Narendra Modi sworn in for second term as India’s Prime Minister

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was formally sworn in Thursday, May 29th for a second straight term in office, following a landslide victory in national elections that cemented his grip on power in the world’s largest democracy.

He took his oath of office for the second time at New Delhi’s imposing Presidential Palace, known here as the Rashtrapati Bhavan, along with several members of his new council of ministers.

Modi, his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their allies won a total of 349 seats out of 545 in the Parliament’s lower house earlier this month. The resounding win followed a seven-week long election that saw the Prime Minister adopt an increasingly nationalist posture — a marked departure from the focus on economic reform during his first campaign back in 2014.

The result defied even the most optimistic predictions by BJP supporters. Modi is the first Indian leader since the 1970s to secure a second straight term with a clear parliamentary majority.

Modi’s new team includes Amit Shah, his closest political ally and the BJP party president credited with engineering the party’s electoral wins, who makes a formal entry into government with his appointment as a minister. Another new entrant, S Jaishankar, a former top civil servant in India’s foreign ministry, was also sworn in as a minister.

Security remained tight around the massive presidential mansion in New Delhi, as national leaders and other dignitaries arrived. In a clear sign of the magnitude of Mr. Modi’s victory — his Bharatiya Janata Party was the first in more than three decades to win a clear majority in consecutive elections — officials said that his swearing-in was the largest event ever held on the mansion’s 300-acre grounds.

The guest list at the two-hour ceremony struck a balance between the ascent of Mr. Modi’s party as the country’s dominant political force, and Mr. Modi’s ambitions of projecting India as a global power, particularly in a region where China has made deep inroads. The list of foreign leaders indicated that Modi would continue to focus on “neighbors first”: It included leaders from Bhutan, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Modi’s latest election campaign was dogged with questions on his government’s poor economic performance and the agrarian crisis that has been unfolding across the country.

Analysts say economic policy will be an important area to watch as Modi begins his new term, after a campaign dominated by talk of Hindu nationalism that made many minorities and secular liberals nervous.

“On one hand, I do believe they are likely committed to turning around the macroeconomic indicators in this country, but on the other hand can they resist the populist tendencies that naturally comes with this kind of mandate and the electoral pressures that exist?” said Neelanjan Sircar, senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research.

“It is very hard for a government to do something that is not electorally popular and paradoxically when you have a mandate like this it is even harder,” he added.

The BJP picked up 303 seats in the elections, a jump from 282 five years ago. The principal opposition Congress Party led by Rahul Gandhi, which suffered its worst-ever defeat in 2014, only marginally improved its strength in parliament, raising questions about the leadership of what was once seen as the natural party of government.

Modi picks Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, a China expert and former envoy to U.S. to steer India’s foreign policy

Former foreign secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar was the surprise addition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet on Thursday, taking oath ahead of several Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders who held key posts in the previous government.

Jaishankar, the son of one of India’s foremost strategic thinkers, K Subrahmanyam, had joined the Tata Group as president of global corporate affairs after his stint as the foreign secretary from January 2015 to January 2018.

He is considered to be very close to the prime minister and was part of a troika with Modi and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval that played a major role in shaping foreign policy in the early years of the last NDA government.

The government announced S. Jaishankar, a former foreign secretary, would take over the portfolio from Sushma Swaraj, the ruling party’s veteran leader, who has had health issues.

The handing of the ministry to the veteran diplomat, who has been ambassador to both the United States and China, could be Modi’s most astute move as he seeks to pursue a stronger U.S. relationship and to intensify efforts to strengthen Chinese ties.

Jaishankar was a key negotiator during a tense border dispute with China in 2017, the most serious and prolonged standoff in decades along the disputed Himalayan frontier.

“He is a trusted aide to the prime minister,” said a source with close knowledge of the matter, who declined to be identified as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He could also prove to be a calming influence in efforts to repair India’s problematic relationship with Pakistan that almost spiralled out of control this year, a second source with close knowledge of the situation said.

“He has a good feel for the relationship. He visited Pakistan in the Modi regime, and will be a positive force in managing this equation,” the second source said.

Jaishankar worked on a landmark 2008 deal with the United States that ended a three-decade ban on U.S. nuclear trade with India. He later took up the post of ambassador in Washington.

“It’s a perfect choice for the job, and somebody with hands-on experience who can assist the prime minister in pursuing his initiatives,” said Lalit Mansingh, a former foreign secretary.

Modi says India’s minorities are living in world of imaginary fear. Minorities disagree

On May 23, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi won another landslide victory in the country’s mammoth general elections. He was sworn in as Prime Minister again on Thursday, ushering in another five years of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rule.

While much of the country celebrated the stunning victory of a man who has promised economic reform and development, others, especially minorities and liberals, have grown increasingly concerned about the impact of the BJP’s Hindu nationalist background on the country’s secular fabric.

The BJP has its roots in the right wing-Hindu group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — of which Modi is a member — and many of its members are adherents of the Hindutva ideology that promotes a Hindu-first India. It’s a stance that worries liberals and minorities, including more than 170 million Indian Muslims in a country of 1.3 billion people.

Minorities and liberals have grown increasingly concerned about the impact of the BJP’s Hindu nationalist background on India’s secular fabric. The violence has cast a pall over many communities and the family said, though they haven’t been impacted themselves, they will not take what they see as a risk and travel.

“There are a lot of effects (from nationalism), majorly on Muslims and it’s going to get worse,” a member of the minority community in Delhi, was quoted as saying. Several members of India’s Muslim community say they don’t feel safe traveling to other towns and villages.

Attacks under the name of “cow protection” have risen since Modi came to power, according to a Human Rights Watch report. The group said that between May 2015 and December 2018, 44 people suspected of killing or transporting cows for slaughter, or even just eating beef, were killed in vigilante attacks. That number included 36 Muslims.

Human Rights Watch said many of the murders went unpunished in part due to delayed police investigations and “rhetoric” from ruling party politicians, which may have incited mob violence.

“Muslims are scared, very scared,” said Alauddin. “The cow protectors, what they have done in all these places. Muslims are affected.” In Old Delhi, Mateen said goats and buffalo used to be slaughtered in the neighborhood, but no longer. “Everything has to go to the slaughterhouse and then the meat is transported here. They are shifting the slaughter house further away,” Mateen said.

It’s not just cow vigilantes that are cause for concern, according to activists. Human Rights Watch South Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly points to a larger theme of right wing nationalists targeting anyone they disagree with, saying many Indians — not just Muslims — now fear a “culture of mob violence.”

“BJP’s supporters have attacked people whether it is to oppose an inter-community relationship, or because they claim to be protecting cows, or simply for their religious identity. They have also disrupted meetings, book readings or film screenings, and threatened activists, because they are ‘offended,’ and declared that opposing views are ‘anti-national,'” she said.

In August, Modi condemned the vigilante attacks and has called on the states to prevent mob violence. “I want to make it clear that mob lynching is a crime, no matter the motive,” Modi said. “No person can, under any circumstances, take the law into his own hand and commit violence.” Yet reports of mob attacks continue.

“We are not safe going to other towns or villages,” said Mateen. “We are not safe. We see in the news, it’s very scary actually. That’s why we won’t go.”

Yusuf Qureshi, president of the Muslim All India Jamiatul Quresh Action Committee, which provides legal aid and support to India’s Muslims, said the problems faced by minorities under Modi run deep.

“They are closing all opportunities for us — education, employment — all the doors are being shut.” He repeated Modi’s motto used during campaigning, “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas,” which means “everyone together, development together. If you want us together with you, then give us development also,” he said.

Rise of right-wing groups

In 2014, Modi was elected with a massive mandate to reduce corruption and create jobs. He also promised to be a champion of minorities. But the appointment of hardline nationalists to key posts during his first term had observers questioning these promises.

In 2017, Yogi Adityanath was made chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, the largest and key election state with almost 40 million Muslims. Adityanath, a hardline Hindu ascetic who is known for anti-Muslim comments, has called for India to become a Hindu state, and has expressed views against inter-faith marriage.

BJP President and Modi’s right hand man Amit Shah called Muslim migrants from Bangladesh “infiltrators” and “termites” and promised to “remove every single infiltrator from the country, except Buddha, Hindus and Sikhs.”

India’s minorities fear return of Modi

He promised to do so by implementing the National Register of Citizens nationwide. The NRC is a hugely controversial policy mooted last year in Assam, a region of India which shares a porous border with Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, the BJP-picked Pragya Singh Thakur, who was elected to Parliament in recent elections, and is currently facing terrorism charges connected to a bomb attack on Muslims several years ago. Thakur denies the charges.

The BJP has portrayed the case against her as a conspiracy by its opponents to tar the country’s Hindu community. However, as campaigning ended in the 2019 election, Thakur made headlines again when local media quoted her as calling the hardline Hindu who murdered independence leader Mahatma Gandhi a patriot.

The party censured her and initiated disciplinary action, she apologized and Modi, speaking to a local television network, said he would never be able to forgive her. But she remains one of the BJP’s flag-bearers. “They are all very dangerous people are running India,” said Alauddin.

Modi’s own track record with the Muslim community has come under intense scrutiny. A few months after Modi assumed office in Gujarat in late 2001, the state was rocked by riots, in which more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed.

Modi was criticized for not doing enough to halt the violence, but was not charged with a crime. The US State Department denied Modi a visa in 2005 over the issue.

There are fears among minorities and activists that another five years of Modi will embolden right wing Hindu groups, which observers say have become more vocal during Modi’s first term.

Alauddin fears the right wing will grow. “When they come to power, nobody is going to move them. They can do anything — whatever they like.”

Human Rights Watch’s Ganguly said the old Delhi family is not alone in its fears. “There is great concern that Hindu extremists engage in violence because they believe they enjoy political patronage,” she said. “It is for the state to uphold rule of law, including to take action against those that might back the ruling party’s political ideology.”

Speaking to members of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance in parliament’s Central Hall this week, Modi promised to win the trust of minorities.

“Vote bank politics created this imagined fear, this imagined atmosphere and an environment of dread was created,” he said. “In 2019, I am coming to you responsibly with a certain expectation; I am standing in front of the constitution with my head bowed and making this plea to you. We need to break this deception.”

But Yusuf Qureshi questioned whether Modi has the will, or even the power, to halt the right-wing or extremist elements of his support base. “He has said these things but the organizations associated with the BJP — which harass us — they are not under his control it seems. Every day we see incidents circulating on social media where minorities are being beaten and abused, he should be able to control them and punish them,” said Yusuf Qureshi.

“Based on the past five years, I think there is no point in trusting unless he does something substantial — gives us educational opportunities, gives us employment.”

Ultimately, the family is concerned about what kind of India their children will grow up in. “They are not secure,” said Adnan Qureshi, of the Old Delhi family. “We are worried about our next generation and their next generation. They are not at all secure in any means. If Hindutva comes, then we have no means to live. No power, nothing.”

Amit Shah, India’s invisible prime minister, gets more powerful — and dangerous

(By Rana Ayyub: Courtesy — The Washington Post)

On May 17, just before the end of the election season, Indian journalists were abuzz with news that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would give his first-ever press conference. Modi has been the only prime minister in the history of independent India not to take questions from the press. But instead of a news conference, Modi delivered a monologue. When asked to take questions, he looked to his left, to Amit Shah, then president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Shah would answer all questions, Modi said.

Shah stepped up, as he has done for Modi for years now. He is the second-most-powerful man in India. Many in the party call him the invisible prime minister. Shah is Modi’s shadow, loyal attack dog, spokesman and campaign strategist. He has now been named home minister, one of the most influential cabinet positions.

Shah, 54, has been a Modi loyalist since the ′90s. They go back to Modi’s early days in Gujarat, when Modi was not content with being general secretary of his party — he wanted power. In 2001, a few years after his arrival, Modi became chief minister of Gujarat with the help of Shah. Shah served as a young minister in Modi’s state cabinet, holding a wide portfolio. Shah’s mission was to thwart all trouble that came Modi’s way, with his office getting the infamous tag of the “dirty tricks department” of the chief minister.

Since that time, Shah has only grown more powerful. He is one of the most divisive and hateful politicians in India. He has told audiences that a vote against the BJP will be celebrated in Pakistan. He has referred to Muslim immigrants as “termites” who need to be thrown in the Bay of Bengal. It was his idea to introduce a bill to grant citizenship to minorities from neighboring countries, except Muslims.

More troubling, he has a checkered past on human rights. He has been accused of extrajudicial killings against Muslims labeled as being terrorists.

In 2010, I reported on the killings. I produced Shah’s call records and an internal note by the Gujarat state intelligence agency that noted he was in conversation with officials as they took victims to be killed. Two weeks after my investigation was published, Shah was arrested (he denied the accusations and called the charges “fabricated and politically motivated”).

The Central Bureau of Investigation had been investigating Shah for his role in the killing of a Muslim man, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, and his wife, Kauser Bi. The CBI, under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court of India, named Shah a key suspect and conspirator in the crime, but also accused him of being the head of an extortion racket that involved underworld thugs and politicians. The charges were so serious that the Supreme Court banned Shah from entering his home state so he could not influence or intimidate witnesses. Shah was also investigated for his role in the kidnapping and murder of a 19-year-old woman, Ishrat Jahan, who had been illegally detained.

Shah didn’t spend long behind bars — he was soon out on bail. It was speculated that Shah’s downfall would also bring down Modi. But in 2013, Modi was named the BJP’s candidate for prime minister. Shah was made the president of the BJP, the first party leader to hold the position despite the criminal charges against him. As the Modi government came to power, witnesses in Shah’s case turned hostile, judges recused themselves, and within months Shah was acquitted of all criminal charges.

In 2013 Shah was also accused of illegally spying on a young woman. Two journalism organizations produced taped conversations with senior police officials, where he was heard directing them to keep surveillance. The BJP’s explanation was that her father had requested security, but the police couldn’t produce any official requests or authorizations.

Despite his controversial past, Shah has now cemented his role as Modi’s confidant and enforcer. He can take policy decisions without the prime minister’s approval. In 2014, when the opposition Congress Party gave up on its electoral prospects, Shah began preparing for 2019. He relaunched a massive membership drive of BJP workers. In a span of two years, the number of verified BJP members rose from 35 million to 110 million. Shah has also built political alliances across the country, which helped the BJP obtain its recent massive electoral mandate.

Some speculate that Shah has set his eyes on the prime minister’s chair for 2024. For now, as head of the home ministry, the most significant department in the Indian parliamentary system, he will oversee the disposal of justice and be responsible for maintaining peace and harmony in the country.

But he’s clearly all too willing to abuse power. India is living in one of its most polarized political and social moments. The country needs a healing touch. But Modi and Shah only care about amassing power, even if it means weakening institutions, undermining human rights and eroding trust in the rule of law. India could not be in more dangerous hands.

Bill By Democrats to Increase Social Security Benefits and Extend Solvency

After years of Republican-led debate over how to pare back Social Security’s rising costs, Democrats are flipping the script with an ambitious plan to expand the New Deal-era social insurance program while making gradual changes to keep it solvent for the rest of the century.

The Social Security 2100 Act, which was introduced this past week in the House and the Senate, represents a sea change after decades dominated by concern that aging baby boomers would bankrupt the government as they begin drawing benefits from Social Security and other entitlement programs. It would be the first major expansion of Social Security since 1972 and the most significant change in the program since 1983, when Congress stepped in to avert a financial crisis by raising taxes and the eligibility age for Social Security.

The bill would provide an across-the-board benefit increase equivalent to about 2 percent of the average Social Security benefit. It would raise the annual cost-of-living adjustment to reflect the fact that older Americans tend to use more of some services like health care. And it would increase the minimum benefit to ensure that workers with many years of low earnings do not retire into poverty.

The bill would cut federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for about 12 million middle-income people while raising taxes elsewhere. The payroll tax rate would rise to 14.8 percent over the next 24 years, from 12.4 percent, and the payroll tax would be imposed on earnings over $400,000 a year.

The maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax this year is $132,900. The proposal would, in effect, create a doughnut hole, where earnings from $132,900 to $400,000 would not be taxed.

The measure embodies Democrats’ vision of social insurance at a time when many people have no private pension and meager savings.

 “Our bill, supported by more than 200 members of the House, would enhance and expand the nation’s most successful insurance program, which touches the lives of every American,” said Representative John B. Larson, Democrat of Connecticut and the principal author of the legislation.

Mr. Larson, the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, said he would hold hearings and forums around the country on the legislation.

Among the strongest supporters is Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the chairman of the full committee, who called a hearing for this coming week on ways to improve retirement security for American workers.

And Andrew G. Biggs, a Republican who was the principal deputy commissioner of Social Security under President George W. Bush, praised some features of Mr. Larson’s bill.

“It doesn’t just fix Social Security for 75 years,” Mr. Biggs said. “It would keep the system permanently solvent. That’s a real plus.”

On the other hand, Mr. Biggs said: “The bill would give a lot of money to middle- and upper-income retirees who are already doing well. And it would significantly increase payroll taxes on workers.”

About 63 million people received a total of $1 trillion in Social Security benefits last year, and the number of recipients is expected to surge to 80 million in 10 years. Social Security was meant to be part of a package providing income to retirees along with company pensions and personal savings.

But, Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, “The reality today for more and more Americans is that they’ve used up their savings, they’ve helped a child go to school, they’ve dealt with a family illness. And many companies have taken away pensions.”

Nonpartisan actuaries at the Social Security Administration say that the program will soon be spending more than it takes in and that the trust funds for retirement and disability benefits will be depleted by 2034 if Congress makes no changes.

US ends special trade treatment for India amid tariff dispute

President Trump seems to be standing firm on his decision to impose tariffs on goods imported into America despite an increasing number of threats and retaliatory taxes on US products.

“We’re the bank that everyone wants to steal from and plunder,” he told reporters at the White House.

India and the United States have had a historic strategic partnership, but on the economic front, President Trump seems to have adopted a different attitude. On Monday, he justified hiking tariffs on imports into the US by pointing out that India had up to a 100% tariffs on American products.

India had been the largest beneficiary of a scheme that allows some goods to enter the US duty-free. However that status will end on Wednesday, Mr Trump said.

In March he announced that it would be revoked because India had failed to provide adequate access to its markets, but Mr Trump gave no date. On Friday he said: “It is appropriate to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country.”

India had said the move would have a “minimal economic impact”, but it comes at a time lower growth and record unemployment in the country.

Until now, preferential trade treatment for India under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme allowed $5.6bn (£4.3bn) worth of exports to enter the US duty free.

The move is the latest push by the Trump administration to redress what it considers to be unfair trading relationships with other countries.

Last month the US ended Turkey’s preferential status under the scheme.

Trump has also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from countries around the world. Last year, India retaliated against those tariff hikesby raising import duties on a range of goods.

Separately, the US is involved in an escalating trade war with China, and recently threatened tariffs on Mexican goods over illegal migration.

Modi Leads BJP To A Landslide Win In Indian Election

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party won a landslide victory in the world’s largest election as voters endorsed his vision of a muscular, assertive and stridently Hindu India. The election results represent a stunning mandate for Modi and his new Team of Ministers, who are entrusted with the task of leading the nation in the next five years.

Modi, a charismatic and polarizing politician who towers over his rivals, led the BJP to a stunning and historic victory in the Lok Sabha battle, with the ruling party itself winning 303 seats in a marked improvement over its 2014 showing that left the Opposition dazed and demoralized.

For the second successive Lok Sabha polls, the BJP has managed to cross the halfway mark of 272 seats — where it had won 282 seats in 2014, this time, it won 21 more seats to finish with 303 seats. The BJP-led NDA won 348 of the 542 Lok Sabha seats where polling took place in a seven-phase election. The development sent the Sensex breaching the 40,000-mark as India Inc celebrated.

No Indian prime minister has returned to power with a similarly large mandate in nearly five decades. Modi’s win is a victory for a form of religious nationalism that views India as a fundamentally Hindu nation and seeks to jettison the secularism promoted by the country’s founders. While India is roughly 80 percent Hindu, it is also home to Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and other religious communities.

Modi first swept to power five years ago on a desire for change and the belief that he would transform this country of more than 1.3 billion people, unshackling the economy and creating millions of jobs. Unemployment has risen to a 45-year high and there are worrisome signals that Indian consumers are buying less, slowing the broader economy.

Such expectations remain unfulfilled, but in this election, Modi pushed a message of nationalist pride and told voters he was the only candidate who would safeguard the country’s security and combat terrorism.

Nearly 900 million people were eligible to vote in the six-week long election. The election results represent a tectonic shift that cements the BJP’s dominance of Indian politics under Modi’s leadership. “Something fundamentally has shifted” with this vote, said Milan Vaishnav, who heads the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The BJP “has emerged as the hegemonic force in Indian politics.”

The Indian National Congress, the country’s main opposition party, had a disastrous showing for a once-mighty political force that governed India for most of its post-independence history. Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi clan, failed to find a strategy to counter Modi’s appeal. Gandhi was unable to retain his own seat in the Congress stronghold of Amethi.

Gandhi, the Congress party leader, tried to dent Modi’s dominance. He attacked Modi for threatening the secularism promoted by the country’s founders and for failing to create jobs for millions of young people or to help struggling farmers.

Modi struck back, calling Gandhi the scion of a corrupt dynasty. Gandhi’s father, grandmother and great-grandfather all served as prime ministers of India (the family is not related to independence leader Mohandas Gandhi).

The opposition had “neither a program, nor a leader, nor a narrative,” Pavan Varma, a spokesman for a regional party aligned with the BJP, told the Indian television channel NDTV. The BJP, meanwhile, had Modi as a candidate and a potent election machine, he said. It also had more money than any other party in the race by several orders of magnitude.

Modi’s supporters exulted at the outcome. “It’s nothing short of a landslide,” wrote Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu on Twitter, calling the result a political tsunami that had swept the country. Indians have “voted for a clear, unambiguous choice,” he wrote. Several world leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chinese President Xi Jinping, congratulated Modi on his victory as votes were still being counted.

While Modi focused the election debate on national security – particularly after a terrorist attack in February in Kashmir – the next government’s major challenges promise to be economic. Bread-and-butter issues “got very little time and space” in this election, said Puja Mehra, the author of a new book on the Indian economy. Modi was “able to sway voter attention [away] from the economic hardships they faced” and toward issues central to his campaign, such as national security, religion and the importance of strong leadership.

Modi also benefited from considerable popularity among voters, many of whom view him as a corruption-free politician. The son of a tea seller, Modi comes from humble roots and rose through the ranks of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a group that seeks to make India a “Hindu nation.”

As chief minister of the state of Gujarat, Modi modernized infrastructure and successfully courted investment by domestic and foreign businesses. In 2002, he presided over the country’s worst communal violence in decades, when more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed by Hindu mobs. Members of his own party wanted him to resign.

Since Modi became prime minister in 2014, reports of violence by Hindu extremists have increased, including lynchings in the name of protecting cows, which some Hindus consider sacred. Some Muslims say they are increasingly fearful about the country’s direction. In the election campaign, senior BJP leaders engaged in anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Modi’s decisive mandate means that India will move further toward becoming a majoritarian democracy, said Suhas Palshikar, a political scientist and columnist. “It is not so much that the formal institutional structure will change,” he said. “What will change are the social and cultural values in the society.” Religious minorities will be “reduced to secondary citizens” while Hindu nationalists “have free play.”

Two months before voting began, a suicide bomber killed 40 security Indian security forces in the disputed region of Kashmir. Modi launched a retaliatory airstrike on an alleged terrorist training camp within Pakistan, an unprecedented step for India.

There is no proof the strikes killed any militants. In the confrontation that followed, an Indian pilot was captured by Pakistan and six Indian soldiers were killed in a helicopter crash now believed to be a case of friendly fire. But on the campaign trail, Modi repeatedly cited the strikes as proof of his government’s unique ability to combat terrorism and his toughness in matters of national security.

After the official campaigning period ended, Modi went to a Hindu pilgrimage site high in Himalayan mountains where he prayed and mediated overnight in a cave, an exercise in piety broadcast across the nation.

India general election 2019: What happened?

After a long and arduous election, with months of campaigning and voting spread over seven phases, India’s 879 million voters have spoken. And, if not with one voice, then close to it. The Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been handed another historic mandate.

Modi’s 2014 victory was already record-setting — the first time a single party had attained a parliamentary majority in three decades. To win once at that scale was astounding, a black swan event. To win twice means that Indian politics, and India itself, has changed beyond recognition.

For the first decades after independence, India was a democracy but nevertheless a one-‘party state. The Indian National Congress, the party that spearheaded the independence movement, dominated most states and had a stranglehold on power in New Delhi. It was voted out once in 1977, after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi turned towards authoritarianism and was punished by a united opposition. Still, not until the 1990s did the party enter a permanent decline.

At that point, India ushered in an era of coalitions. A patchwork of regional, caste-based and ideologically distinct parties held the balance of power. It’s no surprise that this period also coincided with the growth of the private sector following the liberalization of the economy in 1991. Parties with no monopoly on the state are less likely to seek purely statist solutions.

Modi’s successive victories mark another era of Indian politics. No other political chieftains are holding the balance of power; only Modi matters. Back in the days of one-party rule, a sycophantic Congress politician said of his leader: Indira is India. That was hyperbole. But no politician since Indira Gandhi has had as powerful a claim to be identified with India’s conception of itself as Modi now does.

How has he earned that claim? Multiple explanations for the BJP’s victory have already been trotted out: the organizational strength of the party, its vast advantages in money and resources, the covert and overt backing of supposedly independent institutions — all hallmarks of democratic strongmen globally. Others will point to the weakness of the opposition and its crisis of leadership, or to Modi’s reputation for incorruptibility, his muscular foreign policy and the popularity of some of his welfare schemes.

All these, of course, are factors. But they didn’t determine this election. Neither did the economy. Regardless of the official figures for gross domestic product growth, the economy is under-performing. It’s rare anywhere in the world for incumbents to increase their political strength under such circumstances.

No, India has proved Bill Clinton wrong: It’s identity, stupid. This election was fought and won over identity — the identity of India and the identity of Indians.

Modi is the perfect representative for the young, aspirational, majoritarian, impatient Indians who have put him into office twice now. An overwhelming number of these 400 million voters see in him a self-made man, one who has every intention of asserting India’s centrality to world affairs. More, he appears strong and decisive, and wishes to impose a unity and uniformity on Indian politics. This clarity is comforting for most of his core voters.

The India of the past saw itself as a patchwork of competing identities, represented by the multiple powerful satraps of the coalition era and by the many factions within the umbrella tradition of the Congress prior to that. The BJP, under Modi, permits no such balancing. India is strong if it is united, Modi’s voters feel, and unity requires the welding of these multiple identities into a single one.

Hyper-nationalists on Twitter, as well as cabinet ministers, attack Modi’s opponents as the “tukde-tukde” gang — literally, those who want to break India into pieces. The BJP’s electoral logic has long been incredibly simple: Over four-fifths of India is Hindu and the BJP is the party that best represents Hindu interests. If most Hindus vote for them out of religious solidarity rather than on economic, class or caste interests, then the BJP will win.

The truth is that this is increasingly what Modi and the party have achieved. Their triumph isn’t merely a product of political management. It is a rhetorical and ideological battle, a culture war, which they have won.

All bets are off about India’s future. The West has long seen this country as a natural ally: one that has similar liberal institutions, is outward-looking and acts modestly on the global stage. But that is not the India wanted by the voters who have twice now demonstrated their loyalty to Modi so dramatically. Just as Indians are looking at themselves and their country anew, so the world will have to recalibrate its assumptions about India.

  • From just two seats in Lok Sabha in 1984 to winning two back-to-back majority in general elections, the BJP now firmly occupies the position of dominance that the Congress once held. The 300+ seats BJP has won in 2019 is the saffron party’s highest ever Lok Sabha tally. It had won 282 seats in 2014.
  • Narendra Modi is the first non-Congress (and third ever) prime minister in India to return to power after a full five-year term.
  • In at least 21 states and Union Territories, the BJP has the highest vote share making it a truly pan-India party. BJP’s vote share in rural areas was higher (39.5%) than in urban constituencies (33.9%), which means BJP isn’t just a city-based party either.
  • The BJP won more than 50% votes in 224 of the 446 seats it contested compared to 136 in 2014. Together with its allies, the party won more than 50% of the votes in 15 states and UTs. In 10 states and UTs, the NDA won all the seats.
  • In the Hindi heartland, the BJP got over half the votes in 141 of the 198 seats it contested. At least 15 of its candidates won with a margin of over 5 lakh votes. BJP’s victories in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh come within six months of it losing assembly polls in these states. That’s unprecedented.
  • The party not only kept its core states – the Hindi heartland, Gujarat and Maharashtra – but also posted its biggest victories in West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and the northeast. Only Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh appeared untouched. Even in Telangana, the BJP won four seats.
  • In 2014, the BJP had won 171 of 185 seats in UP, MP, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Gujarat. In 2019, though it won a fewer number of 158 seats in these states, its tally outside these states (which account for 358 seats) went up from 111 in 2014 to 142 this year. The BJP also retained over 80% of the seats it won in 2014.
  • In 2014, BJP’s vote share had gone up by more than 20% in 104 seats making them ‘Modi wave seats’. In 2019, the party has retained 96 of these, making them ‘double wave‘ seats.

BJP Overseas Supporters Celebrate Party’s Win

After a four-month campaign from 12,000 kilometres away for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Overseas Friends of BJP-USA, known as OFBJP, celebrated BJP win in Indian elections in 20 cities across the United States—from Boston to San Francisco.

BJP supporters from Massachusetts gathered at Brookside Club House in Andover, MA, to celebrate the victory. Overseas Friends of BJP-USA President Krishna Reddy Anugula said celebrations were planned in 20 cities across the United States, including New York, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco.

Anugula told the media that over 1,000 volunteers from his organization participated in phone bank call-a-thons that made more than 1 million calls to people in India asking them to vote for the Bharatiya Janata Party.

During the four months before the elections, the OFBJP also held yagnas, “Chowkidar Marches” and other programs to encourage Indian citizens here to support Modi and to boost the party’s image in India, he said.

As the election trends started trickling in starting at around 11 p.m. on Wednesday night (local time), the OFBJP and the US-based station TV Asia began an overnight election watch in Edison, New Jersey, he said. About 400 Indians and Americans kept vigil overnight watching the results at a community center.

The group in a statement said: “Overseas Friends of BJP-USA congratulates Prime Minister Narendra Modi, party President Amit Shah, BJP leaders, millions of volunteers and volunteers of OFBJP and NRIs4Modi across the globe who toiled hard for this stupendous victory.”

“Millions of voters, including first time voters have participated enthusiastically in this world’s largest democratic elections to elect an able and proven leader, Narendra Modi,” it said.

Reddy asserted that although the BJP did not make a sweep of his home state of Telangana, his party was emerging as the main challenger to the Telangana Rashtriya Samithi (TRS) improving its position both in the number of votes and seats.

In neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, the defeat of the Telugu Desam Party showed that the people of the state were ready for change and a corruption-free administration. It presented the BJP future opportunities there, he said.

TV Asia, the largest India-oriented TV operation in the US, held a marathon overnight coverage of the Indian elections for its viewers across the US, News Director Rohit Vyas told IANS.

The news operations, which are separate from the company’s community outreach and is politically independent, had representatives of both the OFBJP and the Overseas Indian Congress, as well as Indian community leaders on its programme analysing the elections, he added.

New India votes for good governance Sabka Saath and Sabka Vikas

The re-election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a strong mandate is a reflection of emergence of New India. By re-electing BJP and NDA, people of India have endorsed the good governance of Prime Minister Modi, his developmental policy based on Sabka Saath Sabka Vikaas and his strong national security policy which has zero tolerance to terrorism.

People of India has shown the door to the opposition party’s negative politics and vetted the positive energy and politics of Prime Minister Modi. It shows that they have no faith in a politics that is based on lie and deception, which was the key aspect of electoral campaign of the Congress-led opposition parties.

In five years 2014-2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set  a high bar of leadership and governance. In just five years, India has become a bright spot of global economy and a world power that can no longer be ignored. In the next five years Prime Minister Narendra Modi would put fast track India’s development. Under Narendra Modi, I am sure, world’s largest democracy would soon become among world most powerful country and top three global economies.

We non-resident Indians (NRIs) are proud of India’s achievements. It’s a no mean achievement that 1.3 billion people have peacefully elected their leader for the next five years. Now that the elections are over, I hope, the opposition parties would respect the mandate of the people of India. And instead of making baseless allegations against EVMs, opposition parties would join Prime Minister Modi in achieving the aspiration and ambitions of New India.

Business Sector Congratulates Modi, Warns of Economic Challenges

As the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) looks set for a second term with leads in 340 seats so far, India Inc rushed in with congratulatory messages for the Prime Minister and also listed the challenges the new government will face along with necessary steps to be taken.

Sandip Somany, President of FICCI said continuity and stability at the Centre would enhance chances of more economic reforms along with an increasingly stabilising Goods and Services Tax (GST), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

“There is an urgent need to bring investments on track and boost consumption to better GDP growth from the current around 7 per cent level, which will help in generating more jobs and take care of the rural distress,” Somany said.

The next government will have to quickly plan for a robust reform agenda that would not only enhance consumer spending, but will also create conditions for higher private sector investments and exports, he added.

ASSOCHAM President B.K. Goenka said, “A strong and stable government would bring in more foreign investment even as the domestic firms are witnessing renewed confidence. We are in for a virtuous cycle where consumption and investment drive each other. With inflation expected to stay benign, and growth set to move higher with the help of lower interest rates, we would soon be in a sweet spot.”

Mining and metals major Vedanta Resources’ Chairman Anil Agarwal exuded confidence over the Prime Minister’s leadership and said that the new government will continue with the reforms agenda.

“A strong and stable government with a fresh mandate will be well placed to give the reforms agenda an urgent push to provide the much-needed impetus to investor confidence especially given the current state of the world economy,” said Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Enterprises.

Ajay Singh, the Chairman of budget airline SpiceJet, also the person who coined the phrase “Abki Baar Modi Sarkaar” said: “I extend my heartiest congratulations to our Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his stupendous victory.”

Noting that the country’s aviation sector has witnessed “remarkable growth” in the last five years, he said: “We hope that our government will address the structural challenges facing the sector urgently.”

There were also words of caution for the upcoming government considering the global and domestic economic situation.

Deepthi Mathew, economist at Geojit Financial Services said that the economy currently is “much weaker” than what it was in 2014.

“Rural distress and slowing investment in the country are two major issues that need to be addressed in an urgent manner. The developments in the global economy are also not favourable, especially with regard to the rising crude oil prices. The low crude oil prices benefited NDA-I in a bigger way,” Mathew said.

Sanjay Chamria, Vice Chairman and MD, Magma Fincorp said that the government’s primary move in the financial sector should be to address the lack of money movement at banks and accelerate the flow of money in the system. (IANS)

What foreign media said about Modi’s victory

As India gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi a historic mandate with the ruling BJP returning to power in the Lok Sabha, here’s how the foreign media covered Modi’s victory.

The UK’s Guardian in an editorial said that the landslide win for Modi will see “India’s soul lost to a dark politics – one that views almost all 195 million Indian Muslims as second-class citizens”.

“The biggest election in history has just been won by one man: Narendra Modi. In 2014 the Bharatiya Janata party won an absolute majority for the first time in its history… Despite a spluttering economy five years later, Modi seems certain to have expanded his parliamentary majority. This is bad news for India and the world,” the editorial stated.

Though the daily called Modi a “undoubtedly a charismatic campaigner”, it said that “rather than transcend the faultlines of Indian society – religion, caste, region and language – Modi’s style is to throw them into sharp relief”.

“He is a populist who speaks in the name of the people against the elite despite being a seasoned public figure. Modi deployed with terrible effect false claims and partisan facts,” the article said.

Pakistani daily Dawn in an editorial said that “communal politics in India has triumphed in an age that will define the future of the republic”.

“The results are astounding, and depressingly show that religious hatred and sectarian politics can be exploited to lure voters.” The daily said that the “focus must now turn to a practical way forward for sustainable peace in the subcontinent”.

The News International said that Modi won because the Congress allowed him to.

“If Modi has won despite the long history of failures on the economic front, bad governance and the open war on religious minorities, it is because the opposition, especially the Congress, allowed him to.

“If the BJP and Modi have won this election, they perhaps deserved to win. They put in a great deal of hard work and have had the hunger to win.

“While we cannot ignore the epic lies, obfuscation, jingoism and hate that the BJP used against Indian Muslims and Pakistan to win this election, you have to acknowledge that the opposition failed to call Modi’s bluff and expose his failures on every front,” it stated.

Author Pankaj Mishra in a piece for the New York Times said: “Over five years of Modi’s rule, India has suffered variously from his raw wisdom, most gratuitously in November 2016, when his government abruptly withdrew nearly 90 per cent of currency notes from circulation.

“From devastating the Indian economy to risking nuclear Armageddon in South Asia, Modi has confirmed that the leader of the world’s largest democracy is dangerously incompetent.”

“India under Modi’s rule has been marked by continuous explosions of violence in both virtual and real worlds,” the opinion piece said.

“Modi’s appointed task in India is the same as that of many far-right demagogues: To titillate a fearful and angry population with the scapegoating of minorities, refugees, leftists, liberals and others while accelerating predatory forms of capitalism.”

Author Vivan Marwaha, in an opinion piece for the Washington Post said: “Despite a record-high unemployment rate, a slowing economy and widespread agrarian distress, Indians overwhelmingly decided to give Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party a second chance to put the country back on track.”

“The slowdown in economic growth could still have emerged as a possible flashpoint during the elections. But the February suicide attack on Indian paramilitary forces in Pulwama and the government’s subsequent response – which included ordering air strikes on a terrorist camp in Pakistan – helped marshal vast amounts of support for Modi,” he said.

The BJP targeted the Indian millennials, who have largely grown up with social media, as carefully designed memes praising Modi went viral on Facebook and WhatsApp praising him for the terror strikes.

He said Modi was voted back to power as the “young Indians believed they had no credible alternative”. (IANS)

Indian elections ‘an inspiration to democracies’: US

The Indian parliamentary election is “an inspiration to democracies and individuals around the world”, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said on Friday.

“We applaud the Indian people for turning out to vote in historic numbers and the government of India for their exceptional execution of this massive undertaking,” she said in a statement. “India’s elections are the largest exercise in democracy in human history.”

According to the Election Commission, 67.1 percent of India’s 900 million voters voted. In contrast, only 55.5 percent of Americans turned up at the polling stations in 2016.

Looking ahead to Modi’s second term, Ortagus said that Washington was confident that the relations between the two countries centered around the US Indo-Pacific strategy will continue on an “upward trajectory”.

“We look forward to working with the newly elected government on a range of important issues, including expanding economic and energy ties, enhancing defence and security cooperation, countering the threat of terrorism, and enhanced collaboration in space,” she said.

“We are confident that the strong and upward trajectory of our partnership will continue.

“The United States and India enjoy a strong strategic partnership that stands on a foundation of shared values, extensive people-to-people ties and a commitment to a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific region,” she added.

Ortagus told reporters: “We’re confident in the fairness and the integrity of the Indian elections.” (IANS)

How Narendra Modi Seduced India With Envy and Hate The prime minister has won re-election on a tide of violence, fake news and resentment.

Before dawn on Feb. 26, Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist prime minister of India, ordered an aerial attack on the country’s nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan. There were thick clouds that morning over the border. But Mr. Modi claimed earlier this month, during his successful campaign for re-election, that he had overruled advisers who worried about them. He is ignorant of science, he admitted, but nevertheless trusted his “raw wisdom,” which told him that the cloud cover would prevent Pakistani radar from detecting Indian fighter jets.

Over five years of Mr. Modi’s rule, India has suffered variously from his raw wisdom, most gratuitously in November 2016, when his government abruptly withdrew nearly 90 percent of currency notes from circulation. From devastating the Indian economy to risking nuclear Armageddon in South Asia, Mr. Modi has confirmed that the leader of the world’s largest democracy is dangerously incompetent. During this spring’s campaign, he also clarified that he is an unreconstructed ethnic-religious supremacist, with fear and loathing as his main political means.

Indian girls, wearing masks depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in support of the ban on old high denomination currency in 2016.CreditJaipal Singh/European Pressphoto Agency

India under Mr. Modi’s rule has been marked by continuous explosions of violence in both virtual and real worlds. As pro-Modi television anchors hunted for “anti-nationals” and troll armies rampaged through social media, threatening women with rape, lynch mobs slaughtered Muslims and low-caste Hindus. Hindu supremacists have captured or infiltrated institutions from the military and the judiciary to the news media and universities, while dissenting scholars and journalists have found themselves exposed to the risk of assassination and arbitrary detention. Stridently advancing bogus claims that ancient Hindus invented genetic engineering and airplanes, Mr. Modi and his Hindu nationalist supporters seemed to plunge an entire country into a moronic inferno. Last month the Indian army’s official twitter account excitedly broadcast its discovery of the Yeti’s footprints.

Yet in the election that began last month, voters chose overwhelmingly to prolong this nightmare. The sources of Mr. Modi’s impregnable charisma seem more mysterious when you consider that he failed completely to realize his central promises of the 2014 election: jobs and national security. He presided over an enormous rise in unemployment and a spike in militancy in India-ruled Kashmir. His much-sensationalized punitive assault on Pakistan in February damaged nothing more than a few trees across the border, while killing seven Indian civilians in an instance of friendly fire.

Modi has infused India’s public sphere with a riotously popular loathing of the country’s old urban elites.

Mr. Modi did indeed benefit electorally this time from his garishly advertised schemes to provide toilets, bank accounts, cheap loans, housing, electricity and cooking-gas cylinders to some of the poorest Indians. Lavish donations from India’s biggest companies allowed his party to outspend all others on its re-election campaign. A corporate-owned media fervently built up Mr. Modi as India’s savior, and opposition parties are right to suggest that the Election Commission, once one of India’s few unimpeachable bodies, was also shamelessly partisan.

None of these factors, however, can explain the spell Modi has cast on an overwhelmingly young Indian population. “Now and then,” Lionel Trilling once wrote, “it is possible to observe the moral life in process of revising itself.” Mr. Modi has created that process in India by drastically refashioning, with the help of technology, how many Indians see themselves and their world, and by infusing India’s public sphere with a riotously popular loathing of the country’s old urban elites.

Rived by caste as well as class divisions, and dominated in Bollywood as well as politics by dynasties, India is a grotesquely unequal society. Its constitution, and much political rhetoric, upholds the notion that all individuals are equal and possess the same right to education and job opportunities; but the everyday experience of most Indians testify to appalling violations of this principle. A great majority of Indians, forced to inhabit the vast gap between a glossy democratic ideal and a squalid undemocratic reality, have long stored up deep feelings of injury, weakness, inferiority, degradation, inadequacy and envy; these stem from defeats or humiliation suffered at the hands of those of higher status than themselves in a rigid hierarchy.

I both witnessed and experienced these explosive tensions in the late 1980s, when I was a student at a dead-end provincial university, one of many there confronting a near-impossible task: not only sustained academic excellence, but also a wrenching cultural and psychological makeover in the image of the self-assured, English-speaking metropolitan. One common object of our ressentiment — an impotent mix of envy and hatred — was Rajiv Gandhi, the deceased father of main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, whom Mr. Modi indecorously but cunningly chose to denounce in his election campaign. An airline pilot who became prime minister largely because his mother and grandfather had held the same post, and who allegedly received kickbacks from a Swedish arms manufacturer into Swiss bank accounts, Mr. Gandhi appeared to perfectly embody a pseudo-socialist elite that claimed to supervise post-colonial India’s attempt to catch up with the modern West but that in reality single-mindedly pursued its own interests.

There seemed no possibility of dialogue with a metropolitan ruling class of such Godlike aloofness, which had cruelly stranded us in history while itself moving serenely toward convergence with the prosperous West. This sense of abandonment became more wounding as India began in the 1990s to embrace global capitalism together with a quasi-American ethic of individualism amid a colossal population shift from rural to urban areas. Satellite television and the internet spawned previously inconceivable fantasies of private wealth and consumption, even as inequality, corruption and nepotism grew and India’s social hierarchies appeared as entrenched as ever.

No politician, however, sought to exploit the long dormant rage against India’s self-perpetuating post-colonial rulers, or to channel the boiling frustration over blocked social mobility, until Mr. Modi emerged from political disgrace in the early 2010s with his rhetoric of meritocracy and lusty assaults on hereditary privilege.

India’s former Anglophone establishment and Western governments had stigmatized Mr. Modi for his suspected role — ranging from malign indifference to complicity and direct supervision — in the murder of hundreds of Muslims in his home state of Gujarat in 2002. But Mr. Modi, backed by some of India’s richest people, managed to return to the political mainstream, and, ahead of the 2014 election, he mesmerized aspiring Indians with a flamboyant narrative about his hardscrabble past, and their glorious future. From the beginning, he was careful to present himself to his primary audience of stragglers as one of them: a self-made individual who had to overcome hurdles thrown in his way by an arrogant and venal elite that indulged treasonous Muslims while pouring contempt on salt-of-the-earth Hindus like himself. Boasting of his 56-inch chest, he promised to transform India into an international superpower and to reinsert Hindus into the grand march of history.

Since 2014, Mr. Modi’s near-novelistic ability to create irresistible fictions has been steadily enhanced by India’s troll-dominated social media as well as cravenly sycophantic newspapers and television channels. India’s online population doubled in the five years of Mr. Modi’s rule. With cheap smartphones in the hands of the poorest of Indians, a large part of the world’s population was exposed to fake news on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp. Indeed, Mr. Modi received one of his biggest electoral boosts from false accounts claiming that his airstrikes exterminated hundreds of Pakistanis, and that he frightened Pakistan into returning the Indian pilot it had captured.

Mr. Modi is preternaturally alert to the fact that the smartphone’s screen is pulling hundreds of millions of Indians, who have barely emerged from illiteracy, into a wonderland of fantasy and myth. An early adopter of Twitter, like Donald Trump, he performs unceasingly for the camera, often dressed in outlandish costumes. After decades of Western-educated and emotionally constricted Indian leaders, Mr. Modi uninhibitedly participates — whether speaking tearfully of his poverty-stricken past or boasting of his bromance with Barack Obama — in digital media’s quasi-egalitarian culture of exhibitionism.

Unease among minorities as Modi wins election

His pro-Hindu stance secured a landslide election win over the rival Indian National Congress Party.  Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept to power for a second five-year term on May 23 in an election fought largely on the plank of Hindu nationalism.

