Month: June 2018

Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Ensembles of Mumbai Inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage Site

The heritage site will cover buildings on Marine Drive, in Churchgate area and the precinct known as Fort.

Mumbai: Mumbai’s Victorian and Art Deco architecture buildings in the Fort precinct and on Marine drive have earned the prestigious UNESCO heritage label, the third in the city to do so. Mumbai has the second largest collection of Art Deco buildings after Miami and a wide range of Gothic structures, ranging from the majestic Central Railway headquarters (Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, earlier called Victoria Terminus) to the municipal corporation headquarters and the high court.

The CSM Terminus and Elephanta Caves off the shore of the city are the other two on the list. The announcement was made at the ongoing UNESCO meet in Manama, Bahrain on June 30.

The heritage site will cover buildings on Marine Drive, in Churchgate area and the precinct known as Fort. What makes it unique is that a long stretch of Victorian Gothic as well as Art Deco structures stand face to face, separated by a large public playing ground, the Oval Maidan.

Some of the better known Gothic public buildings include the Bombay high court, Mumbai University, Old Secretariat, National Gallery of Modern Art (NGMA), Elphinstone College, David Sassoon Library, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (Museum) and the Western Railways (WR) Headquarters. All of them were built during a sudden burst of construction activity under the colonial Raj in the 1860s and several were co-financed by wealthy Indians. The famous Rajabai Clock Tower attached to the University was paid for by the financier Premchand Roychand who had lost all his money in the post-cotton crash of 1865 when several well-known businessmen went bust.

What makes it unique is that a long stretch of Victorian Gothic as well as Art Deco structures stand face to face, separated by a large public playing ground, the Oval Maidan. Credit: The Wire

On the other hand, the modern buildings that came to be known as Art Deco were almost wholly designed, financed and built by Indians in the mid-1930s as the new style swept through the world. In recent times, academics have shown interest in studying the international connections of Bombay Art Deco with Miami, Havana and other coastal cities.

The entire stretch of Marine Drive, the Cricket Club of India and well-known cinemas like Eros, Regal and Liberty fall in this category. Art Deco bungalows and houses can still be seen in central and northern Mumbai. These structures are accessible and visited by the public on a daily basis. Also, unlike the earlier nominations from the country which were mostly of ancient and medieval sites, this was for the first time that India’s modern architecture was considered and has also made it to the list.

Nayana Kathpalia, a trustee of O.V.A.L trust, a citizens’ group of residents in the Oval Maidan area, was elated. “It has been a long haul. We went through a complicated process dealing with two chief ministers in the past ten years and two governments at the Centre. In some states, the efforts are made by the state government, but in our case, it was essentially the citizens’ group making the efforts.”

Kathpalia also said that since the government has been involved in getting the heritage sites inscribed in the list, the onus on them to ensure that the structures, especially the Art Deco buildings which have people residing in them are maintained and preserved well. Heritage activists have long been asking the government to provide incentives to maintain the structures, many of which are in poor shape due to age and exposure to natural elements. The UNESCO tag means that they cannot be demolished and zoning laws have to be strictly enforced in the areas.

Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, urban secretary Nitin Kareer and conservation architect Abha Narain Lambah, who helped prepare the dossier that was presented to UNESCO are in Bahrain to attend the conference.

“Just inscribed as @UNESCO #WorldHeritage site: Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Ensembles of Mumbai, #India Congratulations!” UNSECO tweeted. Fadnavis too took to Twitter to express his gratitude to those who have worked towards getting the city’s significant 19th and 20th century architecture inclued in the list.


Atul Kumar, founder of Art Deco, Mumbai and a heritage conservationist says the announcement is a very significant one and would get Mumbai’s rich architectural heritage global recognition.

UNESCO’s adviser, International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), had recommended that the precinct area be given a tag of “architecture district”. In an evaluation submitted by the council, it was acknowledged that the waves of urban development in the 19th and 20th centuries had brought in complete transformation of Mumbai from a “fortified trading outpost to the first city of India”.

The decision to add the new Mumbai precinct, which is collectively called as the ‘Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Ensembles of Mumbai’, comes at a time when the city has been going through several development projects. Along the precinct area, the Metro III construction work has been going on for almost a year, blocking the view to most of these heritage structures. Fears have been expressed that some of the buildings will suffer structural damage.

An archival image showing construction of Watson”s Hotel, a unique cast iron structure in Mumbai. © Abha Narain Lambah Associates

An aerial view showing the streetscape of Kala Ghoda. © Abha Narain Lambah Associates.

Lambah, who is the main person behind this recognition, had first mooted the idea about pushing Mumbai’s heritage treasure at a UNESCO conference for Asia Pacific back in 2004. Lambah, who is part of the delegation in Bahrain, was quoted as saying, “From 2004, when I first presented this idea at the UNESCO conference on representation at Chandigarh, it’s been 14 long years to get all stakeholders, citizen groups and the government on board to make this happen… This inscription acknowledges Mumbai’s position in the world as the finest collection of 19th and 20th century modernism and a city where heritage does not just include dead monuments but a living breathing dynamic urban centre with buildings in active use by citizens. This is the first case in India’s 37 world heritage sites where the nomination process was a citizen driven initiative.” Lambah had put together the three-volume nomination dossier and management plan, which contained over 1,500 pages of historical narrative, maps, drawings and notes on each of the 94 buildings in the area.

This journey, Atul Kumar says, has been possible due to the active participation of citizen groups, conservationists and governments. Now with the new endorsement of the UNESCO tag, Mumbai’s Victorian and Art Deco district will help raise awareness among citizens and tourists, he observes. “It might be be a step towards preserving the city’s heritage.” He also said that the addition to the UNESCO list would boost cultural tourism in the city. “A study says that not even 2% of those who transitioned from Mumbai stopped by to visit these unique heritage sites. But now, there would definitely be a boost to the cultural tourism in the area,” he added.

