due to which large number of youths has been subjected to arbitrary and prolonged detention, often without trial. The state government need to take a serious view of this and at the same time needs to pursue the issue of revocation of AFSPA seriously in collaboration with the army leadership and the Centre .Amnesty international recently recommended the scrapping of the law in its report titled, “Denied: Failures in accountability for human rights violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir” calling AFSPA as the primary facilitator of impunity and stated that it does not behove a democratic country like India to have such an act in any of its parts. The perception battle exists as AFSPA has not been portrayed correctly to the people perhaps not reflected  well by the forces initially and with the result is has been assumed as draconian and needs a rethink.

Notwithstanding the arguments and counter-arguments on revocation of AFSPA, there is surely a need to review the Act. Perhaps enacting a new law that takes into account the past experiences, mishandlings and issues of the Army as well as the Human Rights concerns of the people, is the need of the hour.

Keeping the fallout of the prolonged continuation of the law in view, it has been time and again maintained that AFSPA in the State needs a rethink given its tenure, relevance, past human rights violations, mounting public anger, crisis mishandlings and aberrations and constant army-civilian trust deficit. Simultaneously it is being argued by masses and analysts that in case the uncertainty and chaos or violence returns, who can stop the Centre to reinstall the law again. While the Home Ministry seems considering reduction in possible deployment of central forces in North east states, it should not close its eyes on Kashmir (and Nagaland) and not just focus on development packages but be serious on the delivery of justice in the sensitive State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 (The article first appeared in Pointblank7 and has been slightly edited)

By Michael Sainsbury

Asia’s newest country, Timor-Leste, will sign a concordat with the Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, on Aug. 15 when it celebrates 500 years of evangelization to mark the arrival of the Portuguese in 1615.

The treaty has been under negotiation since 2006 but was not finalized until two months ago, Timor-Leste Prime Minister Rui Maria de Araujo told ucanews.com in an interview Aug. 6.

“Timor-Leste is one of the most Catholic countries in the world,” Araujo said.

He said that Catholicism and the Portuguese language are “two elements which have shaped our identity as a nation and this a good thing”.

In an official statement about the concordat, he said the Catholic Church has for 500 years provided “great spiritual, human and material support to the Timorese people, and also contributed decisively to the liberation process of Timor-Leste”.

The Vatican has long been considered one of the country’s closest diplomatic friends. During the Indonesian occupation lasting from 1975 until independence in 2002, the Vatican would appoint bishops to Timor-Leste outside the Indonesian bishops’ conference.

In June 2013, the Timor-Leste government accepted the credentials of Msgr. Joseph Marino to serve as the Vatican’s ambassador to the Southeast Asian nation. The Vatican is also one of only 17 jurisdictions in which Timor-Leste has opened an embassy.

For Timorese officials, the visit of such a senior Vatican official — Cardinal Parolin — underscores the strength of the relationship between Timor-Leste and the Holy See.

The concordat is a treaty aimed at establishing a legal framework for relations between the Holy See and foreign states. The treaties offer a range of privileges to the Church. These differ under each agreement, but usually include some form of tax-exemption or low-tax status for the Church.

Concordats dates back to 1107, when the first such treaty was signed in London with King Henry I of England.

But the treaties became controversial under Pope Pius XII, who completed a flurry of them in the years following World War I. This included a treaty with Germany under Adolf Hitler, which largely tied the Vatican’s hands during World War II.

Burned by the experience with Hitler and seen by critics as blurring the separation of Church and state, concordats were signed sparingly after World War II and were dropped for almost 30 years following the Second Vatican Council.

The modern version was resuscitated with the Polish Concordat in 1993 and since then, they have been signed with a number of countries including Portugal, Slovenia and Brazil.

The Aug. 15 celebration will be one of two that are planned for the 500-year anniversary that Araujo said is being described as “the meeting of two cultures”.

Still, the Church’s role in Timor-Leste is complicated by growing concerns about HIV/AIDS in the young nation.

“Most infection comes through unprotected sex, as the drug problem is still low,” said Araujo, a medical doctor and the country’s former health minister.

He said that education is clearly the best way to combat HIV. But he added that the Church has generally been supportive of moves to lower infection rates, while admitting this was a “complex” issue.

Overall, health care continues to be a major problem for the country, although primary health care “has vastly improved in the past 10 years”, according to Araujo.

“In 2000, we only had 26 doctors in Timor-Leste. Now we have 1,000 operating mainly in primary health care,” he said.

The assassination drone campaign on the tribal areas of Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan has been one of the controversial plans of the US government in the recent years.

The White House, State Department and Pentagon officials maintain that the drone attacks are aimed at targeting the Al-Qaeda terrorists in these countries and crushing their strongholds; however, figures indicate that the majority of the victims of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles dispatched to the region are civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has recently revealed that between 2004 and 2015, there have been 418 drone strikes against Pakistan alone, resulting in the killing of 2,460 to 3,967 people, including at least 423 civilians. That’s while some sources put the number of civilian casualties in Pakistan during the 11-year period at 962.

An American peace activist and speaker tells Fars News Agency that the drone strategy was not a blunder which President Bush committed, rather it was a “crime” that he perpetrated and President Obama perpetuated.

According to the 58-year-old Brian Terrell, the US government is not only claiming innocent lives through drone attacks, but endangering its own security and undermining its public stature.

“The reality that US drone strikes are a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda is good news for war profiteers, even as it is alarming to anyone who is interested in the security of the US and the peace and stability of the counties where they are occurring,” he said.

“Instead of manufacturing weapons in order to wage war, the US is now waging war in order to manufacture more weapons,” Terrell noted.

Brian Terrell lives and works on a small farm in Maloy, Iowa. He has traveled to many regions across the world for public speaking events, including in Europe, Latin America, and Korea. He has also visited Palestine, Bahrain, and Iraq and returned from his second visit to Afghanistan last February. He is a co-coordinator for Voices for Creative Non-Violence and event coordinator for the Nevada Desert Experience.

FNA talked to Mr. Terrell about the US government’s military policy and its conduct with regard to the crisis-hit Middle East, the drone attacks and the legacy of the “War on Terror.” The following is the full text of the interview.

Q: The US drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have taken a heavy toll on the civilian population of these countries, although it’s being purported that the drone campaigns are aimed at targeting the Al-Qaeda strongholds. Has the US government been able to achieve this goal through dispatching unmanned drones to these already impoverished and underdeveloped areas?

A: If the goals of US drone strikes were actually to destroy Al-Qaeda and bring stability to the regions under attack, then the drone campaign would need to be acknowledged a failure. Nabeel Khoury, the deputy chief of mission in Yemen from 2004 to 2007, has noted that “given Yemen’s tribal structure, the US generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] operative killed by drones” and this perception is shared by many former diplomats and military commanders experienced in the region.

Before he retired in 1960, US President Eisenhower cautioned of the emergence of a self-perpetuating “military-industrial complex.” The profit to be made by the private sector in the production of armaments was growing out of proportion to the economy and he warned that this gives incentive to provoke conflict. Since that time, the profitability has grown along with corporate influence on the electoral process and corporate control over the media. President Eisenhower’s fears for the future are today’s reality.

Instead of manufacturing weapons in order to wage war, the US is now waging war in order to manufacture more weapons. The reality that US drone strikes are a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda is good news for war profiteers, even as it is alarming to anyone who is interested in the security of the US and the peace and stability of the counties where they are occurring.

In February of this year, for example, the US Navy’s $122.4 million contract modification to Raytheon Missile Systems Co. to buy more than 100 Tomahawk missiles to replace those fired into Syria was celebrated in the media and by members of Congress without regard to the moral, legal or strategic efficacy of those attacks. The only justification needed for these lethal attacks, it seems, is that they sell missiles.

Q: In October 2013, a group of countries at the United Nations, led by Brazil, China and Venezuela, officially protested against the deployment of unmanned aerial attacks against sovereign nations by the Obama administration. The debate at the UN was the first time when the legality of US’s use of remotely piloted aircraft and its human cost was discussed on a global level. Christof  Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions warned about the proliferation of UAVs among states and terrorist groups. What’s your reaction to this ongoing debate regarding the legal basis of using drones and the fact that the international community has started to voice its opposition to this dangerous practice?

A: Every state employs lawyers to give justification for that state’s actions, no matter how egregious, but there is no real debate about the legality of the use of drones to attack or surveille over countries where the US is not at war. The official policy is that before lethal force can be used against someone who is not a combatant on a battlefield, it must be made certain “that he or she poses ‘an imminent threat of violent attack’ against America.” This might give the mistaken impression that at least an effort is made to conduct the drone campaign in compliance to international law.

In February 2013, however, a US Department of Justice White Paper, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or an Associated Force,” was leaked that elucidates the administration’s new and more flexible definition of the word “imminent.” “First,” it declares, “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

The position of the US government is that it can kill anyone anywhere whether their identity is known or not, if their “patterns of behavior” or “signature” is consistent with that of someone who might possibly pose a threat at any time in the future. The “signature” of an imminent threat “is a male between the ages of 20 and 40,”says former US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter. “My feeling is one man’s combatant is another man’s – well, a chump who went to a meeting.”Another senior State Department official has been quoted as saying that when the CIA sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp.

There is clearly no legal support to the claim that these killings are legitimate acts of war. When the military acts outside the law, it is a gang or a mob. Whether the victims of drone attacks are known and positively identified –  this rarely happens – or suspicious due to their behavior or “collateral damage,” men, women and children unintentionally killed, these are no more than gang style hits or drive by shootings. When a lawless mob kills someone because of suspected misconduct without a trial, [then] that is called lynching. Among the most horrific violations of law and human values is the practice of “double tapping,” where drones hover above their original victims and then strike the first responders who come to the aid of the wounded and dead, following the logic that anyone coming to the aid of someone who was following a suspicious pattern of behavior is also following a suspicious pattern of behavior.

One more layer of criminality encrusting this program is the fact that often drone attacks are carried out by members of the uniformed military on the orders of the CIA, bypassing the ordinary chain of command.

As deployed by the US, drones are proving to be a weapons system with little or no defensive capability, useful for assassinations, but “useless in a contested environment,” admitted the chief of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command two years ago. It may be arguable that even the possession of such weapons is illegal.

These killings are simply murders. They are acts of terror. They are crimes. It is gratifying that some in the international community and in the US are speaking out and attempting to put an end to them.

