Across several countries, right-leaning political parties are increasingly being linked with symbols of patriotism and nationalism. Supporters argue these movements reflect national pride and sovereignty, while critics debate their broader political implications. In this edition of Race To Power, we explore how patriotic imagery is shaping political identities, influencing voter behavior, and becoming a key element of contemporary political campaigns around the world.

Global right parties are being associated with symbols of patriotism and nationalism

All eyes are on France as National Rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a crucial verdict that could have far-reaching consequences for her political future. The decision is being closely watched by supporters, opponents, and political observers across Europe. In this edition of Race To Power, we explore the case, its significance for French politics, and what the ruling could mean for the future of the country's right-wing movement.

France's national rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a defining verdict

Backdrop &nbsp;

The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting. &nbsp;&nbsp;

While the West continues to give standing ovations to President Zelensky's emotional speeches and responds with a package of military hardware and funds, it is pouring fuel to the fire by prolonging global agony and encouraging Ukrainians to fight to the death in order to weaken Russia. &nbsp;&nbsp;

While NATO can claim that Ukraine is not part of it; hence it is not obligated to join fight against Russia through ‘No Fly Zone’ as repeatedly requested by Zelensky, risking the potential to trigger Third World War/Nuclear war, but NATO is very much part of the conflict through economic war, information war, diplomatic war, political war and other instruments of non-contact warfare. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Big power contest continues with no concern for humanitarian disaster &nbsp;&nbsp;

Any offensive into another sovereign country has disastrous consequences for the people and must be condemned, whether it’s current Russian offensive in Ukraine or earlier NATO invasions in Iraq and other parts of MENA. &nbsp;&nbsp;

With few security guarantees, this was avoidable, but the big power contest continues to spiral it, with display of heroics of President Zelensky, failing to read the extent, depth, and impact of Western support and President Putin's resolve, least realising that the nationalism and his peoples resolve is being used as an instrument to prolong an unwinnable, proxy war, leading his country to disaster. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The war of narrative seems getting dangerous with references to nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions in heated exchanges/allegations. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

How has battlefield ‘Ukraine’ shaped up after three weeks? &nbsp;

After three weeks, the shaping of battlefield by Russians seems to make strategic sense, but at a very heavy cost, which is increasing consistently. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Russian main offensive is towards Kyiv, which is the Centre of &nbsp;Gravity to achieve political objective of imposing no-NATO diktat on its political leadership or force a regime change, through the shortest route from Belarus. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The complete isolation of Kyiv is yet to be achieved and the political consolidation is not in sight. Given the spirit of nationalism among Ukrainians, stoked by Zelensky's sentimental appeals and bolstered by western information warfare, Russians need to moderate their political objective from regime change to imposing a no-NATO agreement with Zelensky, because any pro-Russian puppet regime, even if imposed, is unlikely to survive. &nbsp;

The Russian military aim to demilitarise Ukrainian military to ensure that Ukraine cannot be used as a launchpad by NATO to threaten security of Russia, has been partially achieved by extensive air and missile strikes to neutralise air defence capability and air assets to achieve favourable air situation, pulverising military targets, claiming to have destroyed most of them, including air fields and military installations in Ukraine. It is increasingly capturing strategic installations to step up pressure on Zelensky. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The offensive from South is aimed at cutting off Ukrainian access to Black Sea and Sea of Azov by securing a permanent land corridor from Russia to Crimea with an end-state of landlocked Ukraine. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Russians have been able to achieve most of the corridor except Odessa, with intense fighting in townships. The offensive from the East is aimed at liberation of complete Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where intense fighting continues despite initial gains. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Ukraine’s strong resolve to resist Russian offensive under leadership of President Zelensky, has been noteworthy, having deliberately prepared for the conflict. To overcome the asymmetry in military asset holdings, the Ukrainian force deployed smartly in densely populated areas to fight pitched battles in townships, despite losing air cover in the early phases of the conflict. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The strategy is to deploy military assets in civilian areas, turn towns into fortresses, and residential areas into pillboxes, incite mercenaries and civilians to fight as part of the war machine, launch sniper attacks, ambushes, small team operations, drone attacks on softer convoys, and provoke Russians to target residential areas in order to gain propaganda advantage from civilian casualties through superior information warfare, backed by the west to demonise President Putin. &nbsp;&nbsp;

With adoption of urban insurgency model, the war has thus morphed from conventional to hybrid war with both sides planning to induct more non-state actors. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Ukrainian strategy seems to have succeeded in delaying Russian operations and placing Russia in an awkward position of having to choose between fighting in populated, built up areas, which is cost prohibitive in terms of human and equipment casualties in favour of defender, or isolating, bombarding townships, residential areas alleged to house military assets, disrupting essential services, and pressuring Zelensky, at the cost of risking international condemnation. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Russians appear to have selected the latter option, extending the range of air strikes to western Ukraine which is the lifeline for assistance from West including military hardware. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Are actions by West helping Ukraine? &nbsp;

US and Western allies are claiming to be helping Ukraine through financial and diplomatic sanctions on Russia and military hardware support to Ukraine of the type (smaller calibre) which can improve staying power of Ukrainian fighters, and induce long term insurgency in Europe, even if negotiations reach some conclusion in due course. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The aim is to permanently weaken Russia by weaponising Ukrainian nationalism, posing Zelensky as hero, to continue fighting with their proxy support. &nbsp;&nbsp;

EU’s support to refugees from Ukraine is the only positive humanitarian support, where UK and US seem to be shying. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Decoding the future &nbsp;&nbsp;

If the war gets prolonged further, Ukraine will be destroyed physically, Russia will suffer punitive financial cost, EU will lose long lasting peace and energy security, and the entire world will suffer economically. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Ukrainians and Russian residents and soldiers will bear the brunt of the consequences. While the EU is presenting a bold, united front with the US in order to weaken Russia, it has its limits, up to the point when its gas supply is choked, with risk of insurgency at its doorsteps. &nbsp;&nbsp;

In the short term, the US may appear to benefit from Russia's weakness by increasing arms and oil exports, but in the long run, it will lose credibility and reliability globally. &nbsp;&nbsp;

China will emerge wiser, learning from Russian experience and assessing the risk profile of the US, whose leadership is fixated on the wrong adversary and unable to combat the real competitor in the Indo-Pacific. Diversion of focus from China to Russia will speed up US decline as superpower, faster than what its strategists anticipate. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Sanctions will eventually lose their lustre, as more sanctions may lead non-western countries to seek an alternative financial system that is not dependent on the West, jeopardising their long-term interests. The world is more intertwined than it was previously, and with the economic fulcrum shifting from the West to the Indo-Pacific, a de-dollarised financial system could be the most significant future risk to the US. &nbsp;

For European security, a neutral Ukraine is the best option. Ukraine has never been accepted into NATO and is unlikely to be welcomed in the future, as it has never met the basic criteria of a peaceful internal and exterior situation, having been involved in conflicts/disturbances in both dimensions. &nbsp;&nbsp;

It is preferable if Ukraine and Russia face reality as soon as possible and resolve the issue through direct dialogue, putting rhetoric, egos, and sentiments aside. It might be a better idea for the West, too, to encourage a ceasefire through discussions, addressing the legitimate security interests of all parties, rather than adding fuel to the fire by imposing more sanctions or providing more hardware support to prolong the war.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Backdrop The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting.

Backdrop The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting. While the West continues to give standing ovations to President Zelensky's emotional speeches and responds with a package of military hardware and funds, it is pouring fuel to the fire by prolonging global agony and encouraging Ukrainians to fight to the death in order to weaken Russia. While NATO can claim that Ukraine is not part of it; hence it is not obligated to join fight against Russia through ‘No Fly Zone’ as repeatedly requested by Zelensky, risking the potential to trigger Third World War/Nuclear war, but NATO is very much part of the conflict through economic war, information war, diplomatic war, political war and other instruments of non-contact warfare. Big power contest continues with no concern for humanitarian disaster Any offensive into another sovereign country has disastrous consequences for the people and must be condemned, whether it’s current Russian offensive in Ukraine or earlier NATO invasions in Iraq and other parts of MENA. With few security guarantees, this was avoidable, but the big power contest continues to spiral it, with display of heroics of President Zelensky, failing to read the extent, depth, and impact of Western support and President Putin's resolve, least realising that the nationalism and his peoples resolve is being used as an instrument to prolong an unwinnable, proxy war, leading his country to disaster. The war of narrative seems getting dangerous with references to nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions in heated exchanges/allegations. How has battlefield ‘Ukraine’ shaped up after three weeks? After three weeks, the shaping of battlefield by Russians seems to make strategic sense, but at a very heavy cost, which is increasing consistently. Russian main offensive is towards Kyiv, which is the Centre of Gravity to achieve political objective of imposing no-NATO diktat on its political leadership or force a regime change, through the shortest route from Belarus. The complete isolation of Kyiv is yet to be achieved and the political consolidation is not in sight. Given the spirit of nationalism among Ukrainians, stoked by Zelensky's sentimental appeals and bolstered by western information warfare, Russians need to moderate their political objective from regime change to imposing a no-NATO agreement with Zelensky, because any pro-Russian puppet regime, even if imposed, is unlikely to survive. The Russian military aim to demilitarise Ukrainian military to ensure that Ukraine cannot be used as a launchpad by NATO to threaten security of Russia, has been partially achieved by extensive air and missile strikes to neutralise air defence capability and air assets to achieve favourable air situation, pulverising military targets, claiming to have destroyed most of them, including air fields and military installations in Ukraine. It is increasingly capturing strategic installations to step up pressure on Zelensky. The offensive from South is aimed at cutting off Ukrainian access to Black Sea and Sea of Azov by securing a permanent land corridor from Russia to Crimea with an end-state of landlocked Ukraine. Russians have been able to achieve most of the corridor except Odessa, with intense fighting in townships. The offensive from the East is aimed at liberation of complete Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where intense fighting continues despite initial gains. Ukraine’s strong resolve to resist Russian offensive under leadership of President Zelensky, has been noteworthy, having deliberately prepared for the conflict. To overcome the asymmetry in military asset holdings, the Ukrainian force deployed smartly in densely populated areas to fight pitched battles in townships, despite losing air cover in the early phases of the conflict. The strategy is to deploy military assets in civilian areas, turn towns into fortresses, and residential areas into pillboxes, incite mercenaries and civilians to fight as part of the war machine, launch sniper attacks, ambushes, small team operations, drone attacks on softer convoys, and provoke Russians to target residential areas in order to gain propaganda advantage from civilian casualties through superior information warfare, backed by the west to demonise President Putin. With adoption of urban insurgency model, the war has thus morphed from conventional to hybrid war with both sides planning to induct more non-state actors. The Ukrainian strategy seems to have succeeded in delaying Russian operations and placing Russia in an awkward position of having to choose between fighting in populated, built up areas, which is cost prohibitive in terms of human and equipment casualties in favour of defender, or isolating, bombarding townships, residential areas alleged to house military assets, disrupting essential services, and pressuring Zelensky, at the cost of risking international condemnation. The Russians appear to have selected the latter option, extending the range of air strikes to western Ukraine which is the lifeline for assistance from West including military hardware. Are actions by West helping Ukraine? US and Western allies are claiming to be helping Ukraine through financial and diplomatic sanctions on Russia and military hardware support to Ukraine of the type (smaller calibre) which can improve staying power of Ukrainian fighters, and induce long term insurgency in Europe, even if negotiations reach some conclusion in due course. The aim is to permanently weaken Russia by weaponising Ukrainian nationalism, posing Zelensky as hero, to continue fighting with their proxy support. EU’s support to refugees from Ukraine is the only positive humanitarian support, where UK and US seem to be shying. Decoding the future If the war gets prolonged further, Ukraine will be destroyed physically, Russia will suffer punitive financial cost, EU will lose long lasting peace and energy security, and the entire world will suffer economically. Ukrainians and Russian residents and soldiers will bear the brunt of the consequences. While the EU is presenting a bold, united front with the US in order to weaken Russia, it has its limits, up to the point when its gas supply is choked, with risk of insurgency at its doorsteps. In the short term, the US may appear to benefit from Russia's weakness by increasing arms and oil exports, but in the long run, it will lose credibility and reliability globally. China will emerge wiser, learning from Russian experience and assessing the risk profile of the US, whose leadership is fixated on the wrong adversary and unable to combat the real competitor in the Indo-Pacific. Diversion of focus from China to Russia will speed up US decline as superpower, faster than what its strategists anticipate. Sanctions will eventually lose their lustre, as more sanctions may lead non-western countries to seek an alternative financial system that is not dependent on the West, jeopardising their long-term interests. The world is more intertwined than it was previously, and with the economic fulcrum shifting from the West to the Indo-Pacific, a de-dollarised financial system could be the most significant future risk to the US. For European security, a neutral Ukraine is the best option. Ukraine has never been accepted into NATO and is unlikely to be welcomed in the future, as it has never met the basic criteria of a peaceful internal and exterior situation, having been involved in conflicts/disturbances in both dimensions. It is preferable if Ukraine and Russia face reality as soon as possible and resolve the issue through direct dialogue, putting rhetoric, egos, and sentiments aside. It might be a better idea for the West, too, to encourage a ceasefire through discussions, addressing the legitimate security interests of all parties, rather than adding fuel to the fire by imposing more sanctions or providing more hardware support to prolong the war. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Is the West weaponising Ukrainian nationalism to checkmate Russia?  

Humans love competition. We love world cups, the Olympics, elections, etc. No matter how dire the situation, we find scope for competition and rivalry.&nbsp;

The COVID-19 pandemic has been no different. First was the race to lockdown: who would curb the spread of the virus better? Then, it was a stimulus race: who would write the biggest cheque? And when the vaccines came that too became a race: who would achieve herd immunity first? &nbsp;

Take Russia's Sputnik-V for instance. It was registered in August 2020, months before vaccines were approved in the West and that's how Russia is marketing Sputnik as the first registered vaccine for the coronavirus. Same in the United States when Donald Trump was president. He doubled up as a cheerleader for vaccine makers, it didn't matter what Pfizer or Moderna said, the former US president was making his own deadlines. It was all about prestige. About racing ahead of rivals.

Pandemic or not, geopolitical competition was very much alive and pharma companies were more than willing to oblige. Last year, they got government endorsements. A kind of vaccine nationalism was picking up.&nbsp;

In the West, Sputnik-V was widely condemned. It was declared a quack vaccine but as of today, Sputnik has been approved in Argentina, Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Iran and the UAE. Even the European Union is considering emergency use authorisation. How times change!&nbsp;

A similar episode played out in India. Covaxin, developed by Bharat Biotech, was granted approval. It was immediately dubbed vaccine nationalism, a case of the Indian government backing an Indian vaccine. Until now, 5.5 million Covaxin doses have been administered. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself took it.