UNHCR to Cancel Refugee Status of Chins of Myanmar

While the agency has said that the situation in the Chin State of Myanmar has become ‘stable and secure’, refugees in India disagree.

New Delhi: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has decided to lift the refugee status over the Chins of Myanmar from August 1, 2018.

Stating that the “cessation process” of the refugee status of the Chins would be completed by December 31, 2019, the UN refugee agency has said that the situation in the Chin State of Myanmar has become “stable and secure” for them to return home and, therefore, they don’t need “international protection”.

The exact number of Chins residing in India is contested. While there are about 4,000 Chin refugees are registered with the UNHCR office in New Delhi and have been issued refugee cards, many are residing in the national capital without any UNHCR assistance. Most Chins stay in the West Delhi colonies of Janakpuri, Vikaspuri, Sitapuri, Bindapur, Budhela etc.

About one lakh of them are said to have entered Mizoram over the years as it shares a 404 km border with the Chin State. Though they have history and ethnic ancestry common with the Mizos, considering their high number, the Chins are not often welcomed by the locals. A Human Rights Watch report had detailed the severe discrimination, abuse, persecution, detention and deportation they had undergone in that state. The Chins residing in Mizoram are not registered with the UNHCR as the international agency has no access to the north-eastern state.

Since India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol, the UNHCR cards issued to Chin refugees don’t automatically allow them the right to stay in India or have any legal validity to be able to open bank accounts or seek admission in educational institutions. But they do help the refugees in applying for long-term visas.

Location of Chin State in Myanmar. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Besides India, many Chins have taken refuge in Malaysia and Thailand among other countries and have been issued UNHCR refugee cards following their registration locally. In Malaysia, the Chins are said to be the second largest refugee group. As per latest UNHCR statistics, out of the 157,580 refugees who registered themselves with the agency in Malaysia, 31,150 are Chin.

Chins, who are mostly Christians, have been fleeing their homeland following the attempt by the majority community in Myanmar to make Buddhism the state religion, reportedly leading to their persecution on religious grounds. Many refugees have also fled complaining of arbitrary arrests, sexual assault and repression by security forces after the 1988 declaration of martial law.

Announcing its decision in a “community message” issued to the refugees in different countries on June 13, the UNHCR said, “An analysis of the political, social and security development in Chin State over the course of several years has determined there are positive developments which are durable and sustainable in nature. While the situation in Myanmar is still fluid and unstable in parts of the country, the situation in Chin State is now stable and secure from a refugee protection perspective. Based on this, UNHCR presumes the ethnic Chin refugees are safely able to avail themselves to the protection of the Myanmar government and hence are no longer in need of international protection from UNHCR.”

The “community message”, a copy of which has been accessed by The Wire, said, “UNHCR has, therefore, decided, as of August 1, 2018, to begin the process of individual cessation of refugee status for ethnic Chins from Myanmar who are assessed to not have a need for international protection. From this onward, Chins approaching UNHCR to renew their refugee card will be provided individual counselling and offered two options.”

–One, extension of the existing refugee cards till December 31, 2019, meaning they will remain under UNHCR’s protection till that date and cease to do so from January 1, 2020. Their cards would no longer be renewed.

–Two,  individuals may request for an interview if they feel they are still in need for protection, leading UNHCR to then issue a letter confirming their refugee status. A final decision in such cases would be made within two months’ time: “Based on the final decision, the status will automatically cease and the UNHCR document will no longer be extended, or refugee status confirmed along with further card renewal.”

On June 19, in a message issued specifically to the Chins registered with the agency in India, it said, “Once your refugee status ends, it will be difficult for you to live legally in India.” To help them make an informed decision, it said it would provide individual refugees ground information on the Chin State and the neighbouring Sagaing Region. From September onwards, the agency would start reaching out to the refugees residing in India to visit the registration centre at Vikaspuri and the offices of UNHCR.

They have been told that financial assistance would be provided for travel to Myanmar “and restart life” back at home. It also said it is “engaging the Myanmar embassy in India” to make sure documentation is issued to them.

Refugees residing in Delhi have expressed their displeasure at the UNHCR decision. Speaking to The Wire, Go Kap, secretary of Zomi Innkuan, Delhi, said, “In spite of a democratic transition in Myanmar, which was hailed worldwide, we don’t feel safe to return home as long as the military’s veto power remains intact. As long as the military-backed constitution exists, there will never be sustainable peace and justice in Burma.”

Pu Dongi, president of the refugees of Chin Zomi community, told this correspondent, “In Myanmar, there is no respect for the human rights of its people, no independent press, no freedom of expression, no freedom of association, no political freedom and no freedom of religion or belief. There is no rule of law, particularly in the remote areas and no independent judiciary to enforce it. A ratified constitution of the country has not been implemented since the 1962 coup of General Ne Win, which shows there is no guarantee of democracy in the country. In such a situation, how do we go back?”

Zosanglian, president of the refugees belonging to the Matu community, one of the many tribes among the Chins, added, “The constitution can’t be implemented fully due to the rise of the 969 movement which has been wreaking havoc on religious minorities. They are burning our religious places, symbols like the cross and hymn books, not just in Chin State but in Arakan and Kachin States too. Religious persecution, the main reason why people fled their homes, continues. And that’s the reason we are vehemently opposed to going back to Chin State.”

The Wire has reached out to the New Delhi office of the prominent rights advocacy group Chin Human Rights Organisation (CHRO) for a response and it will be added when received.