Q: Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism noted in a report that as of October 2013, there were 33 drone strikes by the United States, which caused the massive killing of civilians in violation of the international law. Are the United Nations and its associated bodies capable of holding the United States accountable, or is it that the international law is not necessarily going to be observed in this specific matter?

A: This is an essential question, is it not? If the US is not held accountable for its crimes, what credibility do the UN and other international institutions have? How can international law be applied to any nation?

The drone technology allows for war crimes to be committed from the midst of American communities- if the victims are in Yemen, Pakistan or Afghanistan, the perpetrators are right here at home and stopping them is also the responsibility of local law enforcement. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution reads: “…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” I have been arrested while nonviolently protesting at drone operation bases in Nevada, New York and Missouri and no judge has ever considered that those actions are justified as attempts to stop a crime from being committed. Before sentencing me to six months in prison for the petty offense of trespassing, one federal judge ruled, “Domestic law always trumps international law!”

Allowing the US to get away with murder threatens public order and security at home as well as abroad.

Q: Some UN officials have warned that technology is being misused as a form of “global policing”. The US government has expanded its drone operations in the recent years and taken its unpiloted aerial vehicles to areas such as Iraq, Libya and Gaza Strip. Even there’ve been cases that the American drones have flown over Iran’s airspace. Won’t such actions create mistrust between the United States and the nations in the region whose countries are subject to drone attacks?

A: The concept of any one nation taking the role of “global policing” is troubling in itself, even more so when that nation has shown such distain for rule of law as the US has. Drone strikes, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, torture, testing nuclear weapons on native treaty lands, all call into question the US role of world police.

The US polices the globe the same as it increasingly polices its own streets. The federal government issues attack weapons, even armored cars and tanks, to local police departments in cities large and small and police are trained to view the people they are supposed to be protecting and serving as enemies.

With less than 5% of the world’s population, the US has more than 25% of the world’s prisoners and the prison population is disproportionally made up of people of color. Police departments in the US often arrest and all too often kill American citizens on American streets based on “racial profiling,” which is only a domestic version of the “signature strike.” Young men of certain demographics can be killed based on their “patterns of behavior” in Baltimore as in Waziristan.

A large portion of the residual US troops and contractors in Afghanistan are there to train the Afghan police! The irony of this may be lost on American’s, but not on the world community.

Q: A recent study indicates that 74% of the Pakistanis, especially following the intensification of drone attacks under President Obama, consider the United States an enemy. This is while the government of Pakistan is cooperating with the United States in the “War on Terror” scheme. Does the drone campaign have an influence on the public image of the United States in the countries that become the subject of unpiloted aircraft missiles?

A: While cooperating with the US in the “war on terror,” Pakistan has also been actively protesting the drone killings and has repeatedly ordered the US to stop them. Last year, the UN adopted a resolution, jointly presented by Pakistan, Yemen and Switzerland, against drone strikes, to no avail. The administration’s position is that the government in Islamabad has to tell the people of Pakistan that they are objecting to the strikes, but secretly they approve of them. What can it mean for a government to give secret permission to anyone to do anything? Still, more, for a government to give permission to a foreign military to use its skies to summarily execute its citizens? Whether this is true or not, for the US to operate lethally inside Pakistan against the expressed orders of its government is an attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty and undermines its institutions. Of course, these actions have an appropriate influence on the public image of the US in the countries subject to drone strikes and around the world.

Q: Generally, what do you think about the civilian cost of the US government’s project of the War on Terror? It was a movement started by President Bush, and although President Obama had criticized it during the 2007 presidential debates, he continued the practices of his predecessor, including an intensive military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and maintaining the overseas detention facilities where the terrorism suspects are kept. President Obama had criticized Mr. Bush’s “foreign policy based on a flawed ideology” but it seems that he is repeating the same mistakes. What’s your perspective on that?

A: In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama told a rally in Iowa, the state where I live, that it might actually be necessary to “bump up” the military budget beyond the record levels established by the Bush administration. The cost of bumping up the already bloated military budget is borne by the poorest people here and abroad. In several ways, Obama signaled before he was elected that he would continue some of Bush’s worst policies. These policies were not “mistakes” when Bush implemented them, they were crimes. Maintaining them are not mistakes now.

The US will not solve its domestic crises or find internal security, nor will it be able to make any contribution to the peace of the world without reordering its priorities and pursuing what Dr. Martin Luther King called a “radical revolution of values.”

This article first appeared at FARS and is reprinted with permission.

Israel is struggling with how to deal with groups some of which are underground that are linked to a banned nationalist political party that has emerged at the core of recent racist, anti-Palestinian incidents and include a militant soccer fan group that was responsible for last month’s violent clashes during a Europa League qualifier in Belgium between Israeli club Beitar Jerusalem and Charleloi SC.

Two government investigations of Beitar and La Familia, its notorious fan group that openly supports Kach, the banned party founded by Meir Kahane, an extremist rabbi who was assassinated in 1990, took on added significance after Israel’s internal security service, Sherut Ha’Bitachon Ha’Klali or General Security Service (Shin Bet), this week said it had no grounds to ban another Kach support group, Lechava, as a terrorist organization.

Shin Beit’s decision and the investigations have moved centre stage amid recent racist and discriminatory attacks such as the firebombing of a Palestinian home that killed an 18 year-old baby and critically wounded his parents and four year-old brother as well as the stabbing of participants in a gay parade by an ultra-religious repeat offender as well as allegations that Israel discriminates against its dark-skinned Jewish citizens, particularly those who trace their roots to the Horn of Africa.

Israel responded to the firebombing by authorizing Shin Bet to employ “special interrogation methods” in cases of Jewish perpetrators of political violence that until now were generally reserved for Palestinian detainees and by allowing Jewish suspects to be put into administrative detention without trial, another punitive measure that in the past was largely applied to Palestinians.

Israeli leaders have condemned the firebombing as an act of terrorism and are keen to stop elements of the underground from threatening the fabric of Israeli society by escalating Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

Israel also wants to ensure that racist incidents don’t pour grist on the mill of the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that seeks to isolate Israel internationally or revive efforts by the Palestine Football Association (PFA) to get world soccer body FIFA to suspend Israel’s membership in part on the grounds of racism.

While FIFA, enmeshed in a major corruption scandal, has larger fish to fry, it agreed in May to establish a committee to monitor Israeli progress in addressing Palestinian concerns in exchange for the Palestine Football Association dropping its suspension demand. The committee is supposed to regularly report back to FIFA’s executive committee.

Israel’s success in defeating the PFA effort is instructive in judging its overall effort to combat racism as well as resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When the chips were down, Israel proved that it could muster the political will to take steps it had earlier rejected on security grounds.

In talks with FIFA president Sepp Blatter in May, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu proposed giving Palestinian players special identity cards and placing special sports liaison officials at crossings between Palestinian areas and those under Israeli control to ease movement. He further suggested a special escort service between Gaza and the West Bank to allow players to cross between the two territories that are separated by Israeli territory.

A visit this week to Gaza by a West Bank team constitutes the first time Israel has allowed the passage for a competition match in 15 years. It appears to be an Israeli step towards implementation of Mr. Netanyahu’s promises. A further indication will be whether the Gaza team, Al Shejaia, will be allowed to travel to the West Bank for the return Palestine Cup match on Sunday against Hebron’s Al Ahli. The winner would play in the next Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Cup.

The Gaza match was originally scheduled for Monday but was postponed until Thursday because Israel had, according to the PFA, blocked Al Ahli’s travel. Palestinian officials said that if Israel indeed followed through on Mr. Netanyahu’s promises, it could lead to reunification of the Palestinian league.

While soccer racism was not raised by Mr. Batter at the time, the two Beitar and La Familia-related investigations could also be part of the Israeli effort. The investigations potentially suggest that Israel will seriously tackle racist soccer fans.

The IFA, the only Middle Eastern soccer association that at least nominally has an anti-racism project, has until now done little more than slapped Beitar’s wrists for refusing to hire Palestinians who rank among Israel’s top players or discipline its militant fan base.

La Familia regularly raises the Kach flag, most recently in the last month’s incident in Belgium where it fluttered next to the Israeli flag. The incident sparked outrage in Israel because it tarnished the Jewish state’s image. Kach was banned in 1994 after it endorsed the killing of 29 Palestinian worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron by a member of the Jewish Defense League, a Kach predecessor.

Earlier this week, Shin Bet arrested and put into administrative detention, Meir Ettinger, the 24 year-old grandson of Rabbi Kahane. Mr. Ettinger, believed to be a leader of a Kach-related radical settler youth underground, has denied allegations that he was responsible for the torching last month of the landmark Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes on the Sea of Galilee.

“The truth must be told – there is no terror organization, but there are a whole lot of Jews, a lot more than people think, whose value-system is completely different than that of the High Court or the Shin Bet, and who are not bound by the laws of the state, but by much more eternal laws, true laws,” Mr. Ettinger wrote in a blog post days before his arrest.

In a manifesto in 2013, Mr. Ettinger declared that “the idea of the rebellion is very simple. Israel has many weak points, many issues which it handles by walking on eggshells so as to not attract attention. What we’re going to do is simply fire up these powder kegs. The aim is to bring down the state, to bring down its structure and its ability to control, and to build a new system. To do it, we must act outside the rules of the state we seek to bring down… At the end of the day, the goal is to shake up the foundations of the state until we have a situation in which Jews must decide whether they are part of the revolution or part of the repression,” Mr. Ettinger wrote.

Last month, two members of Lechava were sentenced to prison for torching a school operated by Hand in Hand, an organization that operates schools attended by both Israeli Jewish and Israeli Palestinian students.

Israel has yet to make any arrests related to this week’s firebombing of the Palestinian home. Mr. Ettinger’s youth group, believed to be made up of adolescent offspring of Jewish settlers on the West Bank, is suspected of responsibility for the attack.

“Every society has its radical fringes. But today we need to ask ourselves: What is it in the public atmosphere that allows extremism and extremists to walk freely in broad daylight?” Israeli President Reuven Rivlin asked at a rally to denounce the firebombing.

Writing in Al-Monitor, Israeli journalist Shlomo Eldar noted that the attack had been “made possible by the ineptness of the Israeli law enforcement agencies in the (occupied) territories as well as the patent and outright discrimination against Palestinians in favour of the settlers.”