The BJP and its allies won 351 seats, reducing Congress and the parties that support it to just 92 seats in the 545-seat national parliament.

Independent parties won 99 seats. The remaining two seats are reserved for Anglo-Indian representatives who are nominated by the government.

The BJP alliance improved on its 2014 election total of 336 seats.

“India wins again,” Modi declared during a victory speech at the party’s headquarters in the capital, New Delhi, in which he pledged to build “a new India” featuring growth and prosperity for all.

Despite the landslide, the BJP failed to make any significant political gains in the nation’s southern states.

It was unable to win any of the 45 seats in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh states and could win only one seat in Tamil Nadu.

Observers noted that in the seven-phase election process during April and May much of the electioneering focused on Hindu nationalist sentiments rather than issues such as unemployment, inflation and a worsening agrarian crisis.

The campaigns, particularly of Modi and other BJP leaders, were filled with notions of Hindu supremacy and “Pakistan bashing,” said Sourabh Sharma, a political columnist based in New Delhi.

A terrorist attack on India and the manner in which the government tackled it early in the election year helped BJP project Modi’s leadership as the best to counter arch-rival Pakistan and Islamic extremism, Sharma said.

In early February, a suicide bomb attack killed 40 army men at Pulwama, in the southern part of Kashmir. The attack was carried out by Pakistan based militant outfit Jaesh-e-Mohammad. The Modi government responded with air strikes on Pakistan in which reportedly 300 Islamist militants were killed. Pakistan responded by bombing Indian territory.

Sharma said Modi politically milked India’s air strikes to incite Hindu passions. “This is the clarion call,” Sharma told ucanews.com.

Bad for India’s soul

Many fear that the big majority for the Hindu stalwart party poses a threat to India’s secularism and multi-culturalism. An editorial in Britain’s The Guardian newspaper described it as “bad for India’s soul”.

“The world does not need another national populist leader who pursues a pro-business agenda while trading in fake news and treating minorities as second class citizens,” the newspaper stated.

In 2014, BJP came to power promising to create 20 million jobs annually and to make Indian cities “smart” with electric buses and green environs.

It also promised subsidies to farmers and to revitalize the sagging economy. But five years later the promises remain largely unfulfilled.

Religious minorities such as Christians and Muslims accused the first-term BJP government of tacitly promoting bigoted attacks on non-Hindus as part of a bid to make India a “Hindus-only” nation.

A.C Michael, Development Director at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said a second term for Modi would not deter Christians from practicing their faith as guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, Christians would continue to be falsely viewed as being pre-occupied with trying to secure mass conversions to their faith, despite census figure showing that the Christian proportion of the population had remained stagnant since independence in 1947.

“We may also face attacks,” he said. “But that does not mean we will stop practicing our faith.”

The Christian leader said India’s democratic system constituted “a silver lining in a dark cloud.”

Allen Brooks, a spokesman for the Assam Christian Forum in the north-eastern state, told ucanews.com that the BJP’s victory should not be perceived as a threat to minority communities.

Rather, he argued, minorities should “stand united” to protect their interests as constitutionally equal citizens.

Hindus comprise 966 million, or some 80 percent, of India’s 1.2 billion people and 172 million Muslims make up 14 percent. There are 28 million Christians. Other religions include Baha’i, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and the Parsee faith.

Brexit brings down Prime Minister Theresa May

British PM Theresa May has confirmed the inevitable: She will step down soon. After a series of setbacks, which saw the House of Commons (equivalent of Lok Sabha) vote down her Brexit proposals multiple times as well as vote to take more control of the process, the question for months was when than if. May has answered that: June 7.

The ruling Conservative Party will have to choose a new leader to take over. A frontrunner is former foreign secretary Boris Johnson. If that does happen, the burden of steering Britain out of the EU will fall on his shoulders, and some would see that apt as Johnson was one of the strongest voices against EU ahead of the 2016 referendum that voted for Brexit.

In April, the 28-member European Union had given UK an extension of six months to thrash out Brexit. The new deadline thus is October 31. Which means the British Parliament will have time until then to vote on a Withdrawal Agreement that would lay down the terms on customs, trade, and civilian movement between EU and Britain post the exit. Or the new PM will have to go back to talks with the EU for a new agreement and then vote on it. As long as there is no second referendum — highly unlikely — Britain is exiting EU. How and when, that’s unanswered.

Looking back over the 34 months Theresa May spent as Britain’s Prime Minister, it’s hard to pick a low point.

Was it the Conservative Party conference in October 2017 when she couldn’t stop coughing, a protestor hijacked her big speech and the lettering behind her peeled off the wall?

Was it the day President Donald Trump announced his arrival to the U.K. with a newspaper interview in which he poured scorn on her Brexit plan, just a few hours before they were due for a joint press conference?

Was it the time she arrived in Brussels for a high stakes meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, only to momentarily find herself trapped inside her car while the world’s media looked on?

It’s tempting to think May was chosen to succeed Cameron as Prime Minister as the unity candidate — the experienced cabinet minister whose past fence-sitting on Brexit meant she could unite her divided party. But May won the contest because her rivals self-immolated in a frenzy of backstabbing and electioneering. Her victory came because she was the last person standing, not necessarily the best.

She began her premiership still attempting to straddle the divide in the Conservative Party, with so much caution that she won herself the nickname “Theresa Maybe.” But she soon sided with the hardliners agitating for a harder Brexit, egged on by the frenzied editors of Britain’s mass-market tabloids.

With the Labour Party seemingly in decline under far-left leader Jeremy Corbyn, May was persuaded by her advisors to capitalize on the moment and call an election that would not just expand the Conservative majority, but also give her government a mandate for a clean break with the E.U. The Daily Mail exhorted her in a screaming front-page headline to “CRUSH THE SABOTEURS.”

But the vote turned out to be an act of self-sabotage. The electorate defied the polls and gave Corbyn’s Labour Party more support — though not enough to form a government. Instead, a weakened Conservative Party had to partner with the socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland to govern as a minority.

As negotiations with the E.U. leadership continued, it became evident that the balance of power laid with the 27 nations united against the U.K. May was forced to bend to reality, and hammer out a hard compromise that all parties could settle on. But the U.K. parliament could not agree on a majority for anything related to Brexit, least of all the status of Northern Ireland — the key sticking point in the talks.

US Congress passes bipartisan retirement bill—here’s what it would mean for you if it becomes law

The House of Representatives passed the Secure Act, a bill backed by both Republicans and Democrats that aims to improve the nation’s retirement system.

If it passes the Senate, it will be sent to President Trump’s desk. “The Trump administration hasn’t taken a formal position on the bill, but lobbyists who support it say they expect the president to sign it into law,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

The changes would be the most significant to retirement plans since 2006, when the Pension Protection Act made it easier for companies to automatically enroll their employees in 401(k) plans.

Here are some of the provisions included in the Secure Act:

Repeal the maximum age for traditional IRA contributions, which is currently 70½

Increase the required minimum distribution age for retirement accounts to 72 (up from 70½)

Allow long-term part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans

Allow more annuities to be offered in 401(k) plans

Parents can withdraw up to $5,000 from retirement accounts penalty-free within a year of birth or adoption for qualified expenses

Parents can withdraw up to $10,000 from 529 plans to repay student loans

What the bill is addressing

“This is a stepping stone to try to solve that looming retirement crisis, ” Chad Parks, founder and CEO of Ubiquity Retirement + Savings, tells CNBC Make It.

Many Americans are not prepared for their golden years: Just 36% of non-retired adults think that their retirement saving is on track, the Federal Reserve found in its annual study on household well-being. And 25% of Americans have no retirement savings or pension.

Part of the problem is that many workers don’t have access to 401(k) plans, says Parks: “The reality is that almost half of all working Americans don’t have the ability to save for their retirement at their job. That’s primarily because small businesses are hesitant or intimidated by offering either a 401(k) or some sort of payroll-deduct IRA program. ”

A goal of the Secure Act is “to incentivize businesses to put [plans] in place,” Parks explains.

One of the ways it’s doing that is by making it easier for small businesses to band together to offer 401(k) plans.

“Companies that have no commonality could all join the same plan,” Amy Oullette, director of retirement services at Betterment, tells CNBC Make It. This could potentially give small businesses access to lower cost plans with better investment options and lower administrative fees.

What the bill could mean for you

By making it easier and cheaper for small businesses to offer 401(k) plans, if the bill becomes law, “millions more people, hypothetically, should have access to the ability to save at work,” says Parks.

The bill would also allow more part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans. Currently, employers generally can exclude people who work less than 1,000 hours per year from its defined contribution plan. But with the new bill, “any employee who has worked for you for at least three years and at least 500 hours a year is now able to participate in your retirement plan,” says Parks.

This is key, says Parks, because investing in a 401(k) is “the most effective way to get people to save for retirement.”

It’s a particularly effective savings vehicle for a few reasons:

It offers significant tax advantages. Contributions are made pre-tax so, the more you put in, the more you reduce your taxable income.

The money is automatically taken from your paycheck before you have the chance to spend it. That makes it a painless way to save for the future. The idea is that, over time, your money will grow and compound until you can start withdrawing it at age 59½. If you withdraw before then, you usually have to pay a penalty.

Often, companies offer a 401(k) match, which is essentially free money. Employers will match whatever contribution you put towards your 401(k) up to a certain amount. For example, if you choose to put four percent of your salary into your account, your employer will put that same amount in as well, in effect doubling your contribution.

The Senate still has to pass the bill and then the president would have to sign it into law. Still, when it comes to changes in the retirement system, “this is truly the biggest thing we’ve seen in many years,” says Oullette.

Exit polls predict second term for India’s PM Narendra Modi

If the results of exit polls are to be believed, the BJP led National Democratic Alliance is all set to make a clean sweep at the recently held India’s elections to the Parliament. Private polling commissioned by Indian media outlets points to a second term for the incumbent, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), although, given the patchy record of these polls, which have been wrong in past elections, we won’t know for sure until later this week.

It is, however, interesting to note that the most enthusiastic results have been thrown up by exit polls conducted in association with media houses who are perceived widely as cheerleaders of the Modi regime.

But if Modi does return to power, what might Modi 2.0 mean for India? One way of trying to answer that question is to compare campaign 2019 to the one that unfolded five years ago.

In 2014, when Modi first ran for national office — he was already a major regional figure by then, running western Gujarat state for over a decade — his campaign was dominated by his promises to usher in a sort of economic renaissance: Modi spoke of reforms to, among other things, make India an easier place to do business, make it better at generating jobs for the millions of young Indians who enter the workforce each year and to clean house to stamp out corruption.

All exit polls released at the conclusion of the seven-phase 17th general election predicted a second term for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The counting of votes will take place on May 23. Most polls indicated minor to considerable setback for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh where it won 71 of 80 seats in 2014, but they were in agreement that the party would firmly hold on to its strongholds in the north and west and make considerable gains in West Bengal.

In southern States barring Karnataka, the BJP is projected to trail far behind opponents. The Congress and its allies are projected to make significant gains compared to the historic low they hit in 2014, but will end up some distance away from the halfway mark of 272 seats in the 543-strong Lok Sabha, according to these polls.

The polls predicted between 242 to 365 for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and between 77 and 164 for the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Parties that are unattached to either side, which include the Samajwadi Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) whose coalition in Uttar Pradesh is resisting the BJP, could get between 69 and 125 seats, according to various polls.

Exit polls have a long history of going wrong in India. According to Praveen Chakravarty, chairperson of the Congress Data Analytics Department, who compared exit polls with actual outcomes posted on Twitter: “~80% of exit poll seat predictions for all parties in large state elections since 2014 are wrong.” Exit polls are generally considered more accurate than opinion polls conducted before actual voting.

Around the world also, the credibility of opinion polls and exit polls has taken a beating in recent years. Almost all polls in the Australian election last week got the outcome wrong, and similar was the fate of polls during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit. But what is common between these polls that went wrong was that all of them under-reported the support for conservative and ultra-nationalist positions. Indian exit polls on Sunday uniformly predicted a massive surge in favour of the Hindu nationalist BJP.

The exit poll projections indicate that Mr. Modi’s campaign to turn the election into a referendum on his persona rather than the performance of his five-year term has been successful.

First up is the News 18-IPSOS poll, the results of which say that the NDA is all set for a landslide victory bagging as many as 336 seats with BJP contributing a lion’s share of 276! This poll has restricted the UPA’s tally to a meager 82. The anchor of the show was seen merrily flying over a CGI globe in a VFX helicopter while the results popped up on screen!

 Next up is the Republic-CVoter poll that says that the NDA will get 287 seats while the UPA will be reduced to 128. It gives the Mahagathbandhan 40 seats and others 87. But, interestingly, Republic has another poll with Jan Ki Baat, according to which the NDA will bag between 295-315 seats, while the UPA will win between 122 and 12 seats. The BJP alone is set to score between 254 and 274 seats according to this poll. It is still not clear why they needed to conduct two polls. Not to be outdone by News 18’s helicopter, panelists on Republic’s show drove into the studio in swanky cars!

 Another poll that enthusiastically predicts the return of the Modi regime is the Times Now VMR poll that gives the NDA 306 seats, while says that the UPA could win as many as 132 seats. Cocking a snook at News 18’s helicopter and Republic’s cars, Times Now roped in a blue CGI Iron Man to do somersaults as results popped up!

 The India Today-Axis poll gave BJP and allies a whopping 339-365 seats, while giving the Congress and allies 77-108 seats. The News 24-Chanakya poll is meanwhile predicting a clean sweep for the Modi regime, especially in the heartland with wins in states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Delhi. Meanwhile, the News X Neta poll gives the NDA 242 seats while it gives the UPA 162 seats. It gives the SP-BSP-RLD 43 seats while giving others 88 seats.

 While almost all polls have written off the Mahagathbandhan, the ABP-Nielen poll is sticking its neck out and predicting a huge victory for the SP-BSP-RLD alliance in Uttar Pradesh, predicting they will win 56 seats! Over all this poll says NDA could win as many as 267 seats, while the UPA will cobble up 127 seats, leaving others with 148 seats.

 TMC Chief Mamata Banerjee has rubbished the exit poll results as gossip, tweeting, “I don’t trust Exit Poll gossip. The game plan is to manipulate or replace thousands of EVMs through this gossip. I appeal to all Opposition parties to be united, strong and bold. We will fight this battle together.”

 Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha also echoed similar sentiments in his tweet saying,T”he silent voter will be king on May 23 rd 2019. The ‘fear factor’ playing havoc with respondents to pollsters in an ugly polarized election. Ridiculous #ExitPolls , almost laughable. UPA > NDA when the ‘real counting’ happens.”

But given how miserably exit polls have missed the mark in the past, it is best to exercise caution while accepting these results. Also, few journalists today have the grace to apologise like NDTV chief Pronnoy Roy did in November 2015 for getting the Bihar results wrong.

In his brilliant analysis of how and why exit polls get it wrong in The New Indian Express, Shankkar Aiyar writes, “… exit polls can overstate the case of vocal voters and miss the silent vote—and in India, there is an another factor, false responses driven by fear of retribution. Also, a higher turnout can skew assumed weightages, leading to erroneous calls on trajectory and/or tally.  In fact, the impact is aggravated when the data is drilled to deliver outcomes at a granular level.” He cites examples on 2004 and 2009, when pollsters got the trajectory and tally wrong. Aiyar further explains, “Exit polls also tend to get it right when there is a clear edge for one side at the outset of the election. On the flip side, exit polls can go haywire in close contests and when a thin sample is extrapolated to generate conclusions.”

In an age where many a newsroom has dedicated itself to being a mouthpiece of the ruling dispensation, equating in the process all voices and acts of dissent as anti-national, it may be surmised that the declaration of positive results is perhaps their way of keeping their political masters happy and curry whatever last few favours they can till the actual results are declared.

Trump’s New Merit-Based Immigration Plan

US President Donald Trump has unveiled a plan to reform the nation’s immigration system, intended to favor high-skilled immigrants and restrict family-based migration. President Trump unveiled an outline for reshaping how immigrants are admitted into the country — seeking to promote a more comprehensive approach to immigration ahead of a reelection campaign in which Democrats plan to portray his hard-line approach at the border as racist.

The new proposal, an effort led primarily by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, appears destined for the congressional dustbin, with no clear strategy from the White House to turn it into law and essentially no support from Democrats who control half of Capitol Hill.

Currently, about two-thirds of the 1.1 million people allowed to migrate to the nation each year are given green cards granting permanent residency because of family ties. Trump’s plan, which does not add protections to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients, is expected to draw little support from Democrats who have railed against the administration’s lack of support for so-called “Dreamers,” who were brought to the United States as children by undocumented parents.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed the proposal as “condescending,” signaling that Democrats would not support legislation that does not include a pathway to citizenship. “They say family is without merit — are they saying most of the people that come to the US in the history of our country are without merit, because they don’t have an engineering degree,” Pelosi asked at her weekly press conference on Thursday.

But the White House and its allies on Capitol Hill have emphasized that the plan — few details of which have been publicly released — is primarily to showcase the kind of immigration that Trump and Republicans can support ahead of next year’s elections.

“We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of American workers first,” Trump said from the White House Rose Garden in front of an audience of Cabinet officials and GOP lawmakers. “Our proposal is pro-American, pro-immigrant and pro-worker. It’s just common sense.”

The president’s bid to sketch out a vision that could appeal beyond his conservative base represented a potentially risky shift at a time when he is eyeing a tough reelection campaign in which he believes immigration will play a major role.

Speaking at the White House, Trump on Thursday said that his plan aims to create a “fair, modern and lawful system of immigration for the US”, Xinhua news agency reported.

“The biggest change we make is to increase the proportion of highly skilled immigration from 12 per cent to 57 per cent, and we’d like to even see if we can go higher,” Trump said. “This will bring us in line with other countries and make us globally competitive.”

“We cherish the open door that we want to create for our country. But a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill,” said the president, noting that immigrants, under the plan, will also be “required to learn English and to pass a civics exam prior to admission.”

According to the White House, the proposal would tighten family-based migration to focus on allowing nuclear families who migrate to the US, rather than extended family members.

The effort, championed by Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, also focuses on beefing up border security. Trump has claimed that the nation is being overrun by migrants and asylum seekers and sought to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico by declaring a national emergency so as to bypass Congress and unlock billions of US dollars in funding.

 The new White House proposal does not change the net level of green cards allocated each year, but rather prioritizes high-skilled workers over those with family members who are U.S. citizens. It would allow applicants to rack up eligibility based on factors such as age, ability to speak English, job offers and educational background under what Trump called a new “Build America” visa.

But the proposal also sidesteps some major components of the nation’s immigration system that can be far more complex and controversial to resolve, such as the fate of the estimated 11 million immigrants without legal status and visas for temporary, low-skilled workers — issues that have divided the Republican Party and pit the business community against labor unions.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta rules against Trump in fight over president’s financial records

President Trump on Monday lost an early round of his court fight with Democrats, after a federal judge ruled the president’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress as lawmakers seek to assert their oversight authority.

Trump called the 41-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta of Washington, D.C. “crazy” and said he would appeal, adding: “We think it’s totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama-appointed judge.

Lawyers for the president are fighting document and witness subpoenas on multiple fronts, and Mehta’s ruling came hours after former White House counsel Donald McGahn was directed not to appear before a congressional committee seeking testimony about his conversations with Trump.

Congressional Democrats have vowed to fight for evidence of potential misconduct by Trump and those close to him, and the president’s legal team is broadly resisting those efforts. How those fights play out in court in the months ahead could impact the 2020 presidential race.

In his decision, Mehta flatly rejected arguments from the president’s lawyers that the House Oversight Committee’s demands for the records from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, were overly broad and served no legitimate legislative function.

“It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”

Trump has argued those congressional inquiries are politically motivated attacks on the authority of the presidency, while Democrats insist the subpoenas are essential to ensuring no president is above the law.

When the lawsuit was first filed, Trump’s private attorney Jay Sekulow said the president’s team “will not allow Congressional Presidential harassment to go unanswered.”

The company said in a statement that it will “respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”

While Democrats scored the first court victory in the fight over the president’s financial records, it’s unclear how many of these disputes will reach higher courts, or how those courts might rule.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the ruling “lets America know that we have ground to stand on and that we have a legitimate argument and the courts support them. . . . I’m glad it was a strong decision, that bodes well hopefully in the future for an appeals process.”

Mehta’s ruling threw historical shade at Trump, drawing comparisons to former president James Buchanan, whom historians have blamed for failing to prevent the Civil War and is generally considered one of the country’s worst leaders. He, too, complained bitterly about “harassing” congressional inquiries.

Judge Mehta noted that Congress also launched an investigation into the conduct of President Bill Clinton before he entered the White House.

“Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office,” he wrote. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”

The judge gave the White House a week to formally appeal the decision, adding “the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.”

An appeal could test decades of legal precedent that have upheld Congress’ right to investigate — a legal battle that is just one part of a broader effort by House Democrats to examine Trump’s finances, his campaign, and allegations he sought to obstruct justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.

In the Mazars case, Mehta cut down Trump’s lawyers’ complaint that Congress was usurping the Justice Department’s powers to investigate “dubious and partisan” allegations of private conduct, by inquiring into whether Trump misled his lenders by inflating his net worth.

Rather, Mehta said, a congressional investigation into illegal conduct before and during a president’s time in office fits “comfortably”with Congress’ broad investigative powers, which include an “informing function,” or power to expose corruption.]

Trump, his three eldest children and companies also are attempting to block a subpoena, issued by the House Financial Services Committee, seeking Trump’s bank records from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. A federal judge in Manhattan is set to hear that case Wednesday. The pace of the president’s legal fights with Congress is intensifying.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Monday that his panel will vote Wednesday to enforce its subpoena for the redacted portions of Mueller’s report, along with certain underlying materials.

Schiff accused the Justice Department of granting Republican lawmakers’ document requests and denying demands from Democrats.

“The refusal by the department, if it persists, will be a graphic illustration of bad faith and a unwillingness to cooperate with lawful process,” Schiff said.

On Monday, the Justice Department issued a formal legal opinion saying that McGahn, the former top White House lawyer, could not be required to appear before lawmakers in response to a congressional subpoena.

Democrats subpoenaed McGahn to testify Tuesday morning, hoping he would become a star witness in their investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. As detailed in Mueller’s report, McGahn provided critical testimony about several instances of potential obstruction by Trump.

“The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and constitutional precedent, the former counsel to the president cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders in a statement. “This action has been taken in order to ensure that future presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the office of the presidency.”

The 15-page legal opinion written by Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel argues McGahn cannot be compelled to testify before the committee, based on past Justice Department legal memos regarding the president’s close advisers.

The memo says McGahn’s immunity from congressional testimony is separate and broader than a claim of executive privilege.

The immunity “extends beyond answers to particular questions, precluding Congress from compelling even the appearance of a senior presidential adviser — as a function of the independence and autonomy of the president himself,” Engel wrote.

Trump told reporters the action was taken “for the office of the presidency, for future presidents. I think it’s a very important precedent. And the attorneys say that they’re not doing that for me, they’re doing it for the office of the president.”

Those comments underscore the high stakes of Trump’s current standoff with Congress — if either side loses a legal ruling by an appeals court, or the Supreme Court, the reverberations could be felt far beyond the Trump administration, changing the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branches of government for years to come.

In the fight over McGahn’s testimony, the Justice Department insists that immunity from testimony does not evaporate once a presidential adviser leaves the government because the topics of interest to Congress are discussions that occurred when the person worked for the president.

As a private citizen, McGahn is not necessarily bound by the White House directive, or the Justice Department memo, to refuse to comply with the subpoena. There was no immediate word from McGahn’s lawyer on whether he would comply with or defy the White House.

The move to bar McGahn from answering lawmakers’ questions angered House Democrats eager to hit back at what they view as White House stonewalling. The defiance raises the possibility that the House will hold McGahn in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has threatened.

“It is absurd for President Trump to claim privilege as to this witness’s testimony when that testimony was already described publicly in the Mueller report,” Nadler said in a statement. “Even more ridiculous is the extension of the privilege to cover events before and after Mr. McGahn’s service in the White House.”

An increasing number of Democrats also want to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week privately downplayed the possibility and encouraged her members to focus on their policy agenda.

Some Democrats believe opening an impeachment inquiry will strengthen their hand in trying to force the White House to comply with document requests and witness testimony, including McGahn’s.

House Democrats were hoping to make McGahn their key witness as they seek to unpack the findings of the Mueller report — particularly regarding questions of whether Trump obstructed justice.

GOP Rep calls for Trump’s impeachment

A Michigan Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus accused President Trump of “impeachable conduct” in a break with his party. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted Saturday that the president’s actions to potentially obstruct the now-shuttered special counsel investigation warrant impeachment by the House. He also accused Attorney General William Barr of “deliberately misrepresenting” Robert Mueller‘s report of the investigation’s findings.

“Here are my principal conclusions: 1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report. 2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. 3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. 4. Few members of Congress have read the report,” Amash wrote Saturday afternoon.

“Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” the Michigan Republican continued. “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

In other tweets, Amash accused Barr of “sleight-of-hand” to obscure the findings of Mueller’s report in his own summary released to Congress earlier this year. “In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings,” Amash wrote.

Amash has been a frequent critic of Trump. He has previously said he will not rule out running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president next year.

Amash also co-sponsored a resolution to block Trump’s emergency declaration earlier this year.

“Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.”

Kamala Harris invokes Indian heritage to Trump’s immigration plan

In response to US President Donald Trump announced his “merit based” immigration proposal, Democrat Senator Kamala Harris invoked her unique background as a presidential candidate — being the daughter of an Indian immigrant.

“I found the announcement today to be shortsighted,” CNN quoted Harris as saying on Thursday before an Asian American audience in Las Vegas.

On the plan’s intention to award immigrants certain points based on education or skills, Harris said: “We cannot allow people to start parsing and pointing fingers and creating hierarchies among immigrants.

“The beauty of the tradition of our country has been to say, when you walk through the door, you are equal. We spoke those words in 1776, ‘we are all equal’ and should be treated that way. Not, oh well, if you come from this place, you might only have a certain number of points, and if you come from that place you might have a different number of points.”

Asians have historically immigrated as family units, Harris added.

“It is, and has always been, about family. And that was completely overlooked, and I would suggest, denied, in the way the policy was outlined today.”

At the event hosted by an Asian American group, One APIA Nevada, Harris dove into her barrier-breaking election to the US Senate as the first South Asian to serve in the body’s history. She acknowledged her presidential run as a biracial woman helping to shatter notions about being black, Asian and a woman.

In her campaign stump speech, Harris always includes stories about how her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, impacted every aspect of her life. And while she has spoken about visits to India during her book tour, Harris on the trail has leaned far more into the African American identity her mother raised her to embrace.

An audience member asked Harris if she would consider wearing a traditional Indian saree to her inauguration.

“Let’s first win,” Harris responded. “My mother raised us with a very strong appreciation for our cultural background and pride. Celebrations that we all participate in regardless of how our last name is spelled. It’s the beauty of who we are as a nation.” (IANS)

Indian-Americans train for grassroots GOP electioneering

On the occasion of Asian American Heritage Month, the Republican National Committee held training sessions in Michigan and Ohio for activists of Indian and other Asian heritage.

“We continue to see great enthusiasm on the ground as Asian Pacific American (APA) communities prepare to re-elect President Trump as well as Republicans up and down the ticket in 2020, especially in Michigan and Ohio,” said a press release from the RNC. The meeting was held at the Twin Dragon Buffet & Grill in Cincinnati.

Ohio State Representative Niraj Antani, was at the Cincinnati training session, as was U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot.  In Michigan, State Sen. Jim Runestad and State Rep. Kathy Crawford joined the group in Lansing.

State Rep. Antani told News India Times, “The Republican Party is going to great lengths to recognize what Indian-Americans, South Asians, and other Asians have contributed to this country.”

As the only Asian American in the Ohio House of Representatives, Antani said on Facebook, “I was excited to join Congressman Steve Chabot & Republican National Committee director of Asian Pacific American Engagement Adi Sathi today in celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month!.”

Sathi, a South Asian-American was appointed to his current position in November 2017. Sathi main role in this position is to train volunteers and activists to become RNC field staffers.

He also serves as chief-of-staff at Young Republican National Federation, Inc. From 2015 to 2017, Sathi was the elected Vice Chair of Coalitions of the Michigan Republican Party.

In a tweet, Sathi said more than 70 people attended the “@GOP Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Celebration & @realDonaldTrump Victory Leadership Initiative (TVLI) training” with Antani and Chabot. “The APA community in Cincinnati is excited for 2020!” Sathi added. Formerly, as an Asian Pacific Institute for Congressional Studies Legislative Fellow, Sathi served in the office of Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.

India’s growing religious divide: BJP’s anti-religious minorities agenda

As the election season is winding down and the nation is anxiously looking forward to the results, one cannot escape but witnessing India’s slide towards complete polarization based on the politics of religion.  Prime Minister Modi’s ascension to power has resulted in growing Hindu intolerance of Christianity and Islam. Radical elements within his party are pushing an agenda to marginalize these two groups whom they consider ‘foreign’ and would like to see them disappear!

Although Indian constitution guarantees the freedom of religion to all its citizens, the political dogma of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the parent organization of BJP, enunciated by its erstwhile leader and theoretician M S Golwalker is still mostly the guideline for many of its loyal adherents.  In fact, he argued in the book ‘our nationhood defined’ that as long as the Muslims and the Christians failed to abandon their own religion and culture they cannot but be only foreigners in this country and if they stayed here without losing their “separate existence” they might be treated as “enemies”, at best as “idiots”. His arguments tilt more favorably towards treating all Christians as “hostiles” who are agents of International movement for the spread of Christianity.

It is important to note that RSS gurus have been inculcating the idea of bigotry and hate to the mindset of many generations for the last 95 years. It is no surprise then that Modi’s rise to power has now led to an explosion of anti-Christian attitudes and fiery speeches creating an environment conducive to even physical attacks on Christian Institutions and its leaders. Prejudice against the minorities, especially Christians and Muslims, are a growing trend in the Indian society and for the BJP, it means electoral gains and seats of power! They couldn’t care less about the political instability, whether it wreaks havoc across the country or the negative impact it may have on the economic health of the nation.

According to news reports in the National Review magazine, during the 2017 Christmas season alone, there were 23 incidents. Most dramatic was the arrest of 30 priests and seminarians singing Christmas carols in Madhya Pradesh state. They were accused of violating the State’s anti-conversion law, which has been on the books since 2013. Similar legislation is in force in seven other states. Eight priests who came to the carolers’ aid were physically assaulted, and their vehicles were set on fire. Police officers reportedly stood by without intervening. That scenario is all too common. By some accounts, hundreds of anti-Christian incidents have occurred in the past year.

“We are losing confidence in our government,” said Cardinal Baselios Cleemis of Thiruvananthapuram, former President of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India (CBCI). He added that “the country is being divided on the basis of religious belief” which he labeled a threat to the “democratic credentials of our country.” The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recently released an annual report and its key findings include the observation by the Supreme Court of “deteriorating conditions for religious freedom in some states in 2018, stating that “certain state governments were not only not doing anything to stop violence against religious minorities, and in extreme cases, impunity was being granted to criminals engaging in violence.

The report also highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on these issues, saying he “seldom made statements decrying mob violence,” and noting that “certain members of his political party have affiliations with Hind extremist groups and used inflammatory language about religious minorities publicly.” The report notes that in 2018, Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs Hansraj Ahir told Parliament that 111 people were killed and 2,384 people were wounded in 822 communal clashes in 2017. By contrast, in 2016, 86 people were killed, and 2,321 were injured in 703 clashes, the report offers, later adding that independent organizations that monitor hate crimes found that 2018 saw more than 90 religion-based hate crimes that resulted in 30 deaths and many more injuries.

There is also a secret war being waged against Christian NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization) that are engaged in welfare work for the very poor in rural India. By throwing out the ‘Compassion International USA’ that housed and educated 145,000 destitute children and shutting down of the work of the ‘Caritas International’ that works with 360 NGOs across India that boasted about a force of 25,000 volunteers are good examples of Government’s authoritarian agenda that works in concert with whims of the Hindutva militants to marginalize the Christian Community and remove them from being a visible and positive force from the public’s eye.

In Modi’s India, Christian Institutions are being strangled by denial of FCRAs, freezing of the bank accounts, unending investigations, frequent auditing and harassment of principals who are in charge. These moves appear to be consistent with the Hindutva philosophy that the Modi government has embraced to advance the saffron agenda that challenges the very idea of India as a multi-cultural and pluralistic society. Modi appears to pay lip service to Gandhiji’s concept of India upon his visits abroad but remains silent when Institutions that are supposed to promote those principles come under attack back home. It should also be noted that Christianity came to India in A.D. 52, long before Ireland or England have embraced that religion. To judge the Indianness of its nationals only through the prism of one’s faith is not only just unfair but preposterous!

While the BJP Government is hard at work restricting Christian NGOs from receiving funds from abroad, no such limitations are placed on the Sangh Parivar organizations that collect millions of dollars from western democracies. Another report from USCIRF states that “while the Indian Government continues to use the FCRA to limit foreign funding for some NGOs, Hindutva supported organizations have never come under the scrutiny of FCRA. With the amendment championed by the Modi government, the foreign-based radical Hindu organizations will be able to send funds to India, without restriction, to support hate campaigns. Under the revised definition of FCRA, so long as the foreign company’s ownership of an Indian entity is within the foreign investment limits prescribed by the Government for that sector, the company will be treated as “Indian” for the purpose of FCRA.”

It is also common knowledge that Christian church leaders from the United States have a harder time obtaining visas to visit their fellow faithful in India or attend a conference while no such restrictions are placed on Indians based on religious affiliations. It is hypocritical for India to deny a religious conference visa to an American citizen while shedding crocodile tears for a reduction in the number of available H1B visas that could take jobs away from American citizens. The recent cancellation and court-ordered restoration of OCI card of an Indian American Christian who was accused of proselytizing while working as a physician volunteer in India during summer months have sent shock waves to the community. It once again shows the wanton disregard for fairness and due process by the bureaucrats who are so eager to please the current policy makers!

Meanwhile, India’s 180 million Muslims are affected as well by mob violence on suspicion of having eaten beef or slaughtered a cow, animals sacred to Hinduism nationwide. The recent election campaign by all parties show the reluctance of the leadership across the board to overtly court Muslims or seek their votes in public forums. Modi’s rule also emboldened Hindu extremist elements to translate their religiously ordained contempt and hatred for Dalits into systematic violence against that community as well often lynching them on suspicions of transporting cows for slaughter. According to a report in the New York Times, Indian courts have consistently acquitted most perpetrators of massacres of Dalits. Conviction rates in violent crimes against Dalits and indigenous tribes are a mere 28.3 percent and 16.4 % compared with 40.2 percent in general criminal cases.

India has a religion problem, and it should be given careful attention by policymakers in Washington as it can have long term repercussions towards the future. It appears that the sectarian line-up of political conflict is going to dominate the political landscape of India as long as BJP retains power. History has taught us that if the salience of the State is undefendable, regionalism or tribalism may become rampant and weaken a nation-state. Religious oppression is a clear sign of instability for any nation, and as the US is eyeing India as a strategic partner against the rising threat of China, an increasing level of communal tensions or sectarian conflicts in the sub-continent may not bode well for that relationship.

(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations)

Publics in Emerging Economies Worry Social Media Sow Division, Even as They Offer New Chances for Political Engagement Many who use social media say they regularly see false and misleading content along with new ideas

In recent years, the internet and social media have been integral to political protests, social movements and election campaigns around the globe. Events from the Arab Spring to the worldwide spread of#MeToo have been aided by digital connectivity in both advanced and emerging economies. But popular social media and messaging platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp have drawn attention for their potential role in spreading misinformation, facilitating political manipulation by foreignand domestic actors, and increasing violenceand hate crimes.

Recently, the Sri Lankan government shut down several of the country’s social media and messaging services immediately after Easter day bombings at Catholic churches killed and wounded hundreds. Some technology enthusiasts praised the decision but wondered if this development marked a change from pro-democracy, Arab Spring-era hopes that digital technology would be a liberating tool to a new fear that it has become “a force that can corrode” societies.

In the context of these developments, a Pew Research Center survey of adults in 11 emerging economies finds these publics are worried about the risks associated with social media and other communications technologies – even as they cite their benefits in other respects. Succinctly put, the prevailing view in the surveyed countries is that mobile phones, the internet and social media have collectively amplified politics in both positive and negative directions – simultaneously making people more empowered politically andpotentially more exposed to harm.

When it comes to the benefits, adults in these countries see digital connectivity enhancing people’s access to political information and facilitating engagement with their domestic politics. Majorities in each country say access to the internet, mobile phones and social media has made people more informed about current events, and majorities in most countries believe social media have increased ordinary people’s ability to have a meaningful voice in the political process. Additionally, half or more in seven of these 11 countries say technology has made people more accepting of those who have different views than they do.

But these perceived benefits are frequently accompanied by concerns about the limitations of technology as a tool for political action or information seeking. Even as many say social media have increased the influence of ordinary people in the political process, majorities in eight of these 11 countries feel these platforms have simultaneously increased the risk that people might be manipulated by domestic politicians. Around half or more in eight countries also think these platforms increase the risk that foreign powers might interfere in their country’s elections.

Similarly, the widespread view that technology has made people more informed about current events is often paired with worries that these tools might make people vulnerable: Majorities in 10 of these countries feel technology has made it easier to manipulate people with rumors and false information. Further, a recent report by the Center found that a median of 64% across these 11 countries say people should be very concerned about exposure to false or incorrect information when using their phones.

What is a median?

Publics in these countries are also conflicted over the extent to which technology is broadening people’s personal horizons or causing their politics to become more tribal – and many seem to see elements of both. An 11-country median of 52% say technology has made people more accepting of those who have different views than they do, while a median of 58% say it has made people more divided in their political opinions. In most countries, larger shares say technology is causing people to be more divided than say it has caused them to be open to different groups of people.

The public’s opinion is easily manipulated through social media. Videos circulating about politicians can either make them famous and likable or break them down.WOMAN, 23, TUNISIA

Those most attuned to digital technology’s potential benefits are often also most aware of its downsides

It is not simply the case that certain segments of the public have consistently positive views about the political impacts of digital technology while others feel consistently more negative. In many instances, individuals who are most attuned to the potential benefits technology can bring to the political domain are also the ones most anxious about the possible harms.

For instance, in 10 of the 11 countries surveyed, the view that technology has made people more informed is correlated with the view that technology has made people easier to manipulate with rumors and false information. And in most countries, the view that technology has made people more accepting of each other is correlated with the view that it has made people more divided in their political opinions.

The social media landscape in the 11 countries surveyed

Certain groups – such as those with higher levels of education and those who are social media users – are especially likely to note both the positive and negative impacts of technology.12 Across all 11 countries, adults with a secondary education or higher are more likely to say technology has made people more informed about current events relative to those who do not have a secondary education. Yet, in nine countries, those with higher levels of education are also more inclined to say technology has made people more subject to false information and rumors. More highly educated adults are also more likely to say technology has contributed to both political divisions and tolerance of opposing viewpoints in seven of these countries (Colombia, India, Kenya, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tunisia and Vietnam).

Similarly, social media users in all 11 countries are more likely than non-users to say technology has made people more informed about current events. Users are also generally more likely to say technology has made people more accepting of those with different views, and more willing to engage in political debates. However, users are also more likely to say technology is making people more divided in their political opinions and easier to mislead with misinformation.

The public’s sense that technology brings both promise and problems is mirrored in social media users’ experiences on these platforms

These broad public views about the positive and negative impacts of technology on the political and information environment are echoed in social media users’ lived experiences on these platforms.

In some respects, social media users indicate that the nature of the content on these platforms is quite positive. In every country surveyed, for instance, majorities of social media users say they frequently or occasionally encounter content there that introduces them to new ideas. Similarly, pluralities of social media users in most countries say the news and information they get on these platforms is more up to date and more informative compared with other sources.

But as was true of views of the overall technology landscape, social media users see challenges as well as benefits. Most notably, majorities of social media users in 10 of these 11 countries frequently or occasionally encounter content that seems obviously false or untrue, and majorities of users in six countries regularly encounter content on these platforms that makes them feel negatively about groups of people who are different than they are.

Social media users also express mixed opinions about the characteristics of the social media environment relative to other information sources. Only in Vietnam do a plurality of users say these platforms are more reliable than other sources they encounter. In other countries, users are more divided about whether the information on social media is about as reliable – or less so – than what they see elsewhere. Opinion is also relatively mixed across the 11 countries as far as whether the news people get on these platforms is more hateful than what they get elsewhere.

We have to understand that there are scores of websites and articles on the internet that are false and inaccurate, purely opinion, or extremely biased or slanted.WOMAN, 22, PHILIPPINES

This range of experiences and attitudes is also reflected in at least some users’ personal interactions on social media platforms. An 11-country median of 36% of social media users – including around half in Kenya and Venezuela – say they have learned someone’s political beliefs were different than they had thought based on things that person posted to social media. In all 11 countries surveyed, those who have been surprised by someone’s political beliefs in this way are more likely to say technology has made people more divided in their political opinions. In seven countries, however, these users are also more likely to say access to technology has made people more accepting of those who have different views.

More people are comfortable talking politics in person than in digital spaces

Even as social media have offered citizens new ways to encounter and share information, more people are comfortable speaking about politics in person than via mobile phones or social media. These differences are especially pronounced in Lebanon: 78% of Lebanese overall say they are comfortable discussing political issues in person, but 48% of Lebanese mobile phone users are comfortable discussing these issues on their phones and just 39% of Lebanese social media users say they are comfortable broaching these issues on those platforms.

People who are comfortable discussing politics in digital spaces tend to be more optimistic about the impact these technologies have on politics in their country. For example, social media users who are comfortable discussing politics there are more likely to say the internet has had a good impact on politics and that social media have increased ordinary people’s ability to have a meaningful voice in politics. They also are usually more likely to describe the news they get on social media platforms positively – as more up to date, informative, reliable and focused on issues they care about – compared with other sources. And they are more likely to say they see articles on social media that introduce them to new ideas. But they are also somewhat more likely to say they regularly encounter articles or other content that makes them feel negatively about groups of people who are different from them.

Although publics in most countries are more comfortable discussing politics in person than via digital methods, people in certain countries are generally more comfortable discussing politics – whether in person, using their mobile phone or over social media – than people in other countries. The Philippines, Vietnam, Kenya and India are countries where majorities are comfortable discussing politics in person, and majorities of users are comfortable talking politics on a mobile phone or via social media. However, people’s comfort levels have little relationship with overall measures of civil liberties in their country or measures of how democratic the country is (or is not). And countries with higher levels of interpersonal trust are not more likely to be comfortable discussing politics in any of these venues.3

You know, there’s a politician that sends text messages to us saying ‘Happy birthday, from Senator this-and-that.’ Even with that, they have already got your number. What more [do they have] if you’re already on social media?MAN, 44, PHILIPPINES

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 28,122 adults in 11 countries from Sept. 7 to Dec. 7, 2018. In addition to the survey, the Center conducted focus groups with diverse groups of participants in Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines and Tunisia in March 2018, and their comments are included throughout the report

Religious freedom conditions in India on a downward trend in 2018: US Commission Report

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recently released an annual report that examines the state of religious freedom in several countries around the world, including India. The countries are categorised into two tiers, with India once again being placed in Tier 2, “for engaging in or tolerating religious freedom violations that meet at least one of the elements of the “systematic, ongoing, egregious” standard for designation as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA),” the report states. In its key findings, it notes that India saw religious freedom conditions continued on a downward trend in 2018, noting that last year, “approximately one-third of state governments increasingly enforced anti-con- version and/or anti-cow slaughter laws discriminatorily against non-Hindus and Dalits alike.”

The report adds that, in 2018, “approximately one-third of state governments increasingly enforced anti-con- version and/or anti-cow slaughter laws discriminatorily against non-Hindus and Dalits alike,” and notes that Christians were also the targets were mob violence “under accusations of forced or induced religious conversion.” Moreover, the report notes that in cases involving mob violence against a person over false accusations of forced conversion of cow slaughter, “police investigations and prosecutions often were not adequately pursued.”

In its key findings for India, the report takes note of the Supreme Court of India’s highlighting of “deteriorating conditions for religious freedom in some states” in 2018, stating that the court concluded that “certain state governments were not doing enough to stop violence against religious minorities, and in some extreme cases, impunity was being granted to criminals engaging in violence.” The report also highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on these issues, saying he “seldom made statements decrying mob violence,” and noting that “certain members of his political party have affiliations with Hindu extremist groups and used inflammatory language about religious minorities publicly.” These were some of the points the report notes to explain why India was once again termed a Tier 2 country.

The report outlines recommendations to the United States’ government, saying that it should “press the Indian government to allow a USCIRF delegation to visit the country and meet with stakeholders to evaluate conditions for freedom of religion or belief in India”. It calls for working with the Indian government to formulate a years-long strategy to curb religion-driven hate crimes by “pressing state governments” to prosecute public figures, including government officials, “who incite violence against religious minority groups through public speeches or articles.” The recommendations for this strategy also include bolstering the training and capacity of state and central police forces to prevent and punish instances of religious violence, encouraging the passage of the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2018, and assisting the law ministry to work with states to increase prosecution of hate crimes and hate speech targeting religious minorities, among others.

The report says that the conditions for religious freedom have declined in the last decade, stating, “A multifaceted campaign by Hindu nationalist groups like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sang (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) to alienate non-Hindus or lower-caste Hindus is a significant contributor to the rise of religious violence and persecution.” It notes that in 2017, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) “reported that communal violence increased significantly during 2016,” highlighting that human rights organisations criticised the NCRB last year not adequately including data on mob violence or lynching. Given this, “the NCRB delayed its 2018 report to collect data on nearly 30 new crime categories, which will include hate crimes, lynching, and crimes based on fake news,” the report states.

The report notes that in 2018, Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs Hansraj Ahir told Parliament that 111 people were killed and 2,384 people were wounded in 822 communal clashes in 2017. By contrast, in 2016, 86 people were killed and 2,321 were injured in 703 clashes, the report offers, later adding that independent organisations that monitor hate crimes found that 2018 saw more than 90 religion-based hate crimes that resulted in 30 deaths and many more injuries. However, the report also notes that in December 2018, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that communal attacks had declined 12%, compared to the peak in 2017.