The bottom line is, a vaccine is a vaccine.&nbsp;As long as it keeps the virus at bay, it doesn't matter who manufactures it or which country supports it.&nbsp;

But try telling that to China. Beijing has unveiled a new visa policy, which applies to foreigners entering the mainland from Hong Kong. If you have taken a China-made vaccine, there will be less paperwork. You don't have to take a Covid test or fill out a travel declaration form.&nbsp;

A China-made vaccine is basically your ticket into mainland China. A couple of issues here. Backing home-grown vaccines isn't a problem, but this is vaccine discrimination. It's like saying China-made jabs are better than Pfizer, or Moderna, or Covaxin, which is not the case.&nbsp;

China is attempting to boost the acceptability of its vaccines. Citizens, especially in Southeast Asia have business interests in China. They frequently visit the mainland. For them, taking a China-made vaccine might sound appealing. Beijing is leveraging its position as a travel hub to sell its jabs.

China's pharma war extends beyond vaccines. It is driving up the price of Paracetamol in India. Since last year, New Delhi has been pursuing self-sufficiency in the pharma sector. China's response was to drive up the cost of raw material. A 100% jump since November 2020, right in the middle of a public health emergency.&nbsp;

Countries may have their own reasons to back vaccines but why are pharma giants playing along? We are talking about one of the most despised industries in the world. Managing public opinion is not their strong suit. The pandemic was a chance to redeem themselves but they failed miserably. Pharma companies supplied more than 50% of their doses to just 16% of the world population. They chased money and market domination.

And don't forget, taxpayers contributed to these vaccines. Remember Operation Warp Speed in America? Pharma companies got more than 10 billion dollars of public money but the public has no rights over these jabs. So, let's take a step back and take stock of what's happening.&nbsp;

Big pharma used our money to develop vaccines and then sold those same vaccines back to us at cost. That's the global pharma industry in a nutshell.&nbsp;

Humans love competition. We love world cups, the Olympics, elections, etc. No matter how dire the situation, we find scope for competition and rivalry. The COVID-19 pandemic has been no different.

Humans love competition. We love world cups, the Olympics, elections, etc. No matter how dire the situation, we find scope for competition and rivalry. The COVID-19 pandemic has been no different. First was the race to lockdown: who would curb the spread of the virus better? Then, it was a stimulus race: who would write the biggest cheque? And when the vaccines came that too became a race: who would achieve herd immunity first? Take Russia's Sputnik-V for instance. It was registered in August 2020, months before vaccines were approved in the West and that's how Russia is marketing Sputnik as the first registered vaccine for the coronavirus. Same in the United States when Donald Trump was president. He doubled up as a cheerleader for vaccine makers, it didn't matter what Pfizer or Moderna said, the former US president was making his own deadlines. It was all about prestige. About racing ahead of rivals. Pandemic or not, geopolitical competition was very much alive and pharma companies were more than willing to oblige. Last year, they got government endorsements. A kind of vaccine nationalism was picking up. In the West, Sputnik-V was widely condemned. It was declared a quack vaccine but as of today, Sputnik has been approved in Argentina, Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Iran and the UAE. Even the European Union is considering emergency use authorisation. How times change! A similar episode played out in India. Covaxin, developed by Bharat Biotech, was granted approval. It was immediately dubbed vaccine nationalism, a case of the Indian government backing an Indian vaccine. Until now, 5.5 million Covaxin doses have been administered. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself took it. The bottom line is, a vaccine is a vaccine. As long as it keeps the virus at bay, it doesn't matter who manufactures it or which country supports it. But try telling that to China. Beijing has unveiled a new visa policy, which applies to foreigners entering the mainland from Hong Kong. If you have taken a China-made vaccine, there will be less paperwork. You don't have to take a Covid test or fill out a travel declaration form. A China-made vaccine is basically your ticket into mainland China. A couple of issues here. Backing home-grown vaccines isn't a problem, but this is vaccine discrimination. It's like saying China-made jabs are better than Pfizer, or Moderna, or Covaxin, which is not the case. China is attempting to boost the acceptability of its vaccines. Citizens, especially in Southeast Asia have business interests in China. They frequently visit the mainland. For them, taking a China-made vaccine might sound appealing. Beijing is leveraging its position as a travel hub to sell its jabs. China's pharma war extends beyond vaccines. It is driving up the price of Paracetamol in India. Since last year, New Delhi has been pursuing self-sufficiency in the pharma sector. China's response was to drive up the cost of raw material. A 100% jump since November 2020, right in the middle of a public health emergency. Countries may have their own reasons to back vaccines but why are pharma giants playing along? We are talking about one of the most despised industries in the world. Managing public opinion is not their strong suit. The pandemic was a chance to redeem themselves but they failed miserably. Pharma companies supplied more than 50% of their doses to just 16% of the world population. They chased money and market domination. And don't forget, taxpayers contributed to these vaccines. Remember Operation Warp Speed in America? Pharma companies got more than 10 billion dollars of public money but the public has no rights over these jabs. So, let's take a step back and take stock of what's happening. Big pharma used our money to develop vaccines and then sold those same vaccines back to us at cost. That's the global pharma industry in a nutshell.

Is vaccine nationalism on the rise?     

In one Beijing artist’s recent depiction of the world in 2098, China is a high-tech superpower and the United States is humbled. Americans have embraced communism and Manhattan, draped with the hammer-and-sickle flags of the “People’s Union of America,” has become a quaint tourist precinct.

This triumphant vision has resonated among Chinese.

The sci-fi digital illustrations by the artist, Fan Wennan, caught fire on Chinese social media in recent months, reflecting a resurgent nationalism. China’s authoritarian system, proponents say, is not just different from the West’s democracies, it is also proving itself superior. It is a long-running theme, but China’s success against the pandemic has given it a sharp boost.

“America isn’t that heavenly kingdom depicted since decades ago,” said Fan, who is in his early 20s and has described his style as “People’s Punk.” “There’s nothing special about it. If you have to say there’s anything special about it now, it’s how messed up it can be at times.”

China’s Communist Party, under its leader, Xi Jinping, has promoted the idea that the country is on a trajectory to power past Western rivals.

China stamped out the coronavirus, the messaging goes, with a resolve beyond the reach of flailing Western democracies. Beijing has rolled out homegrown vaccines to more than 1 million people, despite the safety concerns of scientists. China’s economy has revived, defying fears of a deep slump from the pandemic.

“In this fight against the pandemic, there will be victorious powers and defeated ones,” Wang Xiangsui, a retired Chinese senior colonel who teaches at a university in Beijing, averred this month. “We’re a victor power, while the United States is still mired and, I think, may well become a defeated power.”

The firm leadership of Xi and the party has earned China its recent success, say newspapers, television programs and social media.

“Time to wake up from blind faith in the Western system,” said a commentary in the state-run China Education News last week. “Vicious partisan fighting has worsened in certain Western countries, social fissures have deepened, and a severe social crisis is brewing.”

The theme of China as triumphantly vindicated against critics also has real public appeal these days, including among the youth, as reflected in the work of artists like Fan and a stream of online commentary. In Fan’s depiction of communist Manhattan, displayed on the ArtStation website, a caption describes a tour guide as saying that Asia and Europe are where the future is.

“To take in the changes of history and feel the afterglow of the imperialist era,” the guide says, “head to North America.”

China’s current swaggering mood could add to the challenges facing Joe Biden when he takes office as president. President Donald Trump’s defeat in the election has done little to ease Chinese suspicion of the United States, said Liu Jianqiu, a businessman and online commentator, in a telephone interview.

“I think China has gained the psychological edge,” said Liu, in his 40s, who described the pandemic as a turning point in his attitudes. “The performance of the West was completely out of my expectations and shifted my thinking even more — the facts prove that the American system really has no superiority.”

Combative national pride surged in China in the runup to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and after the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1999. Now there is a sharper sense that the Western powers are in perhaps irreversible decline, and that the pandemic has confirmed China’s ascent.

“Most ordinary Chinese people previously were more admiring of the United States, but in recent years, the advantages of the Chinese system have become clearer to them,” said Jin Canrong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing who has become a popular commentator under the nickname “Commissar Jin.” “There’s greater self-confidence.”

China’s diplomats and its state-run media have responded to criticism from Western governments with scornful disdain. Chinese supporters of a more muscular foreign policy call for hitting back against Western critics, especially in the wake of the pandemic.

Le Yucheng, a Chinese vice minister of foreign affairs, said in a speech last week that China was not spoiling for fights, but he also warned other governments not to underestimate its resolve to push back against criticism.

“Faced with this suppression and containment without scruples,” Le said, “we’ll never swallow our pride or stoop to compromise.”

Critics worry that hubris could lead China to overestimate its strengths and misjudge how far it can push the United States and other Western countries.

“These ideas aren’t sealed off in the halls of Zhongnanhai,” the Communist Party leaders’ headquarters in Beijing, said Julian Gewirtz, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written about Chinese perceptions of American decline.

“Their triumphalism is shaping both popular nationalism and official diplomacy,” he wrote in an email. “It is fueling ever-sharper demands for deference to China’s wishes.”

Online, Chinese commentators have plumbed the depths of history to capture the current moment. Some likened the United States to the crumbling British Empire of the last century, overstretched and exhausted.

Others are reaching back further, comparing America to China’s own Ming dynasty, which crumbled in the 1600s under the weight of corruption, insurrections and invasions. In this view that spread online this year, China should take the role of the “barbarian” Manchu armies who — in the commentators’ vivid, not-always-accurate retelling — swept over the Asian steppes, breached the Great Wall, and crushed the Ming rulers.

Modern-day China must act like the Manchu forces, advocates of the analogy say, and prepare to “break through” a ring of geopolitical hostility by dominating vital seas around China.

Geremie R. Barmé, a Sinologist in New Zealand who has followed the rise of “break-through studies” says the historical comparisons reflect anxiety “about China’s great nation status and its place in the world.”

“The underpinning is that China is morally superior — we the Chinese people under the Communist Party — because we have none of the failings of America,” he said.

China’s leader, Xi, has not commented on the recent pronouncements of American decline. But he sees China and the United States as locked in ideological rivalry. Since coming to power in 2012, he has called for Chinese schools, textbooks and websites to inoculate youth against Western values that could erode party rule and the country’s “cultural self-confidence.”

“Our schooling must never nurture wreckers or gravediggers of socialism,” Xi said in a speech in 2018 that was recently published in a book of his comments on ideology.

Some warn that China risks underestimating the strengths of the United States. In recent months, Chinese scholars have debated how Beijing should handle the post-COVID world, with a good number urging restraint as the best way to win lasting influence.

“China’s high-volume nationalism at home is making the United States feel that China is getting aggressive,” Xiao Gongqin, a historian in Shanghai wrote in an essay that was published last month, prompting wide discussion.

The United States is far from the only country feeling the lash of official and public anger from China. Australia has drawn China’s ire for criticizing Beijing, initiating laws aimed at reducing Chinese government influence-building efforts in Australia, and urging an investigation into the origin of the pandemic — a touchy subject in Beijing.

Last month, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson tweeted a Chinese artist’s fabricated image of an Australian soldier poised to slit the throat of an Afghan child. Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, demanded an apology from China over the image, which was a reference to an inquiry by the Australian military that found that its troops had unlawfully killed more than three dozen Afghan civilians.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry scoffed at Morrison’s demand, and the artist who created the image, Fu Yu, created another one mocking the Australian leader.

In one Beijing artist’s recent depiction of the world in 2098, China is a high-tech superpower and the United States is humbled. Americans have embraced communism and Manhattan, draped with the hammer-and-sickle flags of the “People’s Union of America,” has become a quaint tourist precinct.

In one Beijing artist’s recent depiction of the world in 2098, China is a high-tech superpower and the United States is humbled. Americans have embraced communism and Manhattan, draped with the hammer-and-sickle flags of the “People’s Union of America,” has become a quaint tourist precinct. This triumphant vision has resonated among Chinese. The sci-fi digital illustrations by the artist, Fan Wennan, caught fire on Chinese social media in recent months, reflecting a resurgent nationalism. China’s authoritarian system, proponents say, is not just different from the West’s democracies, it is also proving itself superior. It is a long-running theme, but China’s success against the pandemic has given it a sharp boost. “America isn’t that heavenly kingdom depicted since decades ago,” said Fan, who is in his early 20s and has described his style as “People’s Punk.” “There’s nothing special about it. If you have to say there’s anything special about it now, it’s how messed up it can be at times.” China’s Communist Party, under its leader, Xi Jinping, has promoted the idea that the country is on a trajectory to power past Western rivals. China stamped out the coronavirus, the messaging goes, with a resolve beyond the reach of flailing Western democracies. Beijing has rolled out homegrown vaccines to more than 1 million people, despite the safety concerns of scientists. China’s economy has revived, defying fears of a deep slump from the pandemic. “In this fight against the pandemic, there will be victorious powers and defeated ones,” Wang Xiangsui, a retired Chinese senior colonel who teaches at a university in Beijing, averred this month. “We’re a victor power, while the United States is still mired and, I think, may well become a defeated power.” The firm leadership of Xi and the party has earned China its recent success, say newspapers, television programs and social media. “Time to wake up from blind faith in the Western system,” said a commentary in the state-run China Education News last week. “Vicious partisan fighting has worsened in certain Western countries, social fissures have deepened, and a severe social crisis is brewing.” The theme of China as triumphantly vindicated against critics also has real public appeal these days, including among the youth, as reflected in the work of artists like Fan and a stream of online commentary. In Fan’s depiction of communist Manhattan, displayed on the ArtStation website, a caption describes a tour guide as saying that Asia and Europe are where the future is. “To take in the changes of history and feel the afterglow of the imperialist era,” the guide says, “head to North America.” China’s current swaggering mood could add to the challenges facing Joe Biden when he takes office as president. President Donald Trump’s defeat in the election has done little to ease Chinese suspicion of the United States, said Liu Jianqiu, a businessman and online commentator, in a telephone interview. “I think China has gained the psychological edge,” said Liu, in his 40s, who described the pandemic as a turning point in his attitudes. “The performance of the West was completely out of my expectations and shifted my thinking even more — the facts prove that the American system really has no superiority.” Combative national pride surged in China in the runup to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and after the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1999. Now there is a sharper sense that the Western powers are in perhaps irreversible decline, and that the pandemic has confirmed China’s ascent. “Most ordinary Chinese people previously were more admiring of the United States, but in recent years, the advantages of the Chinese system have become clearer to them,” said Jin Canrong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing who has become a popular commentator under the nickname “Commissar Jin.” “There’s greater self-confidence.” China’s diplomats and its state-run media have responded to criticism from Western governments with scornful disdain. Chinese supporters of a more muscular foreign policy call for hitting back against Western critics, especially in the wake of the pandemic. Le Yucheng, a Chinese vice minister of foreign affairs, said in a speech last week that China was not spoiling for fights, but he also warned other governments not to underestimate its resolve to push back against criticism. “Faced with this suppression and containment without scruples,” Le said, “we’ll never swallow our pride or stoop to compromise.” Critics worry that hubris could lead China to overestimate its strengths and misjudge how far it can push the United States and other Western countries. “These ideas aren’t sealed off in the halls of Zhongnanhai,” the Communist Party leaders’ headquarters in Beijing, said Julian Gewirtz, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written about Chinese perceptions of American decline. “Their triumphalism is shaping both popular nationalism and official diplomacy,” he wrote in an email. “It is fueling ever-sharper demands for deference to China’s wishes.” Online, Chinese commentators have plumbed the depths of history to capture the current moment. Some likened the United States to the crumbling British Empire of the last century, overstretched and exhausted. Others are reaching back further, comparing America to China’s own Ming dynasty, which crumbled in the 1600s under the weight of corruption, insurrections and invasions. In this view that spread online this year, China should take the role of the “barbarian” Manchu armies who — in the commentators’ vivid, not-always-accurate retelling — swept over the Asian steppes, breached the Great Wall, and crushed the Ming rulers. Modern-day China must act like the Manchu forces, advocates of the analogy say, and prepare to “break through” a ring of geopolitical hostility by dominating vital seas around China. Geremie R. Barmé, a Sinologist in New Zealand who has followed the rise of “break-through studies” says the historical comparisons reflect anxiety “about China’s great nation status and its place in the world.” “The underpinning is that China is morally superior — we the Chinese people under the Communist Party — because we have none of the failings of America,” he said. China’s leader, Xi, has not commented on the recent pronouncements of American decline. But he sees China and the United States as locked in ideological rivalry. Since coming to power in 2012, he has called for Chinese schools, textbooks and websites to inoculate youth against Western values that could erode party rule and the country’s “cultural self-confidence.” “Our schooling must never nurture wreckers or gravediggers of socialism,” Xi said in a speech in 2018 that was recently published in a book of his comments on ideology. Some warn that China risks underestimating the strengths of the United States. In recent months, Chinese scholars have debated how Beijing should handle the post-COVID world, with a good number urging restraint as the best way to win lasting influence. “China’s high-volume nationalism at home is making the United States feel that China is getting aggressive,” Xiao Gongqin, a historian in Shanghai wrote in an essay that was published last month, prompting wide discussion. The United States is far from the only country feeling the lash of official and public anger from China. Australia has drawn China’s ire for criticizing Beijing, initiating laws aimed at reducing Chinese government influence-building efforts in Australia, and urging an investigation into the origin of the pandemic — a touchy subject in Beijing. Last month, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson tweeted a Chinese artist’s fabricated image of an Australian soldier poised to slit the throat of an Afghan child. Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, demanded an apology from China over the image, which was a reference to an inquiry by the Australian military that found that its troops had unlawfully killed more than three dozen Afghan civilians. The Chinese Foreign Ministry scoffed at Morrison’s demand, and the artist who created the image, Fu Yu, created another one mocking the Australian leader.