How the government handles not only of the underground but also other militant anti-Palestinian groups like Beitar Jerusalem’s La Familia will serves as an indication of whether the firebombing and the soccer brawl in Belgium constitute Israel’s wake-up call.

Chinese military drills in South China Sea, as ASEAN convenes on code of conduct, send unsettling message.

By Gregory Poling*

Chinese forces recently held a series of military exercises in the South China Sea that spotlighted once again its neighbors’ concerns about Beijing’s bullying. The People’s Liberation Army Navy on July 20 declared a large section of water south and east of Hainan off-limits to foreign ships from July 22 to 30 due to the exercises. It’s not unusual for naval forces to conduct exercises in the South China Sea – indeed, the United States does so with regularity – but the scale, location and exclusionary zone were unusual,  turning this series of exercises into a microcosm of China’s alarming behavior in disputed waters.  The exercises sent a message that does not bode well for the region’s stability.

Vietnam quickly denounced them because the area declared off-limits included waters around the Paracel Islands, a matter of dispute between Beijing and Hanoi. By declaring a large swath of water, most beyond China’s territorial waters, off-limits to vessels, Chinese authorities went beyond the bounds of international law and normal state practice. The declaration also underscored China’s increasingly dismissive attitude, suggesting its neighbors’ claims are not only incorrect, they are irrelevant.

According to Chinese state media, more than 100 ships, some nuclear-armed, and dozens of aircraft fired hundreds of missiles and other ammunition in a show of force. Chinese forces also practiced information warfare, electronic countermeasures and amphibious landing drills. China’s neighbors would be forgiven for assuming that such unilateral, large-scale display was meant to send a message. As Australian National University’s Rory Medcalf suggested to the Financial Times, the exercises seem to be “a needlessly excessive show of force.”

Chinese state television cautioned that the exercises were in the works for more than a year and not meant to intimidate. Such reassurances fall on deaf ears in the region after 18 months of breakneck island building by China over other claimants’ objections, six years of escalating tensions in the South China Sea and serious provocations like the 2012 seizure of Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines and the 2014 deployment of an oil drilling platform in disputed waters.

The timing sends an unsettling message to regional states regarding China’s willingness to negotiate a peaceful settlement. The exercises overlapped with a high-level gathering of senior officials from China and the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, in Tianjin for their ninth meeting on the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. That 2002 agreement is non-binding, failing to prevent the escalating tensions, and was supposed to be an interim step on the path to a legally-binding code of conduct. Beijing has continuously blocked serious progress toward a binding agreement, and despite official pronouncements of “friendly and candid” discussions, there is no indication that the ninth meeting moved the parties any closer to a code of conduct than did the last eight.

China’s exercises wrapped up just ahead of the August 4 ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the August 6 ASEAN Regional Forum, which includes 26 Asia-Pacific countries plus the European Union. The South China Sea disputes have featured prominently in both annual meetings in recent years. In 2012 disagreement between the host Cambodia, which relies heavily on China for economic and diplomatic support, and the other ASEAN states over whether to mention the South China Sea in the foreign ministers’ joint statement led to the organization’s first failure to issue a statement.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin on August 3 insisted that this year’s meetings should not include discussion of the South China Sea, though Reuters reported that same day that a draft of the foreign ministers’ statement already included concern about recent developments “which have the potential to undermine peace, security and stability in the South China Sea.” Liu’s statement was emblematic of China’s regular opposition to discussion of the disputes in multilateral forums, especially with the United States present – and, delivered just after 10 days of large-scale war games in disputed waters, probably ensured the atmosphere would not be conducive to productive discussions.

Provocations like the military exercises prompt neighboring states to seek closer relations with one another and with the United States to balance against what’s perceived as a potentially aggressive rising power in the region. Fellow South China Sea claimants, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, are more strenuously contesting Chinese claims – most visibly via Manila’s ongoing arbitration case in The Hague. Chinese bullying undermines Beijing’s narrative that a rising China will be a responsible player on the regional and global stages.

One of the most visible results of China’s activities in the South China Sea is that regional states have welcomed the US security presence in Asia with an eagerness not shown in decades. The United States and the Philippines in early 2014 signed an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement to allow greater numbers of US troops, ships and planes to deploy to the Philippines on a rotational basis. It would also allow the US military to pre-position equipment in the Philippines to better respond to emergencies and upgrade military infrastructure at Philippine bases for use by both militaries. That agreement is held up in the Philippine Supreme Court, but if implemented could prove a game changer for the Philippines’ external defense, marking a new era in the bilateral alliance.

Perhaps even more impressively, the United States and Vietnam have moved with incredible speed to strengthen their relationship and put the ghosts of their past behind them. In 2012 then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made a landmark visit to Cam Ranh Bay in 2012. The next year President Truong Tan Sang visited Washington, and the two countries signed a comprehensive partnership. In late 2014, the White House relaxed the longstanding ban on US exports of weapons to Vietnam to allow maritime security-related arms transfers, and then in early July 2015, Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong met with President Barack Obama in the White House – a scene that even the most optimistic watchers of the relationship would not have predicted a few years ago.

Ajit Doval’s appointment as India’s National Security Adviser (NSA) was among the first appointments made by Mr. Modi on becoming prime minister. That Doval was perhaps tipped off by Modi of post-election possibilities is evident form a lecture Doval delivered at the Sastra University in Tamil Nadu early last year in which he outlined his strategic world view. That he is now India’s NSA makes this speech consequential.

The speech has become infamous since for the wrong reason. Excerpts of the lecture having been uploaded on YouTube early this year, it has erroneously been reckoned that Doval as NSA has threatened Pakistan with losing Balochistan in case it triggers another Mumbai 26/11. While Doval did threaten as much, it was in his capacity then as head of the conservative think tank, Vivekananda International Foundation.

Nevertheless, Doval perhaps anticipating his next assignment used the opportunity of his lecture on ‘India’s Strategic Response to Terrorism’ to lay out his worldview. Since he has been India’s leading spook, with a penchant for the tactical, it is not likely that his strategic worldview goes no further than the intelligence domain covered in the lecture. This makes the lecture more important then merely yet another lecture by a think tank head.

That India’s current day strategy appears to be unfolding along the lines he laid out makes the lecture virtually a key statement of India’s strategic doctrine. Since Pakistan is taken as a state sponsor of terror, the lecture also goes some way in also explaining India’s Pakistan strategy. The lecture consequently bears critical scrutiny.

Doval restricted his counter terror strategy discussion only to terror incidents attributed to India’s largest minority, its Muslims. As he was head of IB when a spate of terrorism broke out in the Indian hinterland, dated by him to March 2005, he would know that not all incidents attributable to the minority have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists.

The manner India’s current regime is covering its tracks in letting off majoritarian terrorists lately is suggestive of something to hide. In case the terror incidents Hindutva elements are responsible for is subtracted from the volume of terror India has been subject to, minority terrorism emerges as a bogey. No wonder the home minister has made a show of taking offence to the term ‘saffron terrorism’, hoping to marginalize such allegations and obscure any truth behind them.

This becomes clearer by dissecting Doval’s prescription. His strategic response to terrorism is, firstly, ‘smothering’ terrorist outfits; pitching nationalist Indian Muslims against the anti-national Islamists within their community; and making Pakistan hurt through a strategic doctrine of ‘defensive offense’.

Of the first, the smothering of terrorists by denial of arms, money and support, superficially, there is little to complain. The problem is when a distinction is not made between terrorists and common folk. Security forces are apt to see potential terrorists everywhere in Muslim ghettos.

Under the circumstance of right wing prejudice now mainstream, resulting impunity can only multiply this tendency. With tall tales of Daesh making a South Asian debut, rushing the home ministry into thinking up a counter radicalisation doctrine, surveillance of the community is not likely.

The second – ‘divide and rule’ by using the pro-national and anti-national Muslim against each other – smacks of Chanakyan cunning. Strategy is mistaken for cunning in light of the iconic status of home grown strategist Chanakya.

The association of cultural nationalists with the pro-national Muslims can only serve to marginalize them, leading to non-secular alternatives. Take for instance, Zafar Sereshwala, a Modi acolyte, hardly has a constituency. Instead, ever since mainstream parties were sidelined in the last elections, a firebrand party, the Hyderabad-based Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), appears to be filling the vacuum.

Equally disturbing is Doval’s intent to buy terrorists: by paying out ‘one and a half times’ more of their price! His experience teaches him that since they are mercenaries, they can be bought and turned against theirs sponsors. Is it that this strategy is already in play?

If so it may account for some of the terror Pakistan is subject to and perhaps explains the defence minister’s cryptic remark of fighting terror with terror (‘removing thorns with thorns’). The rare complaint of Pakistan being subject to terror by proxy by India coming as a corps commanders’ conference outcome makes this a compelling possibility.

However, more disturbingly, terrorist turncoats can also be used for questionable strategic purposes. For instance, they can be used to attack Indian targets to project that such attacks are Pakistan perpetrated. The commentary in Pakistan questioning the antecedents of the Dinanager terror attack of last month is a case.

Terror attacks so engineered can enhance the case against Pakistan, enabling that state to be subject to Indian pressures with greater vigour. They can also be used to push India’s minority further into tis corner through manipulation of guilt by association.

Clearly, there is a case for political control of the intelligence apparatus. This cannot be entrusted to Mr. Doval, himself an intelligence czar. With a right wing regime in power, democratic control would instead of implying restraint, may imply quite the opposite.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly on account of the nuclear overhang, is Doval’s assertion that India can prise loose Balochistan. His assumption is that there would be no nuclear fallout, as this would not involve military engagement and the consequent need to be wary of nuclear thresholds

As current custodian of India’s nuclear doctrine in his capacity as head of the Executive Council, he is by now surely better briefed. He would know that Pakistan in an uncharacteristic fit of transparency had in 2002 let on that in case it is faced with internal destabilization on a large scale, it would resort to the nuclear weapon, implying it would up the ante perhaps by first going conventional. This puts paid to Doval’s notion that the military would not come into the equation.

Clearly, the Doval doctrine is problematic with cultural nationalism contaminating strategic rationality. And, worse, remedy is four years away.

*Ali Ahmed, author of India’s Doctrine Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia, On War in South Asia and On Peace in South Asia, blogs at www.ali-writings.blogspot.in. Views here are personal.