The report also notes how “institutional challenges” have contributed to religious freedom concerns, with “the police and courts overwhelmed,” and highlighting how “worsening income inequality has left more Indians suffering from poverty and has exacerbated his- torical conditions of inequality for certain religious and social minorities.”

The report takes note of anti-conversion laws that are in force in seven states in India, noting that the fundamental right to freedom of religion “includes the ability to manifest one’s beliefs through expression intended to persuade another individual to change his or her religious beliefs or affiliation voluntarily.” The report outlines that in 2018, anti-conversion laws were primarily enforced against Christians and Muslims who were proselytising, and says that religious minority leaders and others were also arrested under these laws. It highlights the case of Hadiya, whose marriage had been embroiled in accusations of ‘love jihad’. The report does not mention this phrase, but takes note of “inflammatory allegations of an organized campaign to coerce Hindu women to marry Muslim men and convert to Islam,” stating that the National Investigation Agency investigated this alleged campaign and eventually concluded that there was no evidence for it. Meanwhile, the report mentions ‘ghar wapsi’ ceremonies, in which those born as Hindus who converted to another religion are converted back, stating that “In some cases, these conversion ceremonies reportedly involve force or coercion,” but noting that it is difficult to determine if such conversions are voluntary or not.

Notably, the report, while discussing the role of Hindutva/Hindu extremist groups, highlights that “moderate and extreme forces within the Hindutva movement point to the rise in the Muslim population from constituting 10 percent of the national population in 1951 to 14 percent in 2011, which in their view necessitates “mitigation” against the growing Muslim community.” It later takes note of the fact that numerous cities have been renamed, such as Allahabad and Faizabad, abandoning the names that had been given during the Mughal period, stating that this “has been perceived as an effort to erase or downplay the influence of non-Hindus in Indian his- tory and as an attack on Muslims within India today.”

The report also discusses cow vigilantism, noting that “cow protection” mobs, “a new phenomenon,” have engaged in more than 100 attacks since May 2015 that have led to 44 deaths and around 300 people being injured. “In 2018 alone, cow protection lynch mobs killed at least 13 people and injured 57 in 31 incidents.” It also takes note of hate crimes against religious minorities, including anti-Muslim rhetoric in West Bengal in April 2018, threats against Christians in Tamil Nadu in October 2018.

Per the report, impunity for large-scale incidents of communal violence persists in India, “without proper accountability or recompense.” Probes and prosecution of those allegedly responsible have been “ineffective” or “absent,” and victims have said that the government has not adequately helped in rebuilding “destroyed neighborhoods, homes, and places of worship.” The report emphasises that while the Supreme Court and fact-finding commissions “have noted common characteristics and causes of such violence, including incitement to violence against religious minorities by politicians or religious leaders,” the failure “to address those common characteristics and causes or to hold perpetrators accountable have contributed to a culture of impunity for such violence.”

Other than incidents and threats that are communal, the report also discusses the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 1976, and details how it has been used to target non-governmental organisations “with missionary and human rights portfolios,” who have been banned from operating in India. It notes that in November 2018, the government “demanded that 1,775 organizations provide further explanation for their failure to submit use of foreign funds over the last six years; these organizations included many non-Hindu religious groups, some Hindu trusts managing major temples, and secular human rights groups.” The report explains that some Hindus, including some “Hindutva extremists,” “perceive Christian missionaries converting Dalits to be particularly threatening, as there are nearly 200 million Dalits in India,” adding, “Many observers assert that it was this fear of mass conversion that led to the 2017 shutdown of Com- passion International, a U.S.-based Christian charity, which provided services to nearly 150,000 Indian children.”

The report also has a section on Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), which has jeopardized the Indian citizenship of more than four million people. “Widespread concerns have been raised that the NRC update is an intentional effort to discriminate and/ or has the effect of discriminating against Muslims, and that the discretion given to local authorities in the verification process and in identifying perceived foreigners to be excluded from the draft list will be abused,” it notes. It also highlights the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, saying that “concerns about the targeting of Muslims through the citizenship process were separately exacerbated” by its introduction and passage in the Lok Sabha; the bill, which would have provided citizenship to migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan “as long as they were not Muslim,” was dropped in the Rajya Sabha in February 2019, after the reporting period.

The report also discusses religious freedom for women, highlighting the Kathua case, in which an eight-year-old child was “abducted, gang-raped, and murdered as a message and threat to her Muslim nomadic community in Kashmir.” It notes that a priest, his son and a special police officer were charged in the case, and other police officials were charged with covering up the crimes. The report notes that while many protested the incident, “several others organized in support of the men charged, including members of the BJP.” It also highlights the Sabarimala Temple case, saying that following the Supreme Court’s ruling that adult women be permitted to enter the temple, “women attempting to enter the temple were physically attacked and others who publicly stated that they would try to enter the temple received hate mes- sages including death threats both online and in-person.”

The report also mentions a handful of positive developments with regards to religious freedom in India, such as the decline in communal violence in 2018, and the Supreme Court’s directive to the state and central governments to tackle mob violence, asking them to “pursue an 11-point plan, including compensation to hate crime victims, fast-tracking prosecutions, assigning senior police officers to deal with communal issues, and other provisions.” The report also mentions some progress in mob violence cases, citing June 2017’s Alimuddin Ansari lynching case, in which 11 accused were sentenced to life imprisonment in March 2018. Per the report, the Ministry of Minority Affairs was also granted a 12% increase in its budget.

Separately, Tenzin Dorjee, chair of the USCIRF, wrote a note in which he disagreed that religious freedom in India was deteriorating, stating, “While India must address issues related to religious freedom, I respectfully dissent on the views that India’s religious freedom conditions continued on a downward trend, the government allowed and encouraged mob violence against religious minorities, and some states are involved in ‘systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.’” He notes that in the 30+ years he spent living in India as Tibetan refugee, he “mostly witnessed the best of India and sometimes worst due to intractable interreligious conflicts.” He acknowledges that “religious divides and power struggles” resulted in the Partition of India and Pakistan, and also “contribute to egregious violations of religious freedom and tragedies,” but says that in spite of these concerns, “India exists as a multifaith and secular country.” Dorjee says that as a Tibetan refugee, “the most vulnerable minority among all minorities” in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh, where he lived, he “experienced full religious freedom,” citing China’s systematic attacks on the Tibetan community in comparison. Dorjee also highlighted isolated incidents of religious harmony, such as a Muslim village donating land and money to build a Hindu temple, and a Hindu head priest carrying a Dalit youth on his shoulders into the Chilkur Balaji Temple’s inner sanctum amid cheers from a huge crowd. He takes note of Nathowal village in Punjab, where Hindu and Sikh communities helped rebuild an old mosque, and Muslims and Hindus helped work at a Sikh gurudwara. “People in this village reported to the Times of India that they celebrated together annual multifaith festivals such as Diwali, Dusshera, Rakhi, Eid, and Gurupurab,” Dorjee writes, opining that such “stories speak for India’s multi- faith civilization, religious freedom, and interreligious harmony.” He ends with an appeal to the Indian government “to continuously respect religious freedom and strive to promote India as a vibrant country of and for the multifaith people.”

The complete report may be read here. The section on India is on pages 174-181.
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2019USCIRFAnnualReport.pdf

International Media Critical of Modi as Elections in India Nearly Concludes

With the election in the largest democracy in the world, coming to a close and the world is awaiting for the crucial results to the Indian Parliament, the media, across the world, is filled with avidity, giving all sorts of analysis and predicting the outcomes. This election is witnessing a headstrong fight between the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the other opposition parties. While the Congress is trying hard to regain its lost ground, the ‘mahagathbandhan’ (grand alliance), dominated by Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP) and Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), has been formed, leaving behind their old rivalry, sheerly to ouster Modi.

Media is playing a very significant role in this election along with allegations of being biased and spreading fake news. Even the global media is intently watching the turnarounds in this election. While Modi is being applauded for improving India’s global status and developing bonhomie with the superpowers, the international media is not all praise for the PM.

Some portions of the media are calling Modi an autocratic leader with his only objective being that of imposing his party’s Hindutva ideology on our secular nation while some are portraying him as the only beacon of home.

American news magazine Time has featured Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the cover page of its May 20 issue with a headline that may create controversy across India amid the election season. The headline reads “India’s Divider in Chief” that is and carries a caricature of the Prime Minister criticizing Modi.

This title pertains to the article in the magazine, written by Aatish Taseer with the headline “Can the World’s Largest Democracy Endure Another Five Years of a Modi Government?”
The write up compares former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s idea of secularism with the prevailing social “stress” under Modi,” the article read. Besides, the article has also recalled the Gujarat riots that allegedly claimed lives of scores of people.
It is not the first time when the magazine has come with critical commentary about Modi. In its published article in 2012, the magazine described him as a controversial, ambitious and a shrewd politician.
Referring to the 2014 victory, Taseer writes, “The nation’s most basic norms, such as the character of the Indian state, its founding fathers, the place of minorities and its institutions, from universities to corporate houses to the media, were shown to be severely distrusted. The cherished achievements of independent India–secularism, liberalism, a free press–came to be seen in the eyes of many as part of a grand conspiracy in which a deracinated Hindu elite, in cahoots with minorities from the monotheistic faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, maintained its dominion over India’s Hindu majority.
Modi’s victory was an expression of that distrust. He attacked once unassailable founding fathers, such as Nehru, then sacred state ideologies, such as Nehruvian secularism and socialism; he spoke of a “Congress-free” India; he demonstrated no desire to foster brotherly feeling between Hindus and Muslims. Most of all, his ascension showed that beneath the surface of what the elite had believed was a liberal syncretic culture, India was indeed a cauldron of religious nationalism, anti-Muslim sentiment and deep-seated caste bigotry.”

Paradoxically, in the same magazine, there was another article titled, ‘Modi Is India’s Best Hope for Economic Reform,’ wherein the writer, Ian Bremmer, praises Modi for his bold and much-needed reforms like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the biometric identification system- the Aadhar card, strengthening international ties, uplifting the poor through welfare schemes like Ujjwala Yojana and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, among others. “.. India still needs change, and Modi remains the person most likely to deliver. He has improved relations with China, the U.S. and Japan, but it’s his domestic development agenda that has done the most to improve the lives and prospects of hundreds of millions of people. Consider what he’s already accomplished during five years in charge,” the article read.

In an Opinion article, titled, ‘Modi Reminds India of Indira Gandhi. Will He Share Her Electoral Fate?’ published in The New York Times on May 8, the writer, Gyan Prakash, draws parallels between Modi and the former PM Indira Gandhi based on their autocratic form of ruling. The writer even goes on to say that the election results will show whether the public continues to accept an autocratic ruler or removes him like Indira Gandhi was defeated in the 1977 elections post-emergency. He further accuses Modi of destabilizing the democratic institutions.

Prakash writes, “Mr. Modi has ruled India with the iron will reminiscent of Mrs. Gandhi. He brooks no dissent and projects the personality cult of a strong Hindu nationalist warrior combating the nation’s internal and external enemies with “surgical strikes….While Mrs. Gandhi resorted to emergency rule to survive a political crisis, Mr. Modi’s regime thrives on Hindu majoritarian militancy. He stokes majoritarian resentments against the minorities to further his rule. Dissent is denounced as treason, and Hindu nationalists deride critics as elites guilty of “rootless cosmopolitanism.”

He further writes, “Riding to power in 2014 with an overwhelming majority for his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, Mr. Modi quickly moved to centralize power. His government bypassed the Parliament and issued ordinances to advance his policies. Civil society organizations have faced investigations. Unqualified Hindu nationalists were foisted on educational and cultural institutions. A law was instituted to exert greater control over the appointment of judges.”

In an interview, with the Financial Times’ South Asia Bureau Chief Amy Kazmin and South Asia Correspondent, Stephanie Findlay, discuss the 2019 elections. They start the interview by saying, “India’s election has turned into an ideological battle pitting an inclusive vision of a multi-faith nation against the view that Hindus should have sway.” They even talk about how the 2014 election was fought on the promise of economic development which clearly wasn’t fulfilled. Thus, Modi is fighting the 2019 elections  on the basis of national security, by creating an atmosphere of threat and promising that the Modi-led government will protect India as it did through the Uri and Balakot strikes. They have further accused Modi of playing the Hindu nationalism card to seek re-election.

Though the global media is divided in its opinion about Modi and his re-election, one thing which is common across all the sections is the lack of alternate leader for the Indian voters which gives Modi an upper hand in this fierce battle. Taseer rightly says, “Modi is lucky to be blessed with so weak an opposition–a ragtag coalition of parties, led by the Congress, with no agenda other than to defeat him.”

This election has become a fight to uphold our Constitutional principles and our democratic institutions. It is a battle to ensure that religion doesn’t overtake the ideals of justice and equality for all. As rightly described by Prakash, “With an authoritarian, hyper nationalist warrior asking for their support, Indian voters are tasked with making a consequential choice for India’s future. As B.R. Ambedkar, the great Dalit leader and the architect of India’s Constitution, once remarked, Indians were particularly susceptible to “bhakti,” or devotion. This was fine in religion, but in politics, he warned, it is “a sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship.”

Taseer argues that To understand the deeper promptings of this enormous expression of franchise – not just politics, but the underlying cultural fissures – one needs to go back to the first season of the Modi story because only then “one can see why the advent of Modi is “at once an inevitability and a calamity for India.”
He says the India offers a unique glimpse into “both the validity and the fantasy of populism” and “forces us to reckon with how in India, as well as in societies as far apart as Turkey and Brazil, Britain and the U.S., populism has given voice to a sense of grievance among majorities that is too widespread to be ignored, while at the same time bringing into being a world that is neither more just, nor more appealing.”
But Taseer notes that Modi is lucky to be blessed with so weak an opposition – a ragtag coalition of parties, led by the Congress, with no agenda other than to defeat him. Even so, doubts assail him, for he must know he has not delivered on the promise of 2014.
“It is why he has resorted to looking for enemies within. Like other populists, he sits in his white house tweeting out his resentment against the sultanate of “them. And, as India gets ready to give this willful provincial, so emblematic of her own limitations, a second term, one cannot help but tremble at what he might yet do to punish the world for his own failures,” he says.
The article also recalled the Gujarat riots of 2002. Taseer describes Modi’s record on women’s issues as “spotty” and calls Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath a “hate-mongering priest in robes of saffron”.
In the wake of the article, reactions on social media were galore with people commenting in favor or against Modi depending on their political persuasions with some calling it a biased article against Modi’s popular government while others welcoming it as an objective thoughtful essay on the divisive politics of the Modi era.

India-US Trade War

Any retaliatory tariff by India in response to the United States’ planned withdrawal of some trade privileges will not be “appropriate” under WTO rules, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross warned on Tuesday.
The comments, made to broadcaster CNBC-TV18 during a trip to India’s capital, come as trade ties between the United States and China worsen. The United States is India’s second-biggest trade partner after China.
Indian officials have raised the prospect of higher import duties on more than 20 U.S. goods if President Donald Trump presses ahead with a plan announced in March to end the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for India.
India is the biggest beneficiary of the GSP, which allows preferential duty-free imports of up to $5.6 billion from the South Asian nation.
“Any time a government makes a decision adverse to another one, you will have to anticipate there could be consequences,” Ross said. “We don’t believe under the WTO rules that retaliation by India would be appropriate.”
He added that India’s new rules on e-commerce, which bar companies from selling products via firms in which they have an equity interest, and data localisation have been discriminatory for U.S. firms such as Walmart Inc and Mastercard Inc.
“So the American companies are showing very good will and a very cooperative attitude towards ‘Make in India’ and the other programmes,” he said, referring to a manufacturing push by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“But there’s a limit to how far the discriminatory behaviour can go. And our job is to try to get a level, more level playing field.”
Earlier, Ross told a business conference that localisation rules and price caps on medical devices imported from the United States were barriers to trade but that New Delhi was committed to tackling them after general elections.
“We applaud India’s commitment to addressing some of these barriers once the government is re-formed, probably starting in the month of June,” Ross said.
“Our role is to eliminate barriers to U.S. companies operating here, including data localisation restrictions that actually weaken data security and increase the cost of doing business.”
India’s 39-day general election ends on May 19, and votes will be counted four days later.
India’s 39-day general election ends on May 19, and votes will be counted four days later.
Ross met his Indian counterpart Suresh Prabhu on Monday, after which New Delhi said the two countries would engage regularly to resolve outstanding trade issues.
Last year, global payments companies such as Mastercard, Visa and American Express unsuccessfully lobbied India to relax central bank rules requiring all payment data on domestic transactions to be stored locally.
“As President Trump has said, trade relationships should be based, and must be based, on fairness and reciprocity,” Ross added. “But currently, U.S. businesses face significant market access barriers in India.”

Bharat Karnad on India’s ‘Inept’ Foreign Policy

With India in the throes of the world’s largest exercise in democracy, Indians and the international community are assessing the performance of its incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The conventional wisdom about Modi’s first term in office has generally been: disappointing on the economic and social fronts; generally successful on foreign affairs. Some analysts have even credited Modi for ushering a bolder and more engaged foreign policy.
A recent book throws cold water on such assessments. In the opening pages of Staggering Forward: Narendra Modi and India’s Global Ambition, author and Indian national security expert Bharat Karnad describes Modi’s foreign policy as “inept” and “short-sighted.” The book makes the cases that Modi has been anything but bold on the international stage. While Modi’s efforts may have garnered small successes, Karnad believes he has failed in the grander ambition to propel India toward great power status. Instead, Karnad sees Modi’s India as “great power lite,” being stuck for the past five years in “neutral gear.”
The book’s critique of Modi comes from an unexpected angle. While Modi is maligned by the left (in India and abroad) for his Hindu nationalist, strong-man approach, Staggering Forward is a takedown from the other side of the political spectrum. Karnad, a research professor at the Center for Policy Research who describes himself as “India’s foremost conservative strategist,” faults Modi not for being hawkish but for being diffident.
I asked Karnad some questions about what disappointed him about Modi’s first term. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.
The book is called Staggering Forward, which suggests progress, though of the uneven kind. How would you grade Modi’s foreign policy performance?
The “staggering” in the title is meant to denote a certain diffidence evidenced in Modi’s foreign policy, which boasts, in substance, of no unique feature nor approach, being a continuation of policies pursued by the previous governments in the new millennium.
You characterize Indian leaders as being too afraid to enact “proactive, offensive, pre-emptive policies” for fear of upsetting China. What policies would you want the next Indian government to adopt toward China?
Based on the long history of the factors that command the respect of China’s rulers, I have been advocating for some two decades now and also in this book that India adopt a tit-for-tat approach. For instance, the most obvious way to react to Beijing’s very successful initiative to arm Pakistan with nuclear missiles and use that country to contain India would have been for Delhi to transfer like armaments to many more small adversarial states on China’s borders to equalize the strategic context. It would have signaled India’s intent to respond in kind and equal measure and would have quickly sobered up Beijing and telegraphed to all Asian states India’s ability to take on an ambitious and oppressive China. It would have crystallized India as a competing power node to China in Asia. A similar attitude to inform India’s trade policy would have prevented the skewed trade and severe balance-of-payments problem India now faces.
The recent India-Pakistan crisis following the Pulwama terrorist attack became a major political battleground in India ahead of the election. Politically, Modi seemed to come out on top. How did India come out vis-à-vis Pakistan and its security going forward?
Pakistan, I believe, is Modi’s greatest failure. Rather than resorting to covert warfare methods to discreetly drive home the message to Islamabad that two can play at the terrorism game, Modi has sought to make political capital out of forcefully countering actions by Pakistan-sponsored terrorist organizations, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, that are active in Indian Kashmir. This has a dual purpose of also communally polarizing the Indian society, which the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hopes to benefit from. This is base tactical thinking.
The most obvious way to react to Beijing’s very successful initiative to arm Pakistan with nuclear missiles and use that country to contain India would have been for Delhi to transfer like armaments to many more small adversarial states on China’s borders to equalize the strategic context.
A more strategic-minded leader would have used covert means when and where necessary while also seeking to influence the Pakistan government with a spate of economic incentives, such as open access to the vast Indian market, and unilateral military measures, such as demobilizing and reconstituting the Indian Army’s three strike corps — which the Pakistan Army most fears — into a single composite corps sufficient for any Pakistan contingency, and withdrawing forwardly deployed nuclear missiles from the border with Pakistan. By such means, India could have and still can reassure Pakistan, preclude it from acting the Chinese cat’s paw in the region, and regain for South Asia the unitary strategic space lost in 1947 with the Partition of India.
At the start of the book, you declare that Modi’s extensive “personalized diplomacy” has “produced no signal departure from the policies of previous governments, nor any stellar results.” You do point to one exception: strengthened ties with the Gulf States. Why has this been a priority for Modi?
If all politics is local, then Modi has been sensitive about actions that fetch him domestic political dividends. A large section of Indian society gains from the remittances, estimated by the World Bank in 2018 as some $80 billion annually; sent home by skilled and unskilled Indian labor employed [primarily] in the Gulf countries. These remittances make for India’s healthy hard currency reserves and help sustain the economies of several Indian states, chief among them Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar. The remittance beneficiaries also constitute a large voter base, which Modi has kept pleased by cultivating, in the main, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Intimacy with these Sunni majority states also balances India’s ties with the Shia majority Iran, giving India a role in the ongoing Shia-Sunni tussle in West Asia. More generally, close ties with Islamic nations symbolizes the fact that India has the second largest Muslim population in the world (after Indonesia), and is a counterpoise to India’s deep relations with Israel, on the one hand, and on the other hand, limits Pakistan’s influence in the Islamic world.
The book is about India’s place in the world, but you also write about how Modi’s tenure has exacerbated “tensions in society along caste and religious lines.” Why are these domestic divisions a problem when it comes to India’s global ambitions?
India has long projected itself, successfully, as an inclusive democratic country suffused with liberal values and exemplifying secular ideals. This image cannot but be hurt when domestic politics are communalized. India’s recent downgrading by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, for instance, will have repercussions in that many countries may be influenced by its findings, and the Modi government’s desire for India to be seen as a bastion of liberal thought and democratic action will take a hit. Further, anti-Muslim rhetoric will begin to impact India’s interactions with the Islamic world, alienate Muslim states, and cumulatively affect India’s quest for great power.
Lastly, any bold predictions about the elections?
Modi’s use of technology for development and in social welfare schemes has buffed up his credentials as a modernizer and a leader who means well and does good by the people. Moreover, his record of personal rectitude in office has left an impression on the average voter, as has his government’s performance in government. These attributes position Modi in good stead in the general elections underway.
My assessment is that Modi will be re-elected, but that his government, the BJP-led NDA coalition, will be returned to power with a much-reduced majority. However, if the majority is quite thin, Modi could be replaced as PM by someone like the Transportation Minister Nitin Gadkari, who has distinguished himself as a conciliator. Gadkari has warm relations with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — the social service organization associated with pushing the Hindu nationalist agenda that is the power behind the BJP — but also with many leaders in the opposition. The belief is that he will be better able than Modi to draw support from small parties in the opposition, and thus beef up the BJP coalition.

Immigration Reform and Physicians Shortage Takes Center Stage at AAPI Legislative Day – US Lawmakers Praise AAPI’s Growing Clout in Advocating for Effective Health Care in US

(Washington, DC: May 1st, 2019) Healthcare continues to be at the center of the national debate, especially after the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle Affordable Care Act, and to do away with the Individual Mandate, affecting almost everyone in the country.  Association of American Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), the largest ethnic organization of physicians, representing over 100,000 physicians of Indian origin, wants to make their voices heard on Capitol Hill and around the nation, particularly on issues relating to healthcare.
Indian-Americans constitute less than one percent of the country’s population, but they account for nine percent of the American doctors and physicians. One out of every seven doctors serving in the US is of Indian heritage, providing medical care to over 40 million of US population.
AAPI leaders and members brought to the fore some of the major concerns of the Indian-American community, particularly those affecting the physicians and their patients during AAPI’s Legislative Day on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., on April 30th, 2019.
Attended by several key leading Congressmen and women from both the major political parties, the event held at the Rayburn House Office Building, highlighted key issues affecting physicians and the country in general. House Majority Leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Ami Bera, (D-CA); Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Illinois); Rep. Tulasi Gabbard (D-HAWAI) , Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS);  Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC); Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ); Rep. Phil Roe, MD (R-TN); Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD); Rep. Andy Harris, MD (R-MD) and several other leading lawmakers addressed the AAPI delegates and listened to their concerns and promised support.
A White Paper outlining the concerns of the fraternity was submitted to lawmakers who addressed the delegates. Some of the issues outlined in the White Paper included, Increased Residency Slots, Immigration Reform, Medicare and Medicaid Reimbursements, Tort Reform, Repeal of the Individual Mandate, Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs, and, The South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act of 2017.
In his welcoming remarks, Dr. Naresh Parikh, President of AAPI, stressed the importance of young physicians in AAPI, who are the “future of AAPI.” He highlighted the efforts of the current team under his leadership” to make AAPI financially sound and stable for the years to come.”
“We are pleased with the enormous turnout of both AAPI members and the showing of bipartisan members of Congress at this year’s Legislative Day,” said Dr. Parikh, AAPI President. “It is a testament to the strength of AAPI’s reputation as strong leaders, with our physicians proudly serving as health care providers in all 50 states. With this event, we are building a strong foundation for future advocacy and legislative successes at both the federal and state level,” said Parikh.
In his opening remarks, AAPI Legislative Chairman – Dr. Vinod K. Shah, said, “AAPI is once again in the forefront in bringing many burning health care issues facing the community at large and bringing this to the Capitol and to the US Congress. This is an exciting time for Indo-US relations. Each of us, as part of AAPI, the largest ethnic organization, representing over 8,0000 Indian American Physicians have a unique role to play in strengthening the relationship between India, the largest democracy and the US, the greatest democracy in the world.”
Dr. Vinod Shah, who immigrated to the US 55 years ago, shared his own inspiring personal experiences, as to how he began his career as a cardiologist in a tiny remote region over a half a century ago, and today, he is proud to own and manage a series of large clinical practice serving millions of people across the state of Maryland.
“This immensely successful event, including our partnership with the Indian Embassy, has showcased AAPI’s strength relationship building and maintaining ties with our elected officials,” said AAPI Legislative Co-Chair – Dr. Sampat Shivangi. He emphasized “AAPI contributions in issues like lowering drug costs, strong advocacy on Immigration reforms, especially for physicians working in rural areas of the US and their long decades of waiting in acquiring Green Cards.”
Dr. Shivangi, a veteran of several decades of service to AAPI and to the nation, highlighted the “many important issues that were discussed at the event, including the need to increase in Residency slots, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements issues. Dr. Sampat Shivangi raised the issue of US-India trade relations, especially President Trump’s remarks where he has called India as king of Tariffs, with several U S congressmen. Dr. Shivangi emphasized the importance of public awareness to discuss this issue, among others, to do away with some misgivings, with the help of think tanks and open dialogue with experts on this issue. . 

In his keynote address, Ambassador Hon Harsh Vardhan Shringala  praised AAPI’s lobbying efforts on some of the issues affecting the broader Indian American community and other immigrant groups is also a testament to its growth and reach. Being one of the oldest Indian American organizations, it’s also among the most influential, as was evident from the number of members of Congress who took time out of their busy schedule to address the group.
“I believe all of you will have an important role to play in contributing to this. All of you in a sense are permanent Ambassadors here. You have an understanding of the US. You have an understanding of India and Indian society. So based on this understanding and the network that you have you will be in a position to take forward this relationship in different areas,” the Indian Envoy said.
Jason Marino – American Medical Association Senior Assistant Director, AMA Congressional Affairs, emphasized the need for more collaborative efforts between AAPI and AMA to have greater voice in healthcare policy making efforts on Capitol Hill.
In a detailed Report on Green Card delays affecting Indian American physicians, the Green Card Backlog Task Force pointed out that there are over 10,000 Physicians waiting for Green Card for decades. AAPI members would like to see the Green Card backlog addressed, which it says has adversely impacted the Indian American community. They stressed the need for bipartisan support to pass the Bill S-948 that will provide Green Cards to those serving in America’s under-served and rural communities. The measure has garnered support from leading members of the Congress and seeks to remove the 7 percent cap on Green Cards on every country regardless of their size. It “will address many of the concerns facing the Indian American community,” AAPI said in its list of demands.
The bipartisan members of Congress discussed ways to reform health care delivery, to ensure its cost-effectiveness, and the negative effects of defensive medicine, which has driven up the cost of health care. AAPI members told the gathering of both Republican and Democratic congressmen how important it was to increase the number of residency positions to address the upcoming physician shortage.
According to AAPI, there is an ongoing physician shortage, which affects the quality of care provided to American patients. There are patients who face lengthy delays in various specialties, a situation which will worsen over time. Legislation was introduced in previous sessions of Congress that would add 15,000 residency slots, training up to 45,000 more physicians, AAPI points out in its White Paper. “By adding more residency positions today, Congress can train more physicians to treat patients in the future,” AAPI stated.
Rep. Steny Hoyer underscored the need for reforming the entire immigration process and make it equitable and fair. “We need to deal with the issue of H-1B and J-1 visas” and expand opportunities for highly skilled foreign workers and students, he told the gathering. “I still believe and always will that the United States will continue to grow. We need the best, the brightest and the bravest”, he said.
About India-US relations, Hoyer, affirmed, “I believe it is the most important alliance of this century. We are in the second decade and we have seen incredible progress. I know that will continue”, he said referring to shared values including a dedication to the rule of law and democracy.

Rep. Krishnamurthy, who is a physician himself praised AAPI’s leadership’s lobby Day for all Americans. “You are very influential and we very much appreciate and we look to your guidance on healthcare policy and programs,” he told a packed audience of American leaders and members. Reminding them that he is aware of the many issues affecting the physician community, the Indian born Congressman said, “You touch the lives of 13 percent of Americans, while serving 1 out of every 7 patients.” The powerful orator urged AAPI leaders to continue their civic engagement, encouraging them to consider running for political office. “If you dream it you can achieve it,” he told AAPI delegates.
Rep. Ami Bera pointed to the strides the Indian community has made in the past few decades. “It took less than a decade to have four Indian Americans in the US Congress,” he said. Describing it as the “natural progression to be part of the success story of USA,” he urged for the need to have more physicians of Indian origin to be in US Congress. He pointed to the Bill in the US seeking to elevate the relationship between India and the US to the next level.  Endorsing his whole hearted support for Green Cards for physcians, he said, “We should give them Green Card with their Diplomas.”
Rep. Joe Wilson shared about his lkong association with India. He praised India’s vibrant . democracy and told of his dad’s visit to the Taj Mahal in 1944. Endorsing AAPI’s demand for more H1/J1 visas, he said, “we need more Doctors to serve our patients.” Rep. Dan Taylor from Texas lauded the fast growing Indian community in Texas and was  appreciative of the contributions of Indian Americans.
Rep. Frank Pallone told of the large number of Indian Americans, 353000 in his home state, New Jersey, which is the 3rd highest in the nation, among whom are 120000 in his district. He offered whole hearted support for AAPI’s demand for increased Residency slots with no cap on country-based Green Card.
Rep. Andy Barr from Kentucky pointed to physicians shortage in rural areas is acute and of the shortage of 120,000 by 2030. “We need to come together on Green Card/J1-H1 Visas based on skills.” Rep. John Sarbanes said, “I want to salute AAPI for your advocacy. No one rivals you in medicine. Healthcare remains a central to public policy and is challenging. Need to strengthen ACA. Your presence makes a huge difference.”
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, the first Hindu lawmaker to serve on Capitol Hill and current Democratic co-chair of the House India Caucus, told the AAPI gathering, “It’s been wonderful to see over the almost six years that I’ve been here in Congress how the relationship between our two countries has progressed. It has only continued to grow stronger and stronger. The commitment to continuing that momentum exists between both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and we’ve seen it cross between a Democratic administration and now a Republican administration,” she said.
Nissim Reuben – American Jewish Committee (AJC) Assistant Director: Asia Pacific Institute called to make strategic alliance and network with Lawmakers “trading the good will” between India and Jews to politically supportive of India’s favor, harnessing the good will Israel has for the benefit of India and the NRIs.
Nuala Moore – American Thoracic Society Associate Director, Government Relations and David Bryden & TB Advocacy Officer, shared about the efforts in eradicating TB in India and across the globe. With 8,000 new cases of TB everyday in India, they pointed to the United Nations Meeting where India’s Prime Minister Modi committed to the goal of eliminating TB by 2025, through education by involving Bollywood stars.
Joel Anand Samy Co-Founder and President, International Leaders Summit invited AAPI leaders to join in at the 4th summit to be held in Jerusalem in November this year, which will strengthen the strategic alliance between USA and India.
Kapil Sharma, Esquire Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Wipro North America, pointed out that Wipro has donated $7 Billion, making it the 4th largest Foundation, and Azim Premji is today the biggest philanthropist outside of India. Highlighting the tremendous work the Indian companies do in the US, he stressed “for the need to recognize and appreciate our contributions in our adopted country. The US need to acknowledge what our contributions are to the US, especially investing in terms of money, man power, community services. He called on AAPI to to collaborate with WIPRO in its efforts for in-service teaching.
Dr. Sudhakar Jonnalagadda, Vice President of AAPI hopes that “AAPI will discover her own potential to be a player in shaping the health of each patient with a focus on health maintenance than disease intervention. To be a player in crafting the delivery of health care in the most efficient manner. To strive for equality in health globally.”
“AAPI has been seeking to collectively shape the best health care for the people of US, with the physician at the helm, caring for the medically underserved as we have done for several decades when physicians of Indian origin came to the US in larger numbers,” said Dr. Anupama Gotimukula, Secretary of AAPI, said.
Dr. Sreeni Gangasani, AAPI’s Atlanta Convention Cahir and Vice Chair of Board of Trustees, enthusiastically provided an update on the upcoming convention and urfged all AAPI members and Congressmen to attend the convention in Atlanta. “The convention team is working incredibly hard to provide a delightful 4 days of events packed with educational CME credits, world-class entertainment, leadership seminars, networking opportunities, exhibits, and more,” Dr. Gangasani said. “This meeting offers a rich educational program featuring the latest scientific research and advances in clinical practice. In addition, physicians and healthcare professionals from across the country will convene to develop health policy agendas and encourage legislative priorities for the upcoming year.”
“The growing influence of doctors of Indian heritage is evident, as increasingly physicians of Indian origin hold critical positions in the healthcare, academic, research and administrative positions across the nation,” said Dr. Suresh Reddy, President-Elect in a message. “With their hard work, dedication, compassion, and skills, they have thus carved an enviable niche in the American medical community. AAPI’s role has come to be recognized as vital among members and among lawmakers and the larger society,” he added.
Later in the evening, Ambassador Hon Harsh Vardhan Shringala hosted a dinner in honor of AAPI delegates and guests, where he recognized AAPI ‘s contributions. Dr.Naresh Parikh, Dr. Vinod Shah and Dr. Sampat Shivangi thanked the Ambassador and assured to continue to work in co operations with the Embassy to strengthen US-India relationships.
“We had a very fruitful discussion and we are very hopeful that Congress will act on the issues raised in our white paper,” Dr. Parikh, President of AAPI, summarized the day long event and the impact it has for the future of the growing Indian American community, healthcare providers and the healthcare industry. For more information on AAPI and its programs and initiatives, please visit:  www.aapiusa.org

India wins global support in naming Masood Azhar’s terror tag

Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar was on Wednesday designated a global terrorist by the UN after China withdrew its long-standing block to the move, marking a major diplomatic and political victory in the Indian government’s efforts to counter cross-border terrorism.

Azhar was listed by the UN’s 1267 Sanctions Committee for his association with al-Qaeda and his role in financing, planning and facilitating terrorist acts by the JeM, shortly after officials announced in Islamabad that Pakistan would no longer object to his designation – a sign to iron brother China to lift the “technical hold” it had placed on four attempts to sanction Azhar.

Hindustan Times first reported on Tuesday that China was expected to lift its hold on listing Azhar at the UN on May 1.

Following the designation, Pakistan will be required to take three steps – freeze the funds and financial assets of Azhar, enforce a travel ban on him, and cut off his access to arms and related materials.

India’s permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, informed Sanjeev Singla, private secretary to PM, about the listing and asked him to “brief the boss”. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi had been inquiring about the matter since morning, he could not be directly informed by Singla as the premier was in the midst of an election rally.

Singla is believed to have informed National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, who rushed to the PMO from Sardar Patel Bhawan and informed Modi of the development on a secure line.

Shortly after the February 14 suicide attack in Pulwama that killed 40 Indian troopers and was claimed by JeM, France, with the backing of the US and the UK, moved a proposal at the 1267 Sanctions Committee to sanction 50-year-old Azhar. After a 10-day period to consider the matter, China blocked the proposal on March 13 by saying more time was needed to discuss the issue.

This angered the US, which threatened to take the matter to the UN Security Council, where discussions are held in public, unlike consultations held behind closed doors by the sanctions committee. The heavy lifting was done by the US as it wanted the terrorist tag for Azhar during consultations on April 23, but China and Pakistan wanted it to happen after the Indian elections as they didn’t want the listing to benefit Modi, people familiar with developments said.

The date was then moved by the US to April 30, though China was insisting on May 15. A compromise of May 1 was reached after the US hinted it would take the matter to the Security Council, the people said.

India and its Western allies also continued to work with China throughout this period. During a visit to Beijing last week, foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale shared evidence on the role of Azhar and JeM in terrorist attacks with Chinese officials, including foreign minister Wang Yi.

A fifth proposal to sanction Azhar was moved by France, the US and UK last month. In an apparent face-saving measure for Pakistan at the behest of China, this proposal didn’t contain references to the Pulwama attack and terrorism in Kashmir, the people said.

The statement issued by the UN on Azhar’s listing referred extensively to his links with al-Qaeda, its slain chief Osama bin Laden and Taliban, and his role in supporting and facilitating these terrorist entities and providing them arms but made no mention of Kashmir, where JeM has carried out several devastating attacks, or Pakistan, where Azhar is based.

The statement referred to Azhar’s role as former leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen but made no mention of this group’s activities in Kashmir. The statement also referred to Azhar’s activities only till 2008, with no mention of attacks such as the 2016 assault on Pathankot airbase blamed on JeM.

Joe Biden Enters 2020 Democratic Presidential Race

Former Vice President Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy on Thursday, April 25th by pointing to a “battle for the soul of this nation,” in what may be the last major addition to a sprawling lineup of Democratic candidates competing to challenge President Trump in 2020.

The former vice president and Democratic senator from Delaware announced his candidacy in a three-and-a-half-minute video released Thursday,  April 26th. His first rally as a presidential contender is scheduled for Monday at a union hall in Pittsburgh.

Biden, 76, had been wrestling for months over whether to run. His candidacy will face numerous questions, including whether he is too old and too centrist for a Democratic Party yearning for fresh faces and increasingly propelled by its more vocal liberal wing.

“We are in the battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said in the video. “I believe history will look back on four years of this president and all he embraces as an aberrant moment in time. But if we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

Biden hopes that he can win back white, working-class voters in Midwestern states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He rarely misses a chance to tout his blue-collar hometown of Scranton, and aides believe he is one of the few candidates in the race who could claw back rural counties that Trump won in a landslide in 2016.

Recent polls by Harvard-Harris and Monmouth University showed Biden with the strongest support among voters without a college education in the Democratic field.

The Wall Street Journal reports, Biden has sought to secure commitments for large-dollar donations in the weeks before his announcement. His plan, the Journal reported, was to announce a similarly large fundraising haul as candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke, without the small-dollar donor network of some of his rivals.

Critics say his standing in polls is largely a function of name recognition for the former US senator from Delaware, whose more than four decades in public service includes eight years as President Barack Obama‘s No. 2 in the White House.

Known for his verbal gaffes on the campaign trail, Biden failed to gain traction with voters during his previous runs in 1988 and 2008. He dropped his 1988 bid amid allegations he plagiarized some of his stump oratory and early academic work. But his experience and strong debate performances in 2008 impressed Obama enough that he tapped Biden as his running mate.

Biden decided against a 2016 presidential bid after a lengthy public period of indecision as he wrestled with doubts about whether he and his family were ready for a grueling campaign while mourning his son Beau, who died of brain cancer in May 2015. His son had urged him to run.

Biden’s candidacy will offer early hints about whether Democrats are more interested in finding a centrist who can win over the white working-class voters who went for Trump in 2016, or someone who can fire up the party’s diverse progressive wing, such as Senators Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont or Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

As former Vice President Joe Biden entered the 2020 presidential race Thursday, he immediately looked past the vast field of Democratic rivals and threw down the gauntlet toward President Trump, casting the race as a “battle for the soul of the nation.” His strategy amounts to a bet that ideology and policy matter less to Democratic primary voters than their desire for victory over a president who has upended social and political values that liberals hold dear.

Election news from the campaign Trail: Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

There is no doubt that Rahul ji’s candidacy in Wayanad has reenergized the party cadre across Kerala, however, that enthusiasm hasn’t spilled over to Thiruvananthapuram where Shashi Tharoor is contesting the election for a third term. For reasons that cannot be explained well, the party workers at the ward and booth level have been lackadaisical in taking the party’s message to the voters at the ground level. If the party leadership doesn’t wake up and deal with the situation with a sense of urgency, we might lose the representation for Kerala by an internationally acclaimed personality whose victory not only may assure a cabinet-level appointment after the elections, but also provide a powerful voice in the Parliament and across the nation on behalf of pluralism and democracy.

The group rivalry that has been a fixture in the Congress politics in the State, may have a lot to do with the current situation. There are areas in the Constituency, where party workers are notably absent. It has been said that more volunteers are working in Wayanad where Rahul Gandhi is running from, although that is a very safe constituency for the party, than in Thiruvananthapuram. The UDF is slated to win a majority of the seats from Kerala, and yet some of the contests are just too close to call.

Thiruvananthapuram is one of those constituencies where BJP has poured in resources and fielded hundreds of RSS volunteers with a vow to defeat Mr. Tharoor. It appears that removing a great critic of the Modi regime has almost become an obsession in the higher ranks of BJP and they are willing to pay any price towards achieving that goal. That is quite understandable from a political standpoint; however, the question many folks are asking is why some in the Congress leadership in Kerala are acting as silent partners to the opposition agenda?

To begin with, some of them have consciously participated in this charade of spreading rumors that “Tharoor can’t win or he is behind” falsehood across the constituency almost making the opposition BJP candidate, Kummanam Rajasekharan, a divisive voice in the State, almost invincible. There is no doubt that this has been a disservice done to the voters by the vested interests and we will only know of the potential negative impact when the final tally will be in.  Let us face one reality that as many who appear to drape themselves with tri-color during the day might also change to Saffron at night. It is almost frightening to observe that many in the party cadre and some in the leadership are becoming totally devoid of any values and principles of the Nehruvian vision and operating on their own to advance their self-development.

However, one thing is sure, the communalism has arrived with its full force and ugliness to this once peaceful state. BJP is fanning the flames of communalism and bigotry to gain political ground in Kerala that until now largely rejected BJP as an outlier. Although Communist party is running a distant third in the recent polls here, they too have determined to carry on with an active campaign to take away as much vote from the secular front to show their displeasure with the Congress decision on Wayanad. However, they fail to realize that a BJP victory from the Capital of Kerala, the seat of the LDF government, will prove to be more than a thorn in their backs and they may come to regret it.

The voters in Kerala are smart, thoughtful and deliberate. They also know very well how to distinguish a Vidhan Sabha election from a Parliamentary one. They have witnessed the neglect and disdain shown by the BJP government towards Kerala especially during the great flood. They also have learned about the alleged involvement of RSS proxies who appear to have filed a petition in Supreme Court asking for the entry of women of all ages to the Sabarimala Temple and BJP at the Center and at the State level initially welcomed such a decision.

It is Modi’s Home Ministry that refused to file any review petition on behalf of the faithful they purportedly defending right now. It is the same ministry that kept reminding the state government to implement the SC decision. It is also the Modi government that has done nothing at the Central level either through an ordinance or via legislation to remedy the issue. After having done nothing other than to fan the flames of division and exasperate the situation with their cadre protests to create havoc across the state similar to what has happened in Ayodhya, Gujarat, and Muzzafarnagar, they have now professed themselves to be the great guardians of the faithful!  Keralites understand the devious game that is being played upon them, and they will give a fitting reply to BJP on April 23rd through the ballot box.

Mueller’s report is worse for Trump than Barr had us believe

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report, made public las week in redacted form has had President Trump furious at what those pages have revealed to the public. Nearly half of those pages show how the president reacted to and fumed over the Russia probe, seeking to undermine it, curtail it, and even fire the special counsel himself.

That the contents of the Mueller report diverge so sharply from Barr’s portrayal has long seemed possible, based on his initial summary and subsequent appearance before Congress.

The attorney general Barr has implied that Mueller left that choice to Barr. In truth, the report makes clear that Mueller felt constrained by the Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted.

Barr was appointed as the nation’s AG after writing a memo casting the Mueller investigation as illegitimate.

Democrats want Robert Mueller, the man who collated the report, to publicly testify before congress about the work he has done.  It comes after a redacted version of the document was released on Thursday.

Democrat congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in a joint statement said the report painted a “disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies and improper behavior”.

The party has begun moves to try to obtain the full, unredacted document and to have Mueller testify before Congress. There is a growing division in the Party as to impach the President or leave it to the people to decide on the fcate of the President in the next elections in 2020.

Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 25 and March 26 (after the Barr letter summarizing the Mueller findings) found that the Barr summation did not move the needle on public opinion. Forty-eight percent said they believed “Trump or someone from his campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” This was down 6 points from the same question asked a week earlier, before the report was sent to the Attorney General.

And 53 percent said “Trump tried to stop investigations into Russian influence on his administration,” down 2 points from the same question asked a week earlier. Responses to the questions fell predictably along party lines, with Democrats believing in the President’s guilt and Republicans believing in his innocence. Barr’s comments today will be greeted as complete vindication by the President’s supporters and as a whitewash by his opponents.

But what everyone, supporters and opponents alike, seem to agree on is that they want to make their own decision. The Quinnipiac poll conducted from March 21-25 found that 84 percent of the general public wanted the Mueller Report made available to the public.

According to the report, Trump reacted to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in May 2017 as follows: “Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

Trump’s legal team has said it completely exonerates the president. But while the report does say the Muller Team was unable to prove that president had colluded with the Russians, it did not come to a firm conclusion on the issue of obstruction of justice.

It also reveals several occasions when Trump tried to hinder the investigation itself – including attempting to have Mueller removed.