The UN agency’s decision has been received with opposition by the refugees not just in India but elsewhere too. Soon after news spread on June 29, hundreds of Chin refugees reportedly protested at the UNHCR offices in Malaysia. As per news reports, the demonstration in Kuala Lumpur was organised by Alliance of Chin Refugees, whose volunteers said the protest was to bring the issue to the attention of the Global Summit of Refugees to be held in Geneva next week.

The Wire was unable to gain access to UNHRC officials in New Delhi on account of the weekend. However, a UNHCR spokesperson told Star Online of Malaysia in an email statement that “in the last four years, the UNHCR has regularly met with Chin community representatives in Malaysia to discuss the changing conditions in the Chin State and to help them prepare for the eventual time when the UNHCR will no longer be able to provide refugee protection.”

“Generally, refugee status and the international protection it affords is only provided by UNHCR for the length of time it is needed,” the spokesperson said.

In November 2017, as many as 1,600 Chins, many of whom were women and children, took shelter in four border villages in Mizoram after the Myanmarese Army launched a major offensive against the Arakan Army (AA) militants in the Chin State, close to the Indian border. In December that year, the deputy commissioner of Mizoram’s Lawngtlai district conducted a registration of the refugees staying in camps.

In January, media reports said that though the Indian Army “tried to repatriate the refugees after the Myanmar Army officials said they busted the AA hideouts in Chin state and took control of the area,” most of them have refused to return “apprehending violent confrontation”.

50 Years Ago: India’s First Heart Transplant in the Time of Nehruvian Science

In 1968, India was still recovering from a debilitating colonial rule, was highly dependent on foreign aid for food and was fighting to eradicate smallpox. But such a state of affairs did not stifle the ambitions of P.K. Sen.

Earlier this year, we passed an important date: the 50th anniversary of India’s first heart transplant. A quick Google search for ‘first heart transplant in India’ yields results mostly discussing the first successful procedure, conducted in August 1994 at the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Delhi, by surgeon P. Venugopal and his team. But for the first cardiac transplantation in India, one needs to go back a few decades as well as southwest several hundred kilometres.

It is not a widely known fact that Prafulla Kumar Sen and his team performed India’s first heart transplant in Bombay in February 1968, despite it having been a momentous occasion. For P.K. Sen – and for Kavita Sivaramakrishnan and David S. Jones, both historians of medicine who have extensively researched the history of the cardiac surgery in India – this is a story of adventurers and of buccaneers.

Sen’s was a time when independent India was rapidly warming to modern science, propelled in particular by the patronage of Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s prime minister until 1964. When Sen decided to make cardiovascular history around early 1968, large scientific projects had already entered public imagination as modern ‘temples’ a la Nehru. In fact, Sen had previously performed India’s first ever operation on the heart itself, in 1952, to cure a rheumatic mitral valve.

For transplantation, Sen and his team honed their skills on canine hearts for several years. Sen visited top medical centres in the US and Russia through the 1950s and 1960s, maintaining regular communications with surgeons there and even hosting some in Bombay. He also imported devices and technologies from North America and Europe and tweaked them to suit domestic conditions conditions. The Rockefeller Foundation provided most of the funding for Sen’s foreign visits and for training his team. (Another group of researchers who received funding from the same source during this time included M.S. Swaminathan.)

After years of practice and deliberation, Sen’s team performed their (and India’s) first cardiac transplantation in February 1968. Sen became the fourth surgeon in the world to attempt a heart transplant, before in fact any surgeons in England, France, Canada, Australia, Japan or the Soviet Union. And he did it only within three months of the world’s first heart transplant. Unfortunately, the patient died soon after surgery, but the response to the procedure indicated that while the patient was lost, laurels were won. The Times of India, for example, proudly noted that “Indian doctors have the ability” to carry out this “newest feat of cardiac surgery”, while Sen’s peers from around the world sent congratulatory messages. In September the same year, Sen attempted another transplant; this patient, too, didn’t live for more than a few hours after.

As with most complex medical procedures, there are no clear right or wrong interpretations here. The patients who underwent these surgeries were already in highly morbid states and it was likely that they would have succumbed to their ailments irrespective of the operations. In fact, early transplant operations everywhere had fared so miserably in terms of patient survival that, in September 1971, Life magazine came out with a report titled ‘The Tragic Record of Heart Transplants: A New Report on an Era of Medical Failure’.

Sen’s feat had its Indian critics too. A contemporary surgeon, for example, wrote to the Times of India that “In their enthusiasm to put India on the cardiac map of the world, our surgeons should not forget that unsuccessful operations, for want of adequate post-operative care, technical expertise or organisation, would be tantamount to playing with human lives.” Nevertheless, Sen’s team had made the world sit up and take note.

Looking back at this episode from 2018, some features stand out – such as a poor India’s rich aspirations vis a vis science. India in 1968 had still been recovering from a debilitating colonial rule, was highly dependent on foreign aid for food and still struggled to eradicate smallpox. Such a state of affairs did not, however, stifle the ambitions of some.

These patriotic aspirations were best expressed by N. Banerjee, editor of the Journal of the Indian Medical Association. For the question of whether India should undertake such “risky and expensive” operations, he asserted that “India must”. It was essential to conduct “high quality work in the medical field” to reduce the gap between India and the rest of the world, and a consciousness for such work could be created only through “top-class medical centres” with full freedom and adequate finances. Indeed, many of India’s highly respected autonomous institutes, including the Indian Space Research Organisation, have their origins in this notion of Nehruvian self-sufficiency, and which we today fashionably call ‘Make in India’.