China’s combative nationalists see a world turning their way

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Sunday called for global solidarity in the rollout of any future coronavirus vaccine, as the number of cases soared across the world.

In a video address at the opening of the three-day World Health Summit in Berlin, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the only way to recover from the pandemic was together and by making sure poorer countries had fair access to a vaccine.

"It is natural that countries want to protect their own citizens first but if and when we have an effective vaccine, we must also use it effectively. And the best way to do that is to vaccinate some people in all countries rather than all people in some countries," he said.

"Let me be clear: vaccine nationalism will prolong the pandemic, not shorten it."

Scientists around the world are racing to develop a vaccine against Covid-19, which has killed over 1.1 million people.

Several dozen vaccine candidates are currently being tested in clinical trials, ten of which are in the most advanced "phase 3" stage involving tens of thousands of volunteers.

The European Union, the United States, Britain, Japan and a slew of other nations have already placed large orders with the companies involved in developing the most promising vaccines.

But concerns are growing that countries with smaller wallets could be left at the back of the queue.

The WHO has launched an international scheme known as Covax to help ensure equitable access to jabs, but it has struggled to raise the funds needed.

'Greatest Crisis'

The WHO on Sunday reported a third straight day of record new infections across the world, calling on countries to take further action to curb the spread of the disease.

The agency's figures showed that 465,319 cases were declared for Saturday alone, half of them in Europe.

"This is a dangerous moment for many countries in the northern hemisphere as cases spike," Tedros said.

But he added that people weren't powerless against the virus, stressing the importance of social distancing, hand washing, and meeting outdoors instead of inside.

"Again and again we have seen that taking the right actions quickly means the outbreak can be managed."

Speaking at the same summit, which is being held online this year, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his video message called the pandemic "the greatest crisis of our times".

"We need global solidarity every step of the way," he said, echoing the plea for developed countries to support those with fewer resources.

"A vaccine must be a global public good," Guterres said.

"Vaccines, tests and therapies are more than lifesavers. They are economy savers and society savers."

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Sunday called for global solidarity in the rollout of any future coronavirus vaccine, as the number of cases soared across the world.

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Sunday called for global solidarity in the rollout of any future coronavirus vaccine, as the number of cases soared across the world. In a video address at the opening of the three-day World Health Summit in Berlin, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the only way to recover from the pandemic was together and by making sure poorer countries had fair access to a vaccine. "It is natural that countries want to protect their own citizens first but if and when we have an effective vaccine, we must also use it effectively. And the best way to do that is to vaccinate some people in all countries rather than all people in some countries," he said. "Let me be clear: vaccine nationalism will prolong the pandemic, not shorten it." Scientists around the world are racing to develop a vaccine against Covid-19, which has killed over 1.1 million people. Several dozen vaccine candidates are currently being tested in clinical trials, ten of which are in the most advanced "phase 3" stage involving tens of thousands of volunteers. The European Union, the United States, Britain, Japan and a slew of other nations have already placed large orders with the companies involved in developing the most promising vaccines. But concerns are growing that countries with smaller wallets could be left at the back of the queue. The WHO has launched an international scheme known as Covax to help ensure equitable access to jabs, but it has struggled to raise the funds needed. 'Greatest Crisis' The WHO on Sunday reported a third straight day of record new infections across the world, calling on countries to take further action to curb the spread of the disease. The agency's figures showed that 465,319 cases were declared for Saturday alone, half of them in Europe. "This is a dangerous moment for many countries in the northern hemisphere as cases spike," Tedros said. But he added that people weren't powerless against the virus, stressing the importance of social distancing, hand washing, and meeting outdoors instead of inside. "Again and again we have seen that taking the right actions quickly means the outbreak can be managed." Speaking at the same summit, which is being held online this year, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his video message called the pandemic "the greatest crisis of our times". "We need global solidarity every step of the way," he said, echoing the plea for developed countries to support those with fewer resources. "A vaccine must be a global public good," Guterres said. "Vaccines, tests and therapies are more than lifesavers. They are economy savers and society savers."

Coronavirus: WHO chief warns against ‘vaccine nationalism’

As part of the British government's post-Brexit reformation, low-skilled workers in the country will no longer be able to obtain visas.

The most interesting tenet, perhaps, of this provision is the curator. The idea was envisioned&nbsp;by Priti Patel, an Indian-origin British politician. She is a second-generation immigrant. Born in London, her parents emigrated to the UK from Tarapur in Gujarat.&nbsp;

The constitutional element of the new provision requests&nbsp;British employers to limit their dependence on cheap labour coming from Europe.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdoms-new-government-increases-minimum-wage-to-ps872-271242" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdoms-new-government-increases-minimum-wage-to-ps872-271242&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwicobjvl93nAhWqzDgGHaDQDtUQFjAAegQIABAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0sd6ERTqDMYP6a6tLWGao6" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdoms-new-government-increases-minimum-wage-to-ps872-271242" target="_blank">United Kingdom's new government increases minimum wage&nbsp;to £8.72</a>

The&nbsp;key objectives of the&nbsp;move includes the retention of existing staff and to evolve and sustain automation technology that eliminates the need for physical dependence.&nbsp;

According to the Home Office of the UK, European Union and non-European Union citizens coming to the UK after December 31 would be treated in the same fashion. This basically implies that all EU privileges in terms of travel and citizenship will be effectively revoked.

The UK's Labour Party hit out at the move and claimed that it would lead to a ''hostile environment'' in the country, in terms of attracting labour.

However, the Indian-origin Home Secretary Priti Patel claims that skilled and talented people will be able to come to the UK nevertheless.

<img alt="pppp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="98a4abd0-6413-4afb-956b-73a2b7179536" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29_92.jpg" />

"The brightest and the best will be able to come to the United Kingdom", Patel said.

Patel has been a staunch critic of Theresa May and is the first Home Secretary of Indian origin in the British cabinet.&nbsp;

"It is important that the Cabinet should represent modern Britain as well as a modern Conservative Party", she had announced during the elections.

Priti Patel had also additionally steered the ''Vote Leave'' campaign which triggered a series of uncertain events for British polity until the recent elections. She became a member of the Conservative Party when she 15.

There are currently two other Indian-origin ministers in the UK cabinet: Rishi Sunak: Finance Minister, and Alok Sharma: &nbsp;Business Secretary.

This constitutes a part of the UK's bigger plan to reduce migration into the UK. To systematically tackle this, the government has curated a ''points-based'' immigration system, living up to the promise which was made in their election manifesto.

Here on, not only would potential immigrants and/or citizens need to speak impeccable English, but would need an ''approved sponsor'', someone who's already a British citizen and intends to hire the person intending to visit.&nbsp;On fulfilling this criterion, the person would be awarded 50 points.

However, it gets tricky for a potential worker would need at least 70 points to legally work in the country.

There are numerous number of points, ranging from educational qualifications to the salary on offer, and the nature of the profession.

If someone possesses a skill which is facing labour shortages in the country, they would be fast-tracked into migration.

According to the government's statements, businesses need to ''adapt and adjust''. In essence, the UK will no longer entertain the entry of "unskilled foreign labour"&nbsp;into their country, especially from Europe.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/five-facts-about-priti-patel-uks-first-indian-origin-home-secretary-238292" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/five-facts-about-priti-patel-uks-first-indian-origin-home-secretary-238292&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjGwsujl93nAhUnzTgGHWCBB3IQFjAAegQIARAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1GDr23WfWIzYUbaZeidnp2" dir="ltr" href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/five-facts-about-priti-patel-uks-first-indian-origin-home-secretary-238292&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjGwsujl93nAhUnzTgGHWCBB3IQFjAAegQIARAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1GDr23WfWIzYUbaZeidnp2" target="_blank">Five facts about Priti Patel,&nbsp;UK's first Indian-origin home secretary</a>

"It is important employers move away from a reliance on the UK's immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity and wider investment in technology and automation," the government statement said.

Instead of inducting more people in the British workforce, the government suggests employing the skills of 3.2 million European Union citizens who have applied for an extension on their stay.

To soften the blow, the government has also introduced sub-provisions, such as ''youth mobility arrangements'', that opens a window of 20,000 entries in the UK every year, but only for young people.

This clampdown on immigrants is no longer new, as countries have spent years imitating the divisive rhetoric of Trump that is based on border protectionism with traces of nationalist fervour.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-brexit-new-fast-track-global-talent-visa-unveiled-by-united-kingdom-276861">After Brexit, new fast track 'global talent visa' unveiled by United Kingdom</a>

Patel has been staunchly criticised for her rhetoric during the Brexit uncertainty period, whereby she defended the alcohol and tobacco industries, and also threatened Ireland with food shortages.

As part of the British government's post-Brexit reformation, low-skilled workers in the country will no longer be able to obtain visas. The most interesting tenet, perhaps, of this provision is the curator.

As part of the British government's post-Brexit reformation, low-skilled workers in the country will no longer be able to obtain visas. The most interesting tenet, perhaps, of this provision is the curator. The idea was envisioned by Priti Patel, an Indian-origin British politician. She is a second-generation immigrant. Born in London, her parents emigrated to the UK from Tarapur in Gujarat. The constitutional element of the new provision requests British employers to limit their dependence on cheap labour coming from Europe. Also read: United Kingdom's new government increases minimum wage to £8.72 The key objectives of the move includes the retention of existing staff and to evolve and sustain automation technology that eliminates the need for physical dependence. According to the Home Office of the UK, European Union and non-European Union citizens coming to the UK after December 31 would be treated in the same fashion. This basically implies that all EU privileges in terms of travel and citizenship will be effectively revoked. The UK's Labour Party hit out at the move and claimed that it would lead to a ''hostile environment'' in the country, in terms of attracting labour. However, the Indian-origin Home Secretary Priti Patel claims that skilled and talented people will be able to come to the UK nevertheless. "The brightest and the best will be able to come to the United Kingdom", Patel said. Patel has been a staunch critic of Theresa May and is the first Home Secretary of Indian origin in the British cabinet. "It is important that the Cabinet should represent modern Britain as well as a modern Conservative Party", she had announced during the elections. Priti Patel had also additionally steered the ''Vote Leave'' campaign which triggered a series of uncertain events for British polity until the recent elections. She became a member of the Conservative Party when she 15. There are currently two other Indian-origin ministers in the UK cabinet: Rishi Sunak: Finance Minister, and Alok Sharma: Business Secretary. This constitutes a part of the UK's bigger plan to reduce migration into the UK. To systematically tackle this, the government has curated a ''points-based'' immigration system, living up to the promise which was made in their election manifesto. Here on, not only would potential immigrants and/or citizens need to speak impeccable English, but would need an ''approved sponsor'', someone who's already a British citizen and intends to hire the person intending to visit. On fulfilling this criterion, the person would be awarded 50 points. However, it gets tricky for a potential worker would need at least 70 points to legally work in the country. There are numerous number of points, ranging from educational qualifications to the salary on offer, and the nature of the profession. If someone possesses a skill which is facing labour shortages in the country, they would be fast-tracked into migration. According to the government's statements, businesses need to ''adapt and adjust''. In essence, the UK will no longer entertain the entry of "unskilled foreign labour" into their country, especially from Europe. Also read: Five facts about Priti Patel, UK's first Indian-origin home secretary "It is important employers move away from a reliance on the UK's immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity and wider investment in technology and automation," the government statement said. Instead of inducting more people in the British workforce, the government suggests employing the skills of 3.2 million European Union citizens who have applied for an extension on their stay. To soften the blow, the government has also introduced sub-provisions, such as ''youth mobility arrangements'', that opens a window of 20,000 entries in the UK every year, but only for young people. This clampdown on immigrants is no longer new, as countries have spent years imitating the divisive rhetoric of Trump that is based on border protectionism with traces of nationalist fervour. Also read: After Brexit, new fast track 'global talent visa' unveiled by United Kingdom Patel has been staunchly criticised for her rhetoric during the Brexit uncertainty period, whereby she defended the alcohol and tobacco industries, and also threatened Ireland with food shortages.