Ever since the current prime minister of India Narendra Modi came to power in May 2014, there has been a perceptible shift of Hindu nationalism that has blossomed into spoken threats against India’s largest minorities, Muslims and Christians.

Following the elections, Modi said: “My government’s only religion is ‘India first’; my government’s only religious book is the Indian Constitution; our only devotion is ‘Bharat Bhakti’, and our only prayer is for the welfare for all.”

But Modi is from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) party of India, an arm of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), one that has been severely taken to task in previous years for their incitement and execution of violence against Muslim and Christian minorities.

The RSS head M.S. Golwalkar once stated that “the non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and languages, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture…in a word they must cease to be foreigners; or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment— not even citizens’ rights.”

So while publicly Modi can say whatever he wants, the realities are different and there’s no denying the sudden burst of life among the radical elements since the BJP came to power.  There have been reports of forced religious conversions to Hinduism and public outbursts by BJP officials and figures against minorities.

Hate speech which has incited mob riots and created communal discord over the years in India is on the rise, and although there are laws on the books against such incitement, application of the law in a BJP dominated government seems remote.

Section 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code specifically prohibits hate speech and says that a “person can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”  But the speeches continue unabated, slowly stoking the fires of violence against minorities.

Some have taken this newly found freedom to greater levels.  Mahanth Yogi Adityanath is an Indian politician and a priest. He has been a BJP Member of Parliament since 1998.

Adityanath is the head priest of a Hindu temple in Gorakhpur and founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a nationalist group of youth who seek to promote right-wing Hindu ideology.

In March of this year, during a rally where he was the chief guest, one of his supporters took to the stage and delivered a speech saying that Hindus should dig out dead bodies of Muslim women and rape them.

In a high-pitched hate filled vitriol, the supporter also called for Muslims’ voting rights to be taken away stating that this was important for the creation of a Hindu “rashtra” or nation.  Yogi Adityanath simply listened, his silence a sign of plain encouragement.

There have been other hate speeches from BJP affiliated political leaders and workers. Varun Gandhi, a grandson of the late Indira Gandhi and a BJP party member is quoted as threatening to cut off the arms of those who impede Hindus.

Then there are those who insist that the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu scripture, be adopted as the national book and others who downplay the achievement of anyone who’s non-Hindu like Mother Teresa, terming anyone who questions this logic as anti-national.

Anuja Jaiman, a popular journalist in New Delhi says that “getting offended on behalf of religion, god(s); presuming responsibility as a spokesperson of a religion, making derogatory statements and outraging for the wrong reasons appear to be taking India by storm.

This national hobby is a dangerous one to adopt and it doesn’t need a scholar to understand that.

“India is a culturally diverse and secular nation, at least according to the Constitution. Hate speech is one of the major thorns in the side of our democracy, which if not checked, will result in spiraling hatred.

That may be the agenda of some, but we can choose to not play into the hands of the haters.” And Mike Ghouse an American of Indian origin who is committed to building cohesive societies where no human has to live in apprehension of others concludes that “God save Modi from his ‘chumchas’ (brown-nosing hangers on), and I pray that he is aware of what is going on.

If he does not speak up, his dream of being one of the best prime ministers of India will be shattered and ‘sab ka sath sab ka vikas’ will become a pipe dream. Not good for India.” Indeed, if such incidents are not brought to a halt, India’s democracy will be a thing of the past.

This article appeared at Saudi Gazette.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said on Thursday Egypt would defeat terrorism, as he inaugurated the New Suez Canal project and the first ship passed through the waterway.

“Egypt during this year stood against the most dangerous terrorist ideology, that would burn the world if it could,” he said at a lavish ceremony attended by world leaders. “We are fighting them and will defeat them.”

Western and Arab leaders attended the event in a show of support for El-Sisi.
President El-Sisi hopes the project, which was completed in just one year, would power an economic turnaround in Egypt.

“Work did not take place in normal circumstances, and these circumstances still exist and we are fighting them and we will defeat them,” El-Sisi said after signing an order allowing ships to cross the new stretch of waterway.

“Egypt during this year stood against the most dangerous terrorist threat that would burn the world if it could.”

The government believes the New Suez Canal and an industrial zone to be developed around it will seal Egypt’s deliverance from economic purgatory — to the skepticism of some.

The project involved extending a waterway parallel to part of the 19th century canal connecting the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, as well as deepening and widening the old channel — the shortest shipping route between Europe and Asia.

It has been billed as a national accomplishment on par with President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the original Suez Canal in 1956 and building of the Aswan Dam.

By Sanjeev Ahluwalia*

Who can say it better than Amitav Ghosh, the celebrated author of the Ibis trilogy, the master of evocative words and beguiling stories, when it comes to documenting the life of migrating Indians.

Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal (including Bangladesh) continue to supply cheap labour to the rest of India today, just as they did in colonial times to British plantations in Guyana, Fiji and Mauritius. Does domestic migration serve public interest beyond the individual benefits it provides?

The merger of cultures

Let’s consider what happens when stereotypes migrate and coverge physically. A single Tamil child of young, upwardly mobile, working parents in Chennai; reared by a Bengali nanny; driven around by a Bihari driver; taught by a Maharashtrian; living in a house built by masons and carpenters from UP who eats wheat grown in Punjab, cannot but be truly Indian.

Into the consciousness of that child are woven, the stories and hopes of the rest of India. It is unlikely, therefore, that she would be content with just her Tamil identity. Of course the danger is that she could become the domestic equivalent of the ABCD (American Born Confused Desi). But any change has to start by perturbing the status quo.

Strict “isolationists” would of course bemoan the demise of “pure” Tamil culture. They will quail at “bhel-puri” coupons being tacked onto tickets for a Bharatnatyam recital or retreat in horror from Bhangra rap at a jana vasam — south Indian baraat. But cultural cross-overs are the stuff that nations are built upon.

A national identity

The national identity project is not new. But in recent times it has been undermined by politicians who benefit from nurturing regional, cultural and religious silos rather than working actively to dilute them. This trend is now pretty much irreversible.

But the hope is that with economic development, traditional identities-caste, religious or regional- will lose the urgency and prominence they have today. This happened before when the gains from more modern identities outweighed the limited and circumscribed benefits from traditional roles. Economic migration is a powerful lever for achieving this goal.

Migration — a great Indian tradition

Indian teachers, soldiers and merchants were willing to brave the “polluting” effect of crossing the seas even in the 19th century, so long as the professional prospects (think the legendary mathematician Ramanujam), the pay (Indian shippies), or the profit (Gujrati traders) provided sufficient incentive. The cost of “ritual purification” on their re-entry into India was trifling and the priests inventive and ever willing to oblige for a small fee. This practice of embracing multiple identities simultaneously, is the essence of any developed, open-access country. We need to go back to the future and against the stifling silos reinforced on us by colonialism.

30% of resident Indians do not live and work where they were born (2001 census). More Indians are born in the Northern and Eastern states than are the jobs available in such states. Given this asymmetry between population distribution and the availability of jobs, at least one half of the 10 million youngsters who come of age every year, will need to migrate for employment mostly to the western, southern, richer northern states and further abroad.

Prime Minister Modi’s persistent wooing of the Indian diaspora can be seen from this perspective. Assuming responsibility for their woes (visas, quasi-citizenship rights, immigration hassles) is a master stroke to play to the sentiments of their families and friends in India. Why not extend the same strategy to the labour surplus states?

Socialising the migrant

There are no facilities today to socialize domestic migrants into the environment where they go. The assumption is that they would be socialized by friends or their employers. A more blithe assumption is that being Indians they don’t need socialization. Nothing could be further than the truth.

Ghettos-ethnic, religious or regional are a fact of urban life. These are insulated and largely self-regulated. They perpetuate traditional identities rather than facilitate the development of new ones. If domestic migration has positive externalities- like helping develop a national identity or making labour markets more liquid- it is time we financed this public good. In a poorly targeted way we do so already by keeping railway fares much below the cost. Why not target support better to these brave hearts?

The time is right to launch this public program aimed at documenting, understanding and alleviating the challenges of domestic migrations. Marketed correctly, this could be of huge interest in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh- two large states which go to the polls within the next two years.

There are two key, low hanging fruit to be harvested:

Provide a digital friend (e-saathi) to the migrant

Migratory workers should be able to access a National Travel Support Service (NTS). This could be a toll-free number they can call nationally and seek advice from a digital friend on travel, accommodation, labour markets, wage rates and emergency response.

The NTA could be administered by the Ministry of Labour and Employment since a large part of its work, albeit not exclusively, would be across state government borders. Ideally, management would be outsourced to a non-state or private agent. Over time it would become networked with local NGOs who work with migrant labour and provide a basic social safety net.

The political attractiveness is obvious, not least because it is a pro-labour step. It would be most helpful for migrants in the informal sector, like in construction. It could extend a welcome helping hand, directly to one fourth of Indians who migrate, including for work.

Safe transit home for poor migrants

Domestic migration is often also a consequence of social persecution of marginal communities at home. Trail blazers, who marry inter-religion or inter-caste are forced to leave. For the poorest migrants, the biggest problem is finding a safe shelter till they can get a job and move on. For NGOs who want to help this segment, the problem is finding the land to provide a shelter at a location where work can be found nearby.

In the past, the Rail Yatri Niwas was a boon to the travelling middle class. These provided reasonably priced accommodation close to the railway station. Since then private hospitality facilities have exploded for this segment of travelers. It is time now to shift to serve the poor by leasing small land segments out to NGOs who wish to manage the socialization of poor, urban migrants. This intervention in the “real sector” will give a face and teeth to the virtual friend.

Cynics will dismiss this proposal as yet another mirage created by the smoke and mirrors of digital India. Other critics will rile that it is just another election gimmick. But pause and consider that the most practical public interventions are those which align with political economy and use the available entry points to enhance the public interest. This is one such win-win example. The families of poor migrants are unlikely to forget who helped to keep their migratory kith and kin safe, whilst simultaneously serving the public interest of social protection for the poorest.

*The writer is an Advisor to Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Quickly on the heels of the release “Love Gov”—the Independent Institute’s satirical videos series on meddlesome government—a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that federal aid to college students raises the cost of higher education.

Duh!

Many observers have been puzzled by the relentless increase in tuitions charged by private and public schools alike—at a growth rate greater than that of any component of the consumer price index, including health care. Some blame the price increases on the greed of campus administrators. But that assessment is an unfair oversimplification that fails to ask: what has enabled schools to hike tuitions so much?

Most U.S. colleges and universities, whether public or private, operate as not-for-profit entities, but that doesn’t mean they are run like charities indifferent to the bottom line. If the tuition at a school is, say, $10,000 per year, and some third party finances half that amount by providing a scholarship or low-interest loan, it’s wishful thinking to believe that the student will then pay only $5,000 per year. That conclusion would follow only if the tuition charge remains unchanged – and that outcome is only a pipe dream.

An economically rational college administrator will want to raise the tuition sticker price to as much as $15,000 per year, so as to capture some or all of the third-party payment, while leaving the student’s out-of-pocket cost the same. That way the school gets the extra money that has become available, but it doesn’t risk driving away cost-conscious applicants for admission.

Where does that extra $5,000 go? If history is any guide, precious little goes to current faculty salaries or the hiring of additional teachers (which would reduce average class sizes). Instead the money is allocated to expanding the school’s administrative staff – more assistants to the president or provost, and to more college bureaucrats with little or no classroom teaching responsibilities. Although these staffers surely will defend their positions vigorously, they contribute indirectly at best to the instructional, research, and service missions of their institutions.

All of this is made possible, of course, by the prevailing (and unquestioned) assumption that public subsidies of four-year post-secondary degrees are essential for young people to succeed in an ever more technical, globally competitive economic environment. In reality, the modern workplace does not necessarily need all of its workers to possess a baccalaureate degree. Warehouse workers and retail employees, for example, no longer need to be especially literate or numerate to parse paper manifests or maps. They instead can rely on bar codes and GPS devices to deliver customers’ orders.

Public policies that promote ever wider access to America’s colleges and universities, which remain among the world’s best, also have opened the door to students unprepared by our failed K-12 public schools to meet the academic demands necessary to earn a college diploma. Remediation of those educational deficiencies now absorbs inordinate college faculty attention, leads to the offering of degrees in undemanding majors, and threatens to devalue undergraduate educations to the level of high-school diplomas.

Many students meanwhile leave school laden with mountains of debt. Because much of the more than $1 trillion in outstanding loans is federally guaranteed, taxpayers are on the hook for repayment if the borrowers default.

The time is long past to end taxpayer subsidies to institutions of higher education and to restore market pricing and market discipline to America’s colleges and universities. A post-secondary education is a privilege, not a right for which everyone qualifies or merits.

This article also appeared at American Thinker and is reprinted with permission.

As the political battle over the Iran nuclear deal rages on in United States, the supporters of the deal led by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly followed a questionable script that can easily backfire in both the short and long run. We may call it “Iran nuclear alarmism” for purely heuristic purposes. In essence, this consists of a simple bifurcation of alternatives to “diplomacy or war” which has been repeated ad infinitum by U.S. officials since the Vienna “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA) on July 14th. Confronted by a sea of opposition at home and in Israel, the White House’s strategy has focused on a dualistic discourse that, in fact, raises the prospect of war with Iran while ostensibly defending the deal and praising the diplomatic path. Thus, in a keynote speech at American University, Obama went one step further and blamed the opponents of the deal for instigating a future war with Iran should they succeed in scuttling the agreement. Although this strategy might be for purely domestic consumption as a tactical ploy to gain support for the deal, particularly among the Democrats, whose votes are needed for a presidential override of a vote of no confidence in the deal come this September in U.S. Congress, nonetheless there are important, and highly dangerous, side-effects or rather unwanted consequences that in turn raise questions about the wisdom of this strategy, for the following reasons.

First, this strategy or political discourse stems from the underlying assumption that Iran has been marching toward nuclear bombs, which has been halted by the agreement. This has also been reflected in a recent full page advertisement in the New York Times by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Yet, this is nothing short of conceding a sizable ground to the critics of the deal, who are the master nuclear alarmists, such as the neo-con John Bolton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In other words, a serious error or judgment is reflected in this discourse that, in fact, perpetuates the myth of a “nuclearizing Iran.” Those who disseminate this myth one way or another cannot be possibly considered as “pro-Iran” no matter what their stated intentions.

Second, the bifurcated discourse of the ‘deal or war’ spearheaded by the White House is conjoined with the post-agreement rise in American military rhetoric against Iran, which has prompted a strong rebuke by Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif. Ironically, instead of bracketing the military threats against Iran, Obama, Kerry, and Ashton Carter the Defense Secretary, have actually utilized it, perhaps to give the impression of a robust Iran approach that has the “fall back” military option if the deal falls apart.

Third, the key problem with the White House’s salesmanship of the deal through nuclear alarmism is that it clashes with reality and the international norms and principles. Even in the worst case scenario of a nuclear weapons Iran, there is no automatic trigger for war, in light of the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons that is highly nuanced and directly casts questions on the ‘war or diplomacy’ false assertions mentioned above. Following well-established principles in international law, the American claim that the alternative to the Iran nuclear deal would be a war is simply suspect and untenable. Had the nuclear talks failed, this would not have meant that there is a legal basis for attacking Iran, which is precisely what the defective White House discourse implies.

Fourth, the nuclear agreement faces a tough road ahead and for one reason or another might fall apart, although highly unlikely at this juncture, in which case the present American dualistic discourse lends itself to militarism against Iran, despite the absence of a legal foundation. As such, this discourse represents a threat to Iran’s national security that must be debunked and deconstructed, irrespective of its short-term dividend in mustering political support for the deal in U.S. Congress. From Iran’s vantage point, it is highly unsettling that the White House has opted for bad, questionable means for a purportedly good cause, but these wrong tactical choices have long-term strategic connotations that, from the prism of Iran’s national security, are intolerable.

Notwithstanding the above-said, Iran must vigorously denounce any coupling of the agreement with war and also debunk the flawed argument that the deal has stopped an “Iran bomb.” The JCPOA has simply provided further assurances about the inherent peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program, which is a far cry from the dubious assumption of the Iran nuclear alarmists, who as stated above include so many official and non-official backers of the deal in U.S.

This article appeared at Iran Review

The United States has trumpeted a July 23, 2015, agreement under which Turkey would, after years of refusal, allow the United States to use the strategically located Incirlik air base in operations against the Islamic State (IS). As of August 4, no such U.S. strikes had been made.

While Turkey has launched token strikes against the IS from Incerlik — a joint Turkish-US base built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the Cold War as part of NATO’s effort to counter the USSR — Turkey has turned its planes, bombs, and guns primarily on Kurds, whom the Turks see as a perennial enemy, but who have been the most, perhaps the only, effective force fighting IS on the ground, protecting Kurdish towns across northern Syria and Iraq, and also guarding the Yezidi minority, who have suffered brutal attacks at the hands of the IS.

The US’ announced aim is to “degrade, and ultimately destroy” the IS. Its record on that score has so far been lackluster. And the US has now joined forces with Turkey — a country far more interested in its parochial battles with Kurds than with joining an anti-IS coalition.

The US and Turkey also agreed in July 2015 to establish IS-free “safe zones” in northern Syria. According to Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, ‘“When areas in northern Syria are cleared of the [IS] threat, the safe zones will be formed naturally. People who have been displaced can be placed in those safe areas.”

Here , too, however, the US has supported the Turks in their battle against the Kurds, rather than concentrating on fighting the IS. The Wall Street Journal reported on August 3, 2015, that the U.S. has agreed not to allow Kurdish fighters to move into the “safe zone”–in spite of the Kurds’ success and the Turks’ nonfeasance against the IS.

From the creation of the modern Turkish state under Kemal Atatürk in 1922, Turkey adopted for its national identity the fiction that it was a unified and homogeneous society, barely acknowledging the existence of its many minorities, and in fact expressing hostility toward them. The Kurds, as Turkey’s largest minority group, at some 18% of the population, felt the brunt of this policy — Turkey has even used the ersatz designation “Eastern Turks” to refer to the Kurds.

The current leader of Turkey, Recep Erdoğan, prime minister from 2003 to 2014 and president since then, along with his AKP party, seem to lament the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, and seek to reestablish Turkey as the leader of the Sunni Muslim world. Following the June 7, 2015, election in which the AKP failed to win the super-majority in parliament Erdoğan had sought in order to implement his plan to replace the parliamentary structure with a presidential system that reserved sweeping powers for himself, Fuat Çalapkulu, an AKP leader, tweeted, “Now they are saying Erdoğan cannot be president. The Caliph is coming, get ready.”

While Çalapkulu later said he was jesting, many, looking at Erdoğan’s history, didn’t get the joke.

The election, which saw the AKP lose its parliamentary majority, also produced, for the first time in Turkish history, at least some representation for the Kurds in the parliament. The HDP party, which came in fourth with 13% of the vote, is not a Kurdish party per se, but it has significant Kurdish membership and support.

Erdoğan and his allies are now lashing back, threatening to withdraw parliamentary immunity for newly elected Kurds — opening the door to prosecuting them for allegedly supporting terrorists — and, after thus handicapping the Kurds, to hold a new election later in the year.

The ascendancy of the Shia Muslim faction —  rival to the more numerous Sunnis since the groups split in the 7th Century — was contained largely in Iran as Sunni Ottomans swept from north Africa to China in the 1300’s. The clerical revolution in Iran in 1979 and the installation of a radical, expansionist theocracy in Iran posed a challenge to the US’ historic allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and other Arab Sunni countries.

The army of the Sunni Islamic State challenges not only Shiite Iran and its puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, but also Sunni Turkey, which wants to return to its place as a non-Arab state leading the Sunni world.  Turkey has, however, until now, refused to challenge the IS. It has declined to commit its own forces to the fight and has barred the US and other allies from using its air bases.  It stood by, doing nothing, as the IS fought to wipe out Kobani and other Kurdish towns in Syria near Turkey’s border, and it allowed IS units from throughout the world to access Syria and Iraq through its borders.

Now, suddenly, the  US and Turkey have struck a  deal. The US gets to use the Incerlik base in Turkey to fight the IS, diminishing the threat against Iran and Syria’s Assad, in exchange for agreeing, tacitly or otherwise, that Turkey can use its jets to bomb Kurds in Syria and Iraq who have been fighting the IS and protecting Kurdish towns, like Kobani, that span the long border of Syria and Iraq with Turkey.