After Sen’s two operations in 1968, it wasn’t until 1994 that a heart transplant was attempted – this time successfully – in the country. This 26-year delay had its reasons. One, there was a general worldwide moratorium on heart transplants after the initial enthusiasm of 1968, as the number of failures piled up, ethical controversies intensified and surgeons awaited more reliable and safer techniques to overcome rejection reactions. Another reason was the glacial pace of change in the Indian judicial and legal systems. Heart transplantation necessitated the removal of hearts from ‘brain-dead’ patients, and that required India to formally recognise and authorise declaring patients as brain-dead. This shift in approach began only in the early 1990s, and P. Venugopal’s transplant operation in August 1994 was its first beneficiary.

The general disappearance of government centres (except AIIMS) from transplant innovation and procedures is also noteworthy. In 2015, Sen’s karmabhoomi of Mumbai saw its first successful heart transplant – but in a private, corporate hospital. Last month, Kolkata celebrated its first heart transplant, which also happened in a private hospital. A trajectory once embarked upon in the dingy but ambitious wards and offices of a corporation hospital (King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai) is now dominated by the private sector, and that says something about how India’s healthcare system has evolved and where it is headed.

Importantly, as has been shown by the surgeon Sanjay Nagral, this state of affairs puts India’s poor at a disadvantage when it comes to life-saving transplants.

Another relevant aspect of Sen’s work in an India permeated with a regressive nationalist milieu is his forward-looking patriotism. We do not know much about his personality and philosophy, but his writings, speeches and work suggest a tendency towards a patriotism that emphasises the improvement of the present and the creation of a better future. This was and is an important counter to the tendency of imagining a better future by obsessing over and ‘reviving’ a glorious past (real, exaggerated and or made-up). Among other things, the latter obsession often ends up diverting precious public funds away from promising research and driving promising researchers out of India.

In a country where constitutionally responsible ministers are busy marrying frogs to bring rains on the one hand while scientists are lamenting the sorry state of research on the other, such tales of the scientific temper could provide some succour to besieged, protesting scientists.

Kiran Kumbhar is a physician and health policy graduate engaged in public health awareness through writing.

India Welcomes Decision to Put Pakistan Back on Terror-Financing Watch List

Inclusion in the Financial Action Task Force’s ‘grey list’ means that Pakistan’s financial system is seen as a risk for being ineffective in combating terror funding and money laundering.

New Delhi: Welcoming the ‘grey-listing’ of Pakistan by the global illicit financing watchdog, India hoped on Saturday that Pakistan will honour its commitment on curbing activities of UN-designated terrorists and groups.

At the end of the third plenary meeting, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) president Santiago Otamendi announced the outcomes, which included a separate section on Pakistan.

“FATF has identified Pakistan as a jurisdiction with strategic AML/CFT (anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism) deficiencies,” said the statement.

Inclusion in the ‘grey list’ means that Pakistan’s financial system is seen as a risk for being ineffective in combating terror funding and money laundering. Once placed on the watch list, the country will come under extra scrutiny from the FATF on the implementation of the mutually-negotiated action plan.

Pakistan had previously been on the ‘grey list’ for three years before being removed from the monitoring process in 2015.

The decision to put Pakistan on the ‘grey list’ was taken at FATF’s February plenary, but it came into effect only from June, after the watchdog and Islamabad agreed upon on an ‘action plan’ to address “strategic deficiencies”.

The FATF statement noted that Pakistan had developed “an action plan with the FATF to address the most serious deficiencies”. It pointed out that Pakistan had given a “high level of political commitment” to implement the action plan for removal from the ‘grey list’.

In its response, India welcomed the decision, but also noted that Pakistan has been lax in implementing FATF standards, especially with regard to 26/11 mastermind and UN-designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed, who is being allowed to operate openly.

“Pakistan has given a high level political commitment to address the global concerns regarding its implementation of the FATF standards for countering terror financing and anti-money laundering, especially in respect of UN designated and internationally proscribed terror entities and individuals. The freedom and impunity with which the designated terrorists like Hafiz Saed and entities like Jamaat-Ud-Dawaa, Lashkar-e-Tayabba, Jaish-e-Mohammed continue to operate in Pakistan is not in keeping with such commitments,” said Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar.

He added that India hoped that the “FATF action plan shall be complied with in a time bound manner and credible measures would be taken by Pakistan to address global concerns related to terrorism emanating from any territory under its control.”

The action plan submitted by Pakistan has 26 points, including demonstrating that targeted financial sanctions against all UN-designated terrorists have been implemented.

Pakistan has also committed to taking steps to stop these individuals and groups from raising funds, and freezing their assets.

(8) demonstrating effective implementation of targeted financial sanctions (supported by a comprehensive legal obligation) against all 1267 and 1373 designated terrorists and those acting for or on their behalf, including preventing the raising and moving of funds, identifying and freezing assets (movable and immovable), and prohibiting access to funds and financial services.

UNSC 1267 refers to a resolution passed by the Security Council in 1999 which requires all member states to freeze financial resources of individuals and entities on a list. Two years later, UNSC adopted resolution 1373, which established a counter-terrorism committee and called upon states to deny support to terror groups, including taking effective steps to combat terrorism.

The reference to “comprehensive legal obligation” in the action plan includes pressing charges against and prosecuting these designated terrorists.

The other ‘objectives’ in Pakistan’s action plan include cracking down on “cash couriers” and ensuring that facilities and services owned or controlled by designated terrorists are deprived of resources.

Pakistani foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said on Friday that inclusion was “nothing new”.

“In February 2018, during the FATF plenary session in Paris, it was agreed that Pakistan will be included in the ‘grey list’ in June 2018. Therefore, what is being reported in media recently is nothing new. It was also agreed in February that an Action Plan would be negotiated between Pakistan and FATF members by June. This has been done. Pakistan will work towards effective implementation of the action plan, while staying in the grey list. A similar situation took place in 2011 when Pakistan was included in the grey list and was taken out in 2015 after it successfully implemented the Action Plan,” said the spokesperson.