The 448-page redacted document is the result of a 22-month investigation by Mueller, who was appointed to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

There may be something in the redacted report that changes public opinion, but as Trump’s former aid Steve Bannon once noted, the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey may go down as the biggest mistake in “maybe in modern political history.”

The first section of the Mueller report details Russia’s efforts to upend the 2016 presidential campaign, and scrutinizes the many interactions between Trump associates and Russia. But it’s in the second half, which provides a litany of instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice, that the real bombshells await.

And then, as Mueller lays out in sometimes lurid detail, in at least 10 episodes over the ensuing months Trump sought to block or stop that very investigation. He did so even as Mueller doggedly made public the “sweeping and systematic fashion” in which the Russian government attacked the 2016 presidential election, and brought serious criminal charges—and won guilty pleas—from a half-dozen of the president’s top campaign aides.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report says. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The report says that potential obstruction of justice by the president only failed because members of his administration refused to “carry out orders.” Investigators viewed the president’s written responses to their questions as “inadequate” but chose not to pursue a potentially lengthy legal battle to interview him.

Mueller then points to Congress, not the attorney general, as the appropriate body to answer the question of obstruction. As Mueller wrote in what seems to be all but a referral for impeachment proceedings, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

5 Million people lost job opportunities after demonetization in India: Study says

India is in the midst of national elections on an almost incomprehensible scale: Over five weeks, more than 900 million people across 29 states and seven territories will cast their ballots at over a million polling stations. Voting, which began on April 11, is set to conclude on May 19 — although the ballot count will not begin until four days later.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is seeking a second term amid a tepid economy and increased tensions with Pakistan following a February 14 suicide attack in Kashmir linked to a Pakistan-based terrorist group. The main opposition party, the Indian National Congress, has joined forces with a number of smaller parties to stop BJP. One matter at stake is the future of India’s identity: Is the country a multi-ethnic, secular democracy? Or is it a state where Hindu values take precedence?

Since the November 8, 2016 demonetisation, at least five million people lost opportunities to work across the country, while the overall unemployment rate doubled between 2011 and 2018 to 6%, says a ‘State of Working India’ (SWI) report published by the Centre for Sustainable Employment (CSE) of the Azim Premji University (APU) that was released on Tuesday.

Researchers from the university used unit-level data from the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE), which covers around 5.22 lakh individuals quarterly, to get an outline of unemployment and what could be done to address it.

The rural Workforce Participation Rate (that is, the percentage of people working against the population within the working age) among men dipped from close to 72% in January-April 2016 (a few months before demonetisation) to slightly above 68% by December 2018. The corresponding figure for urban men reduced from 68% to nearly 65% in this time.

“The numbers seem to suggest we are in a perfect storm-like situation. On the supply side, there is rising aspirations, youth bulge, higher levels of general educational degrees. On the demand side, there has been a collapse of public sector employment, weak link between growth in private industry and employment, and factors such as demonetisation and GST,” Amit Basole, lead author of the report, said at its release. “It seems like employment opportunities have been hit by demonetisation and has not recovered after that,” he observed.

The report shows that the worst-hit in terms of lost employment opportunities were those in rural areas with pre-university or graduate certification, and those between the ages of 20 and 24 years.

SWI relied primarily on date from CMIE rather than the Centre’s Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), whose last report was in 2011-12. While a report on 2017-18 had been prepared, it ran into controversy as the Centre refused to release it. Leaked versions of the report pointed to soaring unemployment rates — reportedly highest in 45 years.

P.C. Mohanan, who resigned from the National Statistical Commission in protest against the Centre’s decision not to release the report, said there was much insight in the 2017-18 report, which had been carefully drafted to tally with previous five-yearly PLFS reports.

“Unemployment has been concentrated in a small age group: 80% of rural unemployment is among those aged between 15 and 29 years, while the corresponding figure is 77% for urban areas. These are all fresh graduates and unemployment levels among them can have serious consequences on the economy and society,” he said.

The report suggests tackling unemployment through a national urban employment guarantee scheme, modelled on the existing Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee scheme. APU researchers propose a programme that provides 100 days of guaranteed work at ₹500 daily in the city — from maintenance of public buildings to greening and environment-related works.

“The country will see more than half of the population live in urban centres in a few decades. Hitherto, the thinking was to provide opportunity through private services. But this scheme will provide means to focus on public goods,” said Harini Nagendra, Professor, APU.

Indian-American PAC endorses Harris for president Tulsi Gabbard outraises Kamala Harris among Indian-American donors

An Indian-American political action committee (PAC) has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris of Indian and Jamaican descent for the 2020 presidential race.

“In such a critically important election, one that will shape policy and politics for generations to come, Indian Americans can’t afford to stay on the sidelines,” the Indian American Impact Fund’s co-founder Raj Goyle said in a statement last week. Goyle, also a former Kansas state lawmaker, said it was for that reason that the organization chose to be “the first Indian-American or Asian-American political organization to endorse” Harris, whose mother was from Chennai, Tamil Nadu, media reports say.

“In the coming months, we look forward to mobilizing our network of resources to ensure Senator Harris secures the Democratic nomination and is elected the next president of the U.S.,” Goyle said.

Harris thanked the Impact Fund for the endorsement. “This endorsement and the support of the Indian American Impact Fund and its members means so much to me,” she said in a statement. “Together, we will fight for an America that restores the values of truth and justice and works for working people, from raising incomes to expanding health care.”

The Impact Fund Executive Director and former Maryland state delegate Aruna Miller said her group was “proud to endorse” Harris. “She is a tested leader who has demonstrated, throughout her career, a strong commitment to our community’s progressive and pluralistic values,” Miller said.

Harris, one of the first Democrats to launch the presidential campaign in this election cycle, is also one of the front-runners at the moment. If elected, she will become the first woman, the first Indian-American, the first Asian American, and the first African American woman to serve as president.

Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris released 15 years of her tax returns las week, showing that she and her husband earned almost $1.9 million in 2018. Most of the adjusted gross income of $1,884,319 in 2018 reported by Harris, D-Calif., came from her husband Doug Emhoff’s earnings as a lawyer. Harris reported $157,352 in Senate salary and $320,125 in net profit from the memoir she released before announcing her campaign.

Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu US Congresswoman and Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, has vastly outraised Senator Kamala Harris of Indian and Jamaican descent among Indian-American donors in the 2020 presidential fundraising derby so far.

Gabbard, who is a Hindu American but not Indian-American, has raised more than $237,000, from the community. In comparison, Harris, daughter of an Indian American mother and Jamaican American father, has so far raised only $72,606 from the community, according to AAPI Data, which publishes data and policy research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

In a clear sign that Harris, one of the strongest contenders in the crowded 2020 Democratic field, has not been fully embraced by the community, the Senator even trails New Jersey’s Corey Booker among Indian-Americans, the American Bazaar reported on Saturday.

Booker has raised more than $131,000 from Indian Americans. A big reason for that is New Jersey is home to nearly 370,000 Indian Americans. But Harris’ home state of California has the largest Indian American population in the country – more than 712,000. Yet, her campaign hasn’t received traction among Indian American campaign donors, the AAPI Data research reveals.

Historically, Indian Americans have donated huge amounts to congressional and gubernatorial candidates from the community. However, their track record in bankrolling candidates from the community so far is spotty. In the last presidential election cycle, the campaign of former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal attracted only lukewarm support of the community.

TIME’s List of 100 ‘Most Influential People’ 2019 Released

Indian-American comedian and actor Hasan Minhaj has been named in Time magazine’s 2019 list of 100 most influential people in the world. Also named in the coveted list are lawyers Arundhati Katju and Menaka Guruswamy, Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan.

In Minhaj’s profile for Time, The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah writes about the first time the two met in 2014. It was on the sets of the Comedy Central show “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

“We were both fresh-faced kids trying to find our voice in the fast-paced world of late-night television,” Noah writes. “Fast-forward five years later, Hasan is still as fresh-faced as ever, but his voice booms across screens around the world, thanks to his groundbreaking Netflix show ‘Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj’.”

Noah goes on to say that “after hosting the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and releasing his stand-up special ‘Hasan Minhaj: Homecoming King’ in 2017, the opportunity for a late-night show of his own wasn’t just obvious, it was necessary. We’ve needed Hasan’s voice since Donald Trump came down that golden escalator and turned immigrants and Muslims into his targets.

He continues: “See, Hasan is a first-generation, Indian-American Muslim. But Hasan also loves the NBA, struggles with a “crippling” sneaker habit and speaks fluent hip-hop. ‘Patriot Act’ is the manifestation of Hasan’s whip-smart commentary, charisma and sincerity. It’s also a consistent reminder that Hasan is America. And America is Hasan.”

On his six-month-old 32-episode Netflix show, Minhaj, 33, has been taking on socially relevant topics including the Indian elections, student loan debt crisis, Amazon’s plan for world domination and immigration enforcement in the Trump era.

But the episode that got the most attention was his takedown of Mohammad bin Salman, which Netflix pulled from the Saudi Arabian market at its government’s request. “The Patriot Act” is also nominated for a Peabody Award in the entertainment category.

Also featured in among Pioneers are Katju and Guruswamy, who led the fight for equal rights for the LGBTQ community in India and were lead lawyers representing the petitioners seeking to decriminalise homosexual activity between consenting adults, which was punishable by up to 10 years in jail according to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with being a Supreme Court of India judge, Guruswamy is the B.R. Ambedkar Research Scholar and Lecturer at Columbia Law School.

The “two amazing public-interest litigators,” were honored by Priyanka Chopra, who writes: “Armed with a well-planned strategy that went beyond their well-researched legal arguments, Arundhati and Menaka became beacons of hope for the Indian LGBTQ+ community. Their perseverance and commitment led an entire community to a historic win by humanizing their struggles and giving them the freedom to love.”

Chopra says Arundhati and Menaka have helped take a giant step for LGBTQ+ rights in the world’s largest democracy. In their committed fight for justice, they have shown us that we as a society must continue to make progress, even after laws are changed, and that we must make an effort to understand, accept and love. It is who we are as people.”

Ambani, who’s listed among Titans is the richest Indian. This year, he retained the top spot in the Forbes annual list of 100 richest Indian tycoons, According to Forbes, his wealth increased to $38 billion from $22.7 billion last year. Writing his profile, Anand Mahindra, chairman of business conglomerate the Mahindra Group says “Ambani’s father Dhirubhai was a visionary in Indian business, whose Reliance Industries conglomerate pioneered ways of targeting global scale,: adding, “But Ambani’s vision is now even more ambitious than that of the father whose blessings he unfailingly invokes at the launch of each initiative.”

Mahindra says the scale of Reliance Jio mobile-data network, which has already connected over 280 million people in India with low-cost 4G “is impressive by any standard. But what is truly jaw-dropping is the way it will allow Reliance to potentially dominate a staggering array of new businesses.”

Pakistan Prime Minister is listed among leaders like President Donald Trump and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Journalist Ahmed Rashid says “Pakistan is at a critical crossroads, and the man in charge is the closest it has to a rock star.” Khan captained the team that won the 1992 Cricket World Cup, built a cancer hospital in Lahore, then a university for kids who could never have dreamed of attending one.

Khan, who Rashid says entered politics 20 years ago, is now “Prime Minister of an impoverished nation that cannot pay its bills and is dependent on handouts from rich neighbors like China and the Arab Gulf states.” Rashid says that despite all the criticism, Khan “still generates the broadest hope among young and old that he can turn Pakistan around, and help make South Asia an ocean of peace rather than a state of permanent conflict.”

Optimism persists, but concerns about terrorism and Pakistan loom large among Indian Voters

Polls in the largest democracy in the world opened earlier this month. As many as 900 million people, are expected to cast their ballots to elect a new government at the end of the weeks long electoral battles across the states of India. In April and May 2019, Indians will go to the polls to elect a new Lok Sabha, the 545-seat lower house of the Indian Parliament. When it comes to specific aspects of their democracy, Indians voice strong frustrations about elections and elected officials.
The elections to the Indian Parliament follow a year in which most Indian adults showed dissatisfaction with the nation’s progress on issues including unemployment, inflation and the efficacy of elections. Even prior to the Pulwama attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, majorities of Indians voiced concern about terrorism and the threat posed to their country by Pakistan. But despite these worries, most Indian adults are satisfied with the direction of their country and the economic prospects of the next generation, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted among 2,521 respondents in India from May 23 to July 23, 2018.
Here are 12 takeaways about public opinion in India that provide context about the public’s views leading up to the national elections.
1.      Indian public opinion on national conditions
1Indian adults certainly recognize that their personal economic well-being has benefited greatly from strong national economic performance: Indian economic growth has averaged 7.3% per year since 2014. Roughly two-thirds (65%) say the financial situation of average people in India is better today than it was 20 years ago. Only 15% say things are worse.
But there are signs of public unease. About two-thirds of Indians (66%) believe that today’s children will be better off than their parents. But that optimism is down 10 percentage points since 2017.
Similarly, a majority of Indians (55%) are happy with the way things are going in their nation today. But that is down 15 points from 70% in 2017 and marks a return to the level of public satisfaction in 2015, the first full year of Narendra Modi’s government. Still, Indians’ mood remains much higher than in the last two years of the previous government of Manmohan Singh.
2.      Lack of employment opportunities is seen by the public as India’s biggest challenge
Lack of employment opportunities is seen by the public as India’s biggest challenge, with 76% of adults saying it is a very big problem – little changed over the past year. In 2018, despite an estimated 3.5% formal unemployment rate, 18.6 million Indians were jobless and another 393.7 million work in poor-quality jobs vulnerable to displacement, according to estimates by the International Labor Office.
Other aspects of the economy are also at the top of the public’s concerns. More than seven-in-ten (73%) believe rising prices are a very big problem.
About two-thirds of the public says corrupt officials (66%), terrorism (65%) and crime (64%) are very big problems. In each case, such concern is down significantly from 2017 – by 20 percentage points in the case of crime, 11 points for terrorism and 8 points regarding officials’ corruption.
Indians with at least a secondary education are significantly more worried about corrupt officials than the less educated. Notably, there is little partisan difference in views of these problems.
On one very personal aspect of crime, more than half (54%) of Indians say the statement “most people live in areas where it is dangerous to walk around at night” describes India very or somewhat well.Roughly half of the public believes the gap between the rich and the poor is a very big problem (51%) and a similar share complains about poor-quality schools (50%). But while the latter sentiment has not changed since 2017, concern about inequality is down 10 points. More than four-in-ten are very concerned about air pollution and health care (both 44%), but these views are also down 10 points.
Notably, incidents of communal violence are higher than they were in 2014, according to Indian Ministry of Home Affairs data, but only about a third of Indians (34%) see this as a very big problem facing the country.
3.      When asked whether various challenges facing India have gotten better or worse in the past five years, a time frame that largely encompasses the term of the current Modi government, few Indians voice a positive judgment. Just one-in-five (21%) say job opportunities have gotten better, while 67% think things have gotten worse (including 47% who say much worse). A similar share believes prices of goods and services (19%), corruption (21%) and terrorism (21%) have gotten better.
Meanwhile, 65% say prices have gotten worse, 65% are of the opinion that corruption has worsened (including again 47% who say it is much worse) and 59% think terrorism is worse. (This survey was conducted roughly nine months prior to the Pulwama attack, later claimed by Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad.) Roughly one-in-four think the gap between the rich and the poor has narrowed (27%) and that air quality has gotten better (27%). In both cases, more than half the public thinks these things have gotten worse. And just 28% say communal relations have improved, while 45% say they have gotten worse.
As the Lok Sabha election nears, there is a decidedly partisan take on the direction of the country and the challenges facing India. Members of the opposition Indian National Congress party (Congress) are 21 percentage points more likely than backers of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to say that job opportunities have worsened and 17 points more likely to say the same about air pollution. Congress adherents are more likely than BJP supporters to believe inequality has gotten worse (by 17 points), that corruption has worsened (12 points) and that terrorism and communal violence has become more of a problem.
4.      As Indians head into election season, more than half (54%) are satisfied with the way democracy is working in their country. However, satisfaction has declined 25 percentage points from 2017, when 79% voiced approval. Men are more likely than women to give Indian democracy a thumbs-up, though one-in-five women decline to offer an opinion. Indians with a secondary education are more likely than those with less than a secondary education to be satisfied with their democracy, though one-in-six (17%) less-educated Indians offer no opinion. Such satisfaction is a partisan affair: 75% of BJP supporters, but only 42% of Congress adherents, are satisfied with how Indian democracy functions.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) say most politicians are corrupt (including 43% who very intensely hold this view). Notably, nearly seven-in ten (69%) of both BJP supporters and Congress backers share the view that elected leaders are corrupt.
Another 58% voice the opinion that no matter who wins an election, things do not change very much. This includes a majority of both BJP and Congress adherents.
And only 33% of Indian adults believe elected officials care what ordinary people think. Men are more likely than women to believe that officials don’t care, but almost a third of women (32%) decline to voice an opinion.
5.      At the same time, the public thinks that the Indian state allows democratic values to flourish.
By more than two-to-one (58% to 26%), Indians say their rights to express their own views are protected very or somewhat well. Those with more education are more likely than those with less education to say freedom of speech is protected, although, again, a significant share of the less educated (22%) voice no opinion.
A similar proportion (56% to 27%) says most people have a good chance to improve their standard of living in India. People living in urban areas are more likely than those in rural parts of India to believe in such opportunities. BJP supporters (66%) are more likely than Congress adherents (53%) to say Indian democracy delivers economic opportunity.
A plurality (47%) believes the court system treats everyone fairly, a perception held especially among young people.
6.      Globalization and India
Indians (71%) overwhelmingly believe trade is good for their nation.Support for trade, in principle, is roughly comparable to that in Japan (72%) and the United States (74%), but lower than that in the European Union (85%), according to a recent international survey by Pew Research Center. And the share of Indian adults who say growing trade and business ties between India and other countries is very good has nearly doubled, from 25% in 2014 to 49% in 2018.
The rise in intense Indian support for trade reflects a widely shared perception that international commerce benefits individuals. Contrary to public opinion in the U.S., Europe and Japan, a majority of Indians believe trade with other countries leads to an increase in wages (57%) and creates jobs (56%). And such sentiment is up slightly from 2014. Few Indian adults believe trade kills jobs (15%) or undermines wages (13%). At the same time, roughly half of Indians (52%) say trade increases prices, a sentiment that is widely shared in other emerging markets yet is contrary to economic theory that international commerce should lead to falling prices.
Educational attainment plays a role in Indian views of trade. Of those who offer an opinion, adults with at least a secondary education are far more likely than those with less education (86% vs. 63%) to say that trade is good for India. They are also more likely to believe that trade creates jobs (72% vs. 49%) and boosts wages (71% vs. 50%), but also to think that trade leads to higher prices (65% vs. 46%). Less-educated Indians are roughly three times as likely as more educated Indians to voice no opinion about the impact of trade, highlighting the significance of education in shaping public views of globalization.
For those who provided a response, there is also a generational difference in public opinion about the impact of globalization. Young Indians, those ages 18 to 29, are more likely (59%) than older Indians, those ages 50 and older (50%), to believe that trade generates new employment. And young Indians (55%) are more likely than their elders (45%) to say trade raises prices. Older Indians are, however, more likely than their younger compatriots to have no view, or less willing to share that view, on the personal impacts of trade.
BJP supporters are more likely than Congress backers to think trade creates jobs and raises wages, but they are also more likely to believe that trade raises prices.
7.      With more than 1.35 billion people, India is home to the world’s second-largest population and nearly a fifth of the total world populace. India also happens to be the top source of international migrants – one-in-twenty migrants worldwide in 2015 were born in India. In 2017 more than 16 million Indians were living abroad, with high concentrations in the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Still, this constitutes only about 1% of India’s birth population, putting the nation well under the 3% average emigration rate for other countries around the world.
When asked if people leaving for jobs in other countries posed a problem for India, more than six-in-ten (64%) said this type of emigration was a problem, including nearly half (49%) saying it is a very big problem. Although outmigration itself may not be viewed favorably, in 2016 Indian migrants abroad collectively sent nearly $63 billion worth of remittances back to family and friends living in India, or roughly 3% of total gross domestic product.
At the same time, Indians show little enthusiasm for expanding immigration into their country. Roughly three-in-ten Indians (29%) say their government should allow fewer immigrants, with an additional 16% volunteering that there should be no immigration at all.
Just 13% think more immigration into India should be encouraged, and 11% think immigration levels should stay about the same as they are now. In 2017, just over 5 million people (or less than 1% of the population) living in India were born in other countries, with most of them coming from neighboring Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal.
8.      When thinking about why people move abroad, Indians say it is to advance careers and pursue educational opportunities. Roughly three-quarters think finding better jobs and furthering education are important reasons why people in India move to other countries. Roughly half see uniting with family living in another country as an important reason why Indians relocate abroad, while only about a quarter think Indians move to escape violence.
More than eight-in-ten Indians with higher incomes and educational attainment cite the pursuit of better career and education opportunities as reasons people move to other countries, while fewer cite fleeing violence or joining family abroad. Indians in both urban and rural areas also see following better prospects for learning and working abroad as important reasons people in India emigrate.
9.      India-Pakistan relations
Most Indians see Pakistan, their neighbor to the west, as a threat. When asked how serious of a danger Pakistan poses for India, about three-quarters in India (76%) say Pakistan is a threat, including 63% who say it is a very serious threat. Only 7% of Indians do not see Pakistan as a danger for their country. (This survey was conducted roughly nine months prior to the Pulwama attack, later claimed by Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad, and retaliatory Indian air strikes in Pakistani territory.)
Indians from many walks of life share in this sentiment. Those in rural areas and urban centers, supporters of the prime minister’s BJP and supporters of the opposition Congress party, as well as Indians across age groups, all agree that Pakistan threatens their nation.
Indians who express confidence in Narendra Modi are more likely (70%) to see Pakistan as a threat than are those with less confidence in the prime minister, although even among this latter group about half view Pakistan as a danger (51%).
One source of historical tensions between these two nations lies in Kashmir, a region in the Indian subcontinent whose possession has been disputed since the Partition of India – the creation of the modern Indian and Pakistani states – in 1947.
A majority of Indians (55%) see the situation in Kashmir as a very big problem. When asked how this issue has changed over the past five years, more than half (53%) say circumstances in Kashmir have gotten worse. Only 18% think things have gotten better, and just 6% believe conditions are the same.
When asked about the government’s strategy in dealing with the situation in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, a majority believes the Indian government should use more military force than they are currently using. Equal, though small, shares think the military should use either less or about the same amount of force (both 7%).
10.  Global views of India
Throughout Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s term in office, international perceptions of India have been mostly positive. Majorities in all five Asia-Pacific countries surveyed have a favorable view of India, with such positive judgement ranging from 64% in South Korea to 57% in Indonesia and Australia. Half the American public also shares this upbeat opinion of the world’s largest democracy.
Compared with 2014, the year Modi first came to office as prime minister, views of India abroad have largely remained stable. Favorable views have increased by a negligible 5 percentage points in South Korea, while they have decreased by the same amount in Japan, Indonesia and the U.S. The Philippines holds more positive views today than four years ago, with a 13-point increase in Indian favorability over that time.
11.  There is a notable gap between how Indians see their country’s global stature and how others around the world see it. While 56% of Indians believe their country is playing a bigger role in world affairs than a decade ago, a median of just 28% across 26 nations polled agree. Pluralities in six countries believe India’s role has grown over the past 10 years, with notable shares saying India’s stature has increased in advanced economies, including France (49%), Japan (48%), South Korea (48%), Sweden (47%) and the UK (46%).
Fewer (a median of 22%) think India’s global role has diminished in the past decade. In particular, South Africans (37%) and Brazilians (32%) see India as a less important global power. The most common view across the nations surveyed (a median of 34%) is that India’s role is about the same as it was 10 years ago.
In many European countries, people with higher levels of education and income are more likely to think India plays a larger role today than it did 10 years ago. For example, roughly six-in-ten in France (59%) and the UK (58%) with a postsecondary degree or more say India’s power has grown, compared with about four-in-ten of those with less education.
Views of India’s relatively stagnant role on the world stage compared with 10 years ago diverge from international evaluations of China – a median of 70% in 25 countries say Beijing is playing a more important role in world affairs than 10 years prior. (For more comparisons between countries, see Chapter 3 of “Trump’s International Ratings Remain Low, Especially Among Key Allies.”)
12.  Across the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in the U.S., the share of the public who express confidence in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi exceeds the share who lack confidence in him. A majority in the Philippines give the leader a vote of confidence for his handling of world affairs, as do more than four-in-ten in Japan, Australia and South Korea.
The U.S. shows some division in perceptions of the Indian prime minister, with slightly more of the public saying they have confidence in Modi than do not (39% vs. 32%, respectively).
More than a third of Indonesians (37%) express confidence in Modi, though an equal proportion offer no opinion. Roughly a quarter (26%) have no confidence

Will Julian Assange be extradited to USA to face legal actions?

Wikileaks is at the center of major questions in Robert Mueller’s investigation, including whether anyone involved in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign assisted the organization in releasing hacked materials. But the charge in the one-count indictment against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange unsealed on Thursday shortly after his arrest doesn’t speak to those questions or broader First Amendment issues.
In an indictment dated March 6, 2018, the United States charges Assange with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The indictment alleges “that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network, a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications.”
Conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, which violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, is the “meat and potatoes” in the world of computer crime, says Paul Rosenzweig, who teaches at the George Washington University School of Law and was deputy assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Almost everybody that you see who’s charged with a computer fraud of some sort gets a charge that’s somewhere like this.”
This fits with the typical prosecutorial strategy of charging someone with a smaller, more easily provable crime in what could be a larger criminal context. “The conspiracy component of it can be pretty easy to prove, that there had to be some degree of coordination of efforts and action,” says Thomas Holt, a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University who is an expert in computer hacking. “So conspiracy is a way to… treat it as low-hanging fruit where you can at least demonstrate through email and other communications that they were working in some degree in concert to produce an outcome.”
Limiting the indictment against Assange to this one, narrower charge and not charging him with espionage leaves aside any First Amendment questions that could have been raised about Wikileaks publishing classified material. “There has been a lot of speculation that the U.S. would indict Assange merely for distributing classified material,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote on Twitter. “You have heard a lot of concern about that, and it is justified. Many legitimate press publications in the U.S. distribute classified material at times.”
This indictment does not implicate press freedom in any way. It is a crime for any person, whether you sell hotdogs or write for newspapers, to agree to help someone hack into a protected computer server in the United States. I prosecuted non-journalists for that crime myself.
There has been a lot of speculation that the U.S. would indict Assange merely for distributing classified material. You have heard a lot of concern about that, and it is justified. Many legitimate press publications in the U.S. distribute classified material at times.
But this indictment does not charge Assange with a crime related merely to the publication of the material. Rosenzweig offers this analogy: If a journalist has sources offering classified documents, the journalist can publish those documents and this indictment against Assange has no bearing on that. But if a source tells a journalist there are documents behind a locked door, and the journalist offers to help pick the lock, that’s when it becomes a crime. “You as a journalist have become engaged in a criminal enterprise in a way that’s different from normal journalist behavior,” Rosenzweig says of that scenario.
This is where relevance to Mueller’s Russia investigation comes in. In 2016, hackers that the U.S. government believes to have been directed by the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Batches of the hacked emails were released by Wikileaks. Mueller indicted Russian intelligence officers for crimes related to this operation, but he did not charge Assange.
There are two key relevant questions in Mueller’s investigation. The first is how the hacked material made its way from Russia’s Internet Research Agency to Wikileaks, and whether Trump advisor Roger Stone or anyone else associated with the campaign was in that chain of custody. The second, related question is whether Stone or anyone else in the campaign assisted in targeting the hacking or selecting and timing the release of hacked material. (Stone has been charged with lying to Congress and obstructing an investigation into his communications with Assange. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen also testified that he was present for a July 2016 phone call during which Stone informed Trump that Assange was planning to publish hacked Democratic emails.)
As in Rosenzweig’s analogy, if Stone or another member of the campaign simply knew about the information in advance, that likely wouldn’t be a crime. But if they conspired in the hack, that could be.
Attorney General William Barr has said Mueller’s investigation did not establish that anyone on the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the election.
For now, this single-count indictment against Assange for activity from nine years ago doesn’t seem to have direct bearing on lingering questions from the Mueller investigation. And Mueller hasn’t recommended any more charges to come directly from his office. But Assange and Wikileaks loom over multiple aspects of Mueller’s investigation, and more details may surface in the coming days when Barr releases a redacted version of the report.

BJP government’s approval ratings sink as elections begin in India

The net approval rating of the Narendra Modi government has dropped 12 points between March 12 and April 12, according to the CVOTER-IANS tracker.
The performance rating of the Central government had peaked in the days after the Balakot air strike on February 26, touching the highest level of 62.06 on March 7.
After remaining in the 50s till March 22, the approval ratings have come down to 43.25 on April 12, a day after the first phase of polls held for 91 Lok Sabha seats.
Exactly a month ago on March 12, the approval rating of the government was 55.28.
The tracker findings are based on survey of people who were asked if they are “very satisfied”, “satisfied to some extent”, “not satisfied” and “Dont’ know/can’t say” about the performance of the Central government led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
On March 7, 51.32 per cent of the respondents had said they were very satisfied with the performance of the government. However, the net approval rating, taking into account all the responses, has been in constant decline and is settling into the pre-Pulwama levels.
The government’s net approval rating was 32.4 on January 1 and remained between 30 and 40 for the entire month before rising steadily after the mid-February when the Pulwama attack took place which was followed by air strike against Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) camp in Balakot resulting in sharp rise. Around half of the voters surveyed by CVOTER-IANS continue to be very satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The poll tracker interviewed 12,050 voters on April 4 and found that 50.95 per cent of them said they were very satisfied with the performance of the Prime Minister while another 22.49 per cent said they were satisfied to some extent. There were 25.29 per cent voters who said they were not happy with him at all.
The satisfaction level with the Prime Minister remained high mostly after the air strikes on the terror camp in Pakistan’s Balakot whose momentum on the voters has sustained despite a slight dip. The latest findings of the tracker poll has come just three days ahead of the first phase of polling on April 11.
The Prime Minister had the best approval rating of over 55 per cent on March 6, 7 and 8. But the sample size on those days was half of what it was on April 4. There has also been a marginal rise in those who are not at all satisfied with the Prime Minister from around 20 per cent in the first week to March to around 25 per cent in the first week of April. (IANS)

Tamil Nadu Chapter of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA remains vigilant and diligent

Speaking at an event  on April 13, 2019, in Hicksville, New York, the President of the Tamil Nadu Chapter Ms. Jaya Sundaram said that with the current Lok Sabha elections on the way, the Tamil Nadu Chapter remained vigilant and diligent as to the accomplishment of its set goals in trying to get out the votes of all its family members and friends back home.  She  warned that one should not be swayed by propaganda but must make their choice on facts and figures.
Mr. John Joseph, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Chapter, who is also national Vice President of the Indian Overseas Congress  USA, said that the Chapter had its review and strategy planning session where some 75 of its leaders gathered around to take stock of its overall work.    Mr. Joseph traced back the criteria the Chapter had established earlier to register and measure its targeted goals of making  phone calls and the use of other media  means to coax their respective relatives, families and friends to make a critical analysis of the work of the Modi government to assist families make their choice of government.   The horrific stories going around of money laundering at high levels was scary and worrisome, he added.  He thanked the NRIs for their concerns.
Mr. Devendra Vora, President of the Maharashtra Chapter opined that the families have only to look around their own cases to see how   badly the downturn in the economy  had affected them during the last five years and how disappointing the performance of the Modi government had been.
Mr. Ravi Chopra, President of the Finance Committee, appealed everyone to support the efforts to change the government and bring Rahul Gandhi to head the next Government.
Ms. Shalu Chopra, Chair of the women’s  Committee made a passionate speech on how women were increasingly playing an active role in politics and drew  everyone’s attention to the recent increase in their numbers of participation.
Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of IOC, USA  pointed out that the market conditions were deplorable, unemployment remained high, farmers complaints were very serious, the sick and the students in schools were beginning to take a heavy toll.    Furthermore, many promises made by the Modi government during their election campaigns turned out to be bogus.  Consequently, many voters were now seeking to replace the Modi government.                                                Mr. Mr. Harbachan Singh, Secretary General of IOC, USA praised the most comprehensive Manifesto of the Congress Party as a masterpiece which addressed every issue in human endeavor.  It did not dwell in outlandish and unattainable propositions as contained in other manifestos.   Where is the black-money and where are the fifteen Lakh rupees that were promised to be deposited into every personal account,   he asked.  Modi government began by fooling the people who over the years are now traumatized.  He referred to a litany of failures and scams which plagued the administration and observed that NRI families had recently been glued to the TV and media to keep themselves appraised on the developments back home destined to bring about change in the government to ameliorate the frustrating situation.
Speaker after speaker painted a gloomy picture of the Modi government’s performance and expressed despair and gruesome future that threatened India and its people.  Amongst the leaders that  also spoke include Pradeep Samana, Vice President of IOC USA, Oommen Koshy, George Chacko, Leela Merat  Kerela Chapter President, Mathew kutty  Easow, and Sophia Sharma

Maharashtra Chapter of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA holds campaign meeting

New York.  With the current Lok Sabha elections already in progress, the Maharashtra Chapter of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA  met on April 11, 2019      to review its performance to get out the votes of all their respective family members and friends back home.
Ms. Malini Shah, Chairperson of the Maharashtra Chapter and national Vice President traced back the criteria the Chapter had established earlier to register and measure its targeted goals of making  phone calls and the use of other media  means to coax their respective relatives, families and friends to make a critical analysis of the work of the Modi government to assist families make their choice of government.   Mr. Devendra Vora, President of the Chapter opined that the families have only to look around their own cases to see how   badly the downturn in the economy had affected them during the last four years.
Ms. Shalu Chopra made a passionate speech on how women were increasingly playing an active role in politics and drew attention to the increase in their numbers of participation.
Mohinder Singh Gilzian pointed out that the market conditions were deplorable, unemployment remained high, farmers complaints were very serious, the sick and the students in schools was beginning to take a heavy toll.    Furthermore, many promises made by the Modi government during their election campaigns turned out to be bogus.  Consequently, many voters were now seeking to replace the Modi government  with one that not only has a good manifesto but also that the promises  don’t seem outlandish  and  incredible.   Where is the black-money and where are the lakh rupees that were promised to be deposited into every person’s  account.  A list of failures were mention by each speaker one by one and they were upset  on the  gruesome future that now threatened the people.
Among the leaders who spoke were Pradeep Samala, national Vice Chairman, Charan Singh Prempura, President of  Harayana Chapter, Zinda Singh, President Delhi Chapter, Amir Rasheed,  General Secretary,   Sawaran Singh, Treasurer,  and Girish Vaidya.

Rep. Ami Bera calls to institutionalize U.S.-India Strategic Partnership

 Four-term U.S. Rep. Amerish ‘Ami’ Bera (D.-Calif.) — the longest-serving Indian-American U.S. lawmaker — whose influence and clout in the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee has been enhanced with the Democrats regaining the majority in the House, has said he will shortly unveil legislation he’s authored and co-sponsored by several other members of Congress, to institutionalize the U.S.-India strategic partnership across various sectors.
Bera, 53, predicted that this legislation, once enacted, would make India as much an ally of the U.S. as are its NATO partners and other close allies such as Japan and South Korea.
Speaking at the Capitol Hill 2019 Spring Conference of the U.S.-India Friendship Council last month, he said the legislation would “codify the importance of the U.S.-India partnership,” and while acknowledging that some of the aspects of the pending legislation “exists in other places, we’d like to incorporate language about the U.S.-India Enhanced Cooperation Act, which already exists, but put it into a comprehensive bill that will put India on a par with other major allies.”
Bera pointed out that necessarily anchoring this comprehensive legislation would be the growing U.S.-India defense and military partnership, which has grown to be the crown jewels of the strategic partnership between the two countries, which has led to “us increasingly recognizing India as a strategic partner.”
He said in the legislation, “We would look at how we can work with India to develop technologies like artificial intelligence, etc., so that you can get Indian companies and U.S. companies working together in a strategic fashion.
“We’d like to authorize the DOD (Department of Defense) to assist India reducing purchases from countries we may mutually view as adversaries and certainly those we view as adversaries,” Bera said, and added, “and we’d also like to assist India to increase its own capacity in self-defense.”
He also said that “we’d require the Department of Defense to conduct regular military engagements and dialogues with India, particularly in the western Indian Ocean region, where we already recognize India as having a vital role in protecting the Indian Ocean and keeping those lanes of commerce open. “We see that partnership as critical and we already conduct major naval and defense exercises,” with India, he said.
Bera said that this comprehensive legislation would also push for the State Department to “advance India’s membership into APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum because we believe this is an important vehicle by which India can continue to seek its free and open trade across Asia.
“We also think it’s important to authorize and work with India in partnership to help advance and promote aid in third nations, and the countries in Africa is an example,” he said.
Bera pointed out that “India has much deeper and older relationships with Africa, and our understanding is that we can work together with USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and other partners with India and go into those third developing countries — that could be a critical partnership for both countries.”
He also said another vital sector that he would like to see institutionalized would be in the education sector because already, each year, we know that hundreds of thousand of Indian students come to the U.S. to study.”
Bera said by the same token, “It will be in our interest to foster this partnership — where more American students go and study in India.
“And, again, these planks would continue to move the U.S.-India partnership forward together,” and help institutionalize it, he added.
Bera said that “as we introduce this legislation, we would be looking to the U.S.-India Friendship Council and other organizations to help work with us as we move this legislation forward.
“We still believe that the U.S.-India relationship can be that defining relationship in the 21st century and certainly a strategic relationship,” he added.
Meanwhile, Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in this remarks, lauded Swadesh Chatterjee, the founder and chair of the Friendship Council for “your incredible guidance and mentorship over the years.
“You have been a trail-blazer for the Indian-American community, when it was hard to get appointments with (Congressional) staff assistants, let alone getting members of Congress elected,” he said, turning to Chatterjee.
Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, continued that “that kind of dedication is something that I’ve never forgotten in terms of the commitment that people like Swadesh have shown and we’ve grown on the sacrifices that people like you’ve made.”
He recalled that it “took people like Swadesh and Ramesh Kapur, who were willing to speak out of turn, who were willing to chase down members of Congress down the hallways, just trying to get a word in. They refused to be passive observers of democracy, but were willing to get into people’s faces in Congress to move forward.”
Khanna continued, “I’ve always believed that their generation and the sacrifices that they’ve made for this country and the community, will always be far more than my generation.”
He said that thanks to this older generation, “Our generation was handed a lot of good opportunities in life — good families, good education, and it’s never lost on me how many people have paved the way for our being able to be in public service.”
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.), speaking at the evening reception, pointed out to the scores of political and community activists who were on hand spanning three generations, that it was the U.S.-India Friendship Council led by Chatterjee and a handful of other community leaders who were catalytic in lobbying the Congress to pass the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008, which was a transformational moment in the history of the relationship between Washington and New Delhi.
He said that “really showed the Indian-American community coming of age in terms of building those bridges between the U.S. and India that will last.”
Krishnamoorthi also made a strong pitch for more members of the Indian-American community to run for public office, including the U.S. Congress and help swell the ‘Samosa Caucus,’ of four Indian- American lawmakers in the House.
“If you dream it, you can do it,” he said, and added, “The fact that a guy like me with 31 letters in his name that 99 percent of my constituents cannot pronounce is testament to the greatness of this country and the fact that anyone can do anything they want to do in this country.”

Rachana Desai Martin Appointed as Chief Operating Officer of Democratic National Committee

The Democratic National Committee announced that it has appointed Rachana Desai Martin as the Chief Operating Officer. The CEO of the Democratic National Committee is Seema Nanda.
Rachna has been promoted to Chief Operating Officer, a role she has been filling on an interim basis. She will oversee the DNC’s operational and administrative infrastructure.
Previously, Rachana served as the Director of Voter Protection and Civic Engagement, where she oversaw the Party’s national voter protection efforts. She brings a wealth of experience from both government service and a variety of campaigns, including multiple roles inside the Obama administration and led the voter protection efforts in Nevada for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
“As we head into one of the most important elections of our lifetime, we are building a world class team in order to beat Donald Trump and elect Democrats up and down the ballot,” said DNC Chair Tom Perez. “Waikinya, Rachana, and Reyna bring a wealth of knowledge to the party and we are lucky to have them on our team. Their work will be felt far outside the building as we continue to strengthen our party and build on the victories from the last two years.”
Added DNC CEO Nanda: “Our rich diversity of background and experience is what has made the new DNC a political force in electing Democrats up and down the ticket in every corner of the country. These three phenomenal women embody our core ideals and will bring new energy to our leadership team as we continue to lay the groundwork to take back the Senate and the White House in 2020.

Diane Gujarati re-nominated by Trump for Federal Judgeship

US President Donald Trump has re-nominated an Indian American prosecutor, Diane Gujarati, to be a federal judge. The White House announced on Monday that Trump was again sending her nomination to the Senate for confirmation as a judge of the federal court for Eastern New York that has jurisdiction over parts of New York City and Long Island.
She was first nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016. Trump re-nominated her last year and both times the full Senate didn’t act on the nomination, even though the Senate Judicial Committee had unanimously approved it.
Gujarati is now the deputy chief of the criminal division of the federal prosecutor’s office for Southern New York that has jurisdiction over Manhattan.
Her father, Damodar Gujarati, is an economics professor at West Point, US Military Academy, that trains officers. Her mother, Ruth Pincus Gujarati, taught social studies at a New York City high school.
After graduating in law from Yale University, Diane worked as law clerk to a federal appeals court judge and at a top law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell, before joining the prosecutor’s office.
She has the backing of both Democratic senators from New York, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as Trump. But her nomination was one of hundreds backlogged in the Senate, although in her case it was not on ideological grounds.
Last month, the Senate approved appointment of Neomi Rao as a judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, considered the most important after the Supreme Court. She replaced Brett Kavanaugh, who was elevated to the Supreme Court. Considered a conservative jurist, her nomination split the Senate along party lines. (IANS)

NGOs Blast US for Undermining Criminal Court

As it paves a destructive path against international institutions and multilateralism, the Trump administration is slowly but steadily undermining the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

The US has already withdrawn both from the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris while, at the same time, it has either cut off, or drastically reduced, funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and for UN peacekeeping operations (by a hefty $500 million).
The most recent attack has been directed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague which was planning to investigate war crimes committed in Afghanistan, focusing both on the Taliban and US soldiers.
The US action to revoke the visa of Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, has not only triggered protests from academics and from human rights and civil society organizations (CSOs) but also left several lingering questions unanswered.
When the United Nations decided to locate its secretariat in the city of New York, the United States, as host nation, signed a “headquarters agreement” back in 1947 ensuring diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats and pledging to facilitate the day-to-day activities of the world body– without any hindrance.
So, is the revocation of the visa a violation of the 1947 US- UN headquarters agreement? Or has the US a right to impose proposed sanctions on ICC judges when it is not even a member of the ICC?
And is the revocation of the visa the shape of things to come, with political leaders from countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Cuba– blacklisted by the Trump administration– being refused admission when they are due in New York next September for the annual General Assembly sessions?
The protests against the US decision have come from several CSOs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and the World Federalist Movement- Institute for Global Policy (WFM/IGP).
The letter from the three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) states “the purpose of the visa restrictions is to block and deter legitimate criminal investigation into serious crimes under international law”.
“Not only might they have a chilling effect on ICC personnel and others advocating for accountability, but they will set a dangerous precedent with serious implications on the overall fight for impunity, especially the right of victims and their legal representatives to seek justice and reparations without fear of retaliation.”
Dr. Tawanda Hondora, Executive Director of WFM-IGP, told IPS the Trump administration has been consistent in its reckless application of retrogressive policies that undermine a rules-based international order.
He said its policies are seriously damaging the post-WWII system of international law and practice, and have exponentially increased the risk of armed conflict in a world in which many more states now possess weapons of mass destruction.
“The revocation by the US of Fatou Bensouda’s visa violates Article IV of the UN-US headquarters agreement”.
There is no question that the US is applying its immigration laws with the objective of improperly influencing the ICC Prosecutor’s investigations into crimes committed by all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan, he argued.
“It is wholly unacceptable that this administration is using Bensouda’s personal situation to coerce her to breach her mandate under the Rome Statute and to the UN Security Council,” he declared.
Dr Martin S. Edwards, Associate Professor of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University in the US, told IPS both civil society and other countries are right to be critical here.
“I would hope that this is solely intended to make life difficult for Bensouda and not part of a more general trend of denying visas for General Assembly visits”.
However, said Dr Edwards, there is little about this administration and its mix of insecurity and unwarranted bluster that should surprise anyone.
“I would think that this could lead to similar attempts to deny visas for General Assembly visits” He pointed out that the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could be a natural target here as an extension of diplomatic efforts to isolate him.
It would be ironic that a President that frames his accomplishment as a reassertion of American power would be afraid of what he would say from the podium, said Dr Edwards.
But the hallmark of this US Presidency has been a singular focus on controlling perceptions and information, rather than confidently relying on our diplomatic prowess to produce results.
Historically, the US has grumbled about leaders coming to New York (denying Arafat was legally easier than a Head of State), but one can imagine this White House pushing the envelope here, since it’s perfect “red meat” for the President’s base, he added.
The legal basis for doing this is incredibly thin, based on a false reading of Section 6 of the Headquarters Agreement, which grants leaders a right to access to the UN, and the US would surely lose in arbitration, Dr Edwards noted.
Briefing reporters on March 15, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said since 1998, the United States has declined to join the ICC because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers and the threat it poses to American national sovereignty.
“We are determined to protect the American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation. We feared that the court could eventually pursue politically motivated prosecutions of Americans, and our fears were warranted,” he declared.
Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS the US is not only, not a party to the Statute of the ICC, but it also inserted Article 98 of the Statute during its negotiations excluding US nationals from its jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the US formally advised the UN Secretary-General that it will not ratify the Statute thereby exempting it from any obligations arising from signature.
Thus, the US has emphatically signalled its position with regard to the Statute of the ICC. Therefore, denying a visa to the prosecutor only underlines its consistent opposition to the Statute, said Dr Kohona a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.
While one could raise one’s eye brows about the US action, said Dr Kohona, one is reminded again that we still live in a world where the powerful dictate the terms and modify the rules to suit their convenience, despite the dreams of those idealists who had hoped to create a world governed by a transparent and predictable framework of rules equally applicable to all.
“Unfortunately, the rules, especially those relating to human rights and humanitarian affairs, tend to be applied with vigour only to the weak and the meek and not to the powerful. This is the reality of the world that we inhabit,” he noted.
Dr Edwards of Seton Hall University said: “As for the ICC, Bensouda is caught between a need to investigate non-African cases to signal her independence, but picking the biggest fight imaginable in the process”.
This does fit a general US pattern of using ICC as a tool against other countries while exempting itself from investigation in the process, so in one sense it is not surprising.
“The bigger danger for the ICC is that this might set a precedent for other countries to try to tamper with its work in similar ways moving forward,” he declared.
Dr Hondora of WFM-IGP called on the United Kingdom and France – members states to UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Rome Statute – to initiate a debate in the UNSC regarding the lawfulness and propriety of the US decision to revoke Bensouda’s visa in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
He said WFM-IGP calls on the UN General Assembly to object to the revocation of Bensouda’s US visa as it sets a precedence that will see representatives of governments and international bodies that different US administrations object to being personally targeted with punitive personal US sanctions with the intention of prejudicing how they discharge their roles and responsibilities under key treaties.
WFM-IGP also calls on the General Assembly to seek an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the lawfulness – under the US-UN Hosting Agreement – of the US decision revoking Bensouda’s visa to the US in retaliation to a decision taken by the Office of the Prosecutor to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan.
(The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org)

600 theatre personalities urge people to vote against ‘bigotry, hatred, and apathy’ in India

More than 600 theatre personalities, including Amol Palekar, Naseeruddin Shah, Girish Karnad and Usha Ganguli, have signed a letter asking people to “vote BJP and its allies” out of power, arguing that the idea of India and its constitution are under threat.
The letter, which was issued last week in 12 languages on the Artist Unite India website, said the upcoming Lok Sabha elections are the “most critical in the history” of the country.
Among those who have signed the letter are Shanta Gokhale, Mahesh Elkunchwar, Mahesh Dattani, Arundhati Nag, Kirti Jain, Abhishek Majumdar, Konkona Sen Sharma, Ratna Pathak Shah, Lillete Dubey, Mita Vashisth, M K Raina, Makarand Deshpande and Anurag Kashyap.
“Today, the very idea of India is under threat. Today, song, dance, laughter is under threat. Today, our beloved Constitution is under threat,” they said.
The government has “suffocated” the institutions where argument, debate and dissent were nurtured, the letter stated. “A democracy must empower its weakest, its most marginalised. A democracy cannot function without questioning, debate, and a vibrant opposition. All this is being concertedly eroded by the current government.”
“The BJP, which came to power five years ago with the promise of development, has given free rein to Hindutva goons to indulge in the politics of hate and violence,” it added.
In an apparent reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the letter stated that he has destroyed the lives of many people through his government’s policies and has failed on the promises he made.
The letter does not refer to the prime minister by name.
“He promised to bring back black money; instead, rogues have looted the country and run away. The wealth of the rich has grown astronomically, while the poor have become even poorer.”
The letter asked people to protect the “Constitution and our syncretic, secular ethos” and vote “bigotry, hatred, and apathy out of power”.
“We appeal to our fellow citizens to vote for love and compassion, for equality and social justice, and to defeat the forces of darkness and barbarism,” the letter read.
“Vote to empower the weakest, protect liberty, protect the environment, and foster scientific thinking. Vote for secular democratic, inclusive India. Vote for the freedom to dream. Vote wisely,” it added.
Last week, a similar appeal was issued by celebrated indie filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, Sanal Kumar Sasidharan and Devashish Makhija, asking voters to “defeat fascism”.

Indian communities in New York call for defense of democracy

The NYC “Defense of Democracy” rally brought together the rich diversity of the Indian Diaspora in the United States – scientists and engineers, service workers and computer professionals, artists and doctors, Hindus, Sikhs, Dalits and Muslims, policymakers, activists, left and liberal intellectuals and community leaders.

Commenting on the lynchings and targeted attacks on Muslims and Dalits that have increased exponentially since the coming to power of Narendra Modi in 2014, Sarah Anderson-Rajarigam of Dalit Solidarity Forum, one of the co-sponsors of the rally said, “Dalit Solidarity Forum deplores the heavy targeting of Dalits and other marginalized communities. We unite our voices with Dalits and other minorities in their fight for freedom and support them in their efforts to uphold the constitution”. Out of all the mob-lynching incidents by so-called ‘cow-protection’ mobs since 2010, 97% have taken place between 2014 and 2018.

Coalition for the Defense of the Constitution and Democracy (CDCD) have in their press release have stated that the BJP government has responsible for systematic erosion and weakening of democratic values and institutions. It has been attacking and weakening constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The CBI and Income Tax department have also been used to intimidate media organizations critical of the BJP government.

Sunita Viswanath of Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus, said, “We are Americans of Hindu faith, many of us Indian, who stand opposed to the ideology of Hindutva and the atrocities against minorities and dissenters being committed in the name of Hinduism. We stand with all the people of India who are calling for an end to this regime that threatens democracy, disregards the dignity and safety of minorities, and has declared war on the poor.”

The BJP has significantly increased corruption and corporate plunder. To distract people from its record of failed governance, the BJP has increased war mongering and is busy dividing the people along communal lines. When Muslims, Dalits, and the Left have resisted or spoken up against the injustice, they have either been imprisoned using draconian laws such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Adivasi (indigenous) people and landless laborers, who have been fighting for land and forest rights, have been arrested and harassed. Workers, who have been struggling against the government’s increased privatization and casualization of work, have been fired or put in prison. With the emboldening of patriarchal forces, in many instances, the attacks on women’s rights and safety have been led by BJP ministers and leaders.

Mohammad Jawad, National General Secretary of Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), speaking on why IAMC has joined the rally said, “The people of India will eventually recognize the divisive and hatred the current BJP/RSS government is spreading and will unite to preserve our constitution and defeat this government.”

The protestors at the Defense of Democracy rally held placards and shouted slogans such as:

· Ensure Free and Fair Elections! Election Commission must guarantee election free of violence, intimidation, and rigging

· Stop the witch-hunt! Release all UAPA arrestees and drop all charges

· Stop the lynchings of Dalits and Muslims! Arrest and prosecute the perpetrators

· Stop culture of fear! End the attacks and intimidation of activists, artists, workers and women

The demonstration was held in front of the Indian consulate, New York.

Will democracy survive after the elections in India?

For many people in India, democracy means a majoritarian rule. Once a party or a coalition is elected, it acts as if it has the moral and legal right to do what it pleases! That is the crossroad where India is today with Narendra Modi in power disregarding the aspirations of the minorities and diminishing the power structures that provided political and social equilibrium in the last 7 decades or more.

India has not only survived through the growing pains of a democratic experiment but prospered as a nation under a Nehruvian vision and the constitutional umbrella engineered by the great B.R. Ambedkar. Together, they have built Institutions that guaranteed life and property of every Citizen regardless of their background or circumstances and provided an opportunity to climb up the ladder of success and economic prosperity. What we should have witnessed is a continuum of those policies and practices resulting in more openness and tolerance, and yet the opposite seems to have taken place.

Many liberal critics of the Modi regime sincerely believe that his administration is run by a political dogma inspired by the RSS ideology. His long association with that organization and penchant for appointing many of the chief ministerial candidates from that feared cadre may have given such an impression to the public. It is suspected that many of his illiberal policies and reluctance to err on the side of liberty and justice may be the direct result of his commitment to that ideology.

That ideology is based on a common thread promoted by the Sangh Parivar organizations and is called the ‘Hindu Nationalist agenda of BJP.’ The ultimate goal of the agenda is to transform the pluralistic and democratic India to a Hindu nation where the majority religion will have the pre-eminence and minorities relegated to subservient role probably being denied equal protection or opportunities, that too, to a substantial segment of the population.

What is happening to the soul of Indian democracy? After five years of BJP rule, lynching has become the national pastime, and the mobocracy rules the day. Attacks on innocent civilians continued even after India’s Supreme Court requested the government to enact new legislation to end an increase in mob violence and lynching that have reportedly killed over a hundred people accused of cattle theft or other bigoted reasoning.

For astute political observers, these are not isolated incidents, but rather a direct result of evolving national policies that have provided cover and credence to vicious gangs and thugs who are engaged in this type of violence in the name of religion. The mob is appeared to be succeeding every day in tearing up the secular fabric of a nation while the Government’s own actions tend to weaken the Institutions of democracy at every juncture.

Let us take a look at some of these developments in the last five years under the Modi administration that is having a transformational impact on the society and accomplishing their stated goals:

The weakening of Institutions:

  1. Disrespecting Parliamentary Democracy:

The constitution framers created a democratic system wherein the legislature would make laws, the executive would implement laws and be accountable to parliament, and an independent judiciary would enforce and interpret the laws. They also put in systems of checks and balances among these three organs of the state. However, over the years, these three organs of the country have pushed the boundaries of their relationship with one another.

NDA has the majority in the Lok Sabha where they pass ordinary bills and then pass it on to Rajya Sabha as Money bills to circumvent their numerical impairment in that body. They also have shown utter disregard to deliberate on essential bills bypassing various parliamentary committees. It should also be noted that Lok Sabha passed the Finance bill of 2018 without even debate against the objections by the opposition.

2)    Running interference with Law Enforcement

             Agencies such as India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate of the Finance Ministry, the Income Tax authorities and even local police forces are often accused of doing Government’s bidding. The opposition has charged that their leaders have been frequently targeted for harassment which they consider as a political vendetta for expressing their opinions critical of the government.

3)    Assaulting on the Independence of Judiciary

India has witnessed an extraordinary news conference by four members of the Collegium revealing the skew in the allocation of work and lack of transparency by Dipak Misra, a former Chief Justice of India. According to the retired Justice Jasti Chelameswar, the second senior most judge at the time, “we tried to persuade the CJI to take steps but failed. Unless the Institution of Supreme Court is preserved, democracy won’t survive in the country”. There is indeed a cloud still casting a pall over the recent verdicts on Loya and Mecca Masjid cases.

4)    Weakening of RTI

Since the Narendra Modi government came to power, access to information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act has diminished greatly, according to the annual report of the Central Information Commission (CIC) for 2014-15. “Every Indian deserves to know the truth, and the BJP wants to hide the truth. The BJP believes the truth must be hidden from the people and they must not question people in power. The changes proposed to the RTI will make it a useless Act,” Rahul Gandhi said that on Twitter.

5)    Influencing the Election Commission

Shiv Sena, a member of the NDA coalition, has dubbed the election commission as a ‘Tawaif’ (Mistress) of a political party. Coming from an ally, it only amplifies the long-held suspicion by many that election commission has become a tool increasingly in the hands of the BJP government. “People are losing faith in the voting system,” Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut told ANI.

  1. Muzzling of Freedom

     Freedom of Conscience is fundamental to all other liberties. It is innate and God-given. It is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. However, it is open season on those who freely exercise it. President Ronald Reagan once spoke eloquently on the importance of maintaining the freedom we all cherish. He said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same”.

  1. a)    Stifling of Individual thought and expression

Professor M.M Kalburgi and Govind Pansare were active in combating the organized mysticism and cultures of gullibility widespread at the “popular” level. Their professed independence and determined efforts to alert the common man from the hideous agenda of the so-called religious godmen cost their lives.

  1. b)    Harassing of the Media

Media is dubbed as the fourth estate and has a vital role to play in a vibrant democracy. However, they are increasingly fearful of their existence if they do not toe the line of the Government. Many of these media outlets are bought out by the crony capitalists and have become the cheerleaders of the BJP agenda.

  1. c)    Curbing dissent in Academia

Academia has become another favorite target of the Modi Government. BJP and its ilk have always hated Institutions like JNU where the free flow of ideas flourished, and lively debates on the pros and cons of contemporary issues were the order of the day. Today, the students and faculty in these revered institutions are intimidated, harassed and called anti-national for failing to toe their Hindutva agenda line and often charged with sedition.

  1. d)    Diminishing Civil Society

Modi Government has been openly hostile to civil society groups. It repeatedly denounces human rights and environmental activism as “anti-national” – a phrase that carries connotations of treason. Their role is critical in a society especially because of the lack of ethics and morality of the current regime that is supremely indifferent to the plight of hundreds of millions of its citizens.

  1. e)    Violating of the Religious Freedom

Religious freedom in India continued on a downward trend in 2017, said the United States Commission on International religious freedom’s annual report released recently. It said that although government statistics have indicated that communal violence has increased over the past two years, during the year, Hindu-nationalists groups sought to “saffronize” India through violence, intimidation, and harassment against non-Hindus and Hindu Dalits” although Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion through article 25 and 26. India is home to roughly 172 Million Muslims- the third largest Muslim population in the world. Since the ascendance of Modi as the Prime Minister, tensions between Muslims and Hindus have increased in many parts of the country. Modi’s rise has further pushed Muslims towards marginalization.

Christians, who constitute around 2% of the population, are also under severe stress with many of their places of worship under attack, with increased re-conversion efforts by Hindu fundamentalist organizations, removal of Christmas Day and Easter Day from the National Calendar and by the cancellation of FCRA of thousands of Christian charities effectively putting them out of business, the Saffron brigade is questioning the very Indian ness of every Christian in India.

  1. f)    Policing Morality

A group of youths, mainly reportedly affiliated to Bajrang Dal allegedly stripped and attacked a Muslim youth in public in Mangalore for the simple reason that he was found to be with a Hindu girl. The man identified as Shakir claimed he was merely giving the girl a ride in his car on her request when he was attacked.

  1. g)    Imposing Dietary restrictions

Since Mr. Modi rose to power, emboldened hard-line Hindu activists have assaulted cow traders and people suspected of eating beef, claiming to defend Hindu beliefs. Mohammed Aklaq of New Delhi was dragged down from his home and lynched to death for the suspicion that he had possessed beef in his refrigerator.

  1. i)    Stifling Artistic expression

“Democracy is under threat in India with “artists, writers and rationalists” being attacked in some form or other, says acclaimed actress and filmmaker Nandita Das who feels conservatives and right-wing groups are increasingly becoming country’s moral police. Be it the debate around growing intolerance in India or the agitation around the release of Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film “Padmavati” or the issue around “S Durga” or occasional calls to put a temporary ban on Pakistani talent  from working in the Hindi film industry – the conversation around the extent of creative freedom in India keeps coming back. Moreover, Nandita Das feels that there has been an attempt to silence creative voices.

Yogi Adityanath, the saffron-robed new chief minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh said some time ago that its most famous monument, Taj Mahal, does not represent  “authentic Indian Culture” – presumably because the 17th-century tomb was built by a Muslim King for his Muslim wife. Minority groups, as well as secular-minded Hindus, are increasingly fearful that the country’s diversity is under threat. “We are turning into Pakistan,” said a society hostess in Delhi.

7)    Practicing Anti-Dalit policies

Since the ascension of BJP to power, there is one in a series of incidents that has revealed the mindset of a party, on the one hand, urging Dalits to unite under the flag of Hindutva but on the other, setting up a delimiter to what extent they can be included. First, the ban on the Ambedkar-Periyar Study circle of IIT Madras, then the burning alive of Dalit children in Haryana and finally General VK Singh allegedly referring to them as animals. The suicide note of Rohit Vemulla, a Dalit scholar, may have summed the heart-breaking sentiment felt across their community. “My birth is my fatal accident. I can never recover from my childhood loneliness -the unappreciated child from my past”.

8)   Implementing Zero tolerance in Kashmir

According to the Prem Shankar Jha “let us look at where Modi has taken India in the past five years. In Kashmir, he has let loose a regime of absolute terror based on the idea of zero tolerance for political dissent. Today there are no militants in Kashmir, only terrorists who are being hunted down and killed without even being given a chance to surrender. Modi says the Kashmiris are itching to be freed from them”.

The United Nations also have chimed in: “There is an urgent need to address past and ongoing human rights violations and abuses and deliver justice for all people in Kashmir, who for seven decades have suffered a conflict that has claimed or ruined numerous lives,” a report by the UN Human Rights Office published on Thursday says.

  1. Treating Mythology as Science

Human Resource Administration is busy at work changing curriculum and rewriting history to fit the Sangh Parivar narrative. RSS, the radical organization that is behind this administration, has determined to create a theocratic state and the HRM is more than willing to affect those changes. Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of modern India, is being made to disappear as well as an iconic figure in Indian history.

Conclusion: Democracy and Secularism in India under serious assault.

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s victory in the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 has ushered in an unprecedented attack on India’s democracy and injected new elements of intolerance and authoritarianism into the lives of people living in the country. As per Jairus Banaji in an article in the Wire that very eloquently put it “behind the mask of a developmental regime promising rapid industrial expansion and millions of jobs for the mass of unemployed youth, we have seen instead a hideous explosion of the cultural politics of the extreme right, overt acclamations of a Hindu Rashtra, a wide-ranging takeover of educational and cultural institutions by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a rampant culture of violence targeting freedom of expression, freedom of religion, intellectual freedoms, and even the freedom of the young to love, a calculated drive to communalize voters in North India with hate campaigns that have led to the horrid lynching at Dadri and Udhampur, a shocking subversion of the judicial system through a concerted drive to secure the release of elements indicted on fake encounter and terrorism charges, fabrication of evidence to crush a handful of individuals who have campaigned for justice for the victims of the Gujarat violence, and of course the brazen murder of anti-superstition crusaders. The fabric of India’s democracy is today being torn to shreds. This is the first government in independent India where the RSS is overtly in command. We are further away from both Jawaharlal Nehru and BR Ambedkar than ever before: from Nehru’s contempt for the RSS as a harbinger of fascism to Ambedkar’s vision of a casteless India”.

A constitution exists to create a framework for the government to function and the constitution of India tries to keep the government inside that framework. That is what Nehru and Ambedkar intended as its authors. It is obvious to any independent observer that the current Modi regime has shown very little respect for that sacred document. Now it is time for the voters to decide whether they want to protect the Constitution that protects them! Martin Luther King once Jr. Said: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”. Let voters decide!

(Writer is the Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)

Trump Retreats on Health Care After McConnell Warns It Won’t Happen

President Trump backed off plans to introduce a Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act after Senator Mitch McConnell privately warned him that the Senate would not revisit health care in a comprehensive way before the November 2020 elections.

Reversing himself in the face of Republican consternation, Mr. Trump said his party would not produce a health care plan of its own, as he had promised, until after the elections, meaning he will only try to fulfill his first-term promise to repeal and replace his predecessor’s signature program if he wins a second term.

The president’s abrupt about-face, announced on Twitter on Monday night after talking with Mr. McConnell, all but ensured that health care will take a central place in next year’s campaign, elevating an issue Democrats consider one of their strengths. But it may take the legislative heat off Republicans exasperated by Mr. Trump’s unexpected push to devise a wholesale replacement for President Barack Obama’s health law in the coming months.

“I made it clear to him that we were not going to be doing that in the Senate,” Mr. McConnell, the majority leader from Kentucky, said on Tuesday. “He did say, as he later tweeted, that he accepted that and that he would be developing a plan that he would take to the American people during the 2020 campaign.”

The latest scuffle over health care shows a sea change in the Republican stance heading into 2020.

The president’s last attempt to replace Mr. Obama’s health care program blew up in 2017 when his party controlled both houses of Congress. Democrats seized the House in last year’s midterm elections in part on a promise to defend the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, so when Mr. Trump revived the issue last week, it distressed Republicans who consider it a political liability.

Mr. Trump had surprised allies by ordering his administration to ask a federal court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act and then promised a Republican replacement. Democrats, consumer groups, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies have said that 20 million people could lose health coverage if courts accept the administration’s argument.

Mr. McConnell said he spoke with Mr. Trump on Monday afternoon to explain that the Senate would not return to the issue in a broad way before the next election. “I pointed out to him the Senate Republicans’ view on dealing with comprehensive health care reform with a Democratic House of Representatives,” Mr. McConnell said.

But if that warning was meant to quiet the president, it did not work. Hours later, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “The Republicans are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than Obama Care.”

Elections in India crucial for safeguarding India’s Democracy& pluralism

As India heads to the polls in April/May 2019 a wide cross-section of Indians gathered on Saturday, April 6, 2019 at the Indian Consulate in New York City (NYC) to stand in solidarity with people fighting to defend the Constitution, democracy and human rights in India. The NYC “Defense of Democracy” rally brings together the rich diversity of the Indian diaspora in the United States – scientists and engineers, service workers and computer professionals, artists and doctors, Hindus, Sikhs, Dalits and Muslims, policymakers, activist, left and liberal intellectuals and community leaders.

Some 900 million people can cast their ballot is, predictably, a source of anxiety and excitement on all sides of the political spectrum, and on this side of the globe. Traveling in a car en route to his next meeting with voters in India, Sam Pitroda, Chicago-based telecommunications entrepreneur and former advisor to India’s Prime Minister, shares his concerns about the heated election environment. Chicago based telecommunications entrepreneur and former cabinet minister and advisor to Indian Prime Ministers, was at an event celebrating the 150th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.

Those belonging to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and their supporters in the U.S., are enamored of Prime Minister Modi. Those in other parties, including the largest, Congress Party, complain of the loss of secular values and rise of Hindu chauvinism. Others are sprinkled in between, joining either side or exercising their independence.

Hundreds of Indian residents in the U.S., and a sizable number of Indian Americans have left or are planning to leave in the next few days and weeks, to participate in campaigns of parties they support, and even vote if eligible.

From the Overseas Friends of BJP to the Indian Overseas Congress and regional parties with U.S. chapters, like Telangana Rashtriya Samithi, or the Samajwadi Party of Uttar Pradesh, or former U.P. Chief Minister Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party, and Shiromani Akali Dal, Telugu Desam, members and supporters living abroad, are engaging the Indian electorate, whether by participating in phone banks from New Jersey to California, or by being physically present in India.

“In the last three days alone we have been holding more than 16 ‘Chai Pe Charchas’ and ‘Chowkidar’ marches around the United States,” Krishna Reddy Anugula, president of the Overseas Friends of BJP, told the media. He also pointed to the organization Sikhs of America, which held a car rally in support of Modi in Maryland on March 31. Members of Sikhs of America had not returned calls by press time.

Commenting on the lynchings and targeted attacks on Muslims and Dalits that have increased exponentially since the coming to power of Narendra Modi in 2014, Sarah Anderson-Rajarigam of Dalit Solidarity Forum, one of the co-sponsors of the rally said, “Dalit Solidarity Forum deplores the heavy targeting of Dalits and other marginalized communities. We unite our voices with Dalits and other minorities in their fight for freedom and support them in their efforts to uphold the constitution.” 97% of all the lynching incidents since 2010 by so-called ‘cow-protection’ mobs have taken place between 2014 and 2018 since the BJP came to power.

The organizers of the rally said, the BJP government has also been responsible for systematic erosion and weakening of democratic values and institutions. It has been attacking and weakening constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Reserve Bank of India (RBI). BJP ministers as well as the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief have given statements indicating that they would like to change the constitution to implement their fundamentalist agenda. The CBI and Income Tax department have also been used to intimidate media organizations critical of the BJP government.

Sunita Viswanath of Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus, said, “We are Americans of Hindu faith, many of us Indian, who stand opposed to the ideology of Hindutva and the atrocities against minorities and dissenters being committed in the name of Hinduism. We stand with all the people of India who are calling for an end to this regime that threatens democracy, disregards the dignity and safety of minorities, and has declared war on the poor.”

The BJP has significantly increased corruption and corporate plunder. To distract people from its record of failed governance, the BJP has increased war mongering and is busy dividing the people along communal lines. When Muslims, Dalits, and the Left have resisted or spoken up against the injustice, they have either been imprisoned using draconian laws such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Adivasi (indigenous) people and landless laborers, who have been fighting for land and forest rights, have been arrested and harassed. Workers, who have been struggling against the government’s increased privatization and casualization of work, have been fired or put in prison. With the emboldening of patriarchal forces, in many instances, the attacks on women’s rights and safety have been led by BJP ministers and leaders.

Mohammad Jawad, National General Secretary of Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), speaking on why IAMC has joined the rally said, “The people of India will eventually recognize the divisiveness and hate the current BJP/RSS government is spreading and will unite to preserve our constitution and defeat this government.”

The Defense of Democracy rally called for:

  • Ensure Free and Fair Elections! Election Commission must guarantee election freeof violence, intimidation, and rigging
  • Stop the witch-hunt! Release all UAPA arrestees and drop allcharges
  • Stop the lynching of Dalits and Muslims! Arrest and Prosecute theperpetrators
  • Stop culture of fear! End the attacks and intimidation of activists, artists,workers, women

Consulate in New York on Voting Rights For NRIs

According to the Election Commission of India, voting stretches from April 11 to May 19, during which close to 900 million eligible voters can go to the polls. Results will be announced May 23.

Consulate General of India in New York said that some misleading information is being spread in some sections of the media, especially social media about the online voting/voting in the Consulate or through proxy/mail by Overseas (NRI) Indian Voters in the forthcoming general election in India.

The Consulate General said in a statement that the position has been clarified by Election Commission of India spokesperson saying that no such facility has been extended to NRIs.

“The Election Commission of India (ECI) has also filed a complaint with the Delhi Police, asking it to track down those spreading “fake news” that NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) can cast their vote online in the coming Lok Sabha elections,” the statement said.

The current position with regard to voting by NRI voters in the general election in India is reiterated as follows:

Under Section 20A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and rules made there under every citizen of India:

(a) whose name is not included in the electoral roll;

(b) who has not acquired the citizenship of any other country; and

(c) who is absenting from his place of ordinary residence in India owing to his employment, education or otherwise outside India, is entitled to have his/her name registered in the electoral roll as “Overseas electors” in the constituency in one’s place of residence in India as mentioned in one’s passport is located.

The statement said that the application for this purpose can be filed in the prescribed form in person before the concerned Electoral Registration Officer or sent by post or can be filed online on the website of Chief Electoral Officer of the concerned state or website of Election Commission of India (www.eci.gov.in).

After getting enrolled in the electoral roll, such person though will not be issued Elector Photo Identity Card but can cast one’s vote in India during Assembly or

Parliamentary election at the respective polling station after showing his/her valid original Indian passport. However, provision for alternative options for voting for overseas Indian elections is under consideration.

The Consulate General of India in New York requests all the NRIs in the consular jurisdiction of CGI, New York to get their names registered on the electoral rolls as NRI voters to enable them to become the part of the election process.

For further information regarding overseas electors, please refer to website of Election Commission of India http://ecisveep.nic.in/voters/overseas-voters/ or www.nvsp.in

A Guide on How Do I vote, prepared by Election Commission of India for Electoral Voters and Service Voters can be seen at the following websites:

https://mea.gov.in/Images/pdf/nri-brochure-english-at-18012019.pdf and

https://mea.gov.in/Images/pdf/service-voter-brochure.pdf

India’s secular nature ‘will die forever’ if BJP wins poll

Religious tolerance may be washed away by a tidal wave of hate if Modi’s party cements grip on power in April election. Fears of India evolving into a Hindu theocratic nation loom large as the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seeks a second term by placating Hindu sentiment ahead of the April-May parliamentary election.

Secular and liberal political groups say the poll will be be crucial in forging the future identity of the country, which defined itself as a secular-democratic nation after British rule ended in 1947.

“Hindu pride is the platform on which voters are being courted, which is a big concern,” said Alok Verma, a rights activist in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The April 11 to May 19 elections will see 900 million eligible voters select 543 parliamentarians. The party with the most seats will govern the country for the next five years.

The BJP, in office since 2014, again finds itself pitted against the Congress party, its nemesis. But critics like Verma worry it is stoking religious intolerance and hate as a ploy to win over more Hindus.

They say the party’s track record suggests it has underperformed, but few people are discussing how unemployment has spiraled under its watch, or how the agrarian crisis continues to worsen, with debt-ridden farmers reportedly committing suicide at a rate of one every three hours on average.

“Unfortunately, such issues are not being [widely] discussed,” Verma said.

The BJP came to power promising more jobs and increased development for impoverished Indians with the slogan “Good days are ahead.”

“But five years down the line, anyone who questions the BJP’s failed promises is labeled ‘anti-national’ and ‘pro-Muslim’. This is disgraceful,” said Sheetal Nanda, a women’s rights activist in New Delhi.

Never before has the call from political parties to make India a Hindu nation been so strong, she said.

“If the BJP wins again, it will pursue a mandate to amend the constitution, make non-Hindus second-class citizens, and declare the country a Hindu heartland,” Nanda said.

New Delhi-based journalist and author Ashutosh Gupta said the BJP not only wants to change the charter and laws, but transform an entire civilization by establishing an upper-caste Hindu hegemony.

The party argues that, “Hindus were subjugated by Muslims and Christians for 1,200 years because Hindus were at that time non-violent and compassionate,” Ashutosh said.

“They have pitched for the adoption of violent methods to make the dream of a Hindu heartland a reality,” he added.

Hindu-centric ideology

Critics say the violence meted out against Christians and Muslims over the past five years proves that Hindu groups have been laying the tracks to make India subordinate to a Hindu-centric ideology.

Government data shows communal violence jumped 28 percent between 2014 and 2017 with around 3,000 incidents recorded during that period, claiming almost 400 lives and injuring 9,000 people.

Moreover, 90 percent of the religious hate crimes recorded over the last decade occurred since current Prime Minister Narendra Modi led the BJP to power, according to the data assembled by Hate Crime Watch.

Hate crimes against minority groups are also believed to be rising as the election draws near.
Saheem Mir, an author and activist in Uttar Pradesh, cited the case of a Muslim father and son who were stopped on a road and attacked in this northern state on March 17.

“They were asked to chant slogans hailing Hindu gods and were forced to verbally abuse [Muslim-majority] Pakistan,” he said. “These elements are taking such extreme measures because they know no one is going to act against them.”

Hindu activists project Indian Muslims as supporters of Pakistan, India’s nuclear-armed neighbor and arch rival.

Others say that anyone who calls for enhanced dialogue to end India’s outstanding disputes with Pakistan is branded a traitor. Even cheering for Pakistan during a cricket match or expressing admiration for a Pakistani singer in a Bollywood movie puts people at risk of being tarred with a similar brush and denounced as “anti-national,” rights activists say.

In fact, India’s secular character will be permanently laid to rest if the BJP retains its grip on power, according to a recent paper by two research scholars who specialize in political science at the University of Kashmir.

“With the BJP government at the center, the secular tradition of India is under immense threat. If the threat isn’t quelled at various levels, the idea of unity in diversity — one that the nation has always prided itself on — will soon be in tatters,” according to the co-authors of the paper, Anayat Ul Lah Mugloo and Manzoor Ahmad Padder.

“If communal forces are not halted, India — regarded as the largest democracy in the world — will fall prey to what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘creative destruction’, which roughly entails the dismantling of age-old traditions by new ideologies — except that there would be nothing creative in the destruction of the inclusive idea of India.”

Bishop Theodore Mascarenhas, secretary-general of the Catholic Bishops Conference in India (CBCI), told ucanews.com that people should vote for candidates and parties who respect the constitution, treat all citizens as equals, and protect minorities.

“Communities cannot live in hatred of one another. The danger of sowing hatred is that once it’s sown, it gets out of control and nobody can tame it,” he said.

“That’s why it’s so important the people who govern us shouldn’t stay quiet when they witness such acts,” he added.

According to the 2011 census, 80 percent or 960 million of India’s 1.2 billion people are Hindus. Muslims make up 14.2 percent of the population (170 million) followed by Christians with 2.3 percent (28 million).

Indian Overseas Congress, USA membership registration drive in full swing

At a hurriedly scheduled meeting at the residence of Mr and Mrs. Ravi Chopra and Mrs. Shalu Chopra in New York on Sunday March 31, 2019, a large number of NRIs registered their strong support behind Rahul Gandhi and registered to become members of the Indian Congress Party, USA.  Particularly noteworthy was the largest number of the women who were present and who were inspired by the entry into politics of Shmt. Priyanka Gandhi ji.  They loudly hailed chants and slogans of Victory to Rahul Gandhi, Victory of the people of India and Victory to their motherland.

Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President, Mr. Harbachan Singh Secretary General, Mr. Ravi Chopra Chairman Finance Committee and Mrs. Shalu Chopra Chairperson of the Women’s Committee of the Indian Overseas Congress USA praised the enthusiasm and determination of the people to bring down the Modi Government through the democratic electoral process and place Rahul Gandhi to lead the Government in the upcoming elections.  Each woman leader was introduced and honored with their respective new appointments by Ms. Shalu Chopra and who vouched to jointly work hard under the Women’s Committee Chair.

Speaker after speaker recounted the failings of the Modi government in their administration and promises.  They vehemently declared their total opposition to Modi government governing any further.  Many speakers highlighted the outstanding achievements of the Congress Party that brought honor and pride to India amongst the comity of nations and expressed their absolute confidence in the Victory of Rahul Gandhi in the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections.

“Instead of answering to the broken promises made by them to the voters, the Modi government chose to make unfounded and false accusations on Congress party leaders by, for example, misinterpreting their statements out of context and trying to create a sense of unpatriotic behavior on their part”, said Harbachan Singh.  However, the people did not buy the insinuations ascribed to the Congress Party leaders.  The attempts failed miserably to constrain and contain the rapidly growing robust strength of party supporters and followers.

Mr. Mohinder Sing Gilzian, Mr. Ravi Chopra and other senior leaders voiced strong confidence in Dr. Sam Pitroda, Mr. Himanshu Vyas, Mr. Madhu Yashki and above all on Mr. Rahul Gandhi in their great leadership role that each one of them were playing and expressed utmost confidence that Rahul Gandhi will be the new Prime Minister of India.

The event was covered by the media and the Executive Board Members, Chapter heads and senior officials of IOC, USA gave press comments au milieu the upbeat utterances of the supporters urging total backing of the  Rahul Gandhi’s candidacy.

Kamala Harris’ campaign raises $12m for 2020 bid

US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris, who is of Indian and Jamaican descent, has announced that her campaign raised $12 million in the first quarter of 2019 from more than 218,000 individual contributions.

Harris, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, became the second major candidate to announce her first-quarter fundraising total after South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said he raised over $7 million in the first quarter, according to CNN.

“A nationwide network of hundreds of thousands of grassroots supporters has stepped up to lay the foundation for a winning campaign,” Harris’ campaign manager Juan Rodriguez said in a statement on Monday cited by the Hill magazine.

“This is a campaign powered by the people, focused on making healthcare a right, putting $500 a month in the pockets of working Americans, and giving every public school teacher in America a raise. We’re excited by the support we’re already seeing.”

The campaign’s announcement came after Sunday’s Federal Election Commission quarterly fundraising deadline.

In a news release, Harris said she had received 218,000 individual contributions during the first quarter and 98 per cent of those contributions came in amounts smaller than $100.

Harris’ aides said that more than 99 per cent of her current donors can contribute again without hitting the limit.

Harris did not disclose how much she has spent during the first three months of the year, nor how much cash she has remaining in the bank for the long primary fight. (IANS)

Majority Indians Afraid of Posting Political Views Online

The political atmosphere in India has remained edgy in the last few years. Numerous people have been arrested in the past for posting comments critical of the ruling government. News reports of arrests for insulting Prime Minister Narendra Modi have popped up with an alarming regularity.

The arrests include students, teachers, businessmen, auto-rickshaw drivers, activists and members of police and paramilitary forces. Living in such environment has made many livid, outraging over lack of freedom of expression, especially in terms of political views.

As many as 55 per cent of surveyed English internet users stated that they are scared of expressing political opinions online, according to a survey by Reuters released Monday. They said that they are concerned that open political expression on social media could land them into trouble with the authorities.

Out of English-speakers in India, 41 per cent respondents who claimed to support the BJP said that they trust “most news most of the time”. Thirty-six per cent of UPA supporters (including former UPA) and 26 per cent of non-partisans trust news most of the time, according to India Digital News Report, published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

The report is “based on data from a survey of English-speaking, online news users in India”.

The issues of fake news, misinformation and online political manipulation are of grave concern in both India and the US, Americans and English-speaking Indians vastly differ on who should be held responsible.

Roughly 57 per cent of English-speaking Indians are concerned with deciphering what is real and what is fake on the internet. Additionally, 64 per cent Indians believed that the government should solve the misinformation problem. Approximately, 70 per cent Indians placed the onus on publishers and platforms.

Close to 45 per cent of respondents said they are concerned, “when facts are spun or twisted to push a particular agenda,” and with “poor journalism.”

A report in Indian Express stated that at least seven state government school teachers have been suspended by the Uttar Pradesh government for questioning Pulwama terror attack to praising Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan and criticising the effectiveness of Balakot airstrike by India. Lately, India is increasingly jailing its young citizens for posting content online that “offends” politicians.

In 2017 and 2018, at least 50 people were arrested across India for social media posts, according to a report by Mint.

INA-NY CALLS FOR ESSAY SUBMISSIONS FROM INDIAN NURSES

Indian Nurses Association of New York (INA-NY) which represents and serves as a professional body of nurses and nursing students of Indian origin and heritage in New York state, calls upon all nurses of Indian origin to submit essays for its annual essay contest on the theme, “Nurses:  A Voice to Lead – Health for All”.

            Essay must be limited to two pages, typed in double space using font size 12 and must not contain any personal identifiers.  The contestant must attach a cover page with full name, credentials, address, phone number and email address.  The essay with the cover page is to be emailed  to Dr. Solymole Kuruvilla, chair of the awards and scholarships committee at kuruvil3@aol.com by May 12, 2019. The first and second prize winners will be awarded at the INA-NY Nurses’ Day celebrations at the Cotillion Restaurant in Jericho, NY on May 18, 2019.

Paul D Panakal

7831 266 Street

Floral Park, NY 11004

347 330 0783

516 732 2520

Congress is political future of India: Shatrughan Sinha

Mumbai– Bollywood actor-turned-politician Shatrughan Sinha, who has finally quit the BJP, feels that the Congress is the political future of India.

Q: So you have finally done what we knew for some time?

A: (laughs heartily) Raaz ki baat jo sab jaante the. Open Secret. Yes, I have joined hands with Soniaji, Rahul and Priyanka. I am now a part of the Congress.

Q: Why?

A: Why? Why did I choose to join Congress? It was a decision taken after much deliberation and thought. And why not? The Congress is the party that brought us kicking and dragging into free India. It gave us national legends like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru …

Q: That was in the past. Where are the leaders of that stature in the Congress now?

A: Well, we could give the same argument for the BJP. I joined hands with them (BJP) because of the great leaders like L.K. Advaniji and Atal Bihariji. Leadership has to change. Today the Congress is in the hands of Rahul Gandhi.

Q: He was trolled mercilessly until very recently?

A: But Rahul has evolved in the past year or so. He is no longer ridiculed. Besides his sister Priyanka has also joined hands with Rahul. We have to give him a chance. I was happy when he spoke to me and said he is very happy to welcome me to the party.

Q: Yes, you and Urmila Matondkar?

A: The more the merrier. I think the Congress is the political future of India. It saw India through its toughest times. It’s time to give them another chance.

Q: So what prompted you to make the move from BJP to Congress?

A: Many factors. I was not being treated properly by the BJP. When they announced Ravi Shankar Prasadji as their candidate from my seat in Patna, something gave way inside me. I ceased being a loyal soldier of the BJP. Not that I intend to badmouth anyone from the BJP. I respect the senior leaders. They are my colleagues and friends and I am not into the politics of mudslinging. I hope they feel the same.

Q: Your daughter Sonakshi feels you should have left the BJP long ago?

A: (laughs) Achcha. When did she say that? How sweet of her! I am in Muscat where they’re honouring me as a cinematic legend. My family has been advising me to do the right thing in my political career. And not just they. My dear family friend Lalu Yadavji also wanted me to join hands with the Congress.

Q: Do you think the Congress will accord you the respect you deserve?

A: I feel welcomed here. As you know, I was unhappy with my position in the BJP for a long time. The party leadership knew I was unhappy. No one came forward to speak to me. There was no dialogue at all. It was as if they had shut me out. I didn’t have to suffer this humiliation. But I stayed on out of loyalty. But now I feel it’s time to move on.

Q: What are you plans as a Congress member?

A: To serve the country and to end the culture of intolerance that has taken over the nation. If you criticize a government policy, you are not anti-India. If you say Kashmir is burning, you are not pro-Pakistan. (IANS)

Assessments of 2017 tax law more negative than positive in many demographic groups

Across many demographic groups, assessments of the 2017 tax law are more negative than positive overall. And partisan differences in the law, which were evident in January 2018 shortly after it was enacted, are about as wide today as they were then.

Democrats, regardless of ideology, overwhelmingly disapprove of the tax law, while there are wider ideological differences among Republicans.

Overall, 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners approve of the law. Conservative Republicans are more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to approve of the tax law (80%, compared with 55%).

By contrast, sizable majorities of both liberal (80%) and conservative and moderate (77%) Democrats and Democratic leaners say they disapprove of the law.

Adults 65 and older are divided in their views of the tax law: 43% approve, while 41% disapprove. Among younger age cohorts, more disapprove than approve of the law.

While views of the tax law are more negative than positive across all educational groups, those with postgraduate degrees are more likely than others to say they disapprove of the law (60% say this, compared to 48% of those with less education).

Among whites, views of the tax law are significantly different between those with and without a college degree. About half of whites with a college degree or more (51%) disapprove of the law, while 37% approve. Among whites without a college degree, the balance of opinion is roughly the reverse: 47% approve; 32% disapprove.

Views of economic fairness

Most Americans (63%) say the economic system in the United States unfairly favors powerful interests; only about a third (34%) say it is generally fair to most Americans. The share saying the economic system is unfair has remained largely stable since 2014.

Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes about the fairness of the economic system have been moving in opposite directions over the past few years. In 2014, there was a 20 percentage-point gap between the shares of Republicans (51%) and Democrats (71%) who said the economy unfairly favors powerful interests; that gap is now 41 points (40% of Republicans vs. 81% of Democrats). While about eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the economic system is unfair, a majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (56%) now say the economic system is generally fair to most Americans.

The public continues to say that “business corporations make too much profit.” Today, 56% of the public says corporations make too much profit; 39% say “most corporation make a fair and reasonable amount of profit.” These views have held largely steady since 1994.

Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say corporations make too much profit, while about a quarter (24%) say corporate profits are reasonable. Conversely, 56% of Republicans and Republican leaners say most businesses’ profits are fair and reasonable, while 38% say businesses are profiting too much.

After Barr Letter, Overwhelming Majority Wants Full Mueller Report Released

Days after US Attorney General William Barr released his four-page summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation report, overwhelming majorities of Americans want the full report made public and believe Barr and Mueller should testify before Congress, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Only about a third of Americans believe, from what they’ve seen or heard about the Mueller investigation so far, that President Trump is clear of any wrongdoing. But they are split on how far Democrats should go in investigating him going forward.

“People clearly want to see more about the report,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll. “They want it released publicly, are eager to see the principals — Mueller and Barr — testify, because they want to see how the sausage was made. They want to see how we got to this point.”

At the same time, 56 percent said Mueller conducted a fair investigation, and 51 percent said they were satisfied with it. That included 52 percent of independents who said they were satisfied with the investigation. It’s one of the rare questions in the first two years of the Trump presidency in which a majority of independents sided with Republicans instead of Democrats on a subject.

The other prominent area where independents have sided with Republicans is on impeachment. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll last year found that pushing impeachment would not be a winning issue for Democrats.

The summary “could be somewhat of a blessing in disguise for Democrats,” Miringoff said, “because there’s no massive pressure saying, ‘Look at this report, look at this summary — we have to move forward with impeachment.’ “

 Overall, three-quarters said the full Mueller report should be made public. That included a majority of Republicans (54 percent). Just 18 percent overall said Barr’s summary is enough. Two-thirds (66 percent) also said they want Mueller to testify before Congress, and 64 percent said the same for Barr.

Almost six in 10 (56 percent) said that questions still exist, with just 36 percent saying Trump is clear of any wrongdoing. That latter figure is close to where Trump’s approval rating has been throughout his presidency.

In this poll, Trump’s approval rating is 42 percent. That’s up slightly (but within the margin of error) from January, when it was 39 percent and unchanged from December.

But that doesn’t mean the public wants Democrats to go far down the collusion or obstruction-of-justice rabbit hole of investigations.

On the issue of obstruction, the Mueller report, as summarized by the Barr letter, noted that Mueller did not come to a conclusion on whether charges should be brought against the president. But Mueller said his report did not “exonerate” the president either. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided against charging the president.

The country was split 48 to 46 percent on whether Barr’s decision not to charge the president should stand or if Congress should continue to investigate obstruction of justice by the president.

What’s more, the country was similarly split, 48 to 45 percent, on whether Democrats should hold hearings to further investigate the Mueller report or end their investigations.

“I think they’re on safe footing to want the full report released” and to bring in Barr and Mueller, Miringoff said, adding, “But don’t start saying there’s still collusion, don’t go for obstruction of justice, because then they’re barking up the wrong tree.”

Mueller enjoys an overall positive rating among Americans, with 38 percent favorable, 25 percent unfavorable and roughly a third (37 percent) unsure or never heard of him. That’s a big change from December, when Mueller was viewed more negatively (33 percent) than positively (29 percent).

Overall, views of Trump are generally where they have been. In addition to the consistency of his approval rating, about the same percentage of people compared to last July think he did something either illegal or unethical in his dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin — 57 percent now compared to 53 percent then.

What’s more, 54 percent of registered voters said they are definitely voting against him in 2020. That is about where it was in January, when 57 percent of registered said so. And, remember, in the 2016 election, 54 percent of people voted for someone other than Trump.

Of Trump’s standing and the political climate, Miringoff put it this way: “Despite the two years of attention, focused on Russia and the convictions and all that, it pretty much is exactly where it was.”

(Courtesy: NPR)

U.K. Rejects Brexit Deal for 3rd Time, Leaving the Plan for Exiting the E.U. in Tatters

U.K. lawmakers on Friday rejected the government’s divorce agreement with the European Union for a third time, leaving Britain just two weeks to decide between a long delay to Brexit and an abrupt no-deal departure from the bloc.

The House of Commons voted 286-344 against the withdrawal agreement struck between Prime Minister Theresa May and the EU, rebuffing her plea to “put aside self and party” and “accept the responsibility given to us by the British people” to deliver Brexit.

Amid business warnings that a no-deal Brexit could mean crippling tariffs, border gridlock and shortages of goods, a visibly frustrated May said the vote had “grave” implications. “The legal default now is that the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union on 12 April — in just 14 days’ time,” she said. “This is not enough time to agree, legislate for and ratify a deal, and yet the House has been clear it will not permit leaving without a deal. And so we will have to agree an alternative way forward.”