Turkey has opposed the Kurds with military attacks that began soon after the post-World War I Turkish state began. It has long feared the millions of Kurds who live in near-poverty along the border and fear they will obtain statehood someday. The US has now agreed, acquiescing to a long-held dream of Turkey, to the creation of a 70 by 60 mile “buffer” zone in Syria — in territory that had largely been held by the Kurdish group the PYD, which has been an important force opposing Assad.  The ostensible reason is to create a safe haven for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, but for Turkey the objective is to gain control over Kurdish  towns in Iraq and Syria, and to prevent Kurds in Syria from linking up with those in Turkey and Iraq.

The US-Turkey announcement was simultaneous with mass arrests of  Kurds throughout Turkey. So now the U.S. tilts on the one hand to Shiite Iran — and concomitantly to Iran’s Alawite ally Assad — by signing a “deal” that ensures Iran’s becoming a nuclear state, and stepping up its efforts to wipe out Iran’s rival, the Sunni IS, and on the other hand to Turkey, by approving its attack on Kurds.

Opposition to Kurdish unity is also one of the bases for the emerging common cause between Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran, which also has a large Kurdish minority that it finds troublesome. Turkey has long sought to protect Iran from western sanctions in expectation of greater trade in oil and gas. Those efforts have now been rewarded by the US-Iran “deal.”

NATO has agreed to Turkey’s attacks on Kurds in Iraq and Syria, while mouthing cautions against “excessive force,” thus summoning unwanted memories of NATO’s failure to take any effective action against NATO-member Turkey’s military takeover of half of Cyprus in 1974–a conquest that still stands–and its mass expulsion of more than a quarter of the island’s population.

Given the chance to comment on Turkish strikes against the Kurds, the U.S. representative, Brett McGurk, demurred, saying, “We respect our ally Turkey’s right to self-defense.” And now the US seems to have moved to more direct support of the Turkish war against the Kurds.

*Barry A. Fisher, counsel to KNC-NA (Kurdish National Council-North America)    

The US Labor Department reported the economy added 215,000 jobs in July, while the overall unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell from 9.5 percent to 9.1 percent, the lowest level since February of 2008. The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) remained unchanged at 59.3 percent for the population as a whole and 55.8 percent for African Americans.

While the unemployment rate has been falling sharply in the last four years, the EPOP has moved much less, having risen by just 1.1 percentage point from its low point in 2011. Only a small portion of this decline can be explained by demographics as the EPOP for prime age men (ages 25-54) is still down by almost three percentage points from its pre-recession level. This is almost certainly an indication of ongoing weakness in the labor market.

Most of the other data in the household survey showed little change. The median duration of unemployment spells remained constant, while the average duration and share of long-term unemployment both increased slightly, but were still below May levels. The share of unemployment due to voluntary quits increased to 10.2 percent, the same as the March level.

There has been an interesting shift in the age distribution of employment growth in the last year. Earlier in the recovery, workers over age 55 had accounted for the bulk of growth in employment. This group accounted for 68.1 percent of employment growth from July of 2010 to July of 2013; however, they account for just 42.7 percent of employment growth over the last two years.

This is primarily a story of lower employment growth among women over age 55. Employment growth for women over age 55 had averaged 679,000 in the two years from July 2011 to July 2013; it has averaged just 374,000 in the last two years. This likely reflects the impact of the Affordable Care Act, as many pre-Medicare age women no longer need to rely on their jobs to get insurance for themselves or family members. Younger workers, between the ages of 25-34, may have been the beneficiaries of this decision as there has been a notable uptick in employment growth among this group.

In addition to the healthy job growth in July, the increases for May and June in the establishment data were also revised up slightly to bring the 3-month average to 235,000. However, there is still no evidence of this job growth leading to wage pressures. The average hourly wage rose 5 cents in July, but this followed a drop of 1 cent in June. This brings the annual growth rate for the last three months compared to the prior three months to just 1.9 percent, compared with a 2.1 percent increase over the last year.

The mix of jobs was a bit peculiar with the non-durable manufacturing sector adding 23,000 jobs. This is the biggest gain in the sector since a gain of 26,000 in August of 1991. This was driven by gains of 9,100 in food processing and 5,800 in plastics and rubber products. By contrast, health care had slower growth, adding 27,900 jobs after adding an average of 45,900 jobs the prior three months. Insurance carriers were again a big job gainer, adding 9,600 jobs. Retail added 35,900 jobs and restaurants added 29,300, both roughly in line with their averages over the last year.

The management services sector added 13,700 jobs. This sector has grown especially rapidly in the recovery adding 356,000 jobs in the last five years, an increase of 19 percent. The temporary employment sector lost 8,900 jobs. The government sector had a gain of 5,000 jobs driven by a gain of 8,000 at the local level.

The overall story in this report is moderately positive, but still indicates the labor market has a long way to go to recover from the downturn. It is important to recognize that these are healthy job growth numbers, but not what we would expect after a steep downturn. At its peak growth, the economy was adding more than 400 thousand jobs a month following the 1981–82 recession. This would be equivalent to 600 thousand a month in today’s labor market.

The intergovernmental agreements between Moscow and Ankara on the construction of the Turkish Stream pipeline and the agreed 10.25% natural gas discount will both be signed on the same day after the new Turkish government forms in autumn 2015, announced Taner Yildiz, Turkish Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, on August 4.

The reduction of cost price will allow Turkey reduce its expenses by $1 billion, he noted.

The minister also explained that Ankara received the coordinates for the land section of the pipeline past the agreed deadlines that introduced a delay in the process of geotechnical investigation for the underwater section.

Taner Yildiz also noted that several issues have not been resolved yet, but expressed his confidence that Moscow and Ankara will be reaching a consensus soon.

Shortly before this announcement, the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project once again was brought into the worldwide spotlight by July 30 reports of several prime international media sources. They quoted unnamed Turkish officials saying the talks with Russia over the planned gas pipeline had been suspended due to a dispute over several issues, such as gas discount.

However, the Turkish Ambassador to Russia Umit Yardim disproved those claims the day after and stressed that the talks are not at an impasse and expected to resume at the meeting of the two presidents – Vladimir Putin from Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan from Turkey – scheduled in Kazan in late November.

According to the ambassador, Ankara finds it the most suitable to begin the project with the construction of a single branch with the capacity of 15.5-16 bcm for local consumption directly from Russia, while currently Turkey receives its gas through Ukraine.

Despite the ambiguity, several international experts suggested that the project would eventually come to fruition. One of them, Erdal Tanas Karagöl, SETA Foundation researcher at Economics Department, expressed his belief that Ankara will be in favor of the project.

“The Turkish Stream will help Turkey become an energy hub in its region. During recent years, becoming an energy hub between the energy exporting and importing countries is at the core of Turkey’s energy policies. For this reason, Turkey wants to be part of energy projects in its region. When we look at the Turkish Stream from this perspective, Turkey will play a key role in providing security of energy supply via this project. This means that Turkey will play this project as a trump in its relations with Europe,” he explained.

According to the expert, a fully-built 1,100 km pipeline with the capacity of up to 63 bcm will not only serve to satisfy the inner demand of Turkey through its first branch but also transport some 47 bcm of gas into Europe.

“Including such countries as Greece, Macedonia, Serbia as partners in the Turkish Stream Project would be the outset of a positive process,” the economist said, adding that the countries who plan to join the EU may also choose to join.

At the same time, he pointed out that many political issues such as the EU-Greek relations would greatly influence the pipeline construction deadlines.

“The problem is that the relations between Greece and the EU still contain some risks, in spite of the most recent deal between Greece and its creditors. If Greece and EU relations deteriorate again, we will not know how these disputes can affect the future of project,” stressed the SETA Foundation analyst.

Meanwhile, David Buchan, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, pointed out that the Turkish Stream project would be moot if the current situation and the European supply through other gas pipelines remain unchanged.

“Turkey is a growing gas market, but in most of the European Union countries, the gas demand is not growing,” the expert noted.

In his opinion, construction of the full four-branch pipeline would take a heavy toll on the budget of Gazprom that would prove to be worth the risk only if Russia seeks to eliminate its dependency on gas shipments through Ukraine.

“Another pipeline to Turkey makes sense for the Turkish market, and Gazprom could sell slightly more gas to small Balkan markets, but a full pipeline of over 60 bcm a year is too much for the small markets of Bulgaria, Greece and so on; and in order to get to the bigger markets, the Central Europe, someone would have to build a new pipeline connection, which is expensive,” the researcher stated, adding that the real effect on the European market would register only several years after the Turkish Stream is finished.

From his point of view, the stalling of talks with Ankara and the decision to cancel the contract with Italian Saipem in early July 2015 show that Moscow is currently heavily researching the rationale behind the project.

However, David Buchan praised the decision to divide the project into several stages.

“Most experts seem to think that it may go ahead as a small project, maybe one or two pipelines,” the analyst pointed out.

Konstantinos Tasoulas, member of the Greek Parliament for the New Democracy party, also said he doubts it would be necessary to construct the pipeline of such capacity. However, he expressed his belief that the opening of the Turkish Stream would be a good event for Europe.

“Greece has supported a part of this pipeline [going through Greece] that will bring energy to Europe in order to ensure access to a source of energy for our country and for Europe,” the politician recalled.

From his point of view, the Turkish Stream situation is still too ambiguous to make any conclusions on its form and deadlines.

“We have a saying in Greece that we do not have to rush in our estimation about things. I think it is very early to speak about the benefits of this evolution,” the Greek MP explained.

He noted that the project will be constructed with ease if it is accepted in all European countries to take part in the project.

At the same time, Hasan Selim Ozertem, head of Energy Security Studies at the Turkish International Strategic Research Organization (USAK), suggested that the first branch of the Turkish stream would help assert the effectiveness of the project at a lower scale and create the foundation for further expansion of Russian-Turkish gas ties.

“Making a holistic agreement in 2015 and ignoring the upcoming opportunities for Turkish interests in the future seems to be something unrealistic and not favorable from the Turkish point of view. I may say that Turkey wants to make microagreements before making a macroagreement,” he stressed.

From the expert’s point of view, the first branch of the Turkish Stream may be completed only in four years after the intergovernmental agreement is signed.

“But for the four-line pipeline project, I suppose we should be projecting past 2020, because it seems that negotiations are not going to be as fast as projected from the beginning,” Hasan Selim Ozertem pointed out, adding that the current oil market situation and the state of Russia-EU relations also affect the potential.

He also suggested that the list of the countries to take part in the Turkish Stream gas transit through EU may include such states as Greece, Austria and even Germany in the best outcome.

“[But] it is hard to say that the Turkish Stream can take the full political support from Brussels because of the ongoing aggression between Russia and European Union in Ukraine. So I may say that some particular countries may take some roles for the Turkish Stream, but they may face some political challenges,” Hasan Selim Ozertem said.

Vladimir Kashin, Russian State Duma deputy for the CPRF faction, Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Natural Management and Ecology, also touched upon this issue.

“The debates over this project are still ongoing. There are attempts from our ‘friends’ to push hard enough to ‘bury’ this project completely. But we have seen that the outburst of debates was already extinguished three days later. The news [in the foreign media] were disproved by the authorities of the very Turkey who said they will be supporting and building the project,” the politician said in an interview to “PenzaNews” agency.

According to him, the energy sustainability and stability in Europe was always closely tied with Russian oil and gas supplies.

“The question of how and from what countries they will be receiving this stability is another matter. Of course, this is both a political and economy question,” the Russian Duma deputy explained.

From his point of view, Ankara has many reasons to support the Turkish Stream construction.

“These are great money, this is, obviously, priority access to energy resources,” the interviewee said, adding that the issue of Turkish participation in the project is also on the schedule.

At the same time, he reminded that Russia continues to actively develop its projects with other countries, such as China.

“Nowadays, the direction to the East and Asia will be developed swiftly and with great perspectives. But Russia has a complex approach here – we must not lose our existing consumers,” claimed the Chairman of the Russian Duma Committee on Natural Resources, Natural Management and Ecology

In his turn, Mehmet Ogutcu, expert in finance, energy and geopolitics, chairman of Global Resources Partnership, special envoy for the Energy Charter, executive chairman of the Bosphorus Energy Club, noted that Turkey follows a similar line in its strategy.

“The Turkish negotiators pay a special attention to not undercutting other competing gas projects from Azerbaijan, Iraq’s Kurdistan, Iran and East Mediterranean which can enhance Turkey’s hand in diversity and price,” he said.

According to the expert, the partners will have to deal with several obstacles at once in the nearest future.

In particular, Mehmet Ogutcu pointed out, Russia and Turkey will have to finish the discussion on gas price and decide whether Ankara will receive a genuine trading hub mechanism.

“This is a long-term commitment and it will be lasting only if there is no unilateral imposition of terms,” stressed the executive chairman of the Bosphorus Energy Club.

He also reminded that Russia and Turkey will have to act win the bounds set by the Western sanctions against Russia and pay greater attention to the EU Third Energy Package to avoid the fate of the South Stream.

Nevertheless, the financial expert expressed his belief that the Turkish Stream project fulfilled in the agreed timeframe and volume will bring benefits to both parties.

“I believe that despite all difficulties faced both Ankara and Moscow should find the middle ground and move forward for the first leg of the Turkish Stream,” the special envoy for the Energy Charter concluded.

Binyamin Netanyahuis not known as a classical scholar, but even so he has adopted the Roman maxim Divide et Impera, divide and rule.

The main (and perhaps only) goal of his policy is to extend the rule of Israel, as the “Nation-State of the Jewish People”, over all of Eretz Israel, the historical land of Palestine. This means ruling all of the West Bank and covering it with Jewish settlements, while denying any civil rights to its 2.5 million plus Arab inhabitants.

East Jerusalem, with its 300,000 Arab inhabitants, has already been formally annexed to Israel, without granting them Israeli citizenship or the right to take part in Knesset elections.

That leaves the Gaza Strip, a tiny enclave with 1.8 million plus Arab inhabitants, most of them descendents of refugees from Israel. The last thing in the world Netanyahu wants is to include these, too, in the Israeli imperium.

There is a historical precedent. After the 1956 Sinai War, when President Eisenhower demanded that Israel immediately return all the Egyptian territory it had conquered, many voices in Israel called for the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel. David Ben-Gurion adamantly refused. He did not want hundreds of thousands more Arabs in Israel. So he gave the strip too back to Egypt.

The annexation of Gaza, while keeping the West Bank, would create an Arab majority in the Jewish State. True, a small majority, but a rapidly growing one.

The inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip belong to the same Palestinian people. They are closely connected by national identity and family ties. But they are now separate entities, geographically divided by Israeli territory, which at its narrowest point is about 30 miles broad.

Both territories were occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-day War. But for many years, Palestinians could move freely from one to the other. Palestinians from Gaza could study in the university of Bir Zeit in the West Bank, a woman from Ramallah in the West Bank could marry a man from Beth Hanun in the Gaza strip.

Ironically, this freedom of movement came to an end with the 1994 Oslo “peace” agreement, in which Israel explicitly recognized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, and undertook to open four “free passages” between them. Not a single one was ever opened.

The West Bank is now nominally administered by the Palestinian Authority, also created by the Oslo agreement, which is recognized by the UN and the majority of the world’s nations as the State of Palestine under Israeli military occupation. Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, a close colleague of the late Yasser Arafat, is committed to the Arab Peace plan, initiated by Saudi Arabia, which recognizes the State of Israel in its pre-1967 borders. No one doubts that he desires peace, based on the Two-State Solution.

In 1996, general elections in both territories were won by Hamas (Arab initials of “Movement of Islamic Resistance”). Under Israeli pressure, the results were annulled. Whereupon Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. That’s where we are now: two separate Palestinian entities, whose rulers hate each other.

Superficial logic would dictate that the Israeli government support Mahmoud Abbas, who is committed to peace, and help him against Hamas, which at least officially is committed to the destruction of Israel. Well, it ain’t necessarily so.

True, Israel has fought several wars against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, but it has made no effort to occupy it again, after withdrawing from it in 2005. Netanyahu, like Ben-Gurion before him, does not want to have all those Arabs. He contents himself with a blockade that turns it into “the world’s largest open-air prison”.

Yet, a year after the last Israel-Gaza war, the region is rife with rumors about indirect negotiations going on in secret between Israel and Gaza about a long-range armistice (‘hudna” in Arabic), even bordering on unofficial peace.

How come? Peace with the radical enemy regime in Gaza, while opposing the peace-oriented Palestinian Authority in the West Bank?

Sounds crazy, but actually isn’t. For Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas is the greater enemy. He attracts international sympathy, the UN and most of the world’s governments recognize his State of Palestine, he may well be on the way to establish a real independent Palestinian state, including Gaza.

No such danger emanates from the Hamas mini-state in Gaza. It is detested throughout the world, even by most of the Arab states, as a “terrorist” mini-state.

Simple pragmatic logic would push Israel towards Hamas. The tiny enclave does not present a real danger to the mighty Israeli military machine, at most a small irritation that can be dealt with by a small military operation every few years, as happened during the last few years.

It would be logical for Netanyahu to make unofficial peace with the regime in Gaza and continue the fight against the regime in Ramallah. Why maintain the naval blockade on the Gaza strip? Why not do the opposite? Let the Gazans build a deep-sea harbor, and rebuild their beautiful international airport (which was destroyed by Israel)? It would be easy to put in place an inspection regime to prevent the smuggling in of arms.

Once there was talk of Gaza turning into an Arab Singapore. That is a wild exaggeration, but the Gaza Strip may well become a rich oasis of trade, a harbor of entry for the West Bank, Jordan and beyond.

This would dwarf the PLO regime in the West Bank, deprive it of its international standing and avert the danger of peace. The annexation of the West Bank – now called “Judea and Samaria” even by Israeli leftists – could proceed step by step, first unofficially, then officially. Jewish settlements would cover the land more and more, and in the end nothing else would remain there except some small Palestinian enclaves. Palestinians would be encouraged to leave.

Fortunately (for the Palestinians) such logical thinking is alien to Netanyahu and his cohorts. Faced with two alternatives to choose from, he chooses neither.

While seeking an unofficial hudna with Hamas in Gaza, he keeps up the total blockade of the Gaza Strip. At the same time, he tightens the oppression in the West Bank, where the occupation army now routinely kills some six Palestinians per week.

Behind this non-logic there lurks a dream: the dream that in the end all the Arabs would leave Palestine and just leave us alone.

Was this the hidden hope of Zionism from the beginning? Judging from its literature, the answer is no. In his futuristic novel, “Altneuland”, Theodor Herzl describes a Jewish commonwealth in which Arabs live happily as equal citizens. The young Ben-Gurion tried to prove that the Palestinian Arabs are really Jews who at some time had no choice but to adopt Islam. Vladimir Jabotinsky, the most extremist Zionist and forefather of today’s Likud, wrote a poem in which he foresaw a Jewish state where “The son of Arabia, the son of Nazareth and my son / will flourish together in abundance and happiness”.

Yet many people believe that these were empty words, attuned to the realities of their time, but that underneath it all was the basic will to turn all of Palestine into an exclusively Jewish state. This desire, they believe, has unconsciously directed all Zionist action from then to now.

However, this situation did not result from any diabolical Israeli plan. Israelis don’t plan things, they just push them along.

By splitting into two mutually hating entities, the Palestinian people actually collaborate with this Zionist dream. Instead of uniting against a vastly superior occupier, they undermine each other. In both mini-capitals, Ramallah and Gaza, there rules now a local ruling class, which has a vested interest in sabotaging national unity.

Instead of uniting against Israel, they hate and fight each other. Cutting the small Palestinian nation into two even smaller, mutually hostile entities, both helpless against Israel, is an act of political suicide.

On the face of it, the right-wing Israeli dream has won. The Palestinian people, torn apart and rent by mutual hatreds, are far removed from an effectual struggle for freedom and independence. But this is a temporary situation.

In the end, this situation will explode. The Palestine population, growing day by day (or night by night) will come together again and restart the struggle for liberation. Like every other people on earth, they will fight for their freedom.

Therefore, the “divide et impera” principle can turn into a catastrophe. The real long-term interest of Israel is to make peace with the entire Palestinian people, living peacefully in a state of their own, in close cooperation with Israel.

Mohsin is believed to be involved in several explosions carried out by the Indian Mujahideen in India including the August 2007 twin explosions in Hyderabad and the July 2008 explosions in Ahmedabad

By Bibhu Prasad Routray and Manoj Kumar Panigrahi*

Born on 6 November 1980, Mohsin Ismail Chaudhary alias Sayyed is one of the three sons of Ismail Ibrahim Choudhary residing in Manisha Complex in Mitha Nagar area of Kondhwa Khurd in Pune city. Ismail Ibrahim Choudhary originally hailed from Hyderabad.

Although not much is known about his growing up years, Mohsin is believed to have been recruited into the Indian Mujahideen (IM) by the Bhatkal brothers – Riyaz and Iqbal, the founding members of the outfit. Iqbal and Mohsin met at a 2004 religious function for which the former had arrived in Pune and was searching for fresh recruits for the IM. Mohsin, in turn, introduced Iqbal to several others in Pune. Over the next three to four years, Iqbal and Riyaz along with Yasin Bhatkal (who was arrested in 2014) worked with Mohsin to develop a terror module in Pune. By 2007, the module had graduated into a full-blown sleeper cell with its members fully trained to plan activities, coordinate with members of other sleeper cells in Maharashtra’s Marathwada region.

Mohsin is believed to be involved in several explosions carried out by the IM in India including the August 2007 twin explosions in Hyderabad and the July 2008 explosions in Ahmedabad. Arrested IM cadre Yasin Bhatkal told his interrogators that both Mohsin and his brother Akbar had executed the Hyderabad explosion to take revenge against the May 2007 explosion targeting the Mecca masjid in the city killing at least 14 people – nine in the explosion and five others in police firing to contain a riot that had followed the incident. Two radical Hindu extremists – Devendra Gupta and Lokesh Sharma – are behind bars for their involvement in the explosion at Mecca masjid. 45 people were killed in the Hyderabad twin explosions in August 2007. Yasin told that both Chaudhary brothers were trained in the use of explosives and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) for two weeks at a farm house in Chikamagalur, Karnataka. Following the explosion in Ahmedabad in which a series of 21 explosions on 26 July within a span of 70 minutes had killed 56 people Mohsin, along with three other IM members sent emails to media houses claiming responsibility for the act.

Mohsin’s brother Akbar was arrested in October 2008. He told his interrogators that he had been introduced to IM leaders Iqbal and Riyaz Bhatkal by Mohsin. Akbar also confirmed that Mohsin is an important part of the core IM module, who had played a key role in executing the explosions.

Some media reports suggest that Mohsin fled to Bangladesh after the Mumbai crime branch busted an IM module in Pune and arrested 21 people in 2008. However, investigators of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) maintain that Mohsin remained in India till 2009, frequently changing hideouts and moving between Delhi and Darbhanga. Sometime around March 2009, Mohsin escaped to Pakistan to form a safe base for launching terrorist activities in India. In Pakistan, Mohsin came in contact with several IM leaders whom he had not met before. This included Amir Reza Khan, who had been sheltered by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate.

According to some reports, Mohsin returned to India to execute the explosion at Pune’s German Bakery on 13 February 2010, which killed 17 people. Mohsin, Yasin and another IM senior cadre Mirza Himayat Baig had planned the attack and manufactured the explosive to be planted at the site inside an internet cafe, named Global Cyber Cafe at Udgir, in Maharashtra’s Latur district. The cafe was owned by Baig.

In September 2014, Mohsin’s brother-in-law, 27-year-old Ajaz Sheikh, also an alleged IM operative, was arrested near Saharanpur railway station in Uttar Pradesh. Shaikh was a key logistics man for the outfit and had sent emails to media houses after explosions at Jama Masjid in Delhi and Sheetla Ghat in Varanasi in 2010.

Mohsin is currently believed to be based in Pakistan. Although most likely to be in Karachi, he could be frequently changing his location within this port city and also between various other cities of the country. According to the NIA, the code words used by the IM cadres during their electronic communication to describe Mohsin are Ali, Afft and Aftab. Mohsin is known to be allied with the IM faction consisting of Riyaz, Iqbal and Jabrodh, where as Dr. Shahnawaz, Khalid, Mirza Shadab Baig and Abu Rashid have formed a separate group. In 2013, Mohsin attempted to relocate his family members to Pakistan via Kathmandu. However, the plan could not materialise.

From his Pakistani location, Mohsin is believed to be engaged in extortion activities targeting businessmen in cities like Pune and Kolkata. While most of the money generated from such activities is meant to be used in terrorist attacks, a part of the money is also passed on to the family of the arrested or killed IM cadres in India. In March 2014, Mohsin’s Pune apartment was sealed on order of the NIA.

The NIA has announced a reward of Rs.10 lakh for information leading to Mohsin’s arrest.

*Dr. Bibhu Prasad Routray is Director of Mantraya and Manoj Kumar Panigrahi is a lead researcher at Mantraya. This brief has been published under Mantraya.org’s Profiling Terror project.

Source: This article was published by Mantraya

A US-based Hindu group is disturbed over what it claims is a distortion of goddess Kali image in Titan Comics and are seeking the withdrawal of all the comics containing such distorted Kali from the stores and online.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, described it as highly inappropriate portrayal of goddess Kali and urged public apologies from all those responsible for it, including Titan Comics its parent Titan Publishing.

Titan Comics describing Kali on its website, says: “Kali, oldest and deadliest of these creatures, was thought defeated long, long ago; her body scattered throughout time to prevent her return.”

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, stated that goddess Kali was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be thrown around loosely in reimagined versions for dramatic effects in comics. Such absurd depiction of goddess Kali with no scriptural backing and calling her a “creature” was hurtful to the devotees.

Rajan Zed noted that many actions or characteristics attached to goddess Kali in the Titan Comics were unheard of in mainstream Hinduism. It seemed to be blatant twisting of the facts aimed at mercantile greed and maligning Hinduism in the process, Zed said.

Such trivialization of goddess Kali was offensive to Hindus world over; Zed indicated and urged Titan Comics not to inappropriately and unnecessarily drag Hindu deities to advance the commercial or other agenda in the future.

Rajan Zed stressed that Hindus were for free speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at belittling it hurt the devotees. Comics, being one of the very effective mediums, should be more sensitive while handling faith related subjects, Zed argued.

Hindus welcomed entertainment industries to immerse in Hinduism but taking it seriously and respectfully and not just for indecorous showing of Hindu symbols and concepts to advance their selfish agenda. Casual flirting sometimes resulted in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees, Zed pointed out.

Rajan Zed further said that Hinduism was the oldest and third largest religion of the world with about one billion adherents and a rich philosophical thought and should not be taken frivolously. No faith, larger or smaller, should be ridiculed at; Zed said and added that if entertainment executives needed any assistance about Hinduism, he or other Hindu scholars would be glad to help.

Goddess Kali, who personifies Shakti or divine energy and considered the goddess of time and change, is widely worshipped in Hinduism. Moksh (liberation) is the ultimate goal of Hinduism.

When political candidates give a speech or debate an opponent, it’s not just what they say that matters — it’s also how they say it.

A new study by researchers at the University of Miami and Duke University shows that voters naturally seem to prefer candidates with deeper voices, which they associate with strength and competence more than age.

The researchers say our love for leaders with lower-pitched voices may harken back to “caveman instincts” that associate leadership ability with physical prowess more than wisdom and experience.

“Modern-day political leadership is more about competing ideologies than brute force,” said study co-author Casey Klofstad, associate professor of political science at Miami. “But at some earlier time in human history it probably paid off to have a literally strong leader.”

Part of a larger field of research aimed at understanding how unconscious biases nudge voters towards one candidate or another, the findings are scheduled to appear online Friday, Aug. 7, in the open access journal PLOS ONE.

The results are consistent with a previous study by Klofstad and colleagues which also found that candidates with deeper voices get more votes. The researchers found that a deep voice conveys greater physical strength, competence and integrity. The findings held up for female candidates, too.

The question that remained was: why?

Conflating baritones with brawn has some merit, Klofstad said. Men and women with lower-pitched voices generally have higher testosterone, and are physically stronger and more aggressive.

What was difficult to explain, however, was what physical strength has to do with leadership in the modern age, or why people with deeper voices should be considered intrinsically more competent, or having greater integrity.

That got them thinking, maybe our love for lower-pitched voices makes sense because it favors candidates who are older and thus wiser and more experienced.

To test the idea, Klofstad and biologists Rindy Anderson and Steve Nowicki of Duke conducted two experiments.

First, they conducted a survey which suggested there might be something to the idea.

Eight hundred volunteers completed an online questionnaire with information about the age and sex of two hypothetical candidates and indicated who they would vote for.

The candidates ranged in age from 30 to 70, but those in their 40s and 50s were most likely to win.

“That’s when leaders are not so young that they’re too inexperienced, but not so old that their health is starting to decline or they’re no longer capable of active leadership,” Klofstad said.

“Low and behold, it also happens to be the time in life when people’s voices reach their lowest pitch,” Klofstad said.

For the second part of the study, the researchers asked 400 men and 403 women to listen to pairs of recorded voices saying, “I urge you to vote for me this November.”

Each paired recording was based on one person, whose voice pitch was then altered up and down with computer software.

After listening to each pair, the voters were asked which voice seemed stronger, more competent and older, and who they would vote for if they were running against each other in an election.

The deeper-voiced candidates won 60 to 76 percent of the votes. But when the researchers analyzed the voters’ perceptions of the candidates, they were surprised to find that strength and competence mattered more than age.

Whether candidates with lower voices are actually more capable leaders in the modern world is still unclear, they say.

As a next step, Klofstad and colleagues calculated the mean voice pitch of the candidates from the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives elections and found that candidates with lower-pitched voices were more likely to win. Now, they plan to see if their voice pitch data correlates with objective measures of leadership ability, such as years in office or number of bills passed.

Most people would like to think they make conscious, rational decisions about who to vote for based on careful consideration of the candidates and the issues, Klofstad said.

“We think of ourselves as rational beings, but our research shows that we also make thin impressionistic judgments based on very subtle signals that we may or may not be aware of.”

Biases aren’t always bad, Klofstad said. It may be there are good reasons to go with our gut.

“But if it turns out that people with lower voices are actually poorer leaders, then it’s bad that voters are cuing into this signal if it’s not actually a reliable indicator of leadership ability.”

“Becoming more aware of the biases influencing our behavior at the polls may help us control them or counteract them if they’re indeed leading us to make poor choices,” Klofstad said.