On June 8, the action plan was approved by Pakistan’s National Security Council, which includes not just the civilian government but also top military leadership.

Pakistan had taken some steps in the last few months in the run-up to the FATF plenary, which included amending the Anti-Terrorism Act, clamping down on affiliates of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and approving new regulations.

However, Islamabad’s case was weakened with Saeed publicly entering the ‘mainstream’, with Jamaat-ud-Dawa opening a political office in Lahore and his kin filing nominations to stand for elections.

Jamaat-ed-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed. Credit: Reuters/Caren Firouz/File Photo

Jamaat-ed-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed. Credit: Reuters/Caren Firouz/File Photo

Both Saeed and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba feature in the UN 1267/1989 Committee’s Consolidated List. In 2012, the US treasury department had indicted the Lashkar-e-Tayabba leadership, which includes Saeed’s son Talha Saeed and son-in-law Hafiz Khalid Walid, both of whom are contesting on tickets of the little-known Allah-o-Akbar Tehreek.

The US spearheaded the move which led to the FATF plenary in February assigning Pakistan to the ‘grey list’, despite opposition from some quarters.

On Friday, the US state department spokesperson told PTI that Pakistan needs to take a “number of comprehensive actions on CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism) including the raising and moving of funds of UN-designated terrorist groups”.

“We strongly encourage Pakistan to work with FATF and the international community to meet its CFT obligations, including fulfilling its commitments under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 to freeze and prevent the raising and moving of funds belonging to or associated with UN-designated terrorist groups,” added the spokesperson

She welcomed Pakistan’s “high level political commitment” to address the “weakness in its CFT regime”.

China was one of the few countries, along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which had opposed the move in February to put Pakistan on the ‘grey list’. However, the US managed to get Saudi Arabia to defect, leaving China and Turkey isolated. This led China to reconsider its position and withdrew its objection, as Beijing’s policy in international organisations has largely been to follow the prevailing consensus. This came as a shock to Islamabad, since China had previously backed Pakistan by not allowing the listing of Jaish-e-Mohammed supremo Maulana Masood Azhar by the UNSC 1267 sanctions committee.

Even as he refused to specifically comment on the decision by the international watchdog, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang praised Islamabad for having made “enormous efforts and sacrifices”.

“I would like to reiterate that Pakistan has made enormous efforts and sacrifices for the counter-terrorism cause against all odds. The international community should view Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts in an objective and impartial way and give Pakistan more recognition and support so as to promote the international counter-terrorism cooperation in a more effective way,” he said.

Football World Cup: Sexism in British Punditry Is More Visible Than Ever

Male pundits have been accused of patronising, being condescending and using sexist language on air.

For the first time in UK football punditry, both the BBC and ITV have hired women to offer analyses and commentate at the men’s World Cup. It is also the World Cup that has given a clear glimpse into the reality of everyday sexism. Already, male pundits have been accused of patronising, being condescending and using sexist language on air. Meanwhile, a male ex-footballer has complained about women being employed for commentating because of the “pitch” of their voices.

This World Cup, you may have seen or listened to some new female pundits and commentators. Eniola Aluko, who plays for England and Juventus, has been offering detailed analysis for ITV, while Alex Scott, the former Arsenal player, has been working for the BBC. During a game between Costa Rica and Serbia, after Aluko gave in-depth analysis of Costa Rica’s play, her fellow pundit on the show, Patrice Evra, responded by slow clapping.

Patrice Evra is accused of sexism.

A few moments later, after another contribution by Aluko, Evra said to the other male pundit, Henrik Larsson: “This is just amazing, I think we should leave Henrik because she knows more about football than us! I’m really impressed you know.” The incident led to calls for Evra to be sacked and invited attention on the reality of sexism in British football culture.

A week later, Vicki Sparks became the first woman to commentate on a World Cup game. During the match, Sparks’ co-presenter Dan Walker congratulated her. Essentially, a woman pundit is so unusual, presenters and men on the panel feel they have to comment on her presence and her competence and not engage with what she is saying. Does Gary Lineker ever say, on the BBC’s Match of the Day: “Well done Alan (Shearer). You know a lot about football”? No, they just talk about football.

A few days after the match, on prime-time television, former Chelsea player Jason Cundy, complained that Sparks’ voice was “too high” for his tastes. Meanwhile, the former editor of the Independent, Simon Kelner, wrote a column arguing that including women pundits is “like getting netball players to comment on major league basketball”. His remarks were greeted with disdain after he tweeted a link to the piece.

Sexism is still routine in football. Women remain very underprivileged in the game.

Vicki Sparks is criticised for the tone of her voice.

The online world erupted at the sexist incidents, with calls for Evra to be fired. In 2018, the public rejection of outdated sexist comments came from everywhere, even publications less likely to cover football, such as fashion magazines.

In the footsteps of others

Of course, these aren’t the first incidents of sexism in British football punditry. Women have faced discrimination as they fought for meaningful punditry positions. When broadcaster Jacqui Oatley became the first female commentator on Match of the Day in 2007, the media’s response was “from Motty to Totty”.

What is different this time is that these incidents follow a year of feminist movements, such as #MeToo and “Everyday Sexism”. In the outraged response to these incidents, we are seeing the change that these movements have achieved.

Everyday Sexism catalogues acts of sexism in daily life. It makes visible the routine relatively minor acts as well as those which include overt aggression. This grassroots social media movement challenges patriarchal ideas, that are often taken for granted, about gender roles.