Second generation immigrant Priti Patel introduces UK's anti-immigration visa guidelines

The European Union has accused the ruling<a href="Poland's ruling nationalists signalled on Thursday they plan to water down legislation allowing for judges to be disciplined for questioning judicial reforms, in an apparent attempt to ease a dispute between Brussels and Warsaw over democratic standards. The European Union has accused the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party of politicising the judiciary ever since it came to power in 2015. PiS argues that the reforms are necessary to make Poland's courts more efficient. The nationalist government has introduced draft legislation providing for the disciplining of judges who have questioned the independence of peers nominated by a panel set up under new rules drawn up by the PiS-dominated parliament. The EU's top court said last month it was up to Poland's Supreme Court to decide whether the panel was independent, and the Supreme Court has ruled that in its view the panel was neither impartial nor independent. One of PiS's smaller partners, Porozumienie, which depicts itself as a pro-business party, has since come under opposition pressure to partially block the reform. Porozumienie recently impeded another reform planned by the PiS. On Thursday state news agency PAP quoted Porozumienie head Jaroslaw Gowin as saying that ruling politicians would adopt amendments to the bill aimed at removing its two most criticized parts. These are disciplinary measures against judges questioning legitimacy of their peers appointed by the new panel, and a part of the bill that forced judges to reveal the names of social media accounts they use under pseudonyms. &quot;There's an agreement ... amendments (to the proposed bill) will be adopted,&quot; Gowin was quoted as saying by PAP. On Wednesday thousands of people poured onto the streets to protest against what they saw as an attempt by PiS to further browbeat judges. On Thursday the lower house of parliament started the debate on the judicial reforms. PiS, which won a second term in October, says it will continue the reforms to try to rid the judiciary of communist leftovers, despi"> Law and Justice (PiS) party</a> of politicising the judiciary ever since it came to power in 2015. PiS argues that the reforms are necessary to make Poland's courts more efficient.

The nationalist government has introduced draft legislation providing for the disciplining of judges who have questioned the independence of peers nominated by a panel set up under new rules drawn up by the PiS-dominated parliament.

The EU's top court said last month it was up to Poland's Supreme Court to decide whether the panel was independent, and the Supreme Court has ruled that in its view the panel was neither impartial nor independent.

One of PiS's smaller partners, Porozumienie, which depicts itself as a pro-business party, has since come under opposition pressure to partially block the reform. Porozumienie recently impeded another reform planned by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/polands-main-opposition-picks-moderate-veteran-for-presidential-vote-268295">PiS</a>.

On Thursday state news agency PAP quoted Porozumienie head, Jaroslaw Gowin, as saying that ruling politicians would adopt amendments to the bill aimed at removing its two most criticized parts.

These are disciplinary measures against judges questioning the legitimacy of their peers appointed by the new panel, and a part of the bill that forced judges to reveal the names of social media accounts they use under pseudonyms.

"There's an agreement ... amendments (to the proposed bill) will be adopted," Gowin was quoted as saying by PAP.

On Wednesday thousands of people poured onto the streets to protest against what they saw as an attempt by PiS to further browbeat judges. On Thursday the lower house of parliament started the debate on the judicial reforms.

PiS, which <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/polands-ruling-nationalists-win-majority-in-parliament-255794">won a second term</a> in October, says it will continue the reforms to try to rid the judiciary of communist leftovers, despite EU criticism over adherence to the rule of law and threats to cut off vital EU funding.

During the parliamentary debate, opposition parties accused the PiS of using the new legislation as a tool to intimidate judges so they rule in line with the party's expectations.

"The real reason is your panic attempt to escape accountability. You know that the time of your defeat is coming and you will be held accountable at Polish courts for all your scandals," opposition MP Borys Budka told deputies.

The European Union has accused the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party of politicising the judiciary ever since it came to power in 2015. PiS argues that the reforms are necessary to make Poland's courts more efficient.

The European Union has accused the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party of politicising the judiciary ever since it came to power in 2015. PiS argues that the reforms are necessary to make Poland's courts more efficient. The nationalist government has introduced draft legislation providing for the disciplining of judges who have questioned the independence of peers nominated by a panel set up under new rules drawn up by the PiS-dominated parliament. The EU's top court said last month it was up to Poland's Supreme Court to decide whether the panel was independent, and the Supreme Court has ruled that in its view the panel was neither impartial nor independent. One of PiS's smaller partners, Porozumienie, which depicts itself as a pro-business party, has since come under opposition pressure to partially block the reform. Porozumienie recently impeded another reform planned by the PiS. On Thursday state news agency PAP quoted Porozumienie head, Jaroslaw Gowin, as saying that ruling politicians would adopt amendments to the bill aimed at removing its two most criticized parts. These are disciplinary measures against judges questioning the legitimacy of their peers appointed by the new panel, and a part of the bill that forced judges to reveal the names of social media accounts they use under pseudonyms. "There's an agreement ... amendments (to the proposed bill) will be adopted," Gowin was quoted as saying by PAP. On Wednesday thousands of people poured onto the streets to protest against what they saw as an attempt by PiS to further browbeat judges. On Thursday the lower house of parliament started the debate on the judicial reforms. PiS, which won a second term in October, says it will continue the reforms to try to rid the judiciary of communist leftovers, despite EU criticism over adherence to the rule of law and threats to cut off vital EU funding. During the parliamentary debate, opposition parties accused the PiS of using the new legislation as a tool to intimidate judges so they rule in line with the party's expectations. "The real reason is your panic attempt to escape accountability. You know that the time of your defeat is coming and you will be held accountable at Polish courts for all your scandals," opposition MP Borys Budka told deputies.

Poland's ruling nationalists signal they could weaken court reforms

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar on Tuesday said that there was no contradiction in being nationalistic.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Jaishankar said that "India is an exception as we are more nationalistic, but at the same time, we don't see a tension between being nationalistic and being international, in the sense of engaging more with the world, so nationalism is not a negative sentiment".

"I would say the entire neighbourhood, minus one, had actually been a fairly good story of regional cooperation," Jaishankar said in reference to Pakistan.

During the conversation with the journalists at a session of the World Economic Forum, Jaishankar also said that the Kashmir issue did come up in meetings with the US.

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar on Tuesday said that there was no contradiction in being nationalistic. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Jaishankar said that "India is an exception as we are more nationalistic, but at the same time, we don't see a tension between being nationalistic and being international, in the sense of engaging more with the world, so nationalism is not a negative sentiment".

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar on Tuesday said that there was no contradiction in being nationalistic. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Jaishankar said that "India is an exception as we are more nationalistic, but at the same time, we don't see a tension between being nationalistic and being international, in the sense of engaging more with the world, so nationalism is not a negative sentiment". "I would say the entire neighbourhood, minus one, had actually been a fairly good story of regional cooperation," Jaishankar said in reference to Pakistan. During the conversation with the journalists at a session of the World Economic Forum, Jaishankar also said that the Kashmir issue did come up in meetings with the US.

Nationalism is not a negative sentiment, says Foreign Minister S Jaishankar

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 27, the focus has swung back on the BJP’s core philosophy: nationalism. How valid is it today?&nbsp;

Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist. So were Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Why then has nationalism acquired such odium in recent years? The short answer: the meaning of nationalism has been subverted.

This subversion leads even “public intellectuals” — a term that has fallen into some disrepute — like Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Ramachandra Guha to miss the finer nuances of nationalism.&nbsp;

Why do Indian Opposition leaders, historians and academics misinterpret the true meaning of nationalism? A part of the reason is ideological. They despise Prime Minister Narendra Modi and imbue him with their false interpretation of nationalism. They constantly seek a problem for every solution, not a solution for every problem. Their prognostications for India are invariably grim. The references to Kashmir in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the UNGA, is played up by this cabal of India denigrators. The references these international bodies make are merely proforma. They carry no weight. The denigrators know this, but wilfully subvert the narrative.&nbsp;

The government deserves criticism across a host of issues. But such criticism — which should spare nobody, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi — loses credibility if it is built on prejudice. India doesn’t suffer from too much nationalism. It suffers from too little.&nbsp;

At a recent event, sociologist Ashish Nandy told the audience: “I’ve worked on nationalism, so I am telling you with some confidence. You read all the nationalist texts and you tell me if this nationalism is different from our nationalism, or that nationalism is distinct from other kinds of nationalism. You cannot find it, all nationalisms are the same, the texts are the same, only the names, only the minor, trivial details differ. There is no difference between nationalism anywhere. Psychologically speaking they are absolutely the same profile.”&nbsp;

Thus, in Nandy’s view, Mahatma Gandhi’s nationalism in the 1930s was the same as Adolf Hitler’s nationalism in the 1930s. Read the key part of Nandy’s comment again: “All nationalisms are the same. There is no difference between nationalism anywhere.”&nbsp;

But, of course, there is a difference — in both historical and contemporary terms. This is how, as I wrote elsewhere, the finer nuances of nationalism need to be understood: “One reason why the Congress and the Left have a poor understanding of nationalism is that they use European reference points. It is fashionable in the West and among India’s nouveau elite to say that patriots spread ‘love’ and nationalists spread ‘hate’. But that is a Western post-colonial construct based on European nationalism that led to World War II. Indian nationalism is very different.

“German nationalism in the 1930s, for example, sought to invade and conquer. Indian nationalism under Mahatma Gandhi, in sharp contrast, was non-violent and sought to free India from British colonial occupation which, like German ‘nationalism’, was invasive, violent and expansionary. German and British nationalism was not nationalism at all but jingoism. Employing a deliberate sleight of hand, the Left attempts to discredit Indian nationalism today by conflating it with European ‘nationalism’.

“In India, ideologues on the Right, too, make a fatal error: they conflate nationalism with Hindu nationalism. It is not. In its truest form, nationalism is inclusive. To protect national interest means protecting every Indian’s national interest: Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Parsi, rich or poor, Brahmin or Dalit, Sunni or Shia, male, female or transgender. Nationalism seeks national advancement, but not at the cost of other nations, races or creeds. Real nationalism is fair, open and embraces diversity. It seeks to guard India from terror, promote the country’s economic interests by globalising the Indian economy and protect the rights of minorities by empowering them.”

Meanwhile, patriotism, we are told, is the antithesis of nationalism. In short, patriotism is selfless and good. Nationalism is selfish and bad. This is how Nandy frames it: “Old-fashioned patriotism was good enough for even Europe at one time, and in India today, it is by blurring old-style patriotism and love for the country — which is natural and biological — that we have tried to strengthen nationalism. Nationalism by itself does not make that much sense as old-fashioned patriotism. Every Indian, I should say, is patriotic by nature. You don’t have to teach them to be patriotic, but nationalism is an ideology. Nationalism is not only defined by the love of the country territorially where you were born, nationalism is defined by specific enemies and specific allies. Nationalism is built on that; patriotism doesn’t have that kind of responsibility, it doesn’t define your enemies or friends.” &nbsp;

To Nandy, therefore, “nationalism is defined by specific enemies” while “patriotism doesn’t define enemies or friends.”&nbsp;

He makes the same classical mistake others of his ilk do, conflating nationalism with aggressive intent.&nbsp;

Gandhiji, a consummate nationalist throughout his life, used ahimsa, non-violence, as his central credo. The enemy was specific — the British — but he advocated non-violent means to confront and defeat it. He was a patriot and a nationalist and showed how they were two sides of the same coin.&nbsp;

Left-leaning historians and academics strive to drive an artificial wedge between nationalism and patriotism. There isn’t one.&nbsp; 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-subversion-of-nationalism-2792388">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

&nbsp;

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 27, the focus has swung back on the BJP’s core philosophy: nationalism.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 27, the focus has swung back on the BJP’s core philosophy: nationalism. How valid is it today? Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist. So were Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Why then has nationalism acquired such odium in recent years? The short answer: the meaning of nationalism has been subverted. This subversion leads even “public intellectuals” — a term that has fallen into some disrepute — like Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Ramachandra Guha to miss the finer nuances of nationalism. Why do Indian Opposition leaders, historians and academics misinterpret the true meaning of nationalism? A part of the reason is ideological. They despise Prime Minister Narendra Modi and imbue him with their false interpretation of nationalism. They constantly seek a problem for every solution, not a solution for every problem. Their prognostications for India are invariably grim. The references to Kashmir in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the UNGA, is played up by this cabal of India denigrators. The references these international bodies make are merely proforma. They carry no weight. The denigrators know this, but wilfully subvert the narrative. The government deserves criticism across a host of issues. But such criticism — which should spare nobody, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi — loses credibility if it is built on prejudice. India doesn’t suffer from too much nationalism. It suffers from too little. At a recent event, sociologist Ashish Nandy told the audience: “I’ve worked on nationalism, so I am telling you with some confidence. You read all the nationalist texts and you tell me if this nationalism is different from our nationalism, or that nationalism is distinct from other kinds of nationalism. You cannot find it, all nationalisms are the same, the texts are the same, only the names, only the minor, trivial details differ. There is no difference between nationalism anywhere. Psychologically speaking they are absolutely the same profile.” Thus, in Nandy’s view, Mahatma Gandhi’s nationalism in the 1930s was the same as Adolf Hitler’s nationalism in the 1930s. Read the key part of Nandy’s comment again: “All nationalisms are the same. There is no difference between nationalism anywhere.” But, of course, there is a difference — in both historical and contemporary terms. This is how, as I wrote elsewhere, the finer nuances of nationalism need to be understood: “One reason why the Congress and the Left have a poor understanding of nationalism is that they use European reference points. It is fashionable in the West and among India’s nouveau elite to say that patriots spread ‘love’ and nationalists spread ‘hate’. But that is a Western post-colonial construct based on European nationalism that led to World War II. Indian nationalism is very different. “German nationalism in the 1930s, for example, sought to invade and conquer. Indian nationalism under Mahatma Gandhi, in sharp contrast, was non-violent and sought to free India from British colonial occupation which, like German ‘nationalism’, was invasive, violent and expansionary. German and British nationalism was not nationalism at all but jingoism. Employing a deliberate sleight of hand, the Left attempts to discredit Indian nationalism today by conflating it with European ‘nationalism’. “In India, ideologues on the Right, too, make a fatal error: they conflate nationalism with Hindu nationalism. It is not. In its truest form, nationalism is inclusive. To protect national interest means protecting every Indian’s national interest: Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Parsi, rich or poor, Brahmin or Dalit, Sunni or Shia, male, female or transgender. Nationalism seeks national advancement, but not at the cost of other nations, races or creeds. Real nationalism is fair, open and embraces diversity. It seeks to guard India from terror, promote the country’s economic interests by globalising the Indian economy and protect the rights of minorities by empowering them.” Meanwhile, patriotism, we are told, is the antithesis of nationalism. In short, patriotism is selfless and good. Nationalism is selfish and bad. This is how Nandy frames it: “Old-fashioned patriotism was good enough for even Europe at one time, and in India today, it is by blurring old-style patriotism and love for the country — which is natural and biological — that we have tried to strengthen nationalism. Nationalism by itself does not make that much sense as old-fashioned patriotism. Every Indian, I should say, is patriotic by nature. You don’t have to teach them to be patriotic, but nationalism is an ideology. Nationalism is not only defined by the love of the country territorially where you were born, nationalism is defined by specific enemies and specific allies. Nationalism is built on that; patriotism doesn’t have that kind of responsibility, it doesn’t define your enemies or friends.” To Nandy, therefore, “nationalism is defined by specific enemies” while “patriotism doesn’t define enemies or friends.” He makes the same classical mistake others of his ilk do, conflating nationalism with aggressive intent. Gandhiji, a consummate nationalist throughout his life, used ahimsa, non-violence, as his central credo. The enemy was specific — the British — but he advocated non-violent means to confront and defeat it. He was a patriot and a nationalist and showed how they were two sides of the same coin. Left-leaning historians and academics strive to drive an artificial wedge between nationalism and patriotism. There isn’t one. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The meaning of nationalism has been subverted

US President Donald Trump on Friday said that he did not see a rise in white nationalism across the world after the accused in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealand-mosque-shootings-kill-49-in-what-pm-calls-terrorist-attack-203560"> New Zealand mosque terror attack </a>called the president "a symbol of renewed white identity."