Had the deal been passed, Britain would have left the EU on May 22. The EU said the rejection of the divorce terms made a no-deal Brexit “a likely scenario” and called an emergency summit for April 10 to decide what to do next.

An EU Commission official said the 27 remaining EU nations were “fully prepared for a no-deal scenario at midnight 12th of April” — Britain’s deadline to chart a new course. Almost three years after Britain voted in June 2016 to leave the EU, and two years after it set its departure date for March 29, 2019, British politicians remain deadlocked over Brexit. Like the country as a whole, they are split between those who want a clean break, those who want to retain close ties with the bloc, and those who want to overturn the decision to leave.

Last week, to prevent Britain from crashing out, granted an extension to May 22 had the divorce deal been approved by Friday — or to April 12 if rejected.

The 58-vote margin of defeat for the deal Friday was narrower than in previous votes in January and March, but it still leaves the government’s blueprint for exiting the bloc in tatters.

May’s deal was voted down even after the prime minister sacrificed her job in exchange for Brexit, promising to quit if lawmakers approved the agreement and let Britain leave the EU on schedule. With the deal’s rejection, she will face pressure to step aside and let a new Conservative leader take over negotiations with the EU.

The government had also warned pro-Brexit politicians that rejecting May’s deal could see Brexit delayed indefinitely.

May’s arguments moved some previously resistant Brexit-backers to support the deal. Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson — a likely contender to replace May as Conservative Party leader — tweeted that rejecting it risked “being forced to accept an even worse version of Brexit or losing Brexit altogether.”

But the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, with 10 seats in the House of Commons, refused to back the agreement because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the U.K.

Parliament voted on the legally binding, 585-page withdrawal agreement that May struck with the EU late last year, setting out the terms of Britain’s departure — but not on a shorter declaration on future ties that was also part of the accord between the two sides.

Congress Party in India Pledges Income for 50 Million Families

India’s Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi has pledged to create “the world’s largest minimum income scheme” if his party wins election. The aspiring Prime Ministerial candidate from the “First Family” of India, that ruled nearly 50 years of India’s 72 years long Independence history since 1977, Rahul Gandhi said, the Congress Party would guarantee an income for 50 million of India’s poorest families.

Describing it as a “fiscally prudent” scheme that would “eliminate poverty”, Rahul Gandhi said, that the poorest 20% of Indian households would receive 72,000 rupees ($1050) yearly as part of the scheme, which is called Nyay (Justice).

But the governing BJP said India’s poor was receiving more support under existing schemes. “If you are sure about your defeat, you can promise [the] moon,” party general secretary Ram Madhav tweeted.

Congress had revealed a minimum income policy would be part of its election manifesto in January, but had not released details until last week. Gandhi said, 50 million families – or 250 million people – would directly benefit. “The final assault on poverty has begun. We will wipe out poverty from the country,” he said, adding that Congress had been advised by “many economists”. The scheme could cost up to $52bn.

French economist Thomas Piketty, noted for his work on income inequality, had been rumored to be advising Congress on the scheme. But he told the BBC he had “not been directly involved in the design of this proposal”.

“But I certainly support all efforts to reduce income inequality in India, and especially to move away the political debate from caste-based political to class-based redistribution of income and wealth.”

There has been much discussion in recent years over whether India can introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) – a regular cash payment from the state for all or most citizens without any conditions.

In 2017, the Indian government’s economic survey suggested that a scheme benefitting 75% of the population could significantly reduce poverty. Such schemes have been trialed at small-scale all over the world, including in Finland, Kenya and the Netherlands.

The Congress policy, while not a UBI, is seen as a limited version of such a scheme.

The announcement is seen as a bid to fire up voters who will head to the polls in April and May, but economists have warned the policy will be hard to implement in a country as vast as India.

It remains unclear what data would be used to determine eligibility for the Nyay scheme. There have been various estimates on the exact number of poor in India, and the counts have been mired in controversy.

Gandhi did not specify how the scheme would be funded.

Finding the money to support tens of millions of families would require scrapping existing government subsidies on food and fertilisers, and removing certain tax incentives, economic commentator Vivek Kaul told the BBC.

However such measures would be unpopular with wide swathes of the population.

It has been estimated that a true UBI could cost India some 5% of its yearly gross domestic product. “This is a watered-down version and it’s good that it’s a watered-down version,” Mr Kaul said. “At some level, you need to start small and see how you are going to finance it, and then see if you want to grow a little bigger.”

Some economists have voiced criticism of basic income schemes, saying they reduce the incentive to work.

India already has more than 900 federally-funded welfare schemes, including cheap food, fertiliser subsidies, a rural jobs guarantee and student scholarships.

But Congress has insisted its plan is workable. “A lot of thinking and working has gone into the income scheme,” Praveen Chakravarty, head of the data analytics department of the Congress party, told the BBC in January. “It is fiscally doable without drastic reduction of existing welfare schemes.”

Church in India Appeals to People to Reject Terror of Pseudo-nationalism

Ahead of the general elections in India in April, Church officials have issued pastoral guidelines asking Catholics to reject candidates who espouse certain ideologies and vote for guardians of secularism and democracy. Cardinal Oswald Gracias, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, joined other regional bishops in issuing a set of guidelines.

The latest comes from the Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council, a regional forum of bishops in southern India, favoring candidates who respect the country’s secular constitution and related institutions. It was read out in all Catholic parishes in Kerala on March 31. While it offers guidance and advice, it also stresses that the Church does not favor any specific political party or ideology.

The circular, printed in the local Malayalam language, entreats parishioners to support candidates who are committed “to the values of secularism and democracy” and who will work for the “integral development and unity of the nation.”

The message comes as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is seeking a second term by placating Hindu voters and sensibilities. Critics say the BJP leaders plan to amend India’s secular constitution to align it with Hindu nationalism and create a Hindu nation if voted into power, even though the party fielded two former Christian pastors for the state elections in November.

However, the Kerala bishops are promoting the view that India should be governed by leaders who will protect its rich heritage of religious and cultural diversity. They oppose all forms of religious fanaticism. Cardinal Gracias in his pastoral letter asked Catholics across the country to “pray and to discern in prayer what is best for our country. We have to vote judiciously.”

The Church hopes the six-week election that starts on April 11 “will give us leaders who listen to the people, understand our anxieties and their needs, and respond positively,” the cardinal wrote in the letter dated March 14.

He urged voters to elect leaders who “understand authority is service,” and who would work for the benefit of the economically poor, socially oppressed Dalit and tribal people while also focusing on communal harmony, national integration, and environmental conservation.

In the Christian stronghold of Goa, a former Portuguese colony north of Kerala, the Church’s’ Council for Social Justice and Peace issued a statement on March 26 imploring voters to reject the “terror of pseudo-nationalism.”

Political and rights activists have been complaining about a growing atmosphere of intolerance after the BJP rose to power in 2014. They claim any individual or institution that fails to conform to the BJP’s ideology is branded unpatriotic.

The statement from the council’s executive secretary, Father Savio Fernandes, also warned voters to avoid siding with “corrupt defectors” who move from party to party, their only concern being the pursuit of victory and power.

“These people are actually cheating the voters,” Father Fernandes told ucanews.om. “People vote for them based on a party and its ideology … but they easily change their views without any consideration for voters.”

His small state on India’s western coast can elect two members of the 543-seat parliament. However, it must also fill three state legislative seats after two Congress party legislators quit and joined the BJP last year. Roughly a quarter of the state’s 1.4 million people are Christians, mostly Catholics.

“Another evil is the blatant engineering of defections in violation of the people’s mandate. Moreover, persons who deceive and betray people’s trust should have no (place) in a democracy,” the statement said. The BJP has been criticized for poaching rivals and dabbling in horse-trading to unseat Congress governments, particularly in Goa and several predominantly Christian northeastern states.

Father Fernandes said the guidelines were not devised to shape people’s thinking but are meant to help Catholics make a wiser and more well informed choice when they cast their ballots. “It’s part of Church’s social responsibility” to issue such pastoral letters, the priest said.

Catholics account for nearly 26 per cent of the state’s population.

Urging the electorate to reject the “terror of pseudo-nationalism”, the Council for Social Justice and Peace, the social wing of the influential Goa Church, urged voters on Tuesday to take on “corrupt defectors” and political opportunists.

The statement by Fr. Savio Fernandes, Executive Secretary of the Council, which functions as a Church-backed NGO, comes at a time when the state gears up Lok Sabha elections. “Let us also give corrupt defectors and opportunists the due electoral response. Let us not be carried away by petty and trivial issues but think of the overall interest of the nation and of our state,” Fernandes said in a statement issued here.

The statement, which severely critiques the BJP-led coalition governments both in Goa as well as at the Centre, without naming them, comes a few days after Archbishop Filipe Neri Ferrao in a condolence message following the death of Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar paid glowing tributes to governments-led by the BJP leader while also praising his spirit of secularism.

The All India Catholic Union, India’s oldest laity organization, has expressed concern at the communal polarization that is peaking on the eve of the general elections in the country. Many communities including Muslims and Dalits are victims of targeted violence, said a statement issued at the end of the working committee meeting of the union.

Of particular concern is the sudden and sustained violence against the Christian community in the Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh, ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party strongman, chief minister Yogi Adityanath, said the statement from AICU president Lancy D’Cunha and spokesperson John Dayal. It was issued after group’s meeting in Varanasi on March 24.

Christian leaders from Jaunpur gave a graphic account of the situation when they addressed the Working committee of the AICU at Navsadhana, the noted Catholic mass media centre in Varanasi. Uttar Pradesh had, in the brief period between September and December 2018, seen as many as 109 cases of violence against Christian pastors, small house churches, and women and men faithful at worship in small towns and villages.

This was the highest in the country. More than 40 cases had taken place in Jaunpur alone. In the first months of 2019, the region recorded 15 more cases. The AICU noted a Catholic petty farmer and labor in Jharkhand was among those killed by cow-protector lynch mobs.

The AICU endorsed the Catholic Bishops’ pastoral letter on the general elections. The AICU also, just as the bishops, made no preference for any party but left it to the conscience and good sense of the electorate.

However, it wanted the electors to choose political leaders who respect India’s cultural plurality who commit themselves to the service of the poor, to communal harmony and to development.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Meets with Members of ISKCON Boston

Congresswoman, the first ever Hindu elected to US Congress, and Democratic Presidential Candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, met with members of the  International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Boston temple on Sunday March 24, 2019 amid hundreds of devotees and Sunday school children.

According to reports here, the events at the ISKCON temple started with a lecture on the significance of birth of Chaitanya Prabhuji and Sankirtan movement. This was followed by Arati and singing Sankirtan by Radha Mataji. Sunday school children presented a cultural program on the birth and childhood pastime activities of Chaitanya Prabhuji very elegantly and excellently, which was enjoyed very much by all the devotees. Radha Mataji, the Master of Ceremony thanked all the children and the teachers namely Krishna Mataji, Neema Mataji, and Democracy Mataji for their time and dedication in putting this play together and presenting it very nicely in front of the devotees.

Tulsi Gabbard came in with Vrindavan Bellord (sister), Abraham Williams (husband), AJ White (camera assistant), and Shri Sunil Khemaney who made her visit to the temple possible. Vanamali Prabhuji, the president, PyariMohan Prabhuji, the secretary of the temple, and his wife Jeevan Mataji welcomed them warmly by offering them the fresh flower garlands and chanting of Shree Krishna slogans.

Radha Mataji in her introductory note said that Smt. Tulsi Gabbard is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district since 2013. Following her election in 2012, she became the first Samoan American and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress and the member of Democratic Party. She further stated that Smt. Tulsi Gabbard describes herself as a “Vaishnava Hindu” and a true devotee of Lord Krishna.

In 2013, she was the first Congresswoman to swear in using the Bhagavad-Gita. Tulsi in her brief addressing note said that the teachings of Bhagavad-Gita have inspired her to strive to be a servant-leader, dedicating her life in the service of others and to the country. For her, Gita has been a tremendous source of inner peace and strength through many tough challenges in her life, including being in the midst of death and turmoil while serving the country in the Middle East. She also enjoys sending out her annual Janmashtami and Diwali greetings to every Hindu with a note about the importance of spiritual values in our lives.

Tulsi not only actively participated in the singing program but also, she sang several Krishna Bhajans with all the devotes with utmost devotion and religious fervor. Radha Mataji thanked Smt. Tulsi and her team for visiting to the historic place-ISKCON Boston and Vanamali Prabhuji presented the picture of Lord Krishna and Radha Ma with the temple team made sweet boxes as a token of appreciation. Temple served very delicious Prasadam to all the devotees with great love and friendliness. Dedicated volunteers placed tables and helped the elderly and children with Prasadam plates.

India slips on happiness scale: To impact LS polls

The report, which is in its seventh edition, ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be, according to their evaluations of their own lives. Maintaining a downward trend, India slipped to the 140th position, seven spots down from last year, in a happiness ranking of 156 countries this year, according to a new report which is unlikely to cheer up the ruling coalition in the run-up to the general elections.

World happiness has fallen in recent years, driven by the sustained downward trend in India, said the World Happiness Report, released on Wednesday in conjunction with the United Nations’ International Day of Happiness.

As for emotions, there has been a widespread upward trend recently in negative effect, comprising worry, sadness and anger, especially marked in Asia and Africa, it added.

Does happiness affect voting behaviour? A special chapter in the World Happiness Report 2019, produced by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a UN initiative, explored the relation between the two.

The research showed national average life satisfaction is significantly related to the vote share subsequently received by parties that go into the election as part of the governing coalition.

“There is a clear and significant positive relationship between national life satisfaction in the run-up to general elections and the subsequent electoral success of governing parties,” the report said.

A one standard deviation increase in national life satisfaction is associated with nearly an eight percentage-point increase in vote share, the findings showed.

This year’s happiness report focuses on happiness and the community — how happiness has evolved over the past dozen years — with focus on the technologies, social norms, conflicts and government policies that have driven those changes.

Special chapters focus on generosity and pro-social behaviour, the effects of happiness on voting behaviour, big data, and the happiness effects of Internet use and addictions.

As in 2018, Finland took the top spot as the happiest country in the world, according to three years of surveys taken by Gallup from 2016-2018.

Rounding out the rest of the top 10 are countries that have consistently ranked among the happiest. They are in that order — Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada and Austria.

The US ranked 19th, dropping one spot from last year. The report, which is in its seventh edition, ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be, according to their evaluations of their own lives.

Mohinder Singh Gilzian takes charge as new President of IOC USA

Mohinder Singh Gilzian took charge as the new President of Indian Overseas Congress, USA (IOC), in a function held on March 17, 2019, at Jericho Palace in Long Island, NY. In a colorful ceremony attended by IOC officials and Congress loyalists from the Tristate area, the gavel was handed over from the outgoing President Shudh Prakash Singh, according to a press release.

About 200 people gathered together and felicitated Mohinder Singh Gilzian on his assumption of duties as the President. Dr. Surinder Malhotra, the first President of INOC, lauded the appointment of Gilzian and urged for unity in moving forward while focusing on its mission. He stressed the importance of promoting the strategic partnership between India and the U.S.

George Abraham, the vice-chairman, described Gilzian as a dedicated Congressman who earned the right to be president through hard work and sheer determination.

“He is as genuine a human being you may encounter anywhere,” said Abraham while throwing his support fully behind the newly appointed President.

Harbachan Singh, the Secretary-General toasted Gilzian’s appointment by Sam Pitroda, Chairman of the Overseas Congress department and offered gratitude and good wishes to Shudh Prakash Singh who is leaving the post.

Gilzian in his address expressed his sincere gratitude and appreciation to Rahul Gandhi, President of AICC, Sam Pitroda, Global Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress and Himanshu Vyas, Secretary, AICC in charge of the Overseas Congress department. He also paid tribute to past presidents Dr. Surinder Malhotra, George Abraham and Shudh Prakash Singh for their dedication and service to the organization.

Gilzian went on to explain his vision for the organization and said “Now that the responsibility has been passed on to me, I will continue our focus in strengthening the organization.”

“As President, I will listen and ensure transparency where your views will be respected. We will be enrolling new members especially those with leadership quality to strengthen and expand our reach to the Diaspora. One of our missions is to promote a strong bilateral relationship between the US and India and we will do our utmost in that regard,” he said.

“The upcoming elections in India are very critical, and we are planning to send teams of volunteers so that we can make a difference. We will also strive to create a strong social media presence to challenge the misinformation campaign that is waged by the opposition. John F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech said the following: ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country,” he said.

“At this critical time let us also ask what we can do for the Congress Party to save democracy in India. It appears that the Modi government has neither respect for the Constitution nor do they honor the independence of its institutions that served the Indian democracy well over the last 70 years,” he said.

“In 2018, four Supreme Court judges held a press conference to air their concern that democracy is in danger. Top officers of CBI or other enforcement agencies are sent on leave if they are to raise any allegation of corruption on the part of this government. India is no longer considered in the top 10 destinations for foreign direct investment,” he said.

“The unemployment in the country is at a 45 year high at 7.4% in December 2018. The youth in the country between the ages of 15 and 29 are facing a very tough time finding jobs. Congress party stood for every section of the society and stressed on bottom-up development. Our country is indeed in a crisis, and as NRIs, we need to step up, be united and defeat this regime in this upcoming election. It is essential that as NRIs who are living in every part of the world, we fight all forms of bigotry and hatred and bring the country back where the government can focus on development and prosperity for all its citizens,” he said.

Felicitation ceremonies began with the presentation of flowers by Lona Abraham followed by various chapter heads and Committees’ Chairs and other supporters who took turns to congratulate Mohinder Singh and honored him with shawls and flowers.  Everyone gathered pledged their full support and vowed to work in unity and harmony going forward to help the Congress Party.

Prominent leaders who spoke from the rostrum included Dr. Dayan Naik, Chandu Patel, Dr. Jayesh Patel, Tejinder Gill, Sher Madra, Leela Maret, Phuman Singh, Charan Singh,  Ramesh Chandra, Kulbir Singh, Devendra Vora, Kalathil Varghese, Ravi Chopra, Shalu Chopra, Malini Shah, Rajeswara Reddy, Zinda Singh, John Joseph, Koshy Oommen, Satish Sharma, Harry Singh, Sravanth Poreddy, Lalit Malhotra, Rajesh Alahdad, Druva Chowddhary, Pradeep Samala, Sukhjender Singh Pappy Badesha, Amar Singh Gulshan, Mohammed Jameel, Butter and Gurbinder Talwandi. In closing, Rajender Dichpally, General Secretary, expressed the vote of thanks.

Election 2019: A report card on the Modi Administration’s performance

India is indeed facing a critical election in the coming weeks and the question on everyone’s mind is whether this will be a referendum on Modi’s accomplishments in the last five years of his governance! If it is one, he apparently has not only failed to deliver his campaign promises on the economic front but also damaged the institutions he has sworn in to protect and preserve.

Corruption:

One of the biggest accusations against UPA government by BJP was that it was immersed in corruption. Although coalition politics was partly to blame for that fiasco, Manmohan Singh, the former Prime Minister was beyond reproach in this regard, and he has led a nation with integrity and honor. Although the opposition and the media were quite harsh in their judgment of his tenure,  the history will be much kinder to him.

However, the Rafale deal looks like the mother of all scams. As reports indicate, “the scam caused a slew of collateral damages: heavy loss to the exchequer, undermining of a national institution like Hindustan Aeronautical Limited, compromise on national security, and unfair favoritism to Anil Ambani enabling him to make undue profits.”  How Anil Ambani who has failed with Reliance Communications was chosen to build an advanced jet aircraft bypassing an established Institution like HAL is beyond anybody’s comprehension!

The Modi Government has also dropped key conditions for anti-corruption penalties and an escrow account for payments days before the Rafale deal was signed. The PMO’s office appeared to have overruled strong objections by the Defence Ministry during the negotiations casting serious doubts on the integrity of this deal between India and France. The Government not only failed to make full disclosure on the details of the negotiations but also actively misled the Supreme Court. It is to be noted that though BJP came to power on the anti-corruption plank their failure to appoint a Lokpal is another glaring omission that should not go unnoticed.

Demonetization:

On November 8, 2016, Modi Government unleashed the most reckless demonetization policy upon the nation. The devastating effect of this policy reverberated throughout the land costing 140 of its citizens their dear lives and plunging the GDP from 8.01% to 6.5%. According to CMIE’s surveys, 3.5 million jobs were lost during the final quarter of 2016-17. Small business took the brunt of the hit and business was down by as much as 50% for small traders.

The farmers, especially small and marginal who largely depended on cash to buy seeds, fertilizers and to pay for sowing, borrowing water for irrigation remained worst affected and could not complete the crop-related activities. Many people in the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder lost their life savings and the poor traders went without business and so their families without essential food items. However, the rich and the privileged faced no problems and were given a gift-wrapped opportunity to convert all their black money into white money.

Jobs:

When Modi was running for election in 2014, he promised 2 crore jobs every year. What is the situation today? In 2017-18, the country’s unemployment situation worsened as the rate stood at 6.1 %, a 45-year high.  Joblessness was recorded at 7.8% in urban areas and 5.3% in rural areas. The Center for Monitoring Indian Economy says that 11 million jobs were also lost in the 2017-18 period. According to the NSSO, the joblessness among youth was at a higher level compared to the previous years and much higher compared to that in the overall population.

The youth of the country feel betrayed, and their hopes dashed as the Modi government appeared to have no road map for job creation. Half of India’s working-age population, for the first time, is not contributing to any economic activity according to the National Sample Survey office’s latest job-survey. “In a country of over 1.2 billion people, India is creating about 450 jobs per 24 hours while China is creating 50,000 jobs in the same 24 hours. Our Prime Minister doesn’t think this is a problem, “said Rahul Gandhi, Congress President addressing a rally.

Farmer’s Plight:

The Indian farmer appeared to have suffered the most under Modi administration as this important sector took the brunt of the effect of the brutal demonetization policy as the agricultural growth was sluggish at 1.9 % which is half of what was during the previous UPA government. Farmer’s suicide went up so much during Modi rule, the government stopped printing the suicide figures from February 2017. The BJP reneged on implementing its promise in the manifesto for 2014 elections that it would evolve the National Agricultural Market to give farmers the best price, cost + 50%, for their products.

The Modi Government has also earned the dubious distinction of being the first government ever to tax agriculture. Modi Government has imposed 5% GST on fertilizers, 12% GST on tractor/agriculture implements, 18% GST on pesticide, 18% GST on tire, tube, transmission parts and 18% on cold storage equipment. While the Government has written off Rs. 2.4 lakh crore bad loans for crony capitalists, it is not generous with small and marginal farmers to get rid of their debts.

GST:

“It is Gujarat Sabotage Tax,” Modi said of the GST in 2011 when the UPA government introduced it in the Parliament. However, it became an ideal tax scheme only when he became the Prime Minister. Although it was a much-needed reform the messy implementation and clumsy rollout sent panic waves among the business class that was not ready for the change in taxation. One year after GST rollout, small business was reporting drop in sales and struggling with the high cost of compliance.

Filing returns became a huge headache for small businesses as they have to rely on professionals, and that  became an additional financial burden for them. Compliance process was further slowed down as the Information technology took a long time to resolve cumbersome registration and audit processes. In addition, GST moved the power center so much away from the States as it started impacting the relationship in a Federal power-sharing structure.

National Security:

Mr. Modi’s stint as Prime Minister will be also be known for weaker national security, a rise in militant attacks and higher tolls in the army and civilian deaths. The dastardly Pulwama attack by the militants resulted in the death of 44 Security personnel.  Under Modi’s watch, 498 soldiers and 278 civilians were killed as we saw an uptick in terrorist activities in Kashmir and across the LOC. In the case of Pulwama, how did a suicide bomber acquire 300Kgs of RDX and permitted to enter the most secure Jammu-Srinagar National highway despite the ‘standard operating procedure’ for sanitizing the convoy stretch? Undoubtedly, it is a massive intelligence failure that needs to be further looked into.

And also it is shameful in a manner in which the BJP and Narendra Modi government tried to gain political capital over the Pulwama tragedy accusing those expressing skepticism of the outcome of the surgical strikes as anti-nationalists. It is their leader Yeddyurappa who made the statement that this counterattack will fetch BJP 22 seats in Karnataka.  While taking the patriot cover behind the army, the government’s allocation in the 2018-19 Budget was just 1.58 percent of the GDP, lowest since 1962. A parliamentary standing committee under Major General B C Khanduri exposed the neglect of the armed forces saying 68% of the equipment was vintage and there was no money for the purchase of emergency weapons.

Intolerance and Communal frenzy:

Communal differences and religious intolerance reached a new height during the regime of Narendra Modi with Hindu nationalists are having a free run in killing, assaulting and intimidating people of other faiths. Modi never uttered a word decrying the dangerous breed of cow vigilantes who have killed at least 118 Muslims and Dalits during his governance. The Modi regime, on assuming power, made cow an instrument of political warfare and men from the fringes sprang up from all over.  Lynching became a national pastime as there were instances were BJP leaders were openly garlanding the lynchers.

India witnessed an alarming rise in violence against Dalits after Narendra Modi took over. The national Crime record Bureau registered a six to eight times upsurge in the rate of crimes committed against Dalits in the last five years. Dalits who supported BJP in the last election felt let down by the Modi regime as the policies were blatantly against them. Several decisions and utterances of the government especially the way UGC changed the formula for calculating reserved posts reinforced the lack of trust among Dalits. The suicide of research scholar Rohit Vemula was a final stroke that led to a widespread feeling of alienation among Dalits, and students in particular.

Institutions:

India’s democracy survived and thrived because of the resilience of its venerable Institutions. However, Narendra Modi was quite successful in demolishing these entities that formed the pillars of democracy. Today, we see these Institutions like Judiciary, Parliament, Cabinet, Planning Commission, Reserve Bank, Election Commission and Law Enforcement System being undermined. The world had witnessed a rare event when four Supreme Court judges held a press conference to warn against undermining judiciary while stating that the very system of democracy itself could be in danger.

It is alleged by the opposition that CBI is being misused by Modi to intimidate political opponents in the same way in which the Gestapo was used by the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. Narendra Modi was singularly responsible for the shameful drama that unfolded at various venues under the title ‘CBI vs CBI’,  pitting the two top officials against each other. CBI’s credibility has touched an all-time low under Modi government and increasingly being perceived as a political arm of the ruling party.

Saffron Splurge:

While skimping on funds to aid the flood victims in Kerala, Modi lives a larger than life story traveling the world over spending a whopping 2000 crores of Rupees. With the 2989 crores spent on building a Sardar Patel Statue, India could have built two IIT campuses or launched 6 Mars missions. The project shows the vanity of the office as these funds could have been put into much better use in areas where funds are desperately needed.  On the other side of the spectrum, many of the flagship projects envisaged by the Modi government, purportedly to help the poor flopped due to lack understanding of the people’s needs or not appropriating sufficient funds.

The Big Bank Loot:

While many of the proposed government schemes were lacking in funds, the Modi regime closed their eyes on the bank looting scam by the crony capitalists who defrauded the PNBs and some even fled the country. The scam involves 19000 bank fraud cases involving 90000 crores of Rupees of its funds. Going by the records, it is clear that NPA (Bad debt) of nationalized banks went up from 2.83 lakh crore from May 2014 to 12 Lakh crore in March 2018. What has been swallowed by sharks like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, Vikram Kothari and many others is actually people’s money.

It is essential for every voter in India to take a good look at the Modi’s record as the Chowkidar of the nation and vote their conscience. If this record meets their standard of achievement, India’s future may be bleak, and the wellbeing of its democracy may even be in danger! However, the coming election is also an opportunity to turn the tables on those who not only broke their promises but also unsettled the nation with so much deception and misgovernance.

(Compiled by George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)

Bob Mueller Wraps Up Investigation, Submits Report To Barr

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III turned in the much anticipated final report of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on Friday, March 22nd to Attorney General William P. Barr, who will decide how much to tell Congress or the public now.

Mueller, nearly two years after he was appointed to look into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, delivered a full report of his findings and recommendations to the attorney general, as required by Justice Department regulations.

Under Justice Department regulations, Barr can decide that public interest demands full disclosure, or he can hew to rules that protect privacy for people who are investigated and not charged. Although Barr has the authority, President Trump, his lawyers and congressional Democrats will also join the fight over transparency or privacy.

There’s pressure from Trump’s presidential rivals and from Congress— the House recently voted unanimously for its release. The president himself has said he favors putting it out. And there’s a long history of government documents, from the Pentagon Papers to the Iran/Contra report and the Starr report, making their way into the public domain through authorized release, congressional dump and just plain old leaking.

President Trump’s near-daily campaign to mock and discredit Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” has  lasted longer than his campaign for the White House. The NY Times writes, “His shameful, conspiratorial attacks on the “deep state,” and on the integrity of those who have devoted their lives to upholding the rule of law, have damaged the institutions of federal law enforcement and may have gotten him in even deeper trouble.”

While there has been calls from across the spectrum to have the entire report released, Trump also joined a remarkably bipartisan House of Representatives, along with a vast majority of the American public, in calling for the release of Mueller’s report. “Let people see it,” he said on Wednesday. “There was no collusion. There was no obstruction. There was no nothing.”

For the past two years, Trump has kept repeating his mantra of “no collusion” because it’s true. But even if Mueller has found in the end that Trump did not knowingly conspire with Russia — and it is profoundly to be hoped that the report settles that question, one way or the other — that doesn’t mean this inquiry has been a witch hunt.

The fact remains that throughout the 2016 campaign and transition cycle, Trump and many of his top officials and advisers reportedly had more than 100 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries. These contacts were apparently so unmemorable that many Trump advisers forgot all about them, even when asked under oath.

Mueller has already demonstrated the first way to publicize his findings: by filing charges in federal court. The indictments and pleas have laid out details of what Mueller found involving Russian activity, lies about contacts with Russians and more. The work has led to criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers. Mueller’s work has also spawned cases that are being pursued in other jurisdictions.

Several of Trump’s inner circle policy advisors and leaders of his campaign and administration have been charged on multiple counts and are serving or on way to jail sentences.  Michael Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; Rick Gates, the deputy campaign chairman; George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser on the campaign; and Michael Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, are only some of those charged. Paul Manafort is also accused of lying repeatedly to investigators, but that’s the least of his problems.

Trump’s ties to Russia have been intensely scrutinized. The public and the investigators are aware Trump’s shifting positions in four areas: His relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his stance on Russian election interference, his knowledge about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting and his business interests in Russia.

“Without an indictment against him, Trump is going to hammer home the waste of time, taxpayer money and resources to prove that he was right all along and that he did nothing wrong,” said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist who helped shepherd Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch through the Senate confirmation process.

But without seeing the report, it’s hard to know at this time whether the decision not to prosecute amounts to a vindication for Trump, said former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance.

Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, for example. They, along with Manafort, met on June 9, 2016 at Trump Tower with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya and several other Russians. The meeting occurred after Trump Jr. was promised it would yield dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That meeting was a focal point of Mueller’s investigation, but the fact that no one has faced charges for it, would it suggest, Mueller’s team didn’t think it amounted to a crime?

“If Mueller declined to prosecute because there was insufficient evidence, that’s hardly exoneration,” she said. “And if he didn’t indict Trump only because of the (Justice Department) policy against indicting a sitting president, that’s as far from a clean bill of health as you can get.”

Justice Department policy also holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Evidence about Trump could be included in the confidential report to the attorney general but may not be made public.

No matter what Mr. Mueller’s efforts have turned up, the fact that he is now presenting his findings free of presidential interference is a bit of good news for the rule of law in America. Now all Americans deserve the chance to review those findings and reach their own conclusions.

Preet Bharara’s “Doing Justice” Released

By the one-time federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, an important overview of the way our justice system works, and why the rule of law is essential to our society. Using case histories, personal experiences and his own inviting writing and teaching style, Preet Bharara in his new book, “Doing Justice” shows the thought process we need to best achieve truth and justice in our daily lives and within our society.

Preet Bharara has spent much of his life examining our legal system, pushing to make it better, and prosecuting those looking to subvert it. Bharara believes in our system and knows it must be protected, but to do so, we must also acknowledge and allow for flaws in the system and in human nature.

The book is divided into four sections: Inquiry, Accusation, Judgment and Punishment. He shows why each step of this process is crucial to the legal system, but he also shows how we all need to think about each stage of the process to achieve truth and justice in our daily lives.

Bharara uses anecdotes and case histories from his legal career–the successes as well as the failures–to illustrate the realities of the legal system, and the consequences of taking action (and in some cases, not taking action, which can be just as essential when trying to achieve a just result).

Much of what Bharara discusses is inspiring–it gives us hope that rational and objective fact-based thinking, combined with compassion, can truly lead us on a path toward truth and justice. Some of what he writes about will be controversial and cause much discussion. Ultimately, it is a thought-provoking, entertaining book about the need to find the humanity in our legal system–and in our society.

Preet Bharara first became well-known for his efforts to curb Wall Street corruption as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. But it was only after he forced President Trump to fire him that he became a rock star. He was dismissed in March 2017 when he refused to provide his resignation, following an about-face by a new Trump administration that had previously asked him to stay on as U.S. attorney.

In his new book, “Doing Justice,” Bharara does not write explicitly about his conversations with Trump. But the president’s shadow hangs over the book, even when Bharara declines to use his name. “It was all a giant, gold-plated charade,” Bharara writes of one fraud defendant – a sentence that can’t help but conjure up visions of Trump Tower.

Bharara positions “Doing Justice” as a treatise on “the rule of law and faith in the rule of law” at a time when both are under threat. The contrast with Trump, and his contempt for the rule of law, is inevitable. Beyond simply rebutting the president, though, Bharara seeks to present the justice system Trump disdains as a source of inspiration for a healthier politics. His reflection on the role of the justice system in America is an effort both to make the inner workings of that system accessible to people unfamiliar with what criminal justice looks like from the perspective of law enforcement, and to suggest how people might apply ideals and habits honed in the courtroom to the patterns of everyday life.

The Southern District of New York has a reputation for thinking highly of itself, which Bharara cheerfully acknowledges and does nothing to dispel. The justice system, as he describes it, rests on discretion, but the nature of the world is such that some discretion will be abused, and even good-faith attempts to do the right thing will sometimes end poorly. “Every element of the law is dependent on the fateful choices of unpredictable and imperfect human beings,” he writes, “from the cops to the lawyers to the judges to the cooperators. It is the human factor that makes the attempt to deliver justice uncertain.”

Bharara wrote “Doing Justice” in part to “help people make sense of what has been happening in America,” he writes in the preface. Nowhere is this clearer than in his description of the criminal trial as a counterintuitive model for how to “search for truth and justice in our society as well”: Trials, he argues, “are object lessons in persuasion, truth, and even civility.”

“Doing Justice” does its best to communicate what Bharara sees as the fundamental good faith of many law enforcement officials. The real interest and innovation of the book, though, is in Bharara’s effort to offer that model of engagement with the world as a political theory for his fellow citizens.

Mainstream media must boycott Trump

“I Have A Running War With The Media.” During a visit to CIA headquarters, President Donald Trump said he has “a running war with the media” and called reporters “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”

President Donald Trump and his administration are engaged in an unprecedented war on the press, which began during his presidential campaign and continued into the transition period. Trump and his administration’s continued attacks on the press pose a distinct threat to our First Amendment freedoms, and we as journalists, who are the guardians of people’s freedom, are concerned about Trump’s rhetoric and its consequences on the freedom of the press and the safety of the lives of the media personnel at all.

The New York Times noted that Trump “unleash[ed] a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.” Trump accused the media of lying and claimed, “I think they’re going to pay a big price.”

The then Press Secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed that the Media “Engaged In Deliberately False Reporting” on inauguration crowd size. In his first official statement from the White House press briefing room on January 21, 2017, White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that “some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting.” He also falsely claimed that media reported “inaccurate numbers involving crowd size” at the inauguration and falsely claimed, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period.” Spicer added, “We’re going to hold the press accountable.”

The war with the media started the day Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the great nation, the United States. When inaccurate stories from the right wing media about accuracies around Trump’s claim that he would won the popular vote by millions if only the “illegal immigrants” were stopped from voting, Trump falsely claimed that the author of a Pew report on voter registration inaccuracies provided evidence of voter fraud. When Pew fact-checked the president, saying that the Pew Research said “they found no evidence of voter fraud,” Trump claimed the Pew author was “groveling again” and added “I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they write something that you want to hear but not necessarily millions of people want to hear, or have to hear.”

The New York Times reported that Stephen Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, attacked the entire mainstream media as “the opposition party” in an interview. Bannon lambasted the media’s “humiliating defeat” in incorrectly predicting Trump would lose the election and demanded that media should “keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.”

On Fox & Friends, Kelly Conway, a chief media strategist at the Trump White House, suggested that “it’s dangerous to the democracy and for those around the world watching what we do and how this president is covered in his early days” for the press to call out Trump’s lies. Conway was suggesting that the American media close their eyes and ears to the lies of Trump day and in day out.

That poses me to the nest question. How many lies has Trump said since his inauguration? The Washington Post wrote recently;  “Two years after taking the oath of office, President Trump has made 8,158 false or misleading claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That includes an astonishing 6,000-plus such claims in the president’s second year. Put another way: The president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. But he hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year, almost triple the pace.”

The leading daily reported that in the first 100 days, the president made 492 unsupported claims. He managed to top that number just in the first three weeks of 2019. In October, as he was barnstorming the country in advance of the midterm elections, he made more than 1,200 false or misleading claims.

That brings us to our next question: How many times Trump has called the media and their reporting as “fake news?” President Donald Trump often dismisses news stories or media outlets that he doesn’t like as “fake news.” How often? A database of his public remarks contains 320 references in his first year in office to “fake news.” There are times, when he has labeled accurate news reporting as “fake news” or spread false information himself, while at the same time accusing the media of being “fake” or “dishonest.”

Recently, Trump even took credit for inventing the term. “Look, the media is fake,” Trump said in an interview with conservative pundit and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. “The media is — really, the word, I think one of the greatest of all terms I’ve come up with — is fake. I guess other people have used it perhaps over the years, but I’ve never noticed it.”

On his first full day in office, Trump visited the CIA and said of journalists: “They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number-one stop is exactly the opposite — exactly.”

Since the beginning of 2017, President Trump has invoked the phrase “fake news” hundreds of separate occasions. Virtually every instance has been in response to critical news coverage of himself.

Trump has used it when he felt he wasn’t getting enough credit for positive actions, such as helping Puerto Rico recover from Hurricane Maria. “We have done a great job with the almost impossible situation in Puerto Rico. Outside of the Fake News or politically motivated ingrates,” he said on Twitter.

He’s used the term after news channels simply reported what he said, such as his comments about white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. “The only people giving a platform to these hate groups is the media itself, and the fake news,” Trump said at a campaign-style rally in Phoenix.

And he’s used the term repeated when news organizations have covered basic facts about the government’s own investigations into Russia’s influence on the 2016 election. “It is the same Fake News Media that said there is ‘no path to victory for Trump’ that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!” Trump said on Twitter.

Most often, PolitiFact found, his targets have been CNN, and NBC (19 mentions), followed by the New York Times and the Washington Post . It has been found that only one news outlet that had been singled out for praise during his discussions of fake news: Fox News.

Trump is particularly quick to label coverage “fake news” when the reports have unnamed sources, and unnamed sources seem to make Trump the most irate.

In tweet on August 5th, 2018, Trum wrote: “The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!”

There have been calls for the media to boycott Trump. When a sitting President does not want to trust the media, calling it fake, just because the media is reporting accurately and showing to the world his blatant lies, why should a responsible media report on someone, who calls truth as “fake.”

In recent calls for boycott of Trump have been intensifying. Critiques of such calls can’t imagine being able to do their jobs without sitting in a White House Press Room and watching Sarah Huckabee Sanders act put out that people don’t like being lied to for an hour. “The White House is a lousy source of information about itself, but it is also the best available source,” New Yorker writer Masha Gessen argued. “It would mean walking away from politics altogether, which, for journalists, would be an abdication of responsibility.”

Reporters could stage a group protest. But that would make them look like they’re at war with the president, just as he always says they are. Or they could do nothing and effectively “submit to his authority to determine who gets to hold him accountable,” as the former Republican presidential strategist Steve Schmidt put it.

However, the fact remains, the White House press briefings exist not to share any valuable  information, but to share disinformation. Sanders rarely tells the truth, and when she does, it’s either accidental or mundane information with no real news value. Trump himself lies even more, and often just for the hell of it — perhaps to make the point that he can lie about obvious things and still not lose power.

Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist and former White House adviser to Mr. Obama, saya: “That puts them in the middle of the story. The more they personalize this, the more it becomes a fight between the press and the president, as opposed to the press doing its job,” she added. “When they are covering the story, as opposed to being the story, they’re on firmer ground.”

It’s time to boycott a President who is anti- truth, anti-press, anti-civility, ant-diversity, anti-inclusiveness, anti-immigration, anti-scientific research; anti-ecology; anti-justice sytem…..The hateful rhetoric spewed forth from Donald Trump gets too much free airtime by the mainstream media. That needs to stop. He must be starved of free publicity and his rhetoric and false claims need to be ignored by the mainstream media and the general public.

India’s rupee just went from Asia’s worst to best currency

The turnaround has been fuelled by the improved chances of Prime Minister Narendra Modi winning a second term amid recent tensions between India and Pakistan. Asia’s worst-performing currency took five weeks to become its best.

The turnaround has been fueled by the improved chances of Prime Minister Narendra Modi winning a second term amid recent tensions between India and Pakistan. The optimism has led to local shares and debt luring robust flows, which have turned the carry-trade returns on the rupee to the highest in the world in the past month.

“The high-yielding rupee will likely advance further if Modi wins a second term,” said Gao Qi, a currency strategist at Scotiabank in Singapore, who expects the currency to rally to 67 per dollar by June-end. A dovish tilt by major central banks in the face of a faltering global expansion could also prompt foreigners to chase higher yields in emerging Asia, he said.

Here’s a graphical look at the state of play in India’s currency market:Foreigners bought a net $3.3 billion of shares through March 18, accounting for more than half the $5.6 billion of inflows year-to-date, and raised holdings of bonds by $1.4 billion this month. The gush of dollars sent the rupee to its highest level since August, prompting profit-booking that saw the currency posting its first drop in seven sessions on Tuesday.

Borrowing in dollars to purchase rupee assets has earned 3.8 percent over the past one month, the best carry-trade return in the world, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Two opinion polls showed Modi’s ruling coalition may get close to the 272 seats needed for majority in elections that begin on April 11. Results are due on May 23.

“The market is pricing in a Modi victory as there are no other factors that explain the sudden change of mood,” said Anindya Banerjee, an analyst at Kotak Securities Ltd. in Mumbai. “On top of that, carry traders are eager to be long rupee and short other low-yielding currencies, including the dollar. It is a get-set-go for the rupee.”

The rupee optimism is also reflected in the derivatives market, where one-month options conferring the right to sell the rupee now cost 19 basis points more than those to buy. That’s down from 148 on Sept. 5, which was the highest since November 2016.

“Global conditions — dovish Fed and ECB — have turned more supportive and domestically, increased confidence in the BJP’s prospects and a recovery in portfolio flows have been the key driver” for the rupee, said Dushyant Padmanabhan, a currency strategist at Nomura Holdings Inc. in Singapore.

The rupee’s three-month implied volatility, a gauge of expected swings used to price options, fell to 5.87 percent on Friday, the lowest reading since August.

“We expect the rupee to remain resilient in the near term, as bunched up foreign inflows limit any pressure from weakening EMFX sentiment,” Barclays Plc strategist Ashish Agrawal, wrote in a note. “A potential BJP-led coalition victory would bode well for the INR for the rest of this year.”

India, US seek ‘irreversible, credible’ actions from Pakistan on Terror

The United States and India have separately called upon Pakistan to ensure its post-Pulwama crackdown on terrorists was “sustained, irreversible” and not “cosmetic” as in the past.

The United States and India have separately called upon Pakistan to ensure its post-Pulwama crackdown on terrorists was “sustained, irreversible” and not “cosmetic” as in the past when apprehended individuals and shut down facilities returned to normal when the glare of global scrutiny shifted away.

“The United States notes these steps,” said Robert Palladino, the US state department spokesperson Thursday, about the ongoing crackdown in Pakistan, “and we continue to urge Pakistan to take sustained, irreversible action against terrorist groups that will prevent future attacks and that will promote regional stability.”

He added: “And we reiterate our call for Pakistan to abide by its United Nations Security Council obligations to deny terrorists safe haven and block their entry to funds”

Separately, an Indian official told reporters at a background briefing Pakistan has staged such crackdowns — “professed actions” — before. Referring to Pakistan’s actions after the Mumbai 2008 attack, the official said most of the apprehensions either took place only on “paper” or those taken into custody were kept at “VIP guesthouses” and in “luxurious accommodations”. It was as if, the government was telling them “you are our people, but you need to lie low for the time being”.

“Whether thee actions are cosmetic or credible is yet to be seen,” the official said of the current actions, adding that India would be looking for “credible and verifiable actions”.

Hafiz Saeed, the founder and leader of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeY) and the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks that claimed 166 lives, for instance, who was arrested and released in 2017, had been kept under “house arrest”. at home.

Pakistan has said it has arrested 121 individuals — not calling them terrorists — and seized control of over 400 facilities and assets owned or run by proscribed organizations, including Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), which claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack, LeT and their fronts.

Those arrested so far include JeM head Masood Azhar’s brother Abdul Rauf Asghar and son Hammad Azhar.  But not Azhar himself, who the Pakistani government has claimed is ailing, “so much so he cannot leave his house”.

A move is afoot at the UN Security Council to designate him a terrorist, which Pakistan has resisted for years, with China, its “all-weather friend”, blocking three previous attempts. A decision is likely on March 13 to a proposal moved jointly by France, the United States and the United Kingdom.

As India seeks to mount pressure on Pakistan to give up the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy, it is also “moving towards” urging the world community to consider declaring Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism, the Indian official said. The United States, for instance, has Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan on its list of countries it has designated as state-sponsors of terrorism.

It nearly added Pakistan to that list in the 1990s. It has also been a recurring demand of many American lawmakers, from both parties, who have been frustrated by the “duplicity” demonstrated by a one-time ally in its actions to combat terrorism.

But India has itself hesitated to brand Pakistan as one arguing such a designation will come in the way of normalization of ties. It would be forced to break ties with Pakistan, which would “become an enemy state”.

Rep. Ami Bera Warns Pak of Facing Isolation if it doesn’t rein in terror groups

Congressman Ami Bera, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, also urged China to play a constructive role by lifting its veto over UN Security Council resolution to designate Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.

The Indian-American Congressman has warned that Pakistan will continue to slide into international isolation if it does not take actions against terrorist groups operating from its soil.

Ami Bera, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, also urged China to play a constructive role by lifting its veto over UN Security Council resolution to designate Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.

“The United States’ Congress stands ready to support Pakistan should Prime Minister (Imran) Khan begin cracking down on terrorist groups in earnest. This will only help improve his nation’s economy,” Bera wrote in an op-ed published in News India Times on Friday In his op-ed titled ‘Time For Pakistan to Chart a New Course’, the four-time Indian-American Congressman from California said that Pakistan did the right thing by releasing Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman.

“This de-escalated a dangerous situation but more has to be done. Prime Minister Imran Khan should use this opportunity to reset his country’s relationship with the world and chart a new course for Pakistan,” he said.

This starts with cracking down on the JeM and other terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba which was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attack, Bera said, adding that unfortunately, Pakistan’s behaviour towards these terrorist groups have been contradictory and self-defeating.

“Pakistan has banned many of these terrorist groups, including adding two more groups on March 5, but at the same time tolerates them operating within its own borders. This has caused the international community to isolate Pakistan,” Bera said.

Pakistan has taken some initial steps, like detaining 44 suspected militants, including the brother of JeM’s leader Masood Azhar. It is, however, unclear whether this “preventative detention”, as Pakistan described it, will lead to criminal prosecutions and justice being served, he said.

“Prime Minister Khan can help Pakistan earn enormous goodwill by tracking down and bringing to justice Azhar, whom the Pakistani Foreign Minister indicated was alive, with his whereabouts known. They can further that goodwill by dismantling the terrorist networks that operate within Pakistan.

“These actions are in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1267. If Khan does not take these steps, I’m afraid Pakistan will continue to slide into international isolation, which will only serve to increase economic hardship on the Pakistani people,” the Indian-American Congressman said.

“I also call on China to play a constructive role in India and Pakistan relations. A good first step would be for China to cease blocking a UN Security Council resolution designating Masood Azhar a global terrorist,” Bera said.

His article came days after Pakistan, under global pressure after the Pulwama terror attack and India’s air strikes against JeM terrorist camp in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province on February 26, started taking actions against some of the terrorist outfits and their leaders over the past few days.

In Islamabad, the Interior Ministry on Thursday announced that a total of 121 members of the proscribed groups have so far been taken into “preventive detention” across Pakistan.

Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after a suicide bomber of Pakistan-based terror group JeM killed 40 CRPF personnel in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district in February 14.

India launched a counter-terror operation in Balakot. The next day, Pakistan Air Force retaliated and downed a MiG-21 in an aerial combat and captured its pilot, who was handed over to India on March 1.

Pulwama attack: Politicizing a conflict for electoral gains:

Ever since the attack in Pulwama by a suicide bomber killing 42 of India’s security personnel, the country has been on the edge fearing an all-out war with Pakistan.  Any civilized person could see the barbarity of this dastardly terrorist act only with disgust and rage. However, a confrontation between these two nuclear powers is neither in the interest of these two nations nor does it bode well for the future of this turbulent region. Pakistan has been waging a proxy war with India over the Kashmir issue from the time of Independence, and a final solution to this crisis is not within sight.

Some would argue that this is the time of war and everyone should keep their apprehensions about its conduct or any other questions they may have close to their chest.  However, a massive intelligence failure of this magnitude over the Pulwama tragedy should not be missed. How did a young man in his twenties, who was already on the radar of the Security personnel, come to possess, pack & conceal, and then drive 300KG worth of explosives towards a military convoy undetected? Reports from the region suggest that a police advisory was already in effect a week before this, stating that the Central Reserve Police Force deployment would be targeted. Where is the accountability on these massive security lapses?

A recent New York Times report paints a scathing image of India’s vintage military equipment and its impact on military readiness. “India’s armed forces are in alarming shape. If intense warfare broke out tomorrow, India could supply its troops with only 10 days of ammunition according to government estimates. And 68 percent of the army’s equipment is so old. It is officially considered ‘vintage’”.  A swollen bureaucracy together with lack of funding obviously rendered these procurement and training processes anything but cumbersome.

Nevertheless, India was left with no choice but to retaliate. Pakistan has been aiding and abetting Jaesh-e-Mohammed and its leader Masood Azhar despite the pressure from the U.N. and other international bodies. The Air Force was tasked to strike these terror targets in Balakot region: an order that was carried out despite bad weather conditions. The Indian Military has been known for its professionalism and respect for civilian leadership in a democratic setup. Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa refused to give a casualty count saying “”IAF doesn’t count the number of dead” and the “casualty figure in an air strike on Balakot camp will be given by the government,” referring to the air strike it had carried out on February 26, 2019.

However, what we have witnessed following the strike from the Government and the BJP leaders would not only sully the image of India but also the nation’s credibility through overt politicization of this conflict, as the country is preparing itself for a critical election. First, the leaked information from sources to the media put the casualty count at 300 to 350. Western intelligence sources and the International press immediately cast severe doubt on these numbers, and some reports directly from the ground characterized the damages as minimal.

However, in public speeches, Amit Shah, the President of the ruling party BJP, talked about 250 terrorists being wiped out. Other BJP leaders like BS Yeddyurappa said that his party would win 22 seats in Karnataka after the strike. It is as if BJP leaders are relishing these moments of war and salivating about the prospects of riding to victory in the fog of a protracted fight between these nations. It boggles one’s mind to believe that after the Pulwama attack, the terrorists associated with Jaesh-e-Mohammed just gathered together to sleep in one place, making an easy target of themselves for the IAF!

Anyone who questioned the veracity of these BJP leaders’ claims is called an anti-nationalist and accused of doing Pakistan’s bidding. “At a time when our army is engaged in crushing terrorism, inside the country and outside, some people within the country are trying to break their morale, which is cheering our enemy,” Modi said at an election rally. “I want to know from Congress and its partners why they are making statements that are benefiting the enemies”, he added. Modi is apparently absent from the capital in managing the conflict. Instead, he is entirely taking advantage of the ongoing battle on his campaign trail, vilifying the opposition and questioning their patriotism for political advantage.

Another shameful spectacle that is unfolding in India today is the blatant display of jingoism by the media and their networks to propel a wider war.  Instead of bringing together the nation at a time of crisis, some of these news channels are creating divisions, promoting hate and sowing discord. They broadcast manufactured news; shamelessly appropriate nationalism; and designate a segment as enemy allies. Many of them have become vassals of special interests mostly controlled by crony capitalists aligned with the ruling party.

It is also sad to hear that there is an atmosphere of fear and intimidation created for Kashmiri students across the country, as Sangh Parivar forces target them for revenge attacks. “It is no secret that the Bajrang Dal and the student wing of the Sangh were foremost in fomenting trouble against Kashmiri students in various parts of India. This was done keeping in mind the upcoming general election”, Omar Abdulla, former Chief Minister of Kashmir said. “It is obvious that BJP sees an advantage in these types of environments. It helps them paper over Modi’s mistakes like demonetization, joblessness, India’s poor economic growth and the distress faced by the country’s agricultural sector” he added.

We collectively admire the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces. They are fighting to keep all Indians safe and protect the sovereignty of the nation from terrorists and a country that provides haven to them. Moreover, they are fighting to safeguard our democratic traditions and way of life. As Sashi Kumar, a commentator eloquently put it recently, “they are not fighting for this or that political party; they are not fighting for the electoral gains of the ruling party or of the opposition. However, they are if anything fighting the religious fundamentalism of one kind but not to replace it with the rampant religious fundamentalism of another kind, even of the majoritarian variety”.

The BJP’s strategy appears to be clear and straightforward: playing up Hindu nationalism; linking Kashmiri youth and Jihadi terrorists supported by an enemy, Pakistan; and providing ‘red meat’ to a large segment of the voting public, who are so disappointed with Modi’s failure to deliver his campaign promises. However, this is all at the risk of endangering India’s democratic and pluralistic values, and accelerating animosity between two armed nuclear neighbors, which may even put them on a path to potential disaster!

(The writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations and current Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)

Trump Proposes to End Special Trade Treatment for India

President Trump says he wants to kick India and Turkey out of a program that gives the countries special trade treatment. Trump announced his decision on Monday this week, saying he wants to remove the countries from the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP — which allows developing countries to send certain products to the United States duty-free.
Last year, the United States began reviewing India’s eligibility for the program. Countries with GSP designation must meet certain criteria and can graduate from the program. In a statement, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said Turkey is “sufficiently economically developed” and should no longer benefit from preferential market access.
In a letter to Congress, the president accused India of shutting out American businesses. “I am taking this step because, after intensive engagement between the United States and the Government of India, I have determined that India has not assured the United States that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets of India,” the president said in the letter.
“India has implemented a wide array of trade barriers that create serious negative effects on United States commerce. Despite intensive engagement, India has failed to take the necessary steps to meet the GSP criterion,” said a USTR statement.
The Indian Commerce Secretary reportedly said benefits of the exemptions were “minimal and moderate,” adding up to about $190 million on exports of $5.6 billion.
Trump slammed India over the weekend, calling it a “high-tariff” nation at the Conservative Political Action Conference, adding: “When we send a motorcycle to India, it’s a 100% tariff. They charge 100%. When India sends a motorcycle to us, we brilliantly charge them nothing.”
Richard Rossow, senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Yahoo Finance he wasn’t surprised by the move — and he didn’t think the Indian government was surprised either.
“Tensions and frustration were clearly boiling over,” said Rossow. “This isn’t part of, I think, the overall package of the Trump administration initiating trade wars globally. India had actually done a number of things that kind of warranted this review.” Rossow pointed to India’s increased customs duties, expanded mandatory local content rules for production and price controls.
‘The Trump administration is not likely to back down from a trade fight.’
India will still be able to export goods to the U.S., but will be subject to higher customs duties.
Rossow said the real risk for India is losing market share. “That narrow price differential of pre-GSP and post-GSP — can other countries’ exporters fill in that gap?” said Rossow. “The customs duties themselves, you’re talking about a couple hundred million bucks, maximum. That’s survivable…but if actually the exporters themselves begin to lose out to competing companies and manufacturers in other countries— that’s where India begins to feel direct damage to the economy.”
India was one of the countries hit by Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum last year. While India announced retaliatory tariffs, they have not been enacted. Rossow said he does not think India will want to escalate the situation.
“I do think the [Narendra] Modi government does very much understand that the Trump administration is not likely to back down from a trade fight,” said Rossow. “The United States is one of only two countries among India’s largest trading parters with which India has a surplus — so India has a great deal to lose in this trade relationship with the United States if this thing begins to escalate further.” USTR says no changes will go into effect for at least 60 days.

Why Trump-Kim Summit Failed?

Amid much anticipation and no small measure of skepticism, U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met in Hanoi, Vietnam, this week to further discussions of denuclearization of North Korea. With little concrete information released ahead of time, speculation swirled. Would the U.S. ease sanctions? Would North Korea agree to halt nuclear fuel production at Yongbyon? Would international inspectors be allowed in? Would the leaders sign a peace declaration, formally ending the Korean War?

In the end, the meetings closed with even less certainty than before. Negotiations wrapped early, with a signing ceremony abruptly canceled and no deal put on the table. “Sometimes you have to walk,” Trump said in a press conference, explaining that Kim pushed for sanctions lifted in their entirety — an impossible deal, he explained. (North Korea’s foreign minister later disputed that in a rare press conference, stating they wanted sanctions only partially lifted.) Nevertheless, Trump characterized the meetings as “very productive.” Others were less sure.

Below is a round-up of takeaways from the summit from the Asia Society. Updates from the discussion:

‘By Failing To Prepare, You Are Preparing To Fail’

Daniel Russel, vice president of international security and diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said in an interview with Reuters the outcome was of little surprise, given the lack of planning.

The Hanoi Summit validates Benjamin Franklin’s axiom that “by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. The hard diplomatic work of narrowing differences and exploring options had simply not been done, so it is not surprising that the two leaders encountered insurmountable differences.

Kim Jong Un is not testing ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs at the moment, but he is testing Donald Trump. Kim may have wanted to see if Trump’s domestic legal and political woes made him desperate enough to take any deal he could get.

‘You Don’t Send the Boss Unless You Have the Deliverables in Hand’

Lindsey Ford, Director of Political-Security Affairs for the Asia Society Policy Institute and Richard Holbrooke Fellow, said the apparent lack of preparation for the meeting and attendant fallout would make restarting staff-level negotiations extremely difficult.

I think it proves that there’s no substitute for preparation. It’s pretty apparent that both Kim and Trump were gambling that they would get a better deal in person than they thought they would get by having people do the staff work. But when you look at the text — at least what North Korea says was on the table and that folks walked away from — nothing is terribly surprising about what the proposal was. And that’s the thing negotiators ought to have been able to talk about and put on the table and suss out whether it was good enough months in advance so that you don’t waste your president’s capital by sending him halfway around the world during an emerging nuclear crisis elsewhere to come back with nothing. The 101 golden rule of government staff work is you don’t send the boss unless you have the deliverables in hand.

Trump clearly believed that at the end of the day his personal negotiating skills could eke out a better deal than what anybody else could get and he was willing to gamble on that. Now, I guess we have to give credit for the fact that he didn’t bite on something that his advisor said wasn’t worth it for the sake of having anything. Maybe that’s a low bar but we should give credit there because it could have been worse and we could have had worse outcomes from this summit. But at the same time it’s completely unclear at this point what Plan B there is and I think it’s going to be exponentially harder to now restart a staff level, working level negotiation process that should have been there from the get go after you walk away from the deal that was on the table.

It’s still unclear at this point exactly what was offered on both sides and it also unclear who precisely walked away first. At the end of the day it’s probably moot. But, both sides have an obvious interest to spin this in a way that makes them look like the more reasonable and aggrieved party. Both of these leaders have the potential to be embarrassed and have egg on their face over the way this went down. On Kim Jong Un’s part, it would look like he took a huge risk, made concessions to the Americans and walked away with nothing. And similarly on Trump’s part it will also look like he made this huge gamble that has not paid off in the slightest. They have to tell this story to the audience at home in both capitals in a way that puts them in the best light. To be clear, I’m not trying to say either side is lying, or that the president is lying. But we’re watching the post-debate spin right now.

‘I’m Not Sure How We’re Going To Move Forward’

Speaking from South Korea, political economist June Park, a lecturer of Global Affairs and Government at George Mason University Korea and an Asia 21 young leader, said a media frenzy had whipped up impossible expectations for a deal. With Trump’s antipathy toward re-starting U.S.-South Korean war exercises, concern is now mounting over their own bilateral relations.

From a South Korean perspective, too much attention on the summit led people to believe there would be a substantial outcome. It’s as if the media drove people to think there would be a result. We shouldn’t be surprised by the lack of a deal, but are surprised because expectations were so high. What realistically could have happened? I did see they exchanged a very friendly handshake before departure. At a very personal level, those two individuals have found some comfort in the similarity in their character.

Kim Jong Un came on strong by saying we need complete lifting of sanctions (according to Trump that’s what he said, we don’t know exactly unless we see a full verbatim record of what was said, but this is what we have so far). [EDITOR NOTE: North Korea has since said it was seeking only a partial lifting of sanctions.] This was also a game played by Kim Jong Un. He thought that at the current stage, if it is Donald Trump and not anyone else, he could actually win this. But given what was happening domestically — with the Cohen hearing and the briefings by Ambassador Robert Lighthizer on the U.S.-China trade talks — it didn’t really look like Mr. Trump would have his mind really set on this Vietnam summit.

But Trump did make it very clear that the military exercises with South Korea will not be continued. He didn’t say those literal sentences but he said it costs millions and millions of dollars.

In some ways this represents a deal — though one few could cheer and with dangerous implications for the region as a whole.

It makes me think — perhaps even if not signed on paper — what we have at this moment is if Kim Jong Un doesn’t test further, the U.S. and South Korea won’t have exercises either. So there is no provocation on either said. Maybe that’s the best balance we have as of yet. Until something happens and one side provokes the other.

From the North Korean perspective, they still have had those two summits, diplomatic encounters with the U.S. that never really happened previously. From the U.S. side this was a rapprochement, but it wouldn’t have happened had it not been from an individual like Mr. Trump. It wouldn’t have happened had it not been for his own character and his peculiar presidency. It was interesting to watch this but it was not going to give us a guideline forward.

What I’m more concerned about is how this kind of uncertainty will just lag on. And how U.S. engagement in the region will be severely weakened as time goes on. Complete denuclearization was never a goal that could be achieved. I’m not sure how we’re going to move forward.

Already the U.S.-South Korea alliance is not what it used to be, so that is my concern. There used to be a reason for retaining this alliance not just in terms of security but in terms of history and camaraderie, that bond that kept the two countries together. But clearly it’s just not there anymore. Being here I can sense that.

‘I Do Not Think This Is a Bad Result’

Asia 21 young leader Jieun Baek, a Ph.D. candidate in Public Policy at the University of Oxford and author of North Korea’s Hidden Revolution: How the Information Underground is Transforming a Closed Society, said that the lack of a result represented a relatively positive outcome.

I expected the Trump-Kim Hanoi summit to be a continuation of the Singapore 2018 summit — spectacular summitry theater, vague commitments to denuclearization (a term and normative reality that both parties still do not agree on), and the creation of more false hope for a denuclearized North Korea resulting in a more peaceful world.  While I was surprised to learn that the Hanoi summit prematurely ended without an agreement, I do not think this is a bad result. Given that several major issues have not been resolved, I believe that President Trump and his team were wise in walking away from a bad deal that would have potentially constituted the lifting of comprehensive sanctions before North Korea makes any substantive concessions regarding taking substantive steps towards denuclearization.

On the human rights front, Baek said that the continued omission of any mention of Pyongyang’s atrocities represents a failure of negotiations thus far.

The absence of public discussion about North Korea’s human rights situation between the two leaders since the Singapore Summit has been worrying. There must be widespread recognition that denuclearization and the improvement of human rights in North Korea are inextricably linked. Kim clearly wants to pursue economic development for his country. He must recognize that foreign companies and investors will continue to be barred from investing in North Korea given the countries’ egregious human rights violations. Secondly, if Kim is genuinely interested in a path towards verifiable denuclearization, he must provide access to international inspectors in the future. International inspectors cannot carry out the necessary inspections within the currently extremely closed, tightly controlled, and repressive climate.

Given the historically volatile U.S.-North Korea relationship, who knows what the short-term future has in store for the two leaders’ relationship and its effect on North Korea’s (supposed) pursuit of denuclearization. But what we do know is that the United States isn’t bound to a premature agreement that would have inevitably sparked another bout of false hope of a more peaceful world with a denuclearized North Korea.

‘Worst Possible Thing Trump Could Have Said for Human Rights’

Human rights lawyer Sylvia Kim co-founded Canada’s largest human rights organization for North Korean human rights. The Asia 21 young leader said she too has been struck by the absence of discussion on North Korea’s brutal rights record.

The concern for the human rights advocacy community is that human rights have been left off the agenda completely — whether it was this summit or the Singapore summit or the inter-Korean summits. Leaving human rights off the agenda brings legitimacy to this regime making it harder to bring accountability in the future for the human rights atrocities the regime is known to have carried out.

From a human rights perspective, Trump’s press conference after the summit was actually worse for human rights than if he hadn’t said anything at all. For those of us who have been documenting and monitoring human rights violations in North Korea, there is no doubt in any of our minds that the regime did not know what was happening in these gulag-like prison camps. What Trump said about Otto Warmbier, an American citizen whose family sued the regime, how he felt Kim Jong Un didn’t know what was going on in the prisons and that he takes Kim Jong Un at his word — was probably the worst possible thing he could have said for human rights.

From that perspective, I understand the frustration of many defectors. Most people want peace and know that military options will not lead to a happy outcome for anyone. At the same time, you don’t want to forget that we’re working with a brutal regime that oppresses its people and deprives them of so many of the rights and freedoms that are enshrined in universal norms and international conventions. For defectors and human rights advocates, it’s a hard balance of knowing we don’t want war but at the same time how far do you go with the antics of pageantry and theatrics to please this dictator.

When you see a superpower like the U.S. having these leader-to-leader talks and legitimizing diplomatic relations without any reference to human rights, it becomes easier for other countries to think that human rights is not a priority for the U.S.. The enforcement in human rights doesn’t often come from the actual enforcement of international laws and conventions; the power of human rights comes in the form of monitoring and ‘naming and shaming’ from the international community. Legitimizing Kim Jong Un, greeting and treating him like a rock star, buries the human rights issues and makes it easier for others to brush it aside.

Over Two Third Americans Think Trump has Committed Crimes

As many as 6% of U.S. voters say they believe Donald Trump did something illegal before he was elected president, while 24 percent believe he did not, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday, February 5th, 2019.

Sixty-five percent of independents and 89 percent of Democrats said they believe Trump committed crimes before taking office. But only a minority of Republicans surveyed agree: 33 percent, compared with 48 percent who said they do not believe Trump committed crimes before being elected.

Voters are roughly split on the question of whether Trump has done anything illegal as president, with 43 percent saying he has and 45 percent indicating he has not.

Trump’s credibility doesn’t fare well when compared with that of Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, who is set to begin a three-year prison term in May after pleading guilty to lying to Congress about deals he pursued on behalf of Trump.

Asked “who do you believe more: President Trump or Michael Cohen,” voters line up solidly behind the president’s former fixer, with 50 percent saying Cohen and just 35 percent giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Cohen has admitted paying hush money to two women — porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal — during the 2016 presidential campaign for their silence regarding alleged extramarital affairs with Trump. He has described this as a violation of campaign finance laws with which Trump was complicit.

Forty percent of voters surveyed said hush money payments to hide negative stories during a presidential campaign was both unethical and a crime. Just 21 percent of those polled said such payments were not ethical but did not rise to the level of a crime.

Aruna Miller named executive director of Indian American Impact Fund

Former Congressional candidate and erstwhile Maryland state legislator Aruna Miller has been named the new executive director of the Indian American Impact Fund, which seeks out and endorses and funds Indian-American candidates running for public office at the local, city, county, state and federal levels.

The Hyderabad-born Miller, who immigrated to the U.S. at age eight and is a civil engineer by training, having served in Montgomery County’s Transportation Department for more than two decades, will replace Gautam Raghavan, a former senior Obama administration official, who left Impact in January to serve as Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D.-Wash.) chief of staff.

In June last year, much to the disappointment of the Indian-American community, Miller lost to multimillionaire David Trone in the Democratic primary for the vacant seat in the state’s 6th District, who then went on to win the general on Nov.6.

The Miller-Tronerace, was perhaps the most closely-watched primary by the Indian-American community, who considered her the community’s best bet for another Congressional seat, but Miller failed in her bid to become only the second Indian American woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after Jayapal, because if she had prevailed over Trone, she would have been a shoo-in in the general election in the heavily Democratic district.

Raj Goyle, co-founder of Impact, a former Kansas state legislator, who also made an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Congress from the state’s 4th District in 2010, losing to Republican Mike Pompeo, now the U.S. Secretary of State, said, “As a former candidate and elected official who has actually campaigned, won votes, and served in office, Aruna is the ideal person to lead Impact. She has the perfect combination of skills and personal experience to take this organization to the next level,” he predicted.

Goyle said, “As an Indian-American woman, immigrant, candidate, and elected official, Aruna has been a pioneer and trailblazer in our community. We know she will not only provide smart guidance and strategic counsel to Indian American candidates running for office at every level from coast to coast, she will also inspire many more to consider running themselves. Anyone who has met, worked with, or voted for Aruna knows her future is bright. We are excited to have her at the helm of Impact,” he added.

Deepak Raj, entrepreneur and philanthropist, also a co-founder of Impact, said, “When we started looking for a new executive director, it was vital that we find someone who understands both politics and public service, has a demonstrated track record of advocating for our community, and brings fresh thinking and vision to the important work ahead.” He added: “We found all of those traits, and more, in Aruna, and we are thrilled she will lead Impact at this critical time for our community.”

Raj, who is also the chairman of Pratham USA, said, “Impact is well positioned to harness the energy, excitement, and success of a historic 2018 election cycle in which an unprecedented number of Indian-Americans ran for office across the country.

“In the coming months, we look forward to recruiting and training candidates, broadening our reach and support, and shaping the 2020 political landscape,” he added. Raj said that “Aruna shares our passion for building political power in the Indian American community so that our voices are heard in the halls of power,” and predicted, “With her leadership, we will continue building Impact into an organization that will be extraordinarily helpful to future generations of our community.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi named Assistant Whip for the 116th Congress

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.Ill.) continues to ascend to leadership positions as he has been  named on Feb. 25 as Assistant Whip for the 116th Congress by House Majority Whip, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D.-S.C.).

Krishnamoorthi, who represents Illinois’ 8th District, which includes Chicago, in announcing his new appointment, said, “I am honored to be selected for the Assistant Whip position,” and explained, “This position is integral in rallying my colleagues together to pass important legislation. I look forward to bringing our diverse caucus together so that we can continue to pass legislation that will deliver meaningful results for working families across America,” he said.

Clyburn, a 13-term Congressman and one of the senior-most and respected African American lawmakers, and is a two-time Majority Whip, having previously served in the post from 2007 to 2011 and served as House Assistant Minority Leader from 2011 to 2019, said, “I’m pleased that Congressman Krishnamoorthi will be joining my Whip team as an Assistant Whip for the 116th Congress.”

“Congressman Krishnamoorthi will play a critical role in my Whip operation, helping us ensure that every voice of the most diverse Caucus ever is heard as we consider legislation to move our country in a positive direction,” he said, and added, “I look forward to working with Congressman Krishnamoorthi to ensure that Democrats deliver on their promise to advance an agenda that will have a positive impact on Americans’ everyday lives.”

Assistant Whips are responsible for helping the Whip operation get an accurate read on where Members of the Caucus stand on certain pieces of legislation. They work with Members of the Caucus to answer any questions or address any concerns that Members may have with upcoming bills.

Last month, Krishnamoorthi, 45, was named Chairman of the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which makes him the point man of a panel with jurisdiction over important pocketbook issues such as education, workforce development, income inequality, health care, consumer protection and data privacy.

This appointment followed just a week after Krishnamoorthi, in a significant committee assignment–was appointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, becoming the first South Asian American lawmaker to serve on this influential panel.

Nikki Haley nominated to Boeing’s Board of Governors

The Boeing Company board of directors has nominated Nikki Randhawa Haley to be elected as a director at the company’s annual meeting of shareholders on April 29.

According to a press release from the company on February 26th, the multi-national announced that Haley, 47,  former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the first female governor of South Carolina, and a three-term legislator in the South Carolina House of Representatives, has been nominated to be on its BOG.

“Ambassador Haley brings to Boeing an outstanding record of achievement in government, industry partnership, and successfully driving economic prosperity for communities in America and around the world,” Boeing Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg, is quoted saying in the press release.

“It’s an honor to have the opportunity to contribute to Boeing’s continued success as a cutting edge industry leader and a great American company,” said Ambassador Haley. “Not only is Boeing the largest aerospace company in the world and America’s biggest exporter, it also understands the importance of teamwork and building community through its network of suppliers in all 50 states and around the world,” Haley added in her statement.

“Boeing will benefit greatly from her broad perspectives and combined diplomatic, government and business experience to help achieve our aspiration to be the best in aerospace and a global industrial champion,” Muilenburg added.

A graduate of Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in accounting, Haley was first elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2004, the first Indian-American to be elected to that House, and serving three terms before being elected Governor of the state between 2011 and 2017. The second Indian-American to be elected governor in U.S. history, Haley also became the first Indian-American to hold a cabinet level position in U.S. administration. She served as U.N. ambassador from January 2017  to December 2018.

Democratic Party gains support across US suburbs and rural areas

When Democrats took 40 congressional districts from Republicans in the 2018 election, the House of Representatives experienced what many considered to be a blue wave. What does this shift mean for the 2020 presidential election? To get a better sense of this, the following analysis examines the 2018 House votes distributed across the nation’s more than 3,100 counties. This provides a more fine-grained geographic assessment of how the 2018 House support for Democrats compared with votes in the 2016 presidential election.

From this perspective, the Democratic wave is all encompassing: 83 percent of the voting population lived in counties where support for Democrats has improved since 2016. This increased Democratic support was not confined to traditional Democratic base counties. It occurred in suburbs, smaller metropolitan and rural counties, and most noticeably, in counties with concentrations of older, native-born and white residents without college degrees. Moreover, at the state level, enough states flipped from Republican majorities in the 2016 presidential election to Democratic majorities in the 2018 House elections to project a 2020 Democratic Electoral College win.

83 percent of the voting population lived in counties where support for Democrats has improved since 2016

This analysis employs recently released county-based tabulations of the 2018 House of Representatives election voting results, along with results from the 2016 presidential elections. It examines changes in “Democratic minus Republican (D-R) voting margins” between these two elections at the county level in order to determine where and by how much Democratic support has shifted over this two year period. (Note: the D-R margin is defined as the percent voting Democratic minus percent voting Republican among the all Democratic and Republican voters in the area. Positive values represent a Democratic advantage. Negative values indicate a Republican advantage.)

More than four-fifths of 2018 voters reside in counties with rising Democratic support

The nationwide D-R margin favored Democrats in both the 2016 presidential election (as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote over Donald Trump) and the combined national 2018 House of Representatives vote, with the Democratic advantage increasing between the former and latter election from 2.1 to 8.6 percent.

Of course, 2018 Democratic and Republican vote advantages differ across counties, as shown in Map 1.  While Republican House votes exceeded Democratic votes in more of the nation’s counties, Democratic counties tended to be larger in size, often in major urban areas. Thus, 60 percent of the nation’s voters lived in Democratic-led counties, compared with 40 percent of voters residing in counties where Republicans held the advantage.

More importantly, in a vast majority of counties—even in those won by Republicans in 2018—more voters favored Democrats in 2018 than in 2016. This can be seen in Map 2, which depicts changes in D-R margins between the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 House race. In a majority of counties (2,445 of 3,111)—irrespective of whether the final 2018 vote favored Republican or Democratic candidates—there was a positive D-R margin shift between 2016 and 2018 (meaning either a greater Democratic advantage or a smaller Republican advantage).

At one extreme are counties in the New England states—Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—which voted Democratic in 2018 (shown in Map 1). Most of those counties also showed strong 2016-2018 gains in their D-R margins (shown in Map 2). At the other extreme are counties in Nebraska and Oklahoma which voted heavily Republican in 2018. As Map 2 indicates, most of the counties in those two states showed a greater D-R margin (meaning reduced Republican margin) between 2016 and 2018.

When viewed in terms of the numbers of voters residing in counties, Figure 2 indicates that 83 percent of all voters resided in counties that increased their D-R margins between 2016 and 2018—including 26 percent that increased their D-R margins by more than 10, and 57 percent that increased their margins by 0 to 9.

Increased 2018 Democratic support occurred in suburbs, small metros, and rural areas.

Democrats have long done well in large urban core counties, while Republicans tend to be more popular in suburbs, small metropolitan areas, and rural communities. Using an urban typology developed by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program [2], Figure 3 shows that this characterization is valid for the 2016 presidential election, but less so for 2018 House election.

In both elections, urban core counties in large metropolitan areas exhibited strong positive D-R margins, while small metropolitan and outside metropolitan area counties showed negative (Republican favorable) D-R margins. Yet there was a shift between the 2016 and 2018 elections for suburban counties in large metropolitan areas from a negative to a positive D-R margin. Also, the D-R margin became more positive in large urban cores and less negative for counties outside large cores and suburbs.

As for the nation as a whole, most voters in each category resided in counties where D-R margins became more positive or less negative between the 2016 and 2018 elections (see Figure 4). This is especially notable for large suburbs, where 87 percent of voters resided in counties with increased D-R margins. For residents in both small metropolitan areas and outside metropolitan areas, that percentage was 81 percent.

Additionally, more than a quarter of suburban or small metro voters resided in counties where the D-R margin rose by more than 10. For example, in Hays County in suburban Austin, the D-R margin increased from -1 in the 2016 presidential election to +13 in the 2018 House election. Among voters residing outside metros, 37 percent resided in counties where the D-R margin rose by more than 10. While most of these heavily rural counties voted Republican in the 2018, the decline in that Republican advantage was fairly pervasive.

Counties with “Republican” attributes showed greatest 2018 Democratic voting margin gains.

How demographically distinct are the counties that registered the greatest increases in Democratic support (or reductions in Republican support)? To assess this, it is useful to look at attributes of residents in counties that showed a sharp rise in D-R margins.

The 2016 election exit poll results made plain the attributes that differentiated Republican (Trump) voters from Democratic (Clinton) voters. While Trump voters were more commonly categorized as being whites without college degrees, older persons and native-born Americans, Clinton voters were more strongly associated as being racial minorities, persons below age 45, and foreign-born Americans.

Table 1 examines the population attributes of U.S. counties with the objective of understanding how those with the highest 2016-2018 gains in D-R margins (gains greater than 10) differ from all counties with these attributes. It makes this comparison separately for counties that voted Democratic and those that voted Republican in 2018 because, as discussed earlier, both groups exhibited increased D-R margins (or reductions in their negative D-R margins).

Counties with increased D-R margins tend to have “Republican leaning” attributes, when compared with all counties: greater shares of non-college whites and persons over age 45, and smaller shares of minorities and persons who are foreign born. This occurs among both Democratic-voting and Republican-voting counties, and suggests that there was a shift toward Democratic support in counties that helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.

2018 Democratic margins increased in states key to the 2020 election

The victorious party in the 2020 presidential election will rely on the Electoral College rather than the popular vote. A comparison of 2018 House voting results with those of the 2016 presidential election makes plain that the there is ample opportunity for a 2020 Democratic win. Map 3 depicts states where Democrats and Republicans won the cumulative state level House votes.

It differs from the results of the 2016 presidential map wherein the Republican candidate (Trump) won more than 270 Electoral College votes, based on winning support from states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. As shown in Map 3, all of those states registered Democratic advantages in their 2018 House elections. If those results hold for the 2020 election, the Democratic candidate would receive 293 electoral votes—enough to win the presidency. Moreover, in all but two states, 2018 House D-R margins showed more positive or less negative values than those for the 2016 presidential race—both in “red” Republican states and in “blue” Democratic states (download Table A). In Texas, for example, the 2016 presidential election D-R margin of -9.4 was reduced to just -3.5 in 2018.

Trump won more than 270 Electoral College votes, based on winning support from states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. All of those states registered Democratic advantages in their 2018 House elections.

What does this mean for 2020?

To be sure, these 2016 to 2018 D-R margin comparisons are suggestive at best. That is, comparisons of voting margins from the 2016 presidential elections with those for the 2018 House election—at the county and state levels—conflate support for two national candidates in the former election with that of a myriad of candidates in the latter. Still, many have argued that the 2018 House elections were a referendum on President Trump. If this is the case, then the broad shifts toward greater Democratic support—spilling over into a vast majority of Trump-won counties—could be ripe for harvesting by the right Democratic challenger to Trump in 2020.

Nikki Haley wants all aid to Pakistan to end until it stops harboring terrorists

Pakistan has a long history of harboring terrorists and America should not give Islamabad even a dollar until it corrects its behavior, Indian-American former US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley has said as she praised the Trump administration for wisely restricting financial assistance to the country.

Pakistan has a long history of harboring terrorists and America should not give Islamabad even a dollar until it corrects its behavior, Indian-American former US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley has said as she praised the Trump administration for wisely restricting financial assistance to the country.

Haley, who has founded a new policy group ‘Stand America Now’ that will focus on how to keep the US safe, strong, and prosperous, wrote in an op-ed that when the US provides aid to nations, “it is more than fair to ask what the U.S. gets in return for our generosity” but instead Pakistan routinely opposed the US position at the UN on several issues.

“In 2017, Pakistan received nearly USD 1 billion in US foreign aid, the sixth most of any country. Much of the aid went to the Pakistani military. Some went for road, highway, and energy projects to assist the Pakistani people,” Haley wrote in the op-ed ‘Foreign Aid Should Only Go To Friends’.

“On all key votes at the UN, Pakistan opposed the American position 76 per cent of the time. Much more troubling, Pakistan also has a long history of harbouring terrorists who have killed US troops in Afghanistan,” she said. Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, added that the Trump Administration has “already wisely restricted assistance to Pakistan, but there is much more to be done.”

Haley, who had stepped down as the US envoy to the UN at the end of last year, has previously strongly criticized Pakistan for continuing to harbor terrorists that turn around and kill American soldiers while taking billions of dollars in foreign aid from the US.

In an interview to US magazine ‘The Atlantic’ in December, Haley had said the US did not need to give money to countries that wish harm to America, go behind its back and try and “stop us from doing things”. “The one example I’ll give you is, look at Pakistan. Giving them over a billion dollars, and they continue to harbor terrorists that turn around and kill our soldiers —that’s never okay. We shouldn’t even give them a dollar until they correct it. Use the billion dollars. That’s not a small amount of change,” she had said.

Last September, the Trump administration cancelled USD 300 million in military aid to Islamabad for not doing enough against terror groups active on its soil. Trump had defended his administration’s decision to stop hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan, saying Islamabad does not do “a damn thing” for the US and its government helped late al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden hide near its garrison city of Rawalpindi.

Haley’s new policy group aims to promote public policies that strengthen America’s economy, culture, and national security. The group will provide information to grassroots Americans, to highlight the dangers and the opportunities they face domestically and internationally. It will advocate the policies that strengthen the US at all levels of government and in the broader media and culture.

Indian Overseas Congress, USA contributes towards Congress party manifesto

For the first time, the Indian National Congress will include the recommendations from the non-resident Indian community in the party’s 2019 election manifesto – a document that reflects “the voice and aspirations of the people”. The meeting was held in Dubai at the Steigenberger Hotel on February 22nd &23rd.

Senior members from the Congress party led by Sam Pitroda, Chairman of the  Indian Overseas Congress (IOC), Rajeev Gowda, member of Rajya Sabha and convenor of the manifesto committee, Himanshu Vyas, Secretary to the AICC – heard recommendations from delegates around the globe. United States delegation was headed by George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the IOC, USA and included Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President, Harbachan Singh, Secretary-General, Chandu Patel, Krishna Chaithanya.

Mr. Sam Pitroda welcoming the delegates assured that all recommendations will be heard by the manifesto committee. However, not all will be included in the document. The recommendation given was not data-driven, he said. “Our purpose is to study the NRI vision for India. The suggestions were not backed by surveys that were not the purpose. Party decided to take recommendations from NRIs for 3 reasons. We wanted to understand what Congress can do for the NRIs and what NRIs can do for India, and learn about the various areas of improvements in Indian governance”.

George Abraham requested the party to include a provision that will strengthen the integrity and independence of the Institutions that are under attack by the ruling party in India today. “They are weaponizing the agencies such as BI, RBI and Enforcement Directorate etc. and targeting oppositions, minorities and their Institutions”.  He further requested that the OCI card is made a true identity card for the Overseas Indian Citizens conducting their business or related activities when they visit India. Mohinder Singh Gilzian pointed out that the upcoming election is so critical and urged the delegates to send many volunteers to India and he has promised to do the same. Harbachan Singh stated that Judiciary and law enforcement mechanism should remain free of political interference and the corruption has to be dealt from top to bottom.

Rajeev Gowda, Convenor of the Manifesto committee said the move to involve NRIs is historic one. “It is not possible to include all of them, we will choose the most essential ideas”. Himanshu Vyas, Secretary of the AICC said all election-manifesto related document will be finalized in the next two weeks. “We want to rebuild the India of our dreams,” he said.

Religious minorities in India ‘attacked with impunity’ Reports by rights groups show victims are often blamed as BJP moves to create Hindu-only nation.

Religious and ethnic minorities in India continue to face violence at the hands of Hindu groups that support the federal government led by the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to a new report by Human Rights Watch.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has failed to prevent or credibly investigate growing mob attacks on religious minorities and marginalized communities, said the report released in New Delhi on Feb. 19.

Some critics have even accused Modi of turning India into “a republic of hate.”

The BJP’s political leaders, since forming the federal government in May 2014, “have increasingly used communal rhetoric” that spurred violence from vigilante groups, it said.

They have also vowed to protect cows, a revered animal in Hinduism.

“Mob violence by extremist Hindu groups against minority communities, especially Muslims, continued throughout the year amid rumors that they traded or killed cows for beef,” according to the report.

Between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people — 36 of them Muslims — were killed across 12 Indian states.

“Over that same period, around 280 people were injured in over 100 different incidents across 20 states,” the report stated.

It said there were 254 documented incidents of crimes targeting religious minorities between January 2009 and October 2018, in which at least 91 people were killed and 579 injured.

About 90 percent of these attacks were reported after the BJP came to power in May 2014, and 66 percent occurred in BJP-run states.

Muslims were victims in 62 percent of the cases, and Christians in 14 percent. These include communal clashes, attacks on interfaith couples and violence related to protecting cows and religious conversions.

Christian groups in the country have been complaining of increased attacks on their people and institutions by pro-Hindu groups, who are working to turn India into a Hindu nation, often with the tacit approval of the administration.

“A country’s government must understand that it should take care of the people irrespective of cast, creed or religion,” said Bishop Alex Vadakumthala of Kannur in the southern state of Kerala.

Hindu organizations use violence against religious minorities with impunity, “dictating what to eat and how to pray. It’s a worrying situation,” the bishop added.

He told ucanews.com that minority groups, especially the socially and economically disadvantaged Dalits and tribal people, are living in tumultuous times as they feel subjugated by Hindu groups.

“One wonders whether, after 71 years of independence, minorities have been freed from the clutches of ruthless subjugation,” Bishop Vadakumthala said.

Meenakshi Ganguly, the rights group’s South Asia director, told media while releasing the report that instead of acting against violence, the government has been trying to justify the attacks on minorities and has even blamed the victims themselves.

Last November, Alliance Defending Freedom, a global Christian rights group, released a report claiming that in first 10 months of 2018 there were 219 incidents of targeted violence against Christians by Hindu groups.

“Out of these 219 incidents, 192 are of mob attacks in the form of threats and intimidation. Women and children are most affected by these incidents, with 160 women and 139 children reported to have been injured,” the report said.

Hindus make up 80 percent of India’s 1.2 billion people. Muslims, the largest religious minority, comprise 14 percent or 172 million people. Census records show there are just 28 million Christians, constituting 2.3 percent of the population.

Source: UCAN

Bernie Sanders announces candidacy for U.S. presidency in 2020

Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and 2016 Democratic primary runner-up, whose populist policy agenda has helped push the party to the left, announced on Tuesday, February 19th that he was running for president again, embarking on a bid that would test whether he could retain the anti-establishment appeal he enjoyed with many liberal voters three years ago.

A self-styled democratic socialist whose calls for “Medicare for all,” a $15 minimum wage and zero college tuition and higher taxes on the rich, have become pillars of the party’s left wing, Mr. Sanders is among the best-known politicians to join an already crowded Democratic field and one of the most outspoken against President Trump, whom he has repeatedly called a “pathological liar” and a “racist.”

“Hi, I’m Bernie Sanders. I’m running for President,” Mr. Sanders said in a video and email sent to supporters on Tuesday, in which he also asked them to be part of an “unprecedented grassroots campaign”. Mr. Sanders had raised some $230 million, mostly through small donations in 2016.

“Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous President in modern American history,” Mr Sanders said in the video. “ It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election. Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.”

 “Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were ‘radical’ and ‘extreme,’” Mr. Sanders said on Tuesday in an early-morning email to supporters, citing those health, economic and education policies as well as combating climate change and raising taxes on wealthy Americans.

“Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans,” he said.

The nature of the race has changed markedly in just three years. In 2016, Mr. Sanders was pushing progressive policies and his main opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hilary Clinton, was an establishment candidate. In 2020, Mr. Sanders will run in a less ideologically unique space — a result of his own policy agenda and presence on the national stage.

At least two of those who had endorsed Mr. Sanders previously — Tulsi Gabbard, Congresswoman from Hawaii, and author Marianne Williamson — will now compete with him for the Democratic ticket.

 Sanders will start with several advantages, including the foundation of a 50-state organization; a massive lead among low-dollar donors that is roughly equivalent to the donor base of all the other Democratic hopefuls combined; and a cache of fervent, unwavering supporters. A coveted speaker, he is still capable of electrifying crowds in a way few politicians can. He enjoys wide name recognition, and several early polls on the 2020 race had Mr. Sanders running second behind former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I’m talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex, the private prison industry, and the large multinational corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives,” said Mr. Sanders, who has projected himself as a candidate for working class Americans and against entrenched Washington interests.

Mr. Sanders referred to e-commerce giant Amazon paying “nothing in federal income taxes” and the “grotesque” income inequalities in American society. He called for an end to racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and an end to voter suppression and gerrymandering [manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency in an electorally strategic manner].

“We are running against a President who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction,” Mr. Sanders said.

If he wins, Mr. Sanders , at 77, will be the oldest candidate on the Democratic ticket. Yet, he is highly popular among young voters and won the under-30 vote in 2016 against Ms. Clinton. However, Mr. Sanders fared badly last time with African American and women voters. Ms. Clinton won South Carolina — where some 60% of Democratic voters are black — by almost 50 points. Mr. Sanders visited South Carolina on Martin Luther King Jr. day at the end of January and met with lawmakers and others, and delivered a speech in honour of Dr. King.

There are other vulnerabilities in the Sanders campaign. His opponents will likely bring up his voting record on gun control — he received support from the NRA as a Congressman in 1990 for voting against wait times for those wanting to buy handguns. Mr. Sanders is also likely to be challenged on reports of harassment of female workers by their colleagues and pay disparities in the Sanders campaign in 2016.

“I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course, if I run we will do better the next time,” Mr. Sanders had said.

A recent Morning Consult nationwide poll of democratic primary voters put Mr. Sanders in second place, winning 22% of primary voters and behind former Vice-President Joe Biden (29%). Indian and African American candidate Kamala Harris came in third at 13%.

16 States Sue to Stop Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall

A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, on Monday, February 18th challenged President Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall.

The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Mr. Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency on the border. “Probably the best evidence is the president’s own words,” he said, referring to Mr. Trump’s speech on Feb. 15 announcing his plan: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border,” the lawsuit says.

Congress is on its own separate track to challenge the president’s declaration. The House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, may take a two-prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring a lawsuit of its own.

Lawmakers could also vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that Congress has the votes to override Mr. Trump’s certain veto, leaving the courts a more likely venue.

Joining California and New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. All have Democratic governors but one — Maryland, whose attorney general is a Democrat — and most have legislatures controlled by Democrats.

The dispute stems from steps Mr. Trump said he would take after lawmakers granted him only $1.375 billion for new border barriers, legislation he signed last week to avoid another government shutdown.

Mr. Trump asserted the power to tap three additional pots of money on his own: $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund for law enforcement priorities; about $2.5 billion from a military antidrug account, most of which would first be siphoned from other military programs the Pentagon has yet to identify; and $3.6 billion in military construction funds he said he could redirect by invoking an emergency-powers statute.

Presidents have invoked emergency-powers statutes nearly five dozen times since Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976, but never before has one been used to make an end-run around Congress after it rejected funding for a particular policy.

But as the debate over Mr. Trump’s action shifts to courtrooms, legal experts warned that its fate may turn less on such high constitutional principle and more on complex legal issues — from whether plaintiffs can establish that the case is properly before the courts, to how to interpret several statutes.

“Even though Trump’s political maneuver to get around an uncooperative Congress looks like it stretches the Constitution, the questions presented in court will raise ordinary and complicated issues of administrative law,” said Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor and co-author of a separation-of-powers casebook.

Many critics have challenged whether an emergency truly exists on the Southern border that a wall would solve, pointing to government data showing that the number of people crossing illegally has dropped significantly over the past generation and that most drugs are smuggled through ports of entry.

The president has argued, without proof, that the emergency declaration is warranted because the migrants “invading” the United States across the Mexico border have caused epidemics of crime and drug use.

Legal specialists expected the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Mr. Trump’s words, but rather to defer to the president’s decision. The courts have a long history of being reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the president’s about a security threat.

‘Open Embrace: India-U.S. Ties in the Age of Modi and Trump’ by Varghese K. George released

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have built their politics on the promise of making their countries great again. Placing India and the US as leaders on the world stage is the stated objective of their respective foreign policies, based as they are on the assumption that both inherited a mess from their predecessors.

As Trump sets out to potentially reorient his own country and the world, Varghese K. George, in Open Embrace, provides a quick overview of the changes occurring in America s relations with the world under the Trump presidency and what it means for India. Trump s alignment with Modi s world view what George calls the Hindutva Strategic Doctrine and America’s changing relationships with India s neighbors, Pakistan and China, form a crucial part of this narrative.

In the introduction, George states that the book is a “broad exploration” of the question of whether Trump and Modi can “find common ground,” and on what happens to India-U.S. ties “when both countries appear to be under the spell of ultranationalism? Or, in Trumpian language, can Modi and Trump make a deal?”

But, he notes that what the book is not is a thesis of the strategic interests and calculations of the two countries, “or on the technical questions related to military equipment and tactics, the minutiae of trade deals and disputes, or on geopolitics.”

Open Embrace, according to George, is an attempt to offer “an unconventional approach to understanding strategy.”

Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament showers kudos on Open Embrace, describing it as “an outstanding work—a superb analysis of the state of Indo-U.S. relations in the Modi-Trump era, with a lucid explication of the Hindutva Strategic Doctrine and detailed discussions of Indian and U.S. policy differences on China, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Walter Andersen, Senior Adjunct Professor of South Asian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a former longtime State Department official, who co-authored ‘The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism,’ says Open Embrace “addresses the impact of a growing nationalism in India and the U.S. on their conduct of diplomacy,” and lauds George’s “riveting” analysis of the foreign policy implications of Trump’s “Make America Great” and Modi’s Hindu nationalism.

Varghese K. George is the associate editor and US correspondent for The Hindu. Earlier, he was the political editor of the daily, based in New Delhi. He has written extensively on politics, political economy, society, and the foreign policy of India and the US, particularly on the rise of Modi in India and Trump in America.

Prior to joining The Hindu, he was chief of bureau at Hindustan Times. He has also worked for the Indian Express in various roles. His reports have won several awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year, the Prem Bhatia Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Reporting, the Transparency International Award for fighting corruption and the International Press Institute Award for Excellence in Journalism.

Our Institutions should be kept intact: Sachin Pilot, Dy. Chief Minister, Rajasthan

“India is going through challenging times and what is more important to the nation is to keep our Institutions intact,”  said Sachin Pilot, the Deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan addressing a gathering of Overseas Congress leaders in Boston. He was in the U.S. to attend the India Conference at Harvard University. “India is at a turning point in history and what is happening to  RBI, CBI, Bureaucracy, Judiciary and enforcement directorate and every other institution we hold dear is that they are being systematically dismantled by the Modi Government and it should not be tolerated any longer.

There is tremendous fear in India that there are investigations and snooping going on and the issues like Mandir, Masjid and Love jihad, what one wears, what one eats are all brought up to divide the people and polarize the community. Look at what is happening in Calcutta, the CBI is investigating CBI, and the Enforcement Directorate is investigating the Enforcement Directorate creating doubts and uncertainty among those working for the country. This level of arrogance cannot be allowed to continue. Congress is fighting not to take back power but to preserve the values and principles we hold dear” Mr. Pilot continued. He urged the members of the Indian Overseas Congress to get involved and make a difference in the upcoming election.

 Harbachan Singh, Secretary-General of IOC welcomed the Chief Guest. Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President, detailed the election efforts carried out by its members in the past and offered to continue the same level of support for the upcoming elections. George Abraham, Vice-Chairman, John Joseph, Vice-President, Amir Rashid General-Secretary, Jose George, Treasurer, Pallav Shah, Kulvir Singh, Amit Dixit also spoke. Rajinder Dichpally, General Secretary expressed the vote of Thanks.

Sachin Pilot is the son of Late Sh. Rajesh Pilot. Sh. Pilot was born on September 7, 1977. He is an alumnus of St. Stephen’s College (University of Delhi), where he pursued a Bachelors degree (Hons) in English Literature. After graduating, he worked at the Delhi Bureau of the BBC, and subsequently went on to work for the General Motors Corporation. Sh. Pilot completed his MBA Degree at the Wharton Business School (University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A), where he specialized in multinational management and finance.

At 26 years of age, he was the youngest MP when he first got elected to the 14th Lok Sabha from the Dausa Parliamentary Constituency of Rajasthan in the year 2004. He has served as a Member of the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Home Affairs, Consultative Committee in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and also Budget Estimates Committee of Parliament.

​In May 09, he was re-elected to Lok Sabha from Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency of Rajasthan and he became Minister of State (MoS) in the Ministry of Communication & Information Technology and in 2012 he became Minister of State (Independent charge) of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. During this time, he was the youngest minister in the cabinet. Presently he is serving as President, Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee.

As an elected MP and a Minister of the cabinet, Sh. Pilot focused his energies on enabling people to avail better social and economic opportunities. He has emphasized job creation, and improvement in the quality and quantity of health and education services. Realizing the importance of connectivity and information, he has worked hard to bring rural communities closer to the rest of India and the world, by expanding the physical, IT, and telecom infrastructure in their region.

Sh. Pilot travels extensively in India, especially to remote and interior areas of the country. He takes a keen interest on issues that affect the farming community and the youth. Sh. Pilot believes that India must train and educate its youth if we want to real the demographic dividend arising from a disproportionately younger population. He encourages the youth to take an active part in public life, and shoulder greater social and political responsibility.

In recognition of his professional accomplishments and commitment to society, Sh. Pilot was selected as one of the Young Global Leaders by the World Economic Forum in 2008. Sh. Pilot is fond of flying and received his private pilot’s license (PPL) from NY, USA in 1995. He is a keen sportsman and has represented Delhi State in a number of National Shooting Championships. He has also been commissioned as Lieutenant in the Territorial Army.

Does Anyone Win in a US-China Trade War?

A looming 1 March deadline to prevent another round of escalating tariffs between the United States and China is more fraught than typical trade disputes. If that wasn’t already clear to observers, U.S. President Donald Trump made it abundantly so during his State of the Union address on 5 February.

Trump said any trade deal with China “must include real, structural change to end unfair trade practices, reduce our chronic trade deficit and protect American jobs.”

It remains to be seen how palatable such changes might be to China’s government following two days of talks in Washington, D.C., on 30-31 January between U.S. and Chinese negotiators. Those talks reportedly produced little progress, though China did end the talks with “soybean diplomacy” — a promise to buy an additional 5 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans.

On the other hand, China has already signaled its intention to retaliate with new tariffs once the 90-day trade truce between the two countries negotiated by Trump and China President Xi Jinping expires on 2 March, if the U.S. moves ahead with stated plans for a massive round of tariff increases on Chinese imports.

The stakes are high as United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin traveled to China in mid-February to continue talks.

To help understand the underlying issues of the trade dispute and what could happen to the two nations’ economies if a trade war escalates, Dr. Ha Jiming, economist and former vice chairman and chief investment strategist at Goldman Sachs in China, recently spoke to the University of Virginia Darden School of Business chapter of the Adam Smith Society. He focused on what would happen when the tariffs were raised and which countries could advance as a result of the conflict.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS: THE VICIOUS CYLE OF TARIFFS

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has promised a tariff rate increase from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese products on 2 March, which comes in addition to a 25 percent tariff already placed on $50 billion of goods such as vehicles and semiconductors last summer. The U.S. government said it would impose the tariffs as part of its “continuing response to China’s theft of American intellectual property and forced transfer of American technology,” and to reduce its trade deficit with China and bring jobs back from overseas.

Ha predicted a 25 percent tariff would lead to an overall 0.1 percent decrease in China’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth. While this would cause some problems for the world’s economy, Ha said, he predicted a more negative outcome if the tariffs encouraged China to retaliate with additional tariffs — perhaps up to a 1 percent decline in China’s GDP. When the USTR announced the tariff increase on the $200 billion of Chinese products in September, China quickly announced it would raise tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods, once the new U.S. tariffs were enacted.

If the trade war deepens, Ha said the Chinese government could depreciate its currency and the U.S. dollar would become stronger, making the exports of U.S. goods more expensive, which could neutralize the U.S. goal to close the trade gap. Changes in the value of the currencies of the world’s two largest economies could potentially exert significant  pressure on both the Chinese and U.S. stock markets. Darden Professor Robert F. Bruner predicted a similar potential for a currency-driven shock in a recent Darden Ideas to Action article on threats to the U.S. economy.

Ha said China and the U.S. will likely try to limit dependence on the other, in the event of a full-blown trade war. The World Trade Organization indicates that the U.S. is the largest importer, having imported physical goods totaling $2.4 trillion in 2017 compared to $1.8 trillion for China. But what is the U.S. importing and who are the major contributors?

Ha cited data from the UN Comtrade international statistics database from 2016, which indicate the top products imported to the U.S. were electrical equipment, mechanical equipment, furniture, clothing, toys, cars and accessories, plastics, and footwear. China is a leading exporter in all of those categories except cars and accessories, Ha said.

While Trump has said his intent with the tariffs is to relocate industries back to the U.S., Ha said he was not so sure the measures would result in that outcome. Ha believes there could be a relocation of the supply chain, but industries would likely relocate to another export leader such as Mexico.

SURVEYING THE LANDSCAPE FOR CLUES AND VULNERABILITY

Professor Dennis Yang, academic director of Darden’s Asia Initiative, has conducted research into the U.S.-China trade relationship, including current and potential impacts of the ongoing trade dispute. He identified several factors that shed light on the consequences of the tariffs and on areas in which each nation has leverage in negotiations:

Amid the ongoing trade negotiations, there has been significant weakening of the Chinese economy with lowered GDP growth and increasing corporate borrowings. The 6.4 percent year-over-year growth rate in China in the fourth quarter of 2018 was the lowest since the global financial crisis. For the full year, China’s economy only expanded 6.6 percent, the slowest pace since 1990.

Adverse global macroeconomic conditions have begun to influence corporate earnings in the U.S., affecting a wide range of industries.

Apple and many of its suppliers recently cut sales forecasts, citing weak China demand and the uncertainty surrounding trade talks between Washington and Beijing. Deteriorating macroeconomic conditions, particularly in China, also impacted companies like heavy equipment producer Caterpillar and NVIDIA, where consumer demand for gaming graphics processing units slowed.

Based on research by Chinese University of Hong Kong economics professor Sheng Liugang and GF Securities senior economist Zhao Hongyan, with summaries published in the Financial Times, foreign-owned firms in China will bear much of the tariff burden. If the U.S. imposes its planned 25 percent tariffs on 2 March, 47 percent of the burden will be borne by Chinese private companies, while 32 percent of the burden will be  borne by foreign companies, including many U.S. companies operating in China.

WHICH ISSUES ARE KEY TO A DEAL?

After analyzing the vulnerabilities of each economy and potential economic implications of a trade war escalation following 2 March, Yang predicted several core issues must be resolved for a successful U.S.-China trade deal to be reached.

“On the surface, the central issue of the negotiation is the trade gap,” Yang said. “But the real core of the issue is intellectual rights protection, China’s state-sponsored industrial policies, and fairness and competition in technological advancement.”

The arrest in Canada and attempted U.S. extradition of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou highlights the issue. Yang said the arrest was seemingly independent of the trade negotiations, but both aim at resolving issues related to intellectual property and future strategic competition in tech.

Regarding the trade gap, China’s offer to buy more U.S. soybeans provides the basis for a trade deal, but Yang said the more important issue is what agreements can be made on structural reforms.

“It is hard to imagine China can change its industrial policies,” Yang said. “In addition, implementation of certain agreements would be obscure and difficult.”

There is still hope that a trade war between the U.S. and China will not occur, but Ha said he suspects things will get worse before they get better. He believes the two countries are culturally very different and their trade associations have kept their relationship intact. When asked if he thought there was a possibility of military conflict, Ha said it was not a topic to which he could speak, but that global disputes over the South China Sea did not make him optimistic.

About Dennis. T. Yang:

Yang is an expert on China — its labor markets, financial systems and phenomenal growth, which have made it an economic contender. His broader research expertise includes economic development and growth, comparative economic systems, as well as labor and demographic economics in the context of emerging markets. A native of China, Yang has co-edited three books on economic reforms in China and served on the editorial boards of China Economic Review, Comparative Economic Studies, Journal of Demographic Economicsand Pacific Economic Review.

His wide-ranging research covers household behavior, education, savings and investment, wage structure, population policies, trade and labor markets, income distribution, analysis of famines, economic structural transformation and long-term growth.

He has consulted with international organizations such as the World Bank and Hong Kong Monetary Authority, as well as leading businesses such as The Conference Board and McKinsey. He is president of the Association for Comparative Economic Studies, and he was recently elected by the Ministry of Education in China to the Chang Jiang Chair Professorship.

The University of Virginia Darden School of Business delivers the world’s best business education experience to prepare entrepreneurial, global and responsible leaders through its MBA, Ph.D. and Executive Education programs. Darden’s top-ranked faculty is renowned for teaching excellence and advances practical business knowledge through research. Darden was established in 1955 at the University of Virginia, a top public university founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819 in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and the uncertain future of truth

Deepfakes are videos that have been constructed to make a person appear to say or do something that they never said or did. With artificial intelligence-based methods for creating deepfakes becoming increasingly sophisticated and accessible, deepfakes are raising a set of challenging policy, technology, and legal issues.

Deepfakes can be used in ways that are highly disturbing. Candidates in a political campaign can be targeted by manipulated videos in which they appear to say things that could harm their chances for election. Deepfakes are also being used to place people in pornographic videos that they in fact had no part in filming.

Because they are so realistic, deepfakes can scramble our understanding of truth in multiple ways. By exploiting our inclination to trust the reliability of evidence that we see with our own eyes, they can turn fiction into apparent fact. And, as we become more attuned to the existence of deepfakes, there is also a subsequent, corollary effect: they undermine our trust in all videos, including those that are genuine. Truth itself becomes elusive, because we can no longer be sure of what is real and what is not.

What can be done? There’s no perfect solution, but there are at least three avenues that can be used to address deepfakes: technology, legal remedies, and improved public awareness.

Deepfake Detection Technology

While AI can be used to make deepfakes, it can also be used to detect them. Creating a deepfake involves manipulation of video data—a process that leaves telltale signs that might not be discernable to a human viewer but that sufficiently sophisticated detection algorithms can aim to identify.

As research led by professor Siwei Lyu of the University at Albany has shown, face-swapping (editing one person’s face onto another person’s head) creates resolution inconsistencies in the composite image that can be identified using deep learning techniques. Professor Edward Delp and his colleagues at Purdue University are using neural networks to detect the inconsistencies across the multiple frames in a video sequence that often result from face-swapping. A team including researchers from UC Riverside and UC Santa Barbara has developed methods to detect “digital manipulations such as scaling, rotation or splicing” that are commonly employed in deepfakes.

The number of researchers focusing on deepfake detection has been growing, thanks in significant part to DARPA’s Media Forensics program, which is supporting the development of “technologies for the automated assessment of the integrity of an image or video.” However, regardless of how far technological approaches for combating deepfakes advance, challenges will remain.

Deepfake detection techniques will never be perfect. As a result, in the deepfakes arms race, even the best detection methods will often lag behind the most advanced creation methods. Another challenge is that technological solutions will have no impact when they aren’t used. Given the distributed nature of the contemporary ecosystem for sharing content on the internet, some deepfakes will inevitably reach their intended audience without going through detection software.

More fundamentally, will people be more likely to believe a deepfake or a detection algorithm that flags the video as fabricated? And what should people believe when different detection algorithms—or different people—render conflicting verdicts regarding whether a video is genuine?

Legal and Legislative Remedies

The legal landscape related to deepfakes is complex. Frameworks that can potentially be asserted to combat deepfakes include copyright, the right of publicity, section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and the torts of defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the other side of the ledger are the protections conferred by the First Amendment and the “fair use” doctrine in copyright law, as well as (for social networking services and other web sites that host third-party content) section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

It won’t be easy for courts to find the right balance. Rulings that confer overly broad protection to people targeted by deepfakes risk running afoul of the First Amendment and being struck down on appeal. Rulings that are insufficiently protective of deepfake targets could leave people without a mechanism to combat deepfakes that could be extraordinary harmful. And attempts to weaken section 230 of the CDA in the name of addressing the threat posed by deepfakes would create a whole cascade of unintended and damaging consequences to the online ecosystem.

While it remains to be seen how these tensions will play out in the courts, two things are clear today: First, there is already a substantive set of legal remedies that can be used against deepfakes, and second, it’s far too early to conclude that they will be insufficient.

Despite this, federal and state legislators, who are under pressure to “do something” about deepfakes, are responding with new legislative proposals. But it is very hard to draft deepfake-specific legislation that isn’t problematic with respect to the First Amendment or redundant in light of existing laws.

For example, a (now expired) Senate bill S.3805 introduced in December 2018 would have, among other things, made it unlawful “using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce,” to “create, with the intent to distribute, a deep fake with the intent that the distribution of the deep fake would facilitate criminal or tortious conduct under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law.” Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy regarding S.3805, USC law professor Orin Kerr observed that:

It’s already a crime to commit a crime under federal, state, local, or tribal law. It’s also already a crime to ‘facilitate’ a crime—see 18 U.S.C. § 2 at the federal level, and state laws have their equivalents. Plus, it’s already a tort to commit a tort under federal, state, local, or tribal law. This new proposed law then makes it a federal crime to either make or distribute a deepfake when the person has the intent to do the thing that is already prohibited. In effect, it mostly adds a federal criminal law hammer to conduct that is already prohibited and that could already lead to either criminal punishment or a civil suit.

State legislators in New York have considered a bill that would prohibit certain uses of a “digital replica” of a person and provide that “for the purposes of the right of publicity, a living or deceased individual’s persona is personal property.” Unsurprisingly, this raised concerns in the entertainment industry. As a letter from the Walt Disney Company’s Vice President of Government Relations stated, “if adopted, this legislation would interfere with the right and ability of companies like ours to tell stories about real people and events. The public has an interest in those stories, and the First Amendment protects those who tell them.”

Raising Public Awareness

At the end of the day, technological deepfake detection solutions, no matter how good they get, won’t prevent all deepfakes from getting distributed. And legal remedies, no matter how effective they might be, are generally applied after the fact. This means they will have limited utility in addressing the potential damage that deepfakes can do, particularly given the short timescales that characterize the creation, distribution, and consumption of digital media.

As a result, improved public awareness needs to be an additional aspect of the strategy for combating deepfakes. When we see videos showing incongruous behavior, it will be important not to immediately assume that the actions depicted are real. When a high-profile suspected deepfake video is published, it will usually be possible to know within days or even hours whether there is reliable evidence that it has been fabricated. That knowledge won’t stop deepfakes, but it can certainly help blunt their impact.

Ambassador Harsh Vardhan Shringla accorded warm welcome by Top US Lawmakers

Ambassador Harsh Vardhan Shringla, the new Indian envoy to the US, was accorded a warm welcome reception by the members of the Senate India Caucus and the House Caucus on India and Indian Americans on February 7th on Capitol Hill.

Attended by an unprecedented large number of lawmakers and hundreds of Indian Americans from across the country, Ambassador Shringla stated that it’s an undeniable reflection of the goodwill and natural affinity towards India.

Elated by the warm reception and the record participation of US lawmakers, the envoy said it reflected “the strong bipartisan support for India” in the US Congress and among the American people. “You need only look around this room to see the enthusiasm of your constituents who have flown in from all parts of the United States to be with us here today,” he told members of the Senate India Caucus, co-chaired by Mark Warner (Democrat-Virginia) and John Cornyn (Republican-Texas), and its counterpart on the Hill, the House India Caucus, headed by George Holding (Republican-North Carolina) and Brad Sherman (Democrat-California). The event was co-hosted by both the India caucuses, a great goodwill gesture befitting New Delhi’s top diplomat in Washington.

The envoy in thanking the co-chairs of the Senate India Caucus and the House Caucus on India and Indian Americans for hosting “the warm welcome,” noted that “as the world’s oldest and largest democracies, the U.S. Congress and the Indian Parliament express the will of our people and the strong bipartisan support for the relationship in the U.S. Congress is reflected in the goodwill and natural affinity toward India among the American people.’

Shringla said, “We also look forward to adding in many new members to the India Caucus, which is something that has been mentioned by the co-chairs,” and noted, “with the number of new members to the House, this would be a welcome addition to our Caucus.”

He said, “In my first few weeks in D.C., I have had the opportunity to meet with senior members of Congress who recalled fondly that they were champions of the India-U.S. relationship long before it became fashionable. In fact, in the House of Representatives, the Caucus was founded 25 years ago, in 1993 by Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida. In the Senate, the Caucus was founded by Senator Cornyn and Senator Hillary Clinton in 2004.”

“Since then, at every step of the way, we have counted on your understanding and support as we continue to steer our countries ever closer,” he said. “Many in this room will recall the sterling role played by the India Caucus in getting us past the finish line on the landmark civil nuclear agreement.”

Shringla also said, “The designation of India as a Major Defense Partner was also codified into law by the U.S. Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, thanks to the unstinting support of the members of the India Caucus.”

Quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his address to the Joint Session of the US Congress on June 8, 2016 that “our relationship has overcome the hesitations of history,” and that “comfort, candor and convergence define our conversations,” the ambassador said, “I will look forward to the same comfort, convergence and candor as we work closely with members of Congress, particularly members of the India Caucus to build upon the tremendous progress already made.”

A seasoned, skilled and affable diplomat, he described the people-to-people ties between India and the US as “one of natural affinity and mutual attraction. Almost every American I have met has told me how he loves Indian food and almost every Indian you meet would tell you how they love Netflix, shopping on Amazon, and posting updates on Facebook,” he said.1

“Our synergies and similarities are immense, our values and love of freedom identical. The spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation and high regard to family and community defines the best of both of our peoples,” he said.

Shringla said the “people to people contacts are a very important part” of the growing trade, defense and diplomatic ties between New Delhi and Washington, and reiterated that “India and the U.S. are countries that have a natural affinity and mutual attraction.”

In showering kudos on the Indian American community, he said, “We are very grateful to our many Indian Americans who are here,” and pointed out that “some have come from the west coast, some have come from the southern part of the United States, and some have come from far north, and all of them have come with the same objective to see how they can encourage us to take this relationship forward.”

Shringla said they were all committed to “help us in connecting with their elected representatives and how we can together strengthen that very valuable relationship.”

“I am confident that with your continued support, we will realize the immense potential the relationship holds–the defining one for the 21st century.”

Women’s Empowerment Campaign Chicago Hosts US Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard

The Women’s Empowerment Campaign (WE) hosted Congresswomen and Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard at a networking event on Saturday February 9th, 2019 in Naperville, IL. The Women’s Empowerment Campaign was designed to create the largest networking & empowerment platform for Indian women in Chicagoland. Some of the important goals identified by the group include supporting entrepreneurship in the Indian women community, showcasing & highlighting women business-owners and professionals, raising awareness of existing resources & services in the community, celebrating successful Indian women & supporting women leaders in the community. The initiative was founded in November 2017 and currently has 1500+ members. They have executed 3-4 successful events since inception including the first women’s business awards, women’s business expo, women’s job fair and a big gala to celebrate international women’s day in an Indian way.
The principals of the campaign include founders Rita Singh, Shital Daftari & Dr. Anuja Gupta who are prominent businesswomen & community members in Chicagoland. “We had reached a point in our lives where we felt blessed by the community support we had and wanted to do something to give back to the community” says Dr. Anuja Gupta who is a physician and real estate developer of Verandah Retirement Community. Shital Daftari who is an e-commerce business owner of Saris and Things had a different perspective, “We wanted to do showcase how powerful Indian women were. I also wanted to inspire women to take the first step to living a life of their dreams and reaching their highest potential”. Rita Singh who is an IT business owner and also has experience in show business says, “I had a very gratifying experience mentoring other people who wanted to start their own business and wanted to do it on a larger scale thru this platform. I wanted to make a meaningful difference in the Indian community”.
Hosting Tulsi Gabbard was a big accomplishment for the group. Tulsi who is a congresswoman from Hawaii announced her run for US President in January 2019. She is the first Hindu woman to run for president. Hosting leaders such as Tulsi fits in with the group’s goals of supporting women community leaders. This visit of Tulsi Gabbard was the first outside of Hawaii after her announcement. Tulsi served in the military and was deployed in two wars. She is currently a major in the marine corps. “The greatest attribute that anyone could have is love for their country because that is truly beyond themselves and not related to any other self-interest. When I promised to serve my country in the military I really meant it” said Tulsi Gabbard. One remarkable moment in her political career came when she asked to use the Gita instead of the usual Bible for her swearing-in ceremony to the US Congress. “As women’s empowerment advocates and as Hindu women we could not be prouder to support Tulsi” added WE Founder Dr. Anuja Gupta.

US lawmakers reach border security deal averting another shutdown

A group of Democrats and Republicans in the US House and Senate have reached an agreement in principle over border security to fund the US government and avert another partial shutdown.

The agreement contains only a fraction of the money President Donald Trump wants for his promised border wall and does not mention a concrete barrier. The deal still needs to be approved by Congress and signed by the president.

Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Trump said of the deal: “I can’t say I’m happy, I can’t say I’m thrilled.”

He told reporters he would have a meeting about the agreement later on Tuesday.

The Democrats – who now control the House of Representatives – have refused to approve the $5.7bn for Mr Trump’s wall on the border with Mexico, one of his key campaign pledges.

Lawmakers expressed optimism that a bill would be approved by Friday when funding runs out for some federal agencies. The previous shutdown – the longest in US history – lasted 35 days and cost the country’s economy an estimated $11bn.

Details have yet to be released but aides familiar with the negotiations say it includes $1.375bn in funding for 55 miles (88km) of new fencing at the border, a small part of the more than 2,000 miles promised by the president.

The barrier would be built in the Rio Grande Valley, in Texas, using existing designs, such as metal slats, instead of the concrete wall that Mr Trump had demanded.

There was also an agreement to reduce the number of beds in detention centers to 40,250 from the current 49,057, reports say.

The talks had reached an impasse earlier with Republicans strongly rejecting Democrats’ demands for a limit to the number of undocumented migrants already in the US who could be detained by immigration authorities.

The deal was struck in a closed-door meeting in Washington on Monday evening after several hours of talks.

“We got an agreement on all of it,” Republican Senator Richard Shelby said. “Our staffs are going to be working feverishly to put all the particulars together. We believe that if this becomes law, it’ll keep open the government.”

But, by Monday night, some of the president’s conservative allies had already denounced the deal, with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity calling it a “garbage compromise”. House Freedom Caucus leader Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina said the agreement failed “to address the critical priorities outlined by Border Patrol Chiefs”.

In a crowded stadium with banners saying “Finish the Wall” in El Paso, in Texas on Monday night, Mr Trump told supporters: “Walls work… Walls save lives.”

He repeated that a border fence in the city, opposite Ciudad Juárez in Mexico, “made a big difference”, even though critics reject his claim as exaggerated and based on misleading data.

“We need the wall, and it has to be built,” said Mr Trump, who has previously threatened to declare a national emergency and fund the wall without Congress.

The idea, however, is disliked even by some fellow Republicans, and Democrats are likely to challenge it in the courts.

The president has backed away from calls to make Mexico pay for a concrete wall, a point he repeatedly made during his presidential campaign, and has already acknowledged that the barrier to be built may not be made of concrete.

Prabha Bhandari appointed as President of IOC Rajasthan Chapter

Indian American Prabha Bhandari has been appointed as the new President of the Indian Overseas Congress’ (IOC) Rajasthan Chapter, by national president of the Indian Overseas Congress USA Shudh Parkash Singh.

In her brief but powerful speech, Bhandari thanked leaders and executive members for appointing her to the position and assured that “together we can make a difference in our karm bhoomi as well as our janm bhoomi,” according to a press release.

Mohinder Singh Giljian added that “Prabha is our Priyanka Gandhi in USA,” and assured her of his continued support after he becomes the President of IOC.

Other members also spoke about Bhandari including Senior Vice President Phuman Singh, President of the Punjab Chapter Gurmit Singh Gill, President of the Delhi Chapter Zinda Singh, Chairman of the Haryana Chapter Sher Singh Madra, National Vice President Kalathil Varughese, as well as other women leaders.


Shudh thanked Sam Pitroda for his blessings to expand the Indian Overseas Congress and asked the members to prepare themselves for going to India for supporting congress party in the upcoming parliamentary elections

Neomi Rao, nominated to succeed Brett M. Kavanaugh, quizzed on “date rape” at hearing

Senators in both parties pressed Neomi Rao — President Trump’s nominee to replace Brett M. Kavanaugh on the federal appeals court in Washington — about her past controversial writings, including about victims of date rape.

Rao, an advocate for broad presidential power, spent more than a decade as a law professor before she joined the Trump administration in 2017 as the White House’s regulatory czar.

Trump tapped Rao in November to succeed Kavanaugh, who served a dozen years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before his elevation to the Supreme Court. Her nomination comes as Trump has installed a record number of appeals court judges across the country — more than any other president two years into a term. The Judiciary Committee’s new chairman, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), is moving quickly to confirm additional judges.

Rao, 45, faces opposition from civil rights groups and Democratic senators concerned about her work to roll back government regulations and about provocative columns she wrote as a college student.

She also encountered resistance last week from Republican Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa), who recently disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted while in college. Rao’s writings from the 1990s on date rape “do give me pause,” Ernst said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The senator said she is concerned about the message Rao’s columns send to young women “about who is to blame” and has not decided whether to back Rao’s nomination. “I really want to know more,” Ernst said in an interview.

Rao told senators that she cringes “at some of the language I used” in columns she wrote as an undergraduate at Yale. “I like to think I’ve matured as a thinker, writer and a person,” she said. And Rao emphasized that “nobody should blame the victim.”

But questions about Rao’s early writing, rather than the court’s docket, dominated the discussion Tuesday. In a 1994 column, Rao wrote: “It has always seemed self-evident to me that even if I drank a lot, I would still be responsible for my actions. A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober.”

Rao said at the hearing that her suggestion about women and alcohol was meant as a “common-sense observation” about “actions women can take to be less likely to become victims.”

Rao was rated “well qualified” by the American Bar Association this week, and Republican senators defended her record. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) noted that she was unequivocal in the 1990s — and now — that anyone who commits a crime of violence should be prosecuted. Her suggestion that college students avoid excessive drinking, he said, is good advice, and he intends to give it to his own children.

More than a dozen people, mostly young women, lined up outside the committee room Tuesday wearing black T-shirts with quotes from Rao’s column on date rape and the message #RejectRao.

The D.C. Circuit is often referred to as the nation’s second-highest court because it reviews high-profile cases involving government regulations and separation-of-powers issues, and because it has been something of a pipeline to the Supreme Court. Four current justices previously served on the D.C. Circuit.

In recent years, the appeals court has ruled on cases involving gun-control laws, the Trump administration’s restrictions on transgender troops and the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects.

Pressure mounts on MIT to disinvite Subramanian Swamy from the India Conference 2019

With online petitions, phone calls to MIT’s President’s Office, and now a letter signed by the faculty members, pressure is mounting on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to disinvite Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy from the MIT India Conference 2019 scheduled to be held here on Sunday, February 16, 2019.

Swamy was barred in 2011 from teaching at another Cambridge-based institution, Harvard University, for his Islamophobic views. He has always been in the news for his controversial views on various topics including Muslims, homosexuality, and recently alleging that Priyanka Gandhi has bipolar disorder.

…New Jersey-based Mohammad Jawad was one of the callers to MIT. Speaking to TwoCircles.net, Jawad characterised Swamy as “one of the most divisive and venom-spreading Indian politicians.” Jawad called MIT office to say that he is “disappointed that MIT is providing a platform to such a politician who is known for marginalising minorities.”…

Trump sees Kamala Harris as most credible opponent for US President “Kamala Harris, Call-Out Star: The toughest progressive we’ve seen in a long time,” David Brooks

President Trump has called Indian-American Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic Senator from California, the most credible candidate for President among the slew of Democrats rearing to face off against him in 2020. Asked in a New York Times interview on Feb. 1, who he thought was the “toughest” Democratic candidate so far, the President responded, “I would say, the best opening so far would be Kamala Harris. I would say, in terms of the opening act, I would say, would be her.”

What stood out about her, he indicated, was the announcement she made in Oakland, California Jan. 27, where a estimated crowd of more than 20,000 people came to cheer on her candidacy. “A better crowd — better crowd, better enthusiasm. Some of the others were very flat,” the  President said, about that “opening act.” He criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who he contended, had “been hurt very badly with the Pocahontas trap.” Over the year, President Trump has referred to Sen. Warren as Pocahontas, based on her claims she had some Native American ancestry.

Meanwhile, David Brooks, the Right Leaning NY Times Columnist, has described Kamala Harris as: “The more you learn about Kamala Harris, the more formidable she appears. She is an amazing amalgam of different elements — highly educated elite meritocrat, Oakland street fighter, crusading, rough-elbow prosecutor, canny machine pol and telegenic rhetorical brawler. She is also probably the toughest and most hard-nosed progressive on the scene right now.”

“Democratic primary voters may decide that if they are going to take on Donald Trump, they’re going to want the roughest, most confrontational gladiator they can get. After they see how, well, direct she can be, they may decide that person is Kamala Harris,” Brooks opined.

In her memoir, “The Truths We Hold,” she describes her political campaigns as a series of hard-fought battles against tough foes. She ran for San Francisco district attorney against her former boss, whose nickname was Kayo (pronounced “K.O.”), for all the people he knocked out. But she beat him.

Some Republicans see Harris as the more moderate candidate in what they claim is a increasingly left-leaning Democratic Party. Harris record as a District Attorney and then Attorney General in California, has opened her criminal justice record for examination.

Harris’ website also uses similar terminology – “Tough Principled Fearless” to describe her. On her website kamalaharris.org, she dwells on her African American  ancestry, noting that she was the second African American in history to be elected to the U.S. Senate and the first African Amerivan and first woman to serve as Attorney General of the state of California. Though her mother was Indian, there is no mention of the fact, that she is the first Indian-American to be a District Attorney in California, the first to be AG of that state, and later the first Indian-American ever to be elected to the Senate.

“To beat Trump, I suspect Democrats will want unity,” David Brooks wrote in his column in the NYT. “They won’t want somebody who essentially runs against the Democratic establishment (Bernie Sanders); they’ll want somebody who embodies it (Harris). They’ll want somebody who seems able to pulverize Trump in a debate (Harris).”

State of the Union 2019: How Americans see major national issues

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, after weeks of delay, amid a debate between Trump and congressional Democrats over border security and expanding the border wall – one that recently led to the longest federal government shutdown in history.

As per Pew Research, here’s a look at public opinion on important issues facing the country, drawn from Pew Research Center’s recent surveys.

  1. The U.S.-Mexico border wall. A majority of Americans continue to oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Republican support for the wall is at a record high and Democratic support is at a new low.
  2. Immigration. A majority of Americans say they are not too or not at all confident in Trump’s ability to make wise decisions about immigration policy. Still, around half of U.S. adults say immigration should be a top priority for Trump and Congress this year.
  3. Partisan cooperation. Most Americans said in a November survey that they’d like to see cooperation between Trump and Congress. Yet more recently, seven-in-ten Democrats say Democratic leaders should stand up to Trump on certain issues, even if less gets done in Washington; Republicans are more divided on whether or not Trump should stand up to Democrats and risk disappointing his supporters. Americans are deeply pessimistic about chances that partisan cooperation will improve in the coming year.
  4. Mueller investigation. A majority of Americans say they are confident that special counsel Robert Mueller is conducting a fair investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. There is less public confidence in Trump on the issue. Views of the investigation and Trump’s handling of the matter remain deeply divided by party.
  5. Tariffs and trade. Americans’ views of recent tariffs between the United States and some of its trading partners tilt more negative than positive, according to a summer 2018 survey. About half of Americans are confident in Trump’s ability to negotiate favorable trade agreements with other countries.
  6. The economy. Strengthening the economy continues to rank as a top issue for the public overall, as well as for majorities in both parties. About half of Americans are at least somewhat confident in Trump’s ability to make good decisions about economic policy.
  7. Foreign policy. A majority of Americans say terrorism should be a top priority this year, though this differs greatly by party. Looking at foreign conflicts, the U.S. public is divided over withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria, and many do not think Trump has a clear plan for dealing with the situation there.
  8. Climate change. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say protecting the environment and global climate change should be top priorities for the president and Congress this year.
  9. Health care. About seven-in-ten Americans say reducing health care costs should be a top policy priority, including majorities in both parties.
  10. Race relations. This year, 46% of Americans say addressing race relations should be a top priority for Trump and Congress. This includes a majority of Democrats but only a third of Republicans.
  11. Gender issues. Registered voters who supported Democratic candidates in 2018 were much more likely than those supporting Republicans to say sexism is a very big problem in the country, according to a fall 2018 survey. This party divide was wider than the gender gap in views of whether sexism is a serious problem. There are also party gaps in views of gender and leadership, according to a separate survey.

As Treaties Collapse, Can We Still Prevent a Nuclear Arms Race?

The United States last week officially announced it is walking away from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, an agreement made between the USA and the Soviet Union in 1987 to eliminate a whole class of nuclear weapons that had been deployed in Europe and had put the continent on a trip-wire to nuclear war.

This follows US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement which currently prevents Iran from building or acquiring nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile the START treaty, which limits the number of US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons, is set to expire soon, with no renewal in sight.

The Trump administration said that it was suspending one of the last major nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, following five years of heated conversations over accusations by the United States that Moscow is violating the Reagan-era agreement.

The decision has the potential to incite a new arms race — not only with Russia, but also with China, which was never a signatory to the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, widely known as the I.N.F.

It also comes as the United States has begun building its first long-range nuclear weapons since 1991, a move that other nations are citing to justify their own nuclear modernization efforts.

Taken together, the two moves appear to signal the end of more than a half-century of traditional nuclear arms control, in which the key agreements were negotiated in Washington and Moscow.

Russia and the USA appear to be intentionally reversing the arms control agendas of the early post-Cold War era, and are instead enhancing and expanding their nuclear arsenals. Other nuclear-armed states are following close behind.

This goes against public opinion, which is overwhelmingly opposed to a nuclear arms race, and to nuclear sabre rattling and threats, whether open or veiled, from Presidents Putin and Trump. Despite this, it’s extremely difficult for civil society to directly influence Russian or US nuclear policy.

That points to a deficit of democracy in both countries. It also points up the need for direct actions parliaments, cities and citizens can take to stop the assault on arms control treaties and prevent a new nuclear arms race.

To that end, mayors, parliamentarians and representatives of civil society organizations from 40 countries – mostly Europe and North America, including the mayors of 18 US cities– sent a joint appeal to Presidents Trump and Putin, calling on them to preserve the INF Treaty and resolve nuclear-weapons and security related conflicts through dialogue rather than through military provocation.

Will it change their minds? Not likely. But the appeal was also sent to the leaders of US congressional and Russian parliamentary committees in charge of armed forces (defense) and foreign relations.

It calls on them to refuse to authorize or allocate funding for nuclear weapons systems which the INF Treaty bans, for example ground-based intermediate range nuclear missiles, or weapons systems which could provide similar capability and be similarly destabilizing, such as air or sea launched nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

This could be the key to preserving the arms control measures of the INF Treaty even if it collapses. If the relevant committees refuse to authorize funds for these nuclear weapons systems, it makes it next to impossible for them to be developed.

The appeal also outlines a commitment by the endorsing mayors and parliamentarians to build support from cities and parliaments in nuclear-armed and allied States (which includes NATO countries) for nuclear risk reduction measures such as “no first use” policies.

Resolutions reflecting these calls have already been introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives, for example the Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2018 (S.3667), and the No First-Use Act introduced last week by Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

Similar resolutions have been adopted by the California State Assembly and at least three US cities, and more are pending in eight other US state assemblies.

This power-from-below approach – taking concerted action on nuclear risk-reduction and disarmament in federal, state and city legislatures – is just beginning.

It’s analogous to actions by over 700 U.S. governors and mayors who committed to implementing the Paris climate accord, despite the Trump administration withdrawing from it. In both cases, state and municipal officials have power to influence the global outcome.

In the US, action on nuclear disarmament by city governments is being advanced by the U.S. section of Mayors for Peace, a global network of over 7,000 cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), a network of over 1400 major U.S. cities.

It has repeatedly urged Washington to show leadership in preventing nuclear war. For example, in June 2018 USCM unanimously adopted a resolution submitted by Frank Cownie, Mayor of Des Moines, Iowa and vice president of Mayors for Peace, with 25 co-sponsors, calling on the U.S. administration and congress to reduce nuclear tension with Russia, reaffirm the INF, adopt “no first use” and redirect nuclear weapons funding to meet human needs and protect the environment.

In Europe, cooperation between parliaments to advance nuclear risk-reduction, arms control and disarmament measures are advancing through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA).

The parliaments of all European countries are part of it, along with the US, Canada, Russia and all former Soviet countries. A vital forum for dialogue between legislators from Russia and the West, the OSCE PA has succeeded in building consensus to support nuclear risk reduction including “no first use.”

Parliamentarians/legislators, cities and civil society activists can also slow the nuclear arms race by working to cut nuclear weapons budgets and to end investments in the nuclear weapons industry.

Corporations that make nuclear weapons and their delivery systems have a vested interest in stoking the nuclear arms race, so they lobby governments accordingly.

But parliaments, state governments and cities can influence their behavior by divesting from them, analogous to the way some major cities are divesting from fossil fuel companies to fight climate change.

So far only a handful of cities and non-nuclear governments have divested from nuclear manufacturers, but in 2017 the United Nations adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which could lead to a wider global divestment movement.

So, it may not be all up to Trump and Putin. There are powerful levers parliaments, cities and civil society can use to stop the unraveling of the arms control regime and prevent an arms race, and increasingly, they will use them.

As U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower said, “People want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

Indian jobless rate at multi-decade high, report says, in blow to Modi

A government official checks the papers of job aspirants for registration at an employment exchange office in Ahmedabad, February 19, 2016.

NEW DELHINEW DELHI (Reuters) – An official survey that has been withheld by the government shows India’s unemployment rate rose to its highest level in at least 45 years in 2017/18, the Business Standard newspaper reported on Thursday, delivering a blow to Prime Minister Narendra Modi months before a general election.

A political controversy over the survey erupted after the acting chairman and another member of the body that reviewed the jobs data resigned, saying there had been a delay in its scheduled December release and alleging interference by other state agencies.

The assessment by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), conducted July 2017-June 2018, showed an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. That was the highest since 1972/73, the period for which the data are comparable, the newspaper reported, citing documents it had reviewed. It did not give a figure for 1972/73.

BJP’s ‘Hindu Nationalist Themes’ Might Trigger Communal Violence Before National Election: US Intelligence

United States Intelligence has warned that India might see communal violence ahead of the 2019 parliamentary election if the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stresses on “Hindu nationalist themes.”

In a recently released report, 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment Of The U.S. Intelligence Community, Daniel R. Coats, Director of National Intelligence, has said that Hindu nationalist state leaders might “incite low-level violence” to garner votes.

“BJP policies during Modi’s first term have deepened communal tensions in some BJP-governed states, and Hindu nationalist state leaders might view a Hindu-nationalist campaign as a signal to incite low-level violence to animate their supporters,” the report said.…

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/bjps-hindu-nationalist-themes-might-trigger-communal-riots-before-national-election-us-intelligence_in_5c5169dee4b00906b26edc2d

Politics gives clash in Madhya Pradesh’s Khujner communal tone as villagers demand ban on entry of Muslims (Jan 31, 2019, First Post)
https://www.firstpost.com/india/politics-gives-clash-in-madhya-pradeshs-khujner-communal-tone-as-villagers-demand-ban-on-entry-of-muslims-6002251.html

BJP can instigate riots, says UP ally SBSP (Feb 1, 2019, Indian Express)
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bjp-can-instigate-riots-says-up-ally-sbsp-5565369/

From Bulandshahr to Lote, a familiar theme of rumo urs, violence (Feb 1, 2019, Mumbai Mirror)
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/crime/from-bulandshahr-to-lote-a-familiar-theme-of-rumours-violence/articleshow/67782929.cms

Odisha: In Kendrapara, playground sparks communal tension (Jan 28, 2019, Indian Express)
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/odisha-kendrapara-town-school-playground-subhas-chandra-bose-5557244/

-+=