The #MeToo movement has had a huge impact on a wide range of social worlds and industries, from Hollywood, in the now infamous Harvey Weinstein case, to charity fundraising such as the men only Presidents’ Club dinner in London. 

These movements are affecting the gender politics of sport also. Natalia Vodianova, a Russian supermodel and human rights activist, directly invoked the #MeToo movement when she expressed support for women who are trying to break into the masculine world of football and media punditry.

Debate about sexual politics and sexism has shifted the debate onto gender in the press box rather than on the pitch. Gendered characteristics such as voice should not be invoked to exclude women from punditry, just as “strength” and “body size” are used to exclude women on the field. Although the majority of pundits recognise the absurdity of traditional exclusions, there are those who feel threatened by the arrival of eager well-informed women.

We are witnessing change, but it is slow. This is the first World Cup where women have won the opportunity to present analysis that has some weight. Of course, the struggle is not over. There has been no massive transformation, but since “MeToo” there is greater awareness of gender inequality. Serious women pundits are more visible and audible and the now rather tedious formula of male, macho punditry is being threatened. At the end of the day, everyone should be invited to the celebration of football.

Kath Woodward, Professor of Sociology, The Open University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

If Modi Govt Thinks It Has Credibility, Why Release Surgical Strikes Video, Asks Arun Shourie

The former Union minister talks to The Wire about the Centre’s ‘event-driven’ outlook, the situation in Kashmir and more.

Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar: Hello. Today we have with us former Union minister and senior journalist Mr Arun Shourie, who was in the news recently for his comment that the strike that India carried out against Pakistan last year was ‘farzical’. A lot of people have criticised him, but we would like to know from Mr Shourie what he actually thinks about it.

Welcome to The Wire, sir.

Sir, during the launch of Mr Saifuddin Soz’s book on Kashmir, you were quoted as saying the ‘surgical strike’ which the Indian Army carried out last year in Pakistan was ‘farzical’. What exactly did you mean by that, because the statement has come under severe criticism from a lot of quarters.

Arun Shourie: You know, I think people twist words. I have said it at that time, many times in between and am saying it again now – it’s not that the strike did not take place. But to use a strike which take place sometimes, occasionally – and I know from my personal experience that it took place during Atalji’s (Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s) time, so when Mr Jaswant Singh and George Fernandes were the ministers – you should not use it for propaganda purpose, as was being done. Because then you are making out of a necessary instrument, a farce. And that is what make it a farzical strike, not that strike did not take place or that the strike is not necessary or that the strike was not carried out efficiently – nothing like that. But when you make it a propaganda device…

A good example you will recall, in Bhutan if we go against ULFA, in a strike, you would say it was done by the Bhutanese Army. But obviously it was done by the cooperation of both armies – we don’t talk about it. Similarly, there was a strike in Myanmar. It was almost certainly done with the tacit understanding of the Myanmar Army, that you please look the other way, we will deal with these fellows. But when we started proclaiming ‘Oh we have done a strike, strike, strike’, naturally the Myanmar government has to say that nothing like this happened.

The same way here – yes they have done something diabolic and evil in Pathankot and Uri. So then you must send a signal to the Pakistan security establishment and that is what was done. But when you start proclaiming that that this evidence that ‘Humne unka muh tod jawab de diya, unki kamar tod di‘, naturally you are compelling him to show that he also has a 56-inch chest.

Second thing that I had said at that time also and I have repeated again, a strike like this does not deal with the main problem, let us say in this case of infiltration. For that you should secure our bases, you should secure our border. And you see what the vice chief has said in his testimony to the defence committee of parliament, headed by none other than General (B.C.) Khanduri of the BJP himself. What did they say? The vice chief said that our bases are being attacked, our cantonments are being attacked in Pathankot and Uri, and please give us the money. The Budget showed that there is provision of approximately Rs 17,400 crore, but he told the committee that actually speaking, though they say this in the Budget, but not one rupee has been given. There is not a provision of one rupee in that. The committee headed by General Khanduri then says that here ‘Hearing the vice chief’s testimony, we are aghast’. So that is what you should have done, protecting our bases, not tom-toming a strike.

GVB: You made a mention of how during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s regime also our forces had gone inside Pakistan and carried out a similar operation. How is that different from this one?

AS: I would not like to talk about it because the army does not talk about those things, the government did not talk about it, the defence ministers dis not talk about it. Because what is the need? You want to send a signal to the other army, you have given it. Finished. But when you pervert it, the you are using the army.

GVB: There is some mention that during that operation we had brought some mementos…

AS: Yes, but I would not like to say anything about it. But the army knows what it did.

Montage of images from the video footage of the September 2016 surgical strikes by the Indian Army inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Credit: RSTV

GVB: Likewise in 2015, following the killing of 18 of our soldiers in Manipur, when the Indian Army had gone inside Myanmar and carried out an operation in which a large number of NSCN(IM) group militants were killed, so at that point of time Myanmar was compelled to say that ‘No, the operation never took place’.

AS: Precisely, because we started tom-toming it. Supposing we had kept quiet. Now you have killed the culprits and the other side knows, you have given a signal to the rebels you will not stand nonsense – that is the purpose. But you want to use this for propaganda…

GVB: So the problem lies in trying to gain political capital out of it.

AS: Yes. These are necessary instruments. Quietly, every intelligence agency does these things, every armed force does these things, we have been doing them.

GVB: During the book launch, you made a mention of how there is no improvement on the ground situation and how sooner or later people would realise that the Kashmir unrest would affect the entire nation. So what exactly did you mean by that?

AS: You see, there are two-three things, if you want to go into this.

One is, that if you will look at the body counts from the 1990s, when 3,000 or 4,000 people were being killed, and now 130-150 people are being killed in a year. It’s naturally very different. But that has been different from a very long time.

Second, in this, the maximum number of people who are killed are militants, then our security personnel and then civilians. And many of the civilians are actually being killed on the border by cross-border firing. So these are the good things.

The difficult things are, I mean where the situation has become much worse, is first that most of the militants who are now wielding the gun not from across Pakistan, but they are our own people. This is terrible.

Second is that a cycle has started. Say a person is killed – precisely because he is a local boy, at his funeral, a large number of civilians turn out, shouting slogans, pelting stones, there is anger. Then, two or three persons in the procession will then get so agitated, they will say ‘I am getting out of this and I am joining the militants’. So this becomes a Gaza-like self-feeding cycle. This is very bad.

The third point, which was made to me by a very great expert on our national security, he said that now, leaders of political parties as well as leaders of the Hurriyat have lost legitimacy. And therefore we are even further away from starting a political process than we were earlier on. So that is a bad thing. So these are the real developments in Kashmir which are troublesome.

Policemen detain a Kashmiri student during a protest in Srinagar on April 24, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Danish Ismail

Policemen detain a Kashmiri student during a protest in Srinagar on April 24, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Danish Ismail

GVB: Following the collapse of the coalition government over there, there are indications that the forces might adopt a more aggressive stance. You were quoted as saying that it would not be wise to use ‘foolish force’.

AS: No no no. Actually contrary. I said that the first thing is to realise is, anybody who wields a gun will have to be dealt with by a gun. And that does not mean using minimum force as everyone says, you have to use overwhelming force. But you must not use force foolishly. And I gave an example, that supposing you can use a water cannon and you use tear gas, and where you can use tear gas, you use pellets which blinds youngsters. Then that is not a minimum force or maximum force, it is the foolish use of force.

GVB: Excessive force, basically.

AS: It’s not excessive force. It’s the foolish use of force. Instead of doing this, you are doing something foolish. That was the point.

GVB: You also said that the Modi government is basically election-oriented and it does not have policies, it only believes in events and campaigns.

AS: Two things. Firstly, it is event-driven – one is that it believes only in events, and you can see Mr Modi doing events all these all the time. But the other is that it’s so-called ‘policy’ – it has no policy, on Pakistan, on China, on Nepal, on Sri Lanka, on Maldives, certainly not on Kashmir, not on nanks. So it has no policy, it is event-driven.

If something happens like Nirav Modi, they say we will do this, that and the other on banking. Similarly, in the case of Kashmir, you said okay, I have a ceasefire. Now obviously, when you declare a ceasefire, you have something long-term in mind. For instance, I remember Mr Advani’s phrase at the time when the NDA government had announced a ceasefire. He said, ‘We must get people accustomed to life in peace. What a peaceful life, is so that they will then not support the resurrection of violence.’ It was a very interesting remark.

Now here you declare a ceasefire. Two people are killed, you call off this cease fire and say ‘See, now see I am tiger.’ Then you are event-driven and that means that what you will do is in the hands of the other fellow. If he kills two persons, he knows you will finish the ceasefire. That was the point.

GVB: So finally considering that probably the remarks you made will have not been taken in the right spirit, how do you view this release of the latest video from the army on the surgical strikes?

AS: Well I can’t understand how anybody would doubt that there was a strike, so if they are releasing a video now, that does not prove that there was a strike. There was a strike of course, everybody, knows but it shows you something about the government’s own assessment of its own lack of credibility, that nobody believes us therefore we need to take out a video. What a sorry state of affairs – first you exaggerate a thing, then you see oho nobody believes me, and then you are drilling it in with ‘video, video, video’. Next they will bring some certificates from the Pakistan Army saying ‘Yes yes, there was a strike.’ That just shows their own assessment that they have no credibility.

GVB: Thank you so much for joining us at The Wire.

AS: Thank you.

Vijay Mallya Summoned by Special Court Under Fugitive Offenders Ordinance

If Mallya does not appear before the court, he risks being declared a fugitive economic offender, besides properties linked to him being confiscated.

Mumbai: A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court here on June 30 summoned beleaguered liquor baron Vijay Mallya to appear before it on August 27 on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking action against him under the fugitive economic offenders ordinance in the over Rs 9,000 crore bank fraud case.

Special judge M.S. Azmi, dealing with the PMLA cases, issued the notice to Mallya after taking cognisance of the second ED charge-sheet filed against him recently and a subsequent application by it on June 22 seeking a fugitive economic offenders tag.

This is the first time that action has been initiated under the ordinance recently promulgated by the Modi government to deal with fugitive bank loan defaulters.

The agency has also sought immediate confiscation of assets worth around Rs 12,500 crore of Mallya and other fugitive economic offenders, they said.

If Mallya does not appear before the court, he risks being declared a fugitive economic offender, besides properties linked to him being confiscated.

The court had earlier issued non-bailable warrants against the beleaguered businessman in the two cases filed by the ED.

Mallya, his now defunct venture Kingfisher Airlines Limited and others availed loans from various banks during the tenure of the UPA-I government and the outstanding amount, including interest, against him is Rs 9,990.07 crore at present, officials said.

Mallya had recently said that he has become the “poster boy” of bank default and a lightning rod for public anger.

He said he had written letters to both the prime minister and the finance minister on April 15, 2016 to explain his side of the story.

“No response was received from either of them,” Mallya, who is based in London, had said in a statement.

“I have been accused by politicians and the media alike of having stolen and run away with Rs 9,000 crores that was loaned to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA). Some of the lending banks have also labelled me a wilful defaulter,” he said.

The ED has furnished evidences in its two charge sheets, filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the past, to make a case for seeking a fugitive offender tag for Mallya from the court.