“I don't really think so. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems,” The Hill quoted Trump as saying when asked if he saw a rise in white nationalism.

"If you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet," he added.

Earlier, a social media account believed to be linked to the Australian-born suspect, who filmed himself, while carrying out the attack, had posted a lengthy manifesto, expressing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim views.

He wrote that he supported Trump “as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose” but not as a “policymaker and leader.”

Responding to the same, Trump said that he was yet to see the manifesto and called the mass shootings "horrible".

The 28-year-old suspect, identified as Brenton Harrison Tarrant <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealand-mass-shooting-suspect-remanded-until-april-5-203622">appeared before a Christchurch court</a> on Saturday on murder charges connected with Friday's terror attacks in Christchurch, which left at least 49 people dead.

He was remanded in custody without plea until April 5.

The accused is an Australian-born citizen and is a resident of Dunedin, situated around 360 km south of Christchurch.

Earlier, Trump spoke to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and offered assistance to the country in the wake of the terror attack.

"Just spoke with Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, regarding the horrific events that have taken place over the past 24 hours. I informed the Prime Minister that we stand in solidarity with New Zealand - and that any assistance the USA can give, we stand by ready to help. We love you New Zealand!" he wrote on Twitter.

In the worst ever terror attack in New Zealand, multiple gunmen carried out indiscriminate shootings at two mosques in Christchurch during the Friday prayers, leaving 49 people dead and at least 48 wounded, besides giving a scare to the Bangladesh cricket team which had a narrow escape.

Using automatic weapons, the gunmen, four of who were initially taken into custody, launched a "well-planned" attack on the mosques when devotees had assembled for the weekly prayers.

According to the police, 41 people were killed at Al Noor mosque and seven at Linwood mosque while one injured died in a hospital.

Condemning the terror strike, Ardern had described it as a “terror attack” and said it “appears to have been well planned”. She asserted that New Zealand “will not and cannot be shaken” by this attack.

Several guns have been recovered from both mosques, while, two explosive devices were found on two vehicles at the scene, one of which was defused, the police confirmed.

Ardern vowed that gun laws "will change" in the wake of the worst terror attacks in the country`s history.

The New Zealand premier, her cabinet ministers and opposition leader Simon Bridges flew to Christchurch from Wellington today morning in the wake of the terror attacks.

Upon her arrival, Ardern visited the Canterbury Refugees Centre, where she interacted with Muslim community leaders who were expressing their concerns about finding a place of worship after all mosques in the city were shut down in the wake of the shootings, according to New Zealand Herald.

Ardern assured the group that local council leaders were working tirelessly to provide alternative and safe places for worship, adding that security was beefed up to ensure safety.

Around 3,000 people from all walks of lives and representing different faiths gathered for a peace vigil in Aotea Square in Auckland to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Christchurch terror attacks.

Several events scheduled for today have been cancelled in the wake of the mass shootings in Christchurch.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said that he did not see a rise in white nationalism across the world after the accused in the New Zealand mosque terror attack called the president "a symbol of renewed white identity.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said that he did not see a rise in white nationalism across the world after the accused in the New Zealand mosque terror attack called the president "a symbol of renewed white identity." “I don't really think so. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems,” The Hill quoted Trump as saying when asked if he saw a rise in white nationalism. "If you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet," he added. Earlier, a social media account believed to be linked to the Australian-born suspect, who filmed himself, while carrying out the attack, had posted a lengthy manifesto, expressing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim views. He wrote that he supported Trump “as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose” but not as a “policymaker and leader.” Responding to the same, Trump said that he was yet to see the manifesto and called the mass shootings "horrible". The 28-year-old suspect, identified as Brenton Harrison Tarrant appeared before a Christchurch court on Saturday on murder charges connected with Friday's terror attacks in Christchurch, which left at least 49 people dead. He was remanded in custody without plea until April 5. The accused is an Australian-born citizen and is a resident of Dunedin, situated around 360 km south of Christchurch. Earlier, Trump spoke to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and offered assistance to the country in the wake of the terror attack. "Just spoke with Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, regarding the horrific events that have taken place over the past 24 hours. I informed the Prime Minister that we stand in solidarity with New Zealand - and that any assistance the USA can give, we stand by ready to help. We love you New Zealand!" he wrote on Twitter. In the worst ever terror attack in New Zealand, multiple gunmen carried out indiscriminate shootings at two mosques in Christchurch during the Friday prayers, leaving 49 people dead and at least 48 wounded, besides giving a scare to the Bangladesh cricket team which had a narrow escape. Using automatic weapons, the gunmen, four of who were initially taken into custody, launched a "well-planned" attack on the mosques when devotees had assembled for the weekly prayers. According to the police, 41 people were killed at Al Noor mosque and seven at Linwood mosque while one injured died in a hospital. Condemning the terror strike, Ardern had described it as a “terror attack” and said it “appears to have been well planned”. She asserted that New Zealand “will not and cannot be shaken” by this attack. Several guns have been recovered from both mosques, while, two explosive devices were found on two vehicles at the scene, one of which was defused, the police confirmed. Ardern vowed that gun laws "will change" in the wake of the worst terror attacks in the country`s history. The New Zealand premier, her cabinet ministers and opposition leader Simon Bridges flew to Christchurch from Wellington today morning in the wake of the terror attacks. Upon her arrival, Ardern visited the Canterbury Refugees Centre, where she interacted with Muslim community leaders who were expressing their concerns about finding a place of worship after all mosques in the city were shut down in the wake of the shootings, according to New Zealand Herald. Ardern assured the group that local council leaders were working tirelessly to provide alternative and safe places for worship, adding that security was beefed up to ensure safety. Around 3,000 people from all walks of lives and representing different faiths gathered for a peace vigil in Aotea Square in Auckland to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Christchurch terror attacks. Several events scheduled for today have been cancelled in the wake of the mass shootings in Christchurch.

White nationalism not a rising threat: Trump on New Zealand mosque shooter

Actor John Abraham said on Monday that his upcoming film<a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/romeo-akbar-walter-trailer-john-abraham-goes-to-the-enemy-state-in-this-spy-thriller-201065"> 'Romeo Akbar Walter' </a>is not a chest-thumping nationalist project and he himself would like to stay away from jingoistic movies.&nbsp; 
 
Directed by Robbie Grewal, the espionage thriller chronicles the story of a spy who goes to Pakistan.&nbsp; 
 
"It's very important to make films with good stories. If tomorrow, there's a great patriotic film, I would love to do it. But I would not like to do jingoistic films. I am not anti any other country, I am not anti any other religion.&nbsp; 
 
"I'm very pro-secular and I would like to make films that reflect the true nature of this country," John told reporters here.&nbsp; 
 
The actor said the film looks at people from an objective gaze and doesn't colour anyone with judgements.&nbsp; 
 
"It's a very objective film. No one is bad or good in this, it's just how you look at things. We are not depicting any other side as the bad side. It's a story of a spy who goes across, but it's a different story than 'Raazi' or many of the other stories. 
 
"It's not jingoistic, typical flag saluting film. It's very different and that's why we are proud to be associated with it." 
 
John said the project's key requirement was "extreme research" and the team did just that as it's a sensitive topic and there's a sense of responsibility riding on them.&nbsp; 
 
The actor, however, said there's nothing wrong in making films about war heroes.&nbsp; 
 
"If you look at Hollywood, it makes fantastic war films and they glorify their soldiers, so why can't we? I think it's a great time for India, the audience." 
 
At the event, John also shut down a reporter when he asked the actor will "tempt" people through the film to take action, after the Pulwama attack.&nbsp; 
 
The actor said, "You have to be very careful with the way you ask questions, you have a responsibility. Please apologise to everyone."&nbsp; 
 
'Romeo Akbar Walter' is scheduled to release on April 5.&nbsp;

Actor John Abraham said on Monday that his upcoming film 'Romeo Akbar Walter' is not a chest-thumping nationalist project and he himself would like to stay away from jingoistic movies.

Actor John Abraham said on Monday that his upcoming film 'Romeo Akbar Walter' is not a chest-thumping nationalist project and he himself would like to stay away from jingoistic movies. Directed by Robbie Grewal, the espionage thriller chronicles the story of a spy who goes to Pakistan. "It's very important to make films with good stories. If tomorrow, there's a great patriotic film, I would love to do it. But I would not like to do jingoistic films. I am not anti any other country, I am not anti any other religion. "I'm very pro-secular and I would like to make films that reflect the true nature of this country," John told reporters here. The actor said the film looks at people from an objective gaze and doesn't colour anyone with judgements. "It's a very objective film. No one is bad or good in this, it's just how you look at things. We are not depicting any other side as the bad side. It's a story of a spy who goes across, but it's a different story than 'Raazi' or many of the other stories. "It's not jingoistic, typical flag saluting film. It's very different and that's why we are proud to be associated with it." John said the project's key requirement was "extreme research" and the team did just that as it's a sensitive topic and there's a sense of responsibility riding on them. The actor, however, said there's nothing wrong in making films about war heroes. "If you look at Hollywood, it makes fantastic war films and they glorify their soldiers, so why can't we? I think it's a great time for India, the audience." At the event, John also shut down a reporter when he asked the actor will "tempt" people through the film to take action, after the Pulwama attack. The actor said, "You have to be very careful with the way you ask questions, you have a responsibility. Please apologise to everyone." 'Romeo Akbar Walter' is scheduled to release on April 5.

John Abraham: Not against any country or religion, wouldn't like to do a jingoistic film

World leaders gathered Sunday in Paris to celebrate a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/photos/in-solemn-paris-ceremony-macron-leads-global-ww1-armistice-commemorations-176872">100 years since the end of World War I</a>.&nbsp;

At a ceremony to celebrate the armistice which brought "the war to end all wars" to an end, French President Emmanuel Macron said "nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism".&nbsp;

It was nationalism — the kind we are beginning to see again in Europe, the US, and here in India — that had set off the two world wars.&nbsp;

Macron's words in turn — they were seen as a jibe at the rising tide of nationalism around the world — have set off a debate. What do the two words mean and is one better than the other.&nbsp;

Let's start with understanding what they mean.&nbsp;

The Oxford dictionary defines nationalism as "Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism on the other hand is "The quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country."&nbsp;

The term patriotism is older and was first used in its modern context in the mid-1600's whereas nationalism was first used in the late 18th century. The two words were initially interchangeable but things changed when nationalism became associated with ethnic-supremacy movements.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump (who was also at Paris) has embraced the nationalism label and asked his fellow countrymen to use the word unabashedly.&nbsp;

Hungary and Austria have also elected nationalist leaders who have spoken of pure and ethnic races.&nbsp;

Hitler too believed in an extreme form of German nationalism. His nationalism meant glorifying the army and the pure Aryan race; he asked his people to acknowledge their profound dependence upon the nation and insisted that people identify themselves entirely with the nation.

Then there were the critics, who denounced nationalism as an idea that promoted hatred and the supremacy of one group over another.&nbsp;

Albert Einstein said nationalism is an infantile thing, it is the measles of mankind. "Nationalism, in my opinion, is nothing more than an idealistic rationalisation for militarism and aggression."

Rabindranath Tagore, the man who gave india its national anthem, said: ‘I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live." He added that “patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter".&nbsp;

Tagore also warned Gandhi that there was a thin line between nationalism and xenophobia.&nbsp;

BR Ambedkar, the architect of India's constitution said: "I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians."

And former French president Charles de Gaulle had famously said "patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first".

World leaders gathered Sunday in Paris to celebrate a 100 years since the end of World War I. At a ceremony to celebrate the armistice which brought "the war to end all wars" to an end, French President Emmanuel Macron said "nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism".

World leaders gathered Sunday in Paris to celebrate a 100 years since the end of World War I. At a ceremony to celebrate the armistice which brought "the war to end all wars" to an end, French President Emmanuel Macron said "nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism". It was nationalism — the kind we are beginning to see again in Europe, the US, and here in India — that had set off the two world wars. Macron's words in turn — they were seen as a jibe at the rising tide of nationalism around the world — have set off a debate. What do the two words mean and is one better than the other. Let's start with understanding what they mean. The Oxford dictionary defines nationalism as "Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Patriotism on the other hand is "The quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country." The term patriotism is older and was first used in its modern context in the mid-1600's whereas nationalism was first used in the late 18th century. The two words were initially interchangeable but things changed when nationalism became associated with ethnic-supremacy movements. US President Donald Trump (who was also at Paris) has embraced the nationalism label and asked his fellow countrymen to use the word unabashedly. Hungary and Austria have also elected nationalist leaders who have spoken of pure and ethnic races. Hitler too believed in an extreme form of German nationalism. His nationalism meant glorifying the army and the pure Aryan race; he asked his people to acknowledge their profound dependence upon the nation and insisted that people identify themselves entirely with the nation. Then there were the critics, who denounced nationalism as an idea that promoted hatred and the supremacy of one group over another. Albert Einstein said nationalism is an infantile thing, it is the measles of mankind. "Nationalism, in my opinion, is nothing more than an idealistic rationalisation for militarism and aggression." Rabindranath Tagore, the man who gave india its national anthem, said: ‘I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live." He added that “patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter". Tagore also warned Gandhi that there was a thin line between nationalism and xenophobia. BR Ambedkar, the architect of India's constitution said: "I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians." And former French president Charles de Gaulle had famously said "patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first".

Nationalism a betrayal of patriotism: Macron's words trigger debate

French president Marcon warns against dangers of nationalism

People in India share <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/obama-warned-zuckerberg-over-fake-news-report-20605">fake news</a> stories with nationalistic messages for "nation building" purposes without any attempt at fact-checking, a BBC report released Monday said.

The findings come from extensive research in India, Kenya, and Nigeria into the way ordinary citizens engage with and spread fake news, the British public broadcaster said.

According to the report, there is also an overlap of fake news sources on Twitter and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's support networks.

The report, analysing the spread of fake news from the perspective of ordinary citizens, suggests an "overlap between fake news and pro-Modi political activity" in India.

The BBC said its first published study, providing an in-depth understanding of how fake news and disinformation are spreading within encrypted chat apps, reveals that emotion is trumping reason when it comes to sharing news.

"Whilst most discussion in the media has focused on 'fake news' in the West, this piece of research gives strong evidence that a serious set of problems are emerging in the rest of the world where the idea of nation-building is trumping the truth when it comes to sharing stories on social media," said Jamie Angus, Director, BBC World Service Group.

As part of the extensive research using big data and analytics, the BBC found that in Indian Twitter networks, known right wing sources of fake news seemed more closely aligned than left wing sources.

"This allows right leaning fake news to spread faster and wider than left leaning fake news," notes the extensive research carried out by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the three countries.

The research forms part of the BBC Beyond Fake News project, a new international anti-disinformation initiative of programmes and discussions, which launches this week.

The research revealed that fake news was being unwittingly spread by people across India, Kenya, and Nigeria as they forward messages in the hope that someone else will check the truth of the story for them.

"In India people are reluctant to share messages which they think might incite violence, but feel duty bound to share nationalistic messages," the research notes.

"Fake news stories about India's progress, Hindu power and revival of lost Hindu glory are being shared widely without any attempt at fact-checking. In sharing these messages, people feel like they are nation building," it adds.

Whilst nationalism is driving the spread of fake news in India, the research tells a different story in Kenya and Nigeria.

There, fake news stories that get shared largely reflect national anxieties and aspirations, with scams related to money and technology contributing to an estimated third of fake news stories in WhatsApp conversations in Kenya. 
In Nigeria, stories relating to terrorism and the army are also widely shared within WhatsApp.

The latest research is part of the BBC's wider Beyond Fake News initiative, which has been described as a decisive step in its commitment to tackling the spread of disinformation, and the research provides "invaluable insights to aid this work".

"At the heart of this research is the question of why ordinary people are sharing fake news, even while they claim to be worried about the way fake stories spread. 
"This report combines in-depth qualitative and ethnographic techniques with digital network analysis and big data techniques to explore the fake news phenomenon in India, Kenya, and Nigeria from multiple angles," said Santanu Chakrabarti, Head of Audience Research, BBC World Service.

Chakrabarti said the project was one of the first in these countries to properly understand fake news as a technologically driven social phenomenon.

As part of a generational analysis, it reveals that young people are identifying along nationalistic lines, and this is driving their sharing behaviour as much as it is the older generation.

The research suggests that a significant amount of fake stories being shared are not written articles, but images and memes.

The report explains in depth how the nature of social media platforms, combined with the challenge people face in coping with the amount of information online, leads to the spread of fake news being carried through visual media.

The report comes on the same day when social media giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter are to appear together to talk about the impact of fake news on their platforms.

They will discuss the issue at the BBC Beyond Fake News conference in Delhi Monday, to be broadcast on BBC World News.

Among some of its wider findings, the report found that a sense of duty is behind the spread of fake news in Kenya and Nigeria rather than being motivated by a duty to "nation build" like in India.

In Kenya and Nigeria people are consuming mainstream media sources and known sources of fake news in equal amounts, even though the public's desire to know the original source of messages is far greater than in India, it said.

The report examines networks within Twitter and analyses how people are sharing encrypted messaging apps, after users gave the BBC unprecedented access to their phones.&nbsp;

People in India share fake news stories with nationalistic messages for "nation building" purposes without any attempt at fact-checking, a BBC report released Monday said.

People in India share fake news stories with nationalistic messages for "nation building" purposes without any attempt at fact-checking, a BBC report released Monday said. The findings come from extensive research in India, Kenya, and Nigeria into the way ordinary citizens engage with and spread fake news, the British public broadcaster said. According to the report, there is also an overlap of fake news sources on Twitter and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's support networks. The report, analysing the spread of fake news from the perspective of ordinary citizens, suggests an "overlap between fake news and pro-Modi political activity" in India. The BBC said its first published study, providing an in-depth understanding of how fake news and disinformation are spreading within encrypted chat apps, reveals that emotion is trumping reason when it comes to sharing news. "Whilst most discussion in the media has focused on 'fake news' in the West, this piece of research gives strong evidence that a serious set of problems are emerging in the rest of the world where the idea of nation-building is trumping the truth when it comes to sharing stories on social media," said Jamie Angus, Director, BBC World Service Group. As part of the extensive research using big data and analytics, the BBC found that in Indian Twitter networks, known right wing sources of fake news seemed more closely aligned than left wing sources. "This allows right leaning fake news to spread faster and wider than left leaning fake news," notes the extensive research carried out by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the three countries. The research forms part of the BBC Beyond Fake News project, a new international anti-disinformation initiative of programmes and discussions, which launches this week. The research revealed that fake news was being unwittingly spread by people across India, Kenya, and Nigeria as they forward messages in the hope that someone else will check the truth of the story for them. "In India people are reluctant to share messages which they think might incite violence, but feel duty bound to share nationalistic messages," the research notes. "Fake news stories about India's progress, Hindu power and revival of lost Hindu glory are being shared widely without any attempt at fact-checking. In sharing these messages, people feel like they are nation building," it adds. Whilst nationalism is driving the spread of fake news in India, the research tells a different story in Kenya and Nigeria. There, fake news stories that get shared largely reflect national anxieties and aspirations, with scams related to money and technology contributing to an estimated third of fake news stories in WhatsApp conversations in Kenya. In Nigeria, stories relating to terrorism and the army are also widely shared within WhatsApp. The latest research is part of the BBC's wider Beyond Fake News initiative, which has been described as a decisive step in its commitment to tackling the spread of disinformation, and the research provides "invaluable insights to aid this work". "At the heart of this research is the question of why ordinary people are sharing fake news, even while they claim to be worried about the way fake stories spread. "This report combines in-depth qualitative and ethnographic techniques with digital network analysis and big data techniques to explore the fake news phenomenon in India, Kenya, and Nigeria from multiple angles," said Santanu Chakrabarti, Head of Audience Research, BBC World Service. Chakrabarti said the project was one of the first in these countries to properly understand fake news as a technologically driven social phenomenon. As part of a generational analysis, it reveals that young people are identifying along nationalistic lines, and this is driving their sharing behaviour as much as it is the older generation. The research suggests that a significant amount of fake stories being shared are not written articles, but images and memes. The report explains in depth how the nature of social media platforms, combined with the challenge people face in coping with the amount of information online, leads to the spread of fake news being carried through visual media. The report comes on the same day when social media giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter are to appear together to talk about the impact of fake news on their platforms. They will discuss the issue at the BBC Beyond Fake News conference in Delhi Monday, to be broadcast on BBC World News. Among some of its wider findings, the report found that a sense of duty is behind the spread of fake news in Kenya and Nigeria rather than being motivated by a duty to "nation build" like in India. In Kenya and Nigeria people are consuming mainstream media sources and known sources of fake news in equal amounts, even though the public's desire to know the original source of messages is far greater than in India, it said. The report examines networks within Twitter and analyses how people are sharing encrypted messaging apps, after users gave the BBC unprecedented access to their phones.

Nationalism behind spread of fake news in India: BBC report

A global rise of nationalist and populist tendencies has not only given anti-migrant, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and racist tendencies a new lease on life, but opened the door to alliances between groups that once would have had nothing to do with one another.

Developments in Israel, Indonesia and Germany suggest renewed nationalism and populism is in some cases redefining how states perceive concepts of national interest and purpose and how religious and ethnic communities seek to shield themselves against discrimination, persecution and/or extremism.

The redefinition was no more evident than when Israel, founded as a safe haven for Jews irrespective of creed, sect or political belief, sided against its own ambassador with authoritarian Hungarian President Victor Orban, a proponent of Christianity rather than multi-culturalism as the glue of European society, in denouncing billionaire left-wing philanthropist George Soros, a survivor of the Holocaust.

In doing so, Israel, founded on the belief that Jews needed a state to shield themselves against discrimination and persecution rooted in anti-Semitic prejudice and racism that has been endemic in Christian culture, sided not only with a Christian nationalist leader in Hungary but with a global right-wing trend that sees Soros as the mastermind of a globalist movement, determined to subvert the established order and dilute the white, Christian nature of societies through immigration.

Israel’s acknowledgement of the redefinition of its raison d’etre came in response to a Facebook posting by Yossi Amrani, the Jewish state’s representative in Hungary. Responding to anti-immigration billboards depicting a smiling Soros with the slogan, ‘Let's not let Soros have the last laugh,’ Amrani, backed by Hungarian Jewish leaders, warned that they evoked "sad memories, but also sow hatred and fear."

Israel’s foreign ministry, days before a visit to Hungary by prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu, rather than taking a firm stand on rising anti-Semitism, effectively defined the Jewish state’s interest as joining Orban in denouncing a Jew.

As a result, Israel, despite seeing itself as the fulfilment of &nbsp;the Biblical prophecies of the Ingathering of the Exiles and the protector of Jewish rights, opted for denouncing a Jew together with a leader whose policies prompted the European Parliament to pursue unprecedented disciplinary action against Hungary over alleged breaches of the European Union's core values, including minority rights.

“In no way was the (ambassador’s) statement meant to delegitimise criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself,” the ministry said.

The implicit message, like Israel’s decision to bar entry to its Jewish critics despite its law of return that grants anyone who is Jewish a right to citizenship, was that Israel rather than being the potential home of all Jews was a home only to those who support the government’s policies.

Netanyahu’s alignment of Israel with right-wing nationalist and populist forces like his support for ultra-orthodox Jewish groups that deny equal rights for less stringent religious trends in Judaism on issues such as marriage, divorce, conversion and prayer at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, are likely to drive a wedge between the Jewish state and world Jewry, particularly in the United States.

The wedge, that puts Israel at odds with the Jewish Diaspora, could be deepened by this week’s Democratic Party success in regaining a majority in the US House of Representatives. Jews historically tend to vote Democratic in the US, a stark contrast with Netanyahu’s growing alliance with right-wing evangelists who support Israel because they believe the Messiah will only return to a Holy Land controlled by Jews.

Many evangelists, however, also believe that Jews will not be saved on the Day of Judgement without first converting to Christianity.

Israel’s divisive approach to World Jewry is not without its supporters in the Jewish Diaspora. Anti-Muslim and anti-migration sentiments have prompted some Jews to form their own group within Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party.

The notion that bigotry and prejudice are the best defences against rising anti-Semitism has meant that AfD Jews have little compunction about joining a party whose members favour abandoning Germany’s culture of remembrance and atonement for its Nazi past.

One AfD leader, Alexander Gauland, described Nazism as a “speck of bird poop in more than 1,000 years of successful German history.”

To be fair, the issue of rising prejudice and bigotry is not the exclusive perch of right-wing nationalist and populists. Britain’s Labour Party, traditionally a home for Jewish voters and activists, has been plagued by charges of anti-Semitism and reluctance to put its own house in order.

Moreover, the emergence of strange bedfellows in a world in which ideological affinity replaces defence of a community’s minority rights is not uniquely Israeli or Jewish.

Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Islamic movements with some 94 million members in Indonesia, in a bid to reform Islam and counter all political expressions of the faith, risks being tainted by its potential tactical association with Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists who would project their alliance as Muslim justification of their perception of the evils of Islam.

Nahdlatul Ulama is not alone in the Muslim world’s opportunistic engagement with the Christian right.

Saudi rulers, who long aligned themselves with a supremacist, intolerant interpretation of Islam that viewed Christians as swine and Jews as apes have discovered that they share with evangelists and fundamentalist Christians, a significant voting bloc in the United States and part of President Donald Trump’s support base, conservative family values as well as political interests.

In a first, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, last week met with a delegation of US evangelists that included Reverend Johnnie Moore, Israel-based evangelical political strategist-turned-novelist Joel Rosenberg, former congresswoman Michele Bachmann; and prominent religious broadcasters.

The jury is out on whether the fallout of the rise of nationalism, populism and extremism heralds a new world in which bigotry and prejudice are legitimised as a defence strategy against discrimination, racism and persecution and an antidote to radicalism – a world that would likely prove to be far more divided and polarised and likely increasingly unsafe for minorities on the receiving end.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

A global rise of nationalist and populist tendencies has not only given anti-migrant, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and racist tendencies a new lease on life, but opened the door to alliances between groups that once would have had nothing to do with one another.

A global rise of nationalist and populist tendencies has not only given anti-migrant, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and racist tendencies a new lease on life, but opened the door to alliances between groups that once would have had nothing to do with one another. Developments in Israel, Indonesia and Germany suggest renewed nationalism and populism is in some cases redefining how states perceive concepts of national interest and purpose and how religious and ethnic communities seek to shield themselves against discrimination, persecution and/or extremism. The redefinition was no more evident than when Israel, founded as a safe haven for Jews irrespective of creed, sect or political belief, sided against its own ambassador with authoritarian Hungarian President Victor Orban, a proponent of Christianity rather than multi-culturalism as the glue of European society, in denouncing billionaire left-wing philanthropist George Soros, a survivor of the Holocaust. In doing so, Israel, founded on the belief that Jews needed a state to shield themselves against discrimination and persecution rooted in anti-Semitic prejudice and racism that has been endemic in Christian culture, sided not only with a Christian nationalist leader in Hungary but with a global right-wing trend that sees Soros as the mastermind of a globalist movement, determined to subvert the established order and dilute the white, Christian nature of societies through immigration. Israel’s acknowledgement of the redefinition of its raison d’etre came in response to a Facebook posting by Yossi Amrani, the Jewish state’s representative in Hungary. Responding to anti-immigration billboards depicting a smiling Soros with the slogan, ‘Let's not let Soros have the last laugh,’ Amrani, backed by Hungarian Jewish leaders, warned that they evoked "sad memories, but also sow hatred and fear." Israel’s foreign ministry, days before a visit to Hungary by prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu, rather than taking a firm stand on rising anti-Semitism, effectively defined the Jewish state’s interest as joining Orban in denouncing a Jew. As a result, Israel, despite seeing itself as the fulfilment of the Biblical prophecies of the Ingathering of the Exiles and the protector of Jewish rights, opted for denouncing a Jew together with a leader whose policies prompted the European Parliament to pursue unprecedented disciplinary action against Hungary over alleged breaches of the European Union's core values, including minority rights. “In no way was the (ambassador’s) statement meant to delegitimise criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself,” the ministry said. The implicit message, like Israel’s decision to bar entry to its Jewish critics despite its law of return that grants anyone who is Jewish a right to citizenship, was that Israel rather than being the potential home of all Jews was a home only to those who support the government’s policies. Netanyahu’s alignment of Israel with right-wing nationalist and populist forces like his support for ultra-orthodox Jewish groups that deny equal rights for less stringent religious trends in Judaism on issues such as marriage, divorce, conversion and prayer at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, are likely to drive a wedge between the Jewish state and world Jewry, particularly in the United States. The wedge, that puts Israel at odds with the Jewish Diaspora, could be deepened by this week’s Democratic Party success in regaining a majority in the US House of Representatives. Jews historically tend to vote Democratic in the US, a stark contrast with Netanyahu’s growing alliance with right-wing evangelists who support Israel because they believe the Messiah will only return to a Holy Land controlled by Jews. Many evangelists, however, also believe that Jews will not be saved on the Day of Judgement without first converting to Christianity. Israel’s divisive approach to World Jewry is not without its supporters in the Jewish Diaspora. Anti-Muslim and anti-migration sentiments have prompted some Jews to form their own group within Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party. The notion that bigotry and prejudice are the best defences against rising anti-Semitism has meant that AfD Jews have little compunction about joining a party whose members favour abandoning Germany’s culture of remembrance and atonement for its Nazi past. One AfD leader, Alexander Gauland, described Nazism as a “speck of bird poop in more than 1,000 years of successful German history.” To be fair, the issue of rising prejudice and bigotry is not the exclusive perch of right-wing nationalist and populists. Britain’s Labour Party, traditionally a home for Jewish voters and activists, has been plagued by charges of anti-Semitism and reluctance to put its own house in order. Moreover, the emergence of strange bedfellows in a world in which ideological affinity replaces defence of a community’s minority rights is not uniquely Israeli or Jewish. Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Islamic movements with some 94 million members in Indonesia, in a bid to reform Islam and counter all political expressions of the faith, risks being tainted by its potential tactical association with Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists who would project their alliance as Muslim justification of their perception of the evils of Islam. Nahdlatul Ulama is not alone in the Muslim world’s opportunistic engagement with the Christian right. Saudi rulers, who long aligned themselves with a supremacist, intolerant interpretation of Islam that viewed Christians as swine and Jews as apes have discovered that they share with evangelists and fundamentalist Christians, a significant voting bloc in the United States and part of President Donald Trump’s support base, conservative family values as well as political interests. In a first, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, last week met with a delegation of US evangelists that included Reverend Johnnie Moore, Israel-based evangelical political strategist-turned-novelist Joel Rosenberg, former congresswoman Michele Bachmann; and prominent religious broadcasters. The jury is out on whether the fallout of the rise of nationalism, populism and extremism heralds a new world in which bigotry and prejudice are legitimised as a defence strategy against discrimination, racism and persecution and an antidote to radicalism – a world that would likely prove to be far more divided and polarised and likely increasingly unsafe for minorities on the receiving end. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Ideology trumps defence of ethnic, religious and minority rights

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Europe of a return to the 1930s because of the spread of a nationalist "leprosy" across the continent, in an interview published Thursday.

He also warned that Europe risked losing its sovereignty if it is "pushed around by foreign powers."

"I am struck by similarities between the times we live in and those of between the two world wars," he told the newspaper Ouest-France, urging people to be aware of the threats.

"In a Europe divided by fears, the return of nationalism, the consequences of economic crisis, one sees almost systematically everything that marked Europe between the end of World War I and the 1929 (economic) crisis," the paper quoted him as saying.

"You must bear that in mind, be clear-headed and know how to fight back," he added.

Macron, who is about to start a week-long visit to north and eastern France to mark the centenary of the end of World War I, has recently criticised fellow European Union members for giving up on EU principles.

'Europe faces a risk'

He has notably singled out Hungary and Poland whose nationalist governments have clashed with Brussels, as well as Italy which has a populist government including the far-right League party figures.

Looking ahead to his tour of World War I battlefields, the president said he was looking for the lessons of history, while seeking to promote "a more sovereign and multilateral" Europe.

"Europe faces a risk -- that of being broken up by nationalist leprosy and of being pushed around by foreign powers. And thereby losing its sovereignty," he said.&nbsp;

"That is to say having its security depend on US choices, having China play an ever greater role when it comes to essential infrastructures, and Russia sometimes tempted to try its hand at manipulation, and have financial interests and markets sometimes play greater roles than that of states."

Macron, who has been losing ground in the opinion polls, is attempting to position himself as the champion of centrist politics and multilateralism in the run-up to European parliamentary elections in seven months' time, saying he expects the duel to be one between "progressives" and "nationalists".

According to the latest Vivavoice poll, released on Tuesday, Macron has lost 10 points since August with his approval rating now at 26 per cent.

The poll, carried out between October 19 and 22, with a margin of error of between 1.4 and 3.1 per cent, also suggested that nearly two out of three people have a "poor opinion" of him.

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Europe of a return to the 1930s because of the spread of a nationalist "leprosy" across the continent, in an interview published Thursday.

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Europe of a return to the 1930s because of the spread of a nationalist "leprosy" across the continent, in an interview published Thursday. He also warned that Europe risked losing its sovereignty if it is "pushed around by foreign powers." "I am struck by similarities between the times we live in and those of between the two world wars," he told the newspaper Ouest-France, urging people to be aware of the threats. "In a Europe divided by fears, the return of nationalism, the consequences of economic crisis, one sees almost systematically everything that marked Europe between the end of World War I and the 1929 (economic) crisis," the paper quoted him as saying. "You must bear that in mind, be clear-headed and know how to fight back," he added. Macron, who is about to start a week-long visit to north and eastern France to mark the centenary of the end of World War I, has recently criticised fellow European Union members for giving up on EU principles. 'Europe faces a risk' He has notably singled out Hungary and Poland whose nationalist governments have clashed with Brussels, as well as Italy which has a populist government including the far-right League party figures. Looking ahead to his tour of World War I battlefields, the president said he was looking for the lessons of history, while seeking to promote "a more sovereign and multilateral" Europe. "Europe faces a risk -- that of being broken up by nationalist leprosy and of being pushed around by foreign powers. And thereby losing its sovereignty," he said. "That is to say having its security depend on US choices, having China play an ever greater role when it comes to essential infrastructures, and Russia sometimes tempted to try its hand at manipulation, and have financial interests and markets sometimes play greater roles than that of states." Macron, who has been losing ground in the opinion polls, is attempting to position himself as the champion of centrist politics and multilateralism in the run-up to European parliamentary elections in seven months' time, saying he expects the duel to be one between "progressives" and "nationalists". According to the latest Vivavoice poll, released on Tuesday, Macron has lost 10 points since August with his approval rating now at 26 per cent. The poll, carried out between October 19 and 22, with a margin of error of between 1.4 and 3.1 per cent, also suggested that nearly two out of three people have a "poor opinion" of him.

France's Macron warns Europe of a return to 1930s because of nationalist 'leprosy'

At the highly-anticipated speech at the RSS's Tritiya Varsh event in Nagpur former president and veteran Congress leader &nbspDr Pranab Mukherjee said any attempt at defining our nationhood in terms of dogma and identities or religion, region, hatred and intolerance will only lead to dilution of our identity.&nbsp

''Our national identity has emerged after a long drawn process of confluence and assimilation, the multiple cultures and faiths make us special and tolerant,'' the former president said.&nbsp

Batting for pluralism at the RSS event, the Congress leader said he was there to share his understanding on the concepts of nation, nationalism and patriotism in the context of India.&nbsp

''As Gandhi ji explained Indian nationalism was not exclusive nor aggressive nor destructive,'' Mukherjee noted.&nbsp

The former president also quoted from the first prime minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's book 'Discovery of India,' and stated nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and other groups in India.

''It was this very nationalism that Pandit Nehru so vividly expressed in the book 'Discovery of India', he wrote, "I am convinced that nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and other groups in India,": Dr Pranab Mukherjee in Nagpur

Batting for pluralism at the RSS event, Pranab Mukherjee said he was there to share his understanding on the concepts of nation, nationalism and patriotism in the context of India

At the highly-anticipated speech at the RSS's Tritiya Varsh event in Nagpur former president and veteran Congress leader &nbspDr Pranab Mukherjee said any attempt at defining our nationhood in terms of dogma and identities or religion, region, hatred and intolerance will only lead to dilution of our identity. ''Our national identity has emerged after a long drawn process of confluence and assimilation, the multiple cultures and faiths make us special and tolerant,'' the former president said. Batting for pluralism at the RSS event, the Congress leader said he was there to share his understanding on the concepts of nation, nationalism and patriotism in the context of India. ''As Gandhi ji explained Indian nationalism was not exclusive nor aggressive nor destructive,'' Mukherjee noted. The former president also quoted from the first prime minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's book 'Discovery of India,' and stated nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and other groups in India. ''It was this very nationalism that Pandit Nehru so vividly expressed in the book 'Discovery of India', he wrote, "I am convinced that nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and other groups in India,": Dr Pranab Mukherjee in Nagpur

Intolerance will dilute our national identity: Pranab Mukherjee

I thought landing in Istanbul would be an experience. It turned out to be a banal exercise. Routine and well-practised.&nbsp;

I reached my hotel quickly. A hotel belonging to the same chain exists in NOIDA too.&nbsp;

In Turkey, a narrow strip of water — the Bosphorus Strait — divides Asia from Europe.&nbsp;

I was amused to find later that the two sides also reflects the cultural differences between the two sides. As my guide confessed to me, alcohol is served more widely on the European side. (I had packed a bottle to be on the safe side but fortunately, my hotel was on the European side.)&nbsp;

The Asian side seemed older and traditional, the European more cosmopolitan.&nbsp;

 
A vague idea of India

Istanbul has a vague idea of India.&nbsp;

At a posh eatery near the waterfront, I met a man at lunch who spoke about the late filmmaker Raj Kapoor, and the bane of Hindi cinema.&nbsp;

When I enquired about the "bane", he said "length".&nbsp;

"Either you are a Pakistani or an Indian,” he said as we started to chat.&nbsp;

I wasn’t pleased. But the conversation quickly veered to vegetarian food, a big concern for my wife.&nbsp;

On the one hand, I savoured the moment of being identified as Indian while on the other, I was miffed for being clubbed with the Pakistanis. But then these are the small and beautiful mercies of globalisation, when it becomes difficult for the other to treat you like an alien.&nbsp;

 
'Dikkat', which means 'difficulty' or 'to stop' 
 
The word "dikkat", which means "difficulty" in Hindi and Urdu, means "to stop" in Turkish.&nbsp;

The word was not alien to me. I understood what it meant. It was in front of a kebab shop and I didn’t feel too "nationalistic" about ownership of it.&nbsp;

Deep down, I knew that like chocolate, potato, biryani and many other things, this too came from faraway lands but we made them our own by spicing them up.&nbsp;

We bettered them.&nbsp;

<img alt="istanbul3.jpg" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="430" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/istanbul3.jpg" width="770" />

<img alt="istanbul2.jpg" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="430" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/istanbul2.jpg" width="770" />

<img alt="istanbul4.jpg" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="430" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/istanbul4.jpg" width="770" />

 
Who are we, and how did we become this way?&nbsp; 
The news on TV was filled with talk about Syrian immigrants, the Iran deal and oil. Some of it was inward-looking.&nbsp;

With liberalism in retreat throughout the world, "strong" leaders have emerged through the ballot box who are now asserting their economic and cultural nationalism. Turkey is one example. &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Similar debates pepper the popular media in India.&nbsp;

Most of the debates are about who we are without understanding how we became this way because of constant interaction with the world. We are becoming insular. Inward looking.&nbsp;

A case in point is whether India became modern under the Marathas or the Mughals? Absolutely not. Would we have been richer without cultural interaction or poorer? Obviously poorer. 
&nbsp; 
Turkey stands at the confluence of two continents. Did it become poorer by cultural intercourse or richer? Absorbing all those influences made them prosperou.&nbsp;

Though their transition to modernity was preceded by the collapse of the Ottomon empire, a nation with a wider worldview was already shaping up under Ataturk.

Today, debate in India is only about who we are.&nbsp;

Who are we? What makes us a nation? Is it culture or constitution?&nbsp;

The debate continues.&nbsp;

The debate is polarising and insular.&nbsp;

Despite nations being the most workable system, they are not cast in stone. They can wither away. 
&nbsp;

Indebted to globalisation

So, to not be treated as an alien in Istanbul, I truly felt indebted to globalisation. 
&nbsp; 
Today, globalisation is a maligned word. In this world of economic and cultural nationalism, it was good to be culturally acknowledged and accepted as different.&nbsp;

With all due respect, Istanbul's Spice Market looked like an upgraded version of Palika Bazar but the fact that 10 percent of the shopkeepers there knew Hindi was good enough for me.

In an ever-changing world, we are becoming more and more culturally insular. Our quest is not to discover the other but to find sameness in a faraway land. &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
At a time like this, if India turns insular, then it should not aspire to be a world leader.&nbsp;

More initiatives were taken under a Nehru when India’s economy counted for nothing on the world stage. 
&nbsp; 
The question to be debated is whether political and cultural insularity will help India?&nbsp;

Doesn’t this country need to be intellectually connected with wider world issues, rather than worrying about who we are, who we&nbsp;were and what are the purest elements of the Indian identity.

In Turkey, a narrow strip of water — the Bosphorus Strait — divides Asia from Europe. Cultural differences show up on either side

I thought landing in Istanbul would be an experience. It turned out to be a banal exercise. Routine and well-practised. I reached my hotel quickly. A hotel belonging to the same chain exists in NOIDA too. In Turkey, a narrow strip of water — the Bosphorus Strait — divides Asia from Europe. I was amused to find later that the two sides also reflects the cultural differences between the two sides. As my guide confessed to me, alcohol is served more widely on the European side. (I had packed a bottle to be on the safe side but fortunately, my hotel was on the European side.) The Asian side seemed older and traditional, the European more cosmopolitan. A vague idea of India Istanbul has a vague idea of India. At a posh eatery near the waterfront, I met a man at lunch who spoke about the late filmmaker Raj Kapoor, and the bane of Hindi cinema. When I enquired about the "bane", he said "length". "Either you are a Pakistani or an Indian,” he said as we started to chat. I wasn’t pleased. But the conversation quickly veered to vegetarian food, a big concern for my wife. On the one hand, I savoured the moment of being identified as Indian while on the other, I was miffed for being clubbed with the Pakistanis. But then these are the small and beautiful mercies of globalisation, when it becomes difficult for the other to treat you like an alien. 'Dikkat', which means 'difficulty' or 'to stop' The word "dikkat", which means "difficulty" in Hindi and Urdu, means "to stop" in Turkish. The word was not alien to me. I understood what it meant. It was in front of a kebab shop and I didn’t feel too "nationalistic" about ownership of it. Deep down, I knew that like chocolate, potato, biryani and many other things, this too came from faraway lands but we made them our own by spicing them up. We bettered them. Who are we, and how did we become this way? The news on TV was filled with talk about Syrian immigrants, the Iran deal and oil. Some of it was inward-looking. With liberalism in retreat throughout the world, "strong" leaders have emerged through the ballot box who are now asserting their economic and cultural nationalism. Turkey is one example. Similar debates pepper the popular media in India. Most of the debates are about who we are without understanding how we became this way because of constant interaction with the world. We are becoming insular. Inward looking. A case in point is whether India became modern under the Marathas or the Mughals? Absolutely not. Would we have been richer without cultural interaction or poorer? Obviously poorer. Turkey stands at the confluence of two continents. Did it become poorer by cultural intercourse or richer? Absorbing all those influences made them prosperou. Though their transition to modernity was preceded by the collapse of the Ottomon empire, a nation with a wider worldview was already shaping up under Ataturk. Today, debate in India is only about who we are. Who are we? What makes us a nation? Is it culture or constitution? The debate continues. The debate is polarising and insular. Despite nations being the most workable system, they are not cast in stone. They can wither away. Indebted to globalisation So, to not be treated as an alien in Istanbul, I truly felt indebted to globalisation. Today, globalisation is a maligned word. In this world of economic and cultural nationalism, it was good to be culturally acknowledged and accepted as different. With all due respect, Istanbul's Spice Market looked like an upgraded version of Palika Bazar but the fact that 10 percent of the shopkeepers there knew Hindi was good enough for me. In an ever-changing world, we are becoming more and more culturally insular. Our quest is not to discover the other but to find sameness in a faraway land. At a time like this, if India turns insular, then it should not aspire to be a world leader. More initiatives were taken under a Nehru when India’s economy counted for nothing on the world stage. The question to be debated is whether political and cultural insularity will help India? Doesn’t this country need to be intellectually connected with wider world issues, rather than worrying about who we are, who we were and what are the purest elements of the Indian identity.

Istanbul diary: Small mercies of globalisation

Nagaland is an ideological frontier to the mainland cultural nationalism. The current mainstream nationalism has met its match in a highly evangelized society which today is interchangeable with the Naga identity. Elections which were supposed to rotate around the issue of Naga Accord today stands superseded by the narrative of cultural freedom, dietary habits and Naga way of life which is primarily Christian today.&nbsp;

Nagaland underwent the process of proselytisation under the British rule where American missionary Edwin W. Clark opened their first mission in Naga Hills near Ao Naga. Rest is history. It is an event in sub-continental history which will stay with the Union of India. Whether it was insularity of Hinduism at that point of time and absence of the dogma to convert or restriction of movement of Indian preachers in colonial India when Hinduism also acquired consciousness of number over caste, the demographic map of North East changed for good.

It is this restlessness of BJP and RSS on the issue of conversions which meets the settled reality of Nagaland wherein Naga identity stands coterminous with Christianity. This is also a case in Mizoram but in Kohima, it is married to the idea of Greater Nagaland or Nagalim. Previous elections moved from one issue to another but the question of Naga identity remained central to the political narrative. This time, with Nagaland Baptist Church Council issuing a statement, the game changed suddenly and unexpectedly. It set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Every political party had to recalibrate its position on issues ranging from faith to food. It is for this reason that BJP has gone to town on the issue of faith. BJP leaders declare in every meeting that Nagaland will be served best of Indian secularism. It is to rest the anxiety over the hard edge of cultural nationalism that has come to dominate Indian political landscape. It is an admission of the reality that what works in Uttar Pradesh will not work in Nagaland.&nbsp;

Nagaland, in fact, is the border where majoritarian nationalism has met its challenge from a small state. It stems from ruling party&rsquo;s desire to expand in areas which have been culturally different from heartland politics. This has happened because of mass media and Internet as distant &lsquo;realities&rsquo; acquire local political relevance. The elections also tell us that Church in North East has never been apolitical. The Baptist Church by writing the letter has officially acknowledged that it gives primacy to the Christian identity of people living in Nagaland than ethnic roots.

It is because of this debate that Nagaland is failing to discuss the real issue of massive corruption and organised pilferage of state subsidy by powerful politicians, bureaucrats and underground organisations. Beautiful houses are built alongside few of the worst maintained or not so their roads through the state. Nagaland is littered with expensive cars but it does not have industry to boost off. This happens for one simple reason and that being cash for votes. The cash distribution capacity represents the true strength of any candidate. For the fact that payment has become acceptable, the electorate loses its own moral power to question the politicians they elect as their representatives.

Lastly, Congress which was a force all across North East today is reduced as a side player in the game. Congress today only relies on the Church-supported narrative to help its candidates on odd 18 seats where it has fielded candidates. This has happened when Congress received 36.28 per cent votes in 2008 and 24.89 per cent in 2013. The BJP, on the other hand, got measly 5.35 per cent votes in 2008 and 1.75 per cent in 2013.&nbsp;

Despite the intrinsic strength and a bigger organisation, Congress allowed a bigger playing field to BJP in this election. The result is that most of the prominent Congress faces are fighting elections under the symbol of different parties. Among the regional parties, the ruling Naga People&#39;s Front maintains a massive edge over Nationalist Democratic People&#39;s Party-BJP alliance which is being led by the former Chief Minister Rio.

&nbsp;The bottom line is that both BJP and Congress, depending on their numbers in assembly, will reposition themselves so that they can be part of the government. The only difference between the both is that BJP is seen to be fighting the election and Congress is struggling to keep up its campaign floating. BJP is seen as a player for the fact that they are in power in the Centre.&nbsp;

As of now, not a single rally of Congress President Rahul Gandhi has been planned which itself is an indication of the lack of importance placed by the party. Lastly, Congress General Secretary CP Joshi has been an abysmal failure who is resented by the Congress across North East.&nbsp;

Another reality is that political mistrust also pervades between NDPP and BJP over funds and loyalty. NPF despite having an edge is still divided into two factions and can split on the question of CM&#39;s post. Nonetheless, it all depends on numbers election results will throw.&nbsp;

The sum total of the election is that with Church jumping into the fray, the game has opened. The only casualty is the debate on the real issue of diversion of state funds and cash for votes. It a disease which continues to flourish in the state with great pomp and show.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Nagaland is the faultline where majoritarian nationalism has met its challenge from a small state.

Nagaland is an ideological frontier to the mainland cultural nationalism. The current mainstream nationalism has met its match in a highly evangelized society which today is interchangeable with the Naga identity. Elections which were supposed to rotate around the issue of Naga Accord today stands superseded by the narrative of cultural freedom, dietary habits and Naga way of life which is primarily Christian today. Nagaland underwent the process of proselytisation under the British rule where American missionary Edwin W. Clark opened their first mission in Naga Hills near Ao Naga. Rest is history. It is an event in sub-continental history which will stay with the Union of India. Whether it was insularity of Hinduism at that point of time and absence of the dogma to convert or restriction of movement of Indian preachers in colonial India when Hinduism also acquired consciousness of number over caste, the demographic map of North East changed for good. It is this restlessness of BJP and RSS on the issue of conversions which meets the settled reality of Nagaland wherein Naga identity stands coterminous with Christianity. This is also a case in Mizoram but in Kohima, it is married to the idea of Greater Nagaland or Nagalim. Previous elections moved from one issue to another but the question of Naga identity remained central to the political narrative. This time, with Nagaland Baptist Church Council issuing a statement, the game changed suddenly and unexpectedly. It set the cat amongst the pigeons. Every political party had to recalibrate its position on issues ranging from faith to food. It is for this reason that BJP has gone to town on the issue of faith. BJP leaders declare in every meeting that Nagaland will be served best of Indian secularism. It is to rest the anxiety over the hard edge of cultural nationalism that has come to dominate Indian political landscape. It is an admission of the reality that what works in Uttar Pradesh will not work in Nagaland. Nagaland, in fact, is the border where majoritarian nationalism has met its challenge from a small state. It stems from ruling party’s desire to expand in areas which have been culturally different from heartland politics. This has happened because of mass media and Internet as distant ‘realities’ acquire local political relevance. The elections also tell us that Church in North East has never been apolitical. The Baptist Church by writing the letter has officially acknowledged that it gives primacy to the Christian identity of people living in Nagaland than ethnic roots. It is because of this debate that Nagaland is failing to discuss the real issue of massive corruption and organised pilferage of state subsidy by powerful politicians, bureaucrats and underground organisations. Beautiful houses are built alongside few of the worst maintained or not so their roads through the state. Nagaland is littered with expensive cars but it does not have industry to boost off. This happens for one simple reason and that being cash for votes. The cash distribution capacity represents the true strength of any candidate. For the fact that payment has become acceptable, the electorate loses its own moral power to question the politicians they elect as their representatives. Lastly, Congress which was a force all across North East today is reduced as a side player in the game. Congress today only relies on the Church-supported narrative to help its candidates on odd 18 seats where it has fielded candidates. This has happened when Congress received 36.28 per cent votes in 2008 and 24.89 per cent in 2013. The BJP, on the other hand, got measly 5.35 per cent votes in 2008 and 1.75 per cent in 2013. Despite the intrinsic strength and a bigger organisation, Congress allowed a bigger playing field to BJP in this election. The result is that most of the prominent Congress faces are fighting elections under the symbol of different parties. Among the regional parties, the ruling Naga People's Front maintains a massive edge over Nationalist Democratic People's Party-BJP alliance which is being led by the former Chief Minister Rio. The bottom line is that both BJP and Congress, depending on their numbers in assembly, will reposition themselves so that they can be part of the government. The only difference between the both is that BJP is seen to be fighting the election and Congress is struggling to keep up its campaign floating. BJP is seen as a player for the fact that they are in power in the Centre. As of now, not a single rally of Congress President Rahul Gandhi has been planned which itself is an indication of the lack of importance placed by the party. Lastly, Congress General Secretary CP Joshi has been an abysmal failure who is resented by the Congress across North East. Another reality is that political mistrust also pervades between NDPP and BJP over funds and loyalty. NPF despite having an edge is still divided into two factions and can split on the question of CM's post. Nonetheless, it all depends on numbers election results will throw. The sum total of the election is that with Church jumping into the fray, the game has opened. The only casualty is the debate on the real issue of diversion of state funds and cash for votes. It a disease which continues to flourish in the state with great pomp and show. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Corruption rules in Nagaland but election will be won on religious identity

Taking a dig at those who recently whipped up the issue of religion in the Indian Army, Lieutenant General Devraj Anbu, General Officer, Northern Command said, &quot;We don&#39;t communalise martyrs, those making statements don&#39;t know the Army well.&quot;

&nbsp;

Having served in the Indian Army for more than a decade, I know for sure how the secular nationalist spirit of the forces binds our soldiers together.

&nbsp;

Almost two decades back when I joined the Indian Army as an officer, I participated in the Mandir Parade which is a customary practice for all the soldiers of Army. It is called parade because everyone available must attend it and there is no exemption. All officers and jawans are expected to perform as per the religion of the regiment. If a regiment is predominantly Sikh then all will go for ardas and if Hindu then everyone will perform aarti.&nbsp; In some Christian dominated regiments, such as those populated by people from Nagaland and Assam, Christmas is a regimental function. If the regiment is dominated by Muslim soldiers, everyone will be present at the time of Eid Namaz and keep Roza.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It is a standard practice in the Army that all the religious places of different religion share the same premises and is called the &ldquo;Sarva Dharma Sambhav Sthal&rdquo;. It is a common scene in a regiment to see officers moving out of Mandir after aarti and rushing to gurudwara or church or mosque for prayers.

&nbsp;

This is the form of religion in the Armed forces. There is another interesting custom in the Infantry Regiments which are primarily raised around regional (Punjab, Garhwal, Kumaon), community (Mahar, Naga, Jat) or religious (Sikh) identities. The newly commissioned officer is not sent to the unit but to the regimental centre where he learns about his men. He learns their religion, habits, language so that he can become one of them. Then only he can go and command those troops.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To put it simply, all the religious divisiveness cease to exist when a person joins the armed forces. The olive-green skin dominates all religions and faiths. The person joins a force of believers who are following only one religion- Indian, and that&rsquo;s the peculiarity of the secular nature of Indian Armed Forces.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This was the reason why many of the Muslim Indian Army officers decided to stay back with their troops after the Indian Partition and refused the offer of Pakistani Generals to join their army even when offered a promotion. Here, I would like to quote the example of Brigadier Mohammad Usman, Mahavir Chakra (Posthumous) who chose to stay with the Indian Army and laid down his life saving our borders.

&nbsp;

Indian army had been accused of human rights violation, and such accusations are common for any force operating in the disturbed areas but there had never ever been a single incident where anyone has accused it of religious or caste-based differentiations. This was the reason why Indian Armed forces could work in complex peacekeeping operations under United Nations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In 1984, during Operation Blue Star, when the Army was tasked to move in, the soldiers removed their shoes, prayed for the almighty and then entered the Golden Temple Complex. They had been given instructions not to cause any harm to Harmandir Sahib. They laid down their lives but followed the orders to the letter and spirit. Such is the secular nature of Indian Army. On the other hand, at the time of great mosque seize in Mecca in 1979 even Pakistani Commandoes entered the complex in full battle gear and created havoc.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There are other examples too. When I was posted on the Line of Control in Poonch area, the Jat regiment was replaced by a battalion of grenadiers which had a company of all Muslim soldiers. The Jats had a small temple on that post. Soon after the grenadiers took over, the senior most JCO of the company appointed one of the Muslim soldiers to the service of the temple. His logic was clear, the temple belongs to the post and not to any religion. The person was responsible for not only cleaning the temple but also to light up the diya before the deity twice a day.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

During the Kargil War, several hundreds of Pakistani soldiers were killed. Indian government offered their mortal remains to Pakistan but our rogue neighbour refused to identify their officers and soldiers. This was a crucial time and the Indian Army not only arranged the respectful burial of those bodies but managed to get maulvis and Muslim soldiers to do the Salat-El-Janazah for them. They are peacefully buried in Indian territory and the graves are periodically looked after by the Indian soldiers only.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Till date, the entire Indian Army avoids having non-vegetarian food and alcohol on Tuesday and Thursday, the two days considered auspicious for the Hindu and Muslim communities.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Indian Army is the only force in the world, wherein I have seen Captain Ahmad with a tilak on his forehead, Major James bowing before Guru Granth Sahib and speaking fluent Punjabi, Lieutenant Chaturvedi keeping all the 30 Rozas and Major Gurkirat Singh decorating his house for Christmas.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There are people in this country who see the armed forces through religious lenses but the reality is far from their perception. The only faith Indian Army follows is the National Faith and no other faith comes after that.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Having served in the Indian Army for more than a decade, I know for sure how the secular nationalist spirit of the forces binds our soldiers together.

Taking a dig at those who recently whipped up the issue of religion in the Indian Army, Lieutenant General Devraj Anbu, General Officer, