A critical review of "The Battle for British Islam"

Sara Khan, a British, has written a book:  The Battle for British Islam: Reclaiming Muslim Identity from Extremism.
Sara Khan's attempt to reclaiming Islam for the British Muslims in this book is disingenuous. She displays gross inability to interpret the world around her in a coherent way, and thus, miserably fails to learn any lessons from history. Her failure to condemn mainstream media, which are owned by rightwing media moguls who take pride in actively encouraging their media outlets to demonize Muslims, is simply inexcusable.
A reader may find her views as part of a covert attempt to infuse blood in British government's unhealthy PREVENT strategy, which is failing miserably. She should have known better that PREVENT is a critical part of the government’s counterproductive counter-terrorism strategy that not only demonizes Muslims but also creates a climate of fear that can only continue to the radicalization of young and rightfully angry Muslims. Truly, she comes across more as a cheer-leader or promoter for the government's failed policy than a serious researcher or writer who is interested about genuine peace and human rights.
For a good critical review of Sara Khan's book, click here.

Who is hosting the refugees?

In recent months we heard so much chatter and clamor in the media as if the European countries are burdened with the bulk of the refugee problem.
Do you know that none of the western countries counts in the list of the top 10 hosts of the refugees? Even then if you were to listen to fascist guys like Trump you would think that their countries are hosting all those unfortunate refugees.

Here are the facts:

1. Jordan (2.7 million)
2. Turkey (2.5 million)

3. Pakistan (1.6 million) 
4. Lebanon (1.5 million)

5. Iran (979,400)

6. Ethiopia (736,100) 

7. Kenya (553,900) 

8. Uganda (477,200)

9. Democratic Republic of Congo (383,100)

10. Chad (369,500)

Jordan, which has taken in more than 2.7 million people, was named as the top refugee hosting country,  followed by Turkey, over 2.5 million; Pakistan, 1.6 million; and Lebanon, more than 1.5 million.
The other top six nations were Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and
Chad.
Amnesty said many of the world's wealthiest nations "host the fewest and do the least", highlighting a stark contrast in the number of refugees taken in by countries near crisis-hit areas and by wealthier nations with similar populations elsewhere.
Britain, for example, has taken in fewer than 8,000 Syrians since 2011, while Jordan - with a population almost 10 times smaller than Britain and just 1.2 percent of its GDP - hosts more than 655,000 refugees from its war-torn neighbour, Amnesty said.

Israel does it again!

Israel has done it again!
The Israeli navy has intercepted a boat carrying female pro-Palestinian activists trying to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and said it was escorting the vessel to shore. The incident occurred on the same day as the Israeli air force struck a series of targets in Gaza.
The boat was sponsored by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, a group of pro-Palestinian groups based mostly in Europe. The Dutch-registered vessel was carrying 13 activists headed by Mairead Maguire, an Irish Nobel peace prize laureate. A retired US colonel and a former South African Olympic athlete were also on board, along with women from the UK, Sweden, Russia and Malaysia.
Zaher Darwish, one of the flotilla’s coordinators, said the boat had been intercepted about 40 miles (60 kilometres) from Gaza and was not carrying aid. He said the goal was “symbolic” — to call attention to the Israeli naval blockade, which he said was illegal.
“People have the right to move. We have the right to move,” he said. “We are aiming to the conscience of the people. And the conscience of governments. They have to act and express their non-acceptance of this situation.”
The Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum urged international activists to continue sending flotillas to Gaza. “This is Israeli piracy and organised state terrorism reflecting how deep the Israeli entity has gone in its aggression, crimes and violations against our people and those who show solidarity with it,” he said.
To read the full story, click here.

Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book

Academic freedom is considered a bedrock of democracy and yet do you know that both the USA and Israel gag such freedom? Well, if you doubt me, read this article of Stephen Cohen in the Counterpunch by clicking here.
He writes, "University is intended to be a melting pot, a grand experiment of sorts, to unite the diverse not in “acceptable” uniform thought but in the notion that ideas must be free and robust to be healthy… all ideas… the good, the bad, the uncomfortable. Yet, today, all across  the United States it seems that purity of  thought has become synonymous with the idea of a sound “healthy” education."
"For Israel it’s not enough to invade our lecture halls at prestigious schools such as De Paul, the   University of  Illinois, Oberlin, CUNY or Columbia to drive “controversial” pro-Palestinian academics   of the likes of Finkelstein, Salaita, Karega, Schulman, Massad and Dabashi from college lecterns; or to strong-arm a university such as Berkley to suspend a course that presents a view of settler colonialism at odds with the Zionist narrative. Indeed, now through well funded pro Zionist proxies Israel seeks to  fundamentally redesign those same halls to promote and suit its own geopolitical needs and interests," writes Stanley Cohen, a peace activist.
"Recently, from coast to coast, well funded organizations such as the Amcha Initiative and the Canary Mission have labored to intimidate university administrators and faculty in an effort to punish what they call anti-Semitism in the classroom. In the name of acceptable academic freedom, these groups promote an Israeli view of free speech, one where diversity of thought is under constant attack in  the  class rooms and the streets  in  an  effort to silence  Palestinian dissidents and their supporters by one means or another."


Also read the hyperlinks: https://www.aaup.org/report/UIUC; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein; https://electronicintifada.net/content/joseph-massad-responds-intimidation-columbia-university/5289;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/oberlin-professor-accused-of-anti-semitic-remarks-is-placed-on-paid-leave.html?_r=0

Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation

Obama has given the largest military package ever to the pariah state of Israel, and yet many Israeli-firsters are unsatisfied with Obama's gesture.
Such an aid to a state that has violated tens of UN resolutions is simply inexcusable; it is criminal to the core. The US government tries to portray itself as a mediator between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. But what it has made clear is that it is a deep partisan to the Israeli cause. So, peace remains an illusion in the 'promised' land. Like his predecessors, the current Zionist leader Netanyahu continues to build settlements.
In criticizing Israel’s building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, Secretary of State John Kerry said that since Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the number of Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has grown by 95,000, including 15,000 during the past year alone. Israel plans to build 2,400 new housing units in the settlements as it demolishes more and more Palestinian homes.
Kerry’s criticism rings hollow as the Obama administration consistently uses its veto in the Security Council to block the Palestinians’ campaign to block illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She writes, speaks and does media about human rights and U.S. foreign policy. Her latest article on Israel can be seen by clicking here.
She writes, "Obama is reportedly considering a council resolution to set the parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, although the powerful pro-Israel lobby opposes such a move."

An essay by Neha Dabhade on Gandhi

Gandhi- Relevant or redundant today?

Neha Dabhade

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi known popularly as Mahatma Gandhi is remembered and spoken for a number of reasons. He is celebrated not just in India but the world over for his ideas of satyagraha and ahimsa (non-violence) which inspired oppressed and subjugated people to fight for their rights and emancipation. In a society where violence is normalized and internalized partly due its high occurrence, non violence as an ideal sounds simplistic, naïve and redundant. However Gandhi still has a lot to offer to the world. With his steely conviction and lofty morals he could inspire courage in the marginalized. His contribution to the freedom of India is central. He had multiple sides to him. He was an astute politician and at the same time a man of religion. He was a social reformer and revolutionary. He could reconcile as these seeming contradictions to lead the world on the path of compassion. This doesn’t place him out of the realm of criticism or contestation of his actions/ views. For instance he never questioned the inherent hierarchy and social order established by the caste system. He wanted to build moral pressure on the Hindu community to treat the “harijans” more humanely and cease the practice of untouchability. He was not as radical as Ambedkar and for this he is always derided. He called upon women to participate in the freedom struggle to strengthen it but never questioned patriarchy or their social position. Similarly his other views can also be questioned. This doesn’t take away the brilliance of his ideas or his commitment to a peaceful society. Though Gandhi left behind a splendid mosaic of thoughts and deeds, some of his ideas hold profound significance and relevance today. This article attempts to revisit Gandhi and his thoughts on some of the issues that threaten to destroy the fabric of a democratic and plural society envisaged by our Constitution.

Today the public discourse in India is replete with intolerance and dogmatism. This intolerance which insists that only one view or narrative is right and dismisses the existence of multiple truths and narratives, is the biggest concern challenging liberal ethos of our society. The ambit of intolerance ranges from upholding and enforcing food habits (banning of beef etc), narrow ideas of nationalism to hatred towards other religions and labeling particular communities in a derogatory manner. The claim of the Hindutva ideology and Hindu nationalists that only Hindu religion (their own narrow version) is superior and holds answers to all woes underlines the atmosphere of intolerance in the country. That explains their practices which aim at homogenization and thrusting a common identity on all communities and groups. For example ghar wapasi using force. Their supremacist attitude connotes that there can be only one truth. Gandhi on the other hand has a different view. Gandhi though a devout Hindu himself was influenced by other religions. He was proud to be a Hindu. He was influenced by the New Testament, Sermon of the Mount, Tolstoy’s The Kingdom Of God Is Within Youand Koran. He elaborates “Inspite of being a staunch Hindu, I find room in my faith for Christian, Islamic and Zoroastrian teaching…mine is a broad faith that does not oppose Christians- not even a Plymouth brother- not even the most fanatical Mussalman. It is a faith based on broadest possible toleration. I refuse to abuse a man for his fanatical deeds because I try to see them from his point of view..It is a somewhat embarrassing position, I know- but to others, not to me!” (mkgandhi.org). In his seminal work Hind Swaraj, he says, “Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter if we take different roads as long as we reach the same goal? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals” (mkgandhi.org). For Gandhi religion was truth. And this truth can be found in different religions. No one religion had the monopoly of truth.

One of the raging debates today having brutal consequences is about the cow. The cow has become a political tool in the hands of the Hindu nationalists to indulge in mindless violence against the Dalits as demonstrated in Una and against the Muslims, the case in point being the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri. There have been increasing conflicts over killing of cows. All these conflicts and bloodletting are justified by claiming that cow is sacred to the Hindus and cow slaughter amounts to disrespect to the Hindus. Gandhi though a strict vegetarian and ardent advocate of cow protection condemns violence against a human being in order to save a cow. “Though I regard cow protection as the central fact of Hinduism, central because it is common to the classes as well as the masses, I have never been able to understand the antipathy towards the Musalmans on that score. All the riots that have taken place in the name of cow have been an insane waste of effort”. (Gandhi M. K., Young India, 1924). For him cow symbolized “worship of the innocence and protection of the weak and the helpless” (Gandhi, Young India, 1921). He thus widely defines cow protection which leaves no scope for violence or dogmatism. He writes, “to attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism”(Gandhi, Young India, 1921). He clearly states that upholding Hindu religion doesn’t mean killing a human being to protect a cow, a disturbing phenomenon which is rampantly witnessed. “I make bold to assert without fear of contradiction, that it is not Hinduism to kill a fellowman even to save the cow”(Gandhi, Young India, 1921). A number of states in India are enforcing laws prohibiting beef consumption which is objected to by different groups as violation of their freedom to food. But the states still uphold the law citing the “interests” of the majority. Gandhi views such laws as a way to enforce coercion. He thinks it is wrong to impose religious belief of one community on the others by force. Instead one can morally appeal to the other community to voluntarily give up cow slaughter. “.. a large number of vocal Hindus have begun to believe the superstition that the Union belongs to the Hindus and that, therefore, they should enforce their belief by law even among the non-Hindu”(Gandhi, Harijan, 1947). He vehemently states, “it is obviously wrong legally to enforce one’s religious practices on those who do not share that religion” (Gandhi, Harijan, 1947).

Cow slaughter as seen above has been historically exploited as a fault line between communities. Even today it is effectively used to polarize communities. Mostly the aim behind is to alienate the Muslim community by portraying them as beef eaters. Apart from this one myth, the prejudices and biases against the Muslim community has strengthened to such an extent that it compels one to think it is impossible for the Muslims and Hindus to coexist in harmony. Muslims are stigmatized as anti- national and treated as second class citizens. To support this erroneous notion, history is selectively culled out and distorted. The differences are portrayed as irreconcilable. Gandhi who was steadfastly dedicated his life towards communal harmony clarifies that many Hindus embraced Islam in India even before the advent of Muslim rulers as is the case of Christians before the advent of the British. Thus it is plain vilification of the Muslim rulers who are said to have converted Hindus into Islam by threat of the sword. While recounting the contribution of Muslims to the freedom struggle who tirelessly worked with him, he avers that Hindu Muslim unity is imperative for swaraj and even after attainment of independence the two communities can and must live together in harmony. His solution to communal problem addresses the heart of the ideology which cites religious differences as the reason of discord. He states, “ The key to the solution of the [communal] tangle lies in every one following the best in this own religion and entertaining equal regard for the other religions and their followers (Gandhi M. K., Harijan, 1948).

One area today in which Gandhi’s ideals and message are much needed is on the question of Kashmir. Subsequent to the killing of Burhan Wani, protests in Kashmir have intensified. The State policy of brutal suppression through the medium of excessive force by the Army has led to massive loss of lives and human rights violation. Instead of political dialogue and looking for peaceful solution to the problem, there is indiscriminately firing of pellets by the Army to bully the people into submission. The need for ahimsa or nonviolence has never been so acutely felt. Ahimsa is a tool of the strong Gandhi pointed out. Gandhi’s message of compassion and forgiveness if reverberates will help the State find a solution to the incessant cycle of violence that has gripped Kashmir. 

The problem of Kashmir is not limited to the region alone. The violence that nationalism feeds into has transcended the boundaries of the country. And this holds true internationally. Gandhi’s nationalism wasn’t parochial. He was an internationalist. He was against imperialism, hegemony and domination of one country over the other. He believed that the whole world is one family. Though avers that to be internationalist one needs to be nationalist first, he urges one to look beyond narrow boundaries.  The golden way is to be friends with the world and to regard the whole human family like members of one family. He who distinguishes between one’s own family and another’s, mis-educates the members of his own family and opens the way for discord and irreligion (Harijan, 1947).A man whose spirit of sacrifice does not go beyond his own community becomes selfish himself and also makes his community selfish. In my opinion, the logical conclusion of self-sacrifice is that the individual sacrifices himself for the community; the community sacrifices itself for the district; the district for the province; the province for the nation and the nation for the world. A drop from the ocean perishes without doing any good. If it remains a part of the ocean, it shares the glory of carrying on its boson a fleet of mighty ships (Harijan, 1947). The politics of IS and the prevalent Islamophobia witnessed globally are phenomena of massive proportions. So far the response to them has been violence which is in turn breeding more violence. Maybe Gandhi’s wisdom and approach of love and non violence offers a lasting panacea to this inhumanity.

Gandhi was the tallest figure in the 20^th century that the world witnessed. But his ideas are timeless. It’s saddening to hear critiques despising Gandhi for his equal and humane treatment of Muslims and his approach towards Pakistan though he was not in favor of partition. This aspect of his personality overshadows his sheer strength of character, his foresight and his charisma which made him a leader of the masses. Like mentioned above, Gandhi is not beyond reproach, one must bear in mind that he was also a product of his time. He came from a location shaped by his time, class, caste and upbringing. And yet he could transcend the contours defined by them. Unfortunately today, the government and the opposition both are appropriating him for their own political ends. However none follow his ideals and philosophy. And worse in their own insidious ways they invisibilize and distort the image and message of Gandhi. We are made to believe that Gandhi came from another era and conjured utopian ideals which have no relevance in these times. It would hold us in good stead to remember that with these very “utopian” ideals Gandhi played an instrumental role in achieving independence for a large colony like India, doused the flames of communal tensions with his own life and inspired a non-violent struggle against apartheid the world over. Sixty odd years after his death, his beloved country is shaken by intolerance where scores of children and youth with injured eyes and swollen faces due to pellet wounds are haunting the public conscience and Dalits are still stripped naked and flogged publicly for skinning a dead cow. The world overall is gripped with wars, violence and increasing arsenal of nuclear weapons. The worst is the glaring inequality and poverty the world witnesses. This is adequate to reinforce the need and relevance of Gandhi’s ideas.

Book Review: The prima materia of Myanmar Buddhist Culture by Shwe Lu Maung

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

The transition to democracy did not come that easy. Its path was stained with blood and sacrifice since 1962 when General Ne Win came to power through a military coup. Fifteen student protesters of the capital’s Rangoon University were killed. The country was ruled by a revolutionary council headed by the general. Almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control under the Burmese Way to Socialism. As a result, the Rohingya people of Arakan state and the prosperous Indian Hindu-Muslim-Sikh business community of Rangoon became the worst sufferers in this experiment; many non-Buddhists were forced out of Burma. A new constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma was adopted in 1974. Under the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) Burma became one of the world's most impoverished countries.
There were sporadic protests against the military rule during the Ne Win years (1962-1988) and these were almost always brutally suppressed. In 1988, unrest over economic mismanagement and political oppression by the government led to widespread pro-democracy demonstrations throughout the country known as the 8888 Uprising. Security forces killed thousands of demonstrators, and General Saw Maung staged a coup d'état and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In 1989, SLORC declared martial law after widespread protests and changed the country's official English name from the "Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma" to the "Union of Myanmar".
In May 1990, the SLORC government held free elections for the first time in almost 30 years and the NLD, the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won nearly 80% of the seats. However, the military junta refused to cede power and continued to rule the nation as SLORC until 1997, and then as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) until its dissolution in March 2011. It was an attempt to rebrand the old order; the power remained with the junta. Then came the 2007 Saffron Revolution, a non-violence: national movement, led by Buddhist monks, which was violently suppressed. An international condemnation of this peaceful revolution led to further isolation of the government.
A fraudulent election was held in 2010 in which the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, declared victory winning nearly 80% seats. The military junta was replaced on 30 March 2011 by a quasi-military government, led by former General Thein Sein, with the goal of putting the country back to the path of democracy. Suu Kyi was released from house arrest and her party allowed to participate in the by-elections in 2012 in which it won 43 of the contested 45 seats.
Then came the general election of 8 November 2015 in which the NLD won an absolute majority of the seats in both the houses. And the rest is history! Recently, Suu Kyi visited the USA and gave speech at the UN General Assembly session. She was also awarded the Humanitarian of the Year award from Harvard.
The question that begs an answer is: how was it possible for the military to rule this multi-ethnic, - racial, and –religious country for so many decades? What ideology boosted its credibility to rule almost unopposed for all those years?
The answer is provided by Dr. Shwe Lu Maung (Shahnawaz Khan) in his latest book - The prima materia of Myanmar Buddhist Culture: Laukathara of Rakhine Thu Mrat, published in the USA by Shahnawaz Khan (2016). The author, a diaspora Burmese from Arakan (Rakhine), has been living in the USA for decades. He is an acclaimed author of six books on his native country that have helped us immensely in our understanding of the complex political landscape of modern Myanmar.  This book – a translated work - is an excellent source to understand the very treasure trove from which the ex-generals reportedly drew their inspiration to ruling the country. After all, in 1990, Sr. Gen. Saw Maung, the military ruler of the country at the time (who reportedly believed himself to be the reincarnation of an 11th-century warrior-king), famously said that he would rule the country according to Laukathara.
As Dr. Maung shows, Laukathara – a popular literary work - provides the cultural fabrics of Myanmarism – an ideology in which religion and race mingle to define how Buddhists in Myanmar should behave and conduct their affairs from a layman to the ruler. Literally, the phrase Laukathara means the essence of the world. Written originally on palm leaves with the Rakhine phonetics, it was taught by a Rakhine monk by the name of Thu Mrat of Theravada Buddhism in the early 14^th century. He was the teacher of King Mun Hti (Laung Krut dynasty) who had entrusted him with the education of three princes of the Thet (or Chakma) king Lyin Saw. The latter had lost his kingdom (Thayet or Thet Yet) – located near central/lower Burma – in 1333 CE to the Rakhine King Mun Hti.
Later Laukathara reached Myanmar from Arakan and became a royal handbook of administrative philosophy – very much like what The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli (a 16^th century Italian) had become in Europe to guide its rulers. It has been a guiding source of law and order, rules and regulations, ethics and philosophy, and traditions and culture in Myanmar society. It essentially constitutes the prima materia of Myanmar’s Buddhist culture, or perhaps, more correctly, the Buddhist political theology - based on the Buddha, the Dhamma (religion) and the Sangha (community). It is a very popular literary work with many Buddhists in the country growing up with it.
The SLORC chairman Sr. General Saw Maung, a devout Buddhist, promoted Laukathara in Myanmar administration, a trend that was to continue by his successors. Essentially it defined Myanmarism.
The traditional Myanmarism has been Buddhism and militarism since the days of King Anawrahta (ca. 1044-1077 C.E.). In the hands of military rulers of our time, the new Myanmarism became a toxic cocktail of ultra-nationalism and religious fanaticism (or religio-racial ultra-nationalism, as coined by Dr. Shahnawaz Khan).

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

 

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

Succinctly put, the teachings of Laukathara became the eliminationist policy – adopted by the military governments. However, as one reads the translated work of Dr. Maung, it was not meant to be such.
For any westerner interested to understand the very driving force behind the moral imperative (if any) of the rule by the ex-generals of Myanmar, who saw themselves as the reincarnations of King Anawrahta, this translated work of Dr. Maung is a must. I recommend it wholeheartedly.