Mallya is contesting the money laundering charges in London after India initiated extradition proceedings against the liquor baron to bring him back to the country.

Both the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have filed cases for alleged loan default against him.

The Modi government brought the ordinance as “there have been instances of economic offenders fleeing the jurisdiction of Indian courts, anticipating the commencement, or during the pendency, of criminal proceedings”.

The ordinance has provisions for special courts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to declare a person as a fugitive economic offender and order immediate confiscation of assets.

“A fugitive economic offender is a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued in respect of a scheduled offence and who has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution, or being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution,” the government said.

The cases of frauds, cheque dishonour or loan default of over Rs 100 crore would come under the ambit of the ordinance.

The measure offers necessary constitutional safeguards in terms of providing hearing to the person through counsel, allowing him time to file a reply, serving notice of summons to him, whether in India or abroad and appeal before a high court.

The Dangerous Use of Dehumanising Language in Political Discourse

Dehumanising insults have become more common in political discourse. Psychology research has shown that they can prime us for violence – and even change our brains.

Comparing people to animals seems to increasingly be a part of our political discourse.

When Roseanne Barr tweeted that former White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was the child of an ape, it came only a couple of weeks after Donald Trump called immigrant gang members, “animals.”

Trump has been a target himself: On the cover of its April 2 issue, New York Magazine depicted the president as a pig.

As a psychologist who studies social attitudes and intergroup relations, I get a bit uneasy when I see these types of insults get normalised. At their core, they’re a way to dehumanise others – a practice that can have pernicious effects.

In a range of studies, psychologists have been able to show how dehumanising messages can influence how we think about and treat people.

In one study, after researchers subtly primed participants to associate black people with apes, the participants became more likely to tolerate aggressive, violent policing of black criminal suspects. Another study exposed participants to metaphors comparing women to animals. The participants subsequently showed a spike in hostile sexism.

Dehumanisation has also been associated with an increased willingness to perpetrate violence.

One set of studies found that men who showed stronger automatic associations between women and animals reported a greater proclivity to sexually harass and assault women. Other work has shown that those who dehumanise Arab people are more supportive of violent counterterrorism tactics: torture, targeting civilians and even bombing entire countries.

At its most extreme, dehumanising messages and propaganda can facilitate support for war and genocide. It’s long been used to justify violence and destruction of minorities. We famously saw it in the Holocaust, when Nazi propaganda referred to Jewish people as vermin, and we saw it during the Rwandan genocide, when the Tutsi people were referred to as cockroaches. In fact, international nongovernmental organisations consider dehumanising speech one of the precursors to genocide.

Why are dehumanisation and violence so closely connected? As social creatures, we’re wired to empathise with our fellow human beings, and we get uncomfortable when we see someone suffering.

Once someone is dehumanised, we usually deny them the consideration, compassion and empathy that we typically give other people. It can relax our instinctive aversion to aggression and violence.

Studies have found that once a person has dehumanised another person or group, they’re less likely to consider their thoughts and feelings.

For example, Americans tend to dehumanise homeless people. In one study, experimenters asked participants to describe a day in the life of a homeless person, a college student and a firefighter. Respondents were much less likely to mention the homeless person’s emotional state.

Dehumanisation can even affect our brains: When we look at people we’ve dehumanised, there’s less activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which is the area of the brain responsible for social processing.

Roseanne might have claimed her tweet was nothing more than a flippant Ambien-induced barb. Some may have chuckled at New York Magazine’s caricature of Trump.

The ConversationBut the pervasive use of dehumanising language is a slippery slope that can ultimately cause tremendous harm – and that’s no joke.

Allison Skinner is a psychology researcher at Northwestern University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Inhumane Conditions in Assam Detention Camps, Alleges NELECC Civil Society

Some of the members of North East Linguistic and Ethnic Coordination Committee (NELECC) claimed that detained people were being kept in the “same premises” as jail inmates.

New Delhi: A Silchar-based civil society on June 29 alleged that the condition of detention camps in Assam was “inhumane” and “lacked basic amenities” even as it urged the Centre to ensure detainees were not treated like regular jail inmates.

At a press conference held here, some of the members of North East Linguistic and Ethnic Coordination Committee (NELECC) also claimed that detained people were being kept in the “same premises” as jail inmates.

“The condition of the camps is inhumane. They do not have basic amenities, and lack hygiene,” NELECC member Subhranshu Bhattacharya alleged.

“We urge the Centre to ensure that camps are separated from jail premises. Detainees should not be treated like criminals,” he said.

The Assam-based civil society also said that rumours were being floated around that the final draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam will not be released on June 30.

The member of NELECC also spoke about the issues of the NRC and said in Delhi, they have already met home minister Rajnath Singh and minister of state for external affairs General (retd.) V.K. Singh.

“In the meeting (day before yesterday), we also told the home minister about the difficulties faced by people in the detention camps,” Bhattacharya said.

Assam, which faced influx of people from Bangladesh since the early 20th century, is the only state having an NRC, first prepared in 1951.

Chief minister Sarbananda Sonowal had yesterday said that names of all “genuine Indians” would be incorporated in the list of the state’s citizens.

Sonowal had ruled out any possibility of violence after the publication of the NRC, saying adequate forces would be deployed across the state to deal with any situation.

The chief minister said the state government has provided all assistance to the NRC authorities and people too have been extending full cooperation to the entire exercise, which is being undertaken under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court.

When the NRC was first prepared in Assam way back in 1951, the state had 80 lakh citizens.

The process of identification of illegal immigrants in Assam has been debated and become a contentious issue in the state’s politics.

A six-year agitation demanding identification and deportation of illegal immigrants was launched by the AASU in 1979. It culminated with the signing of the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985, in the presence of then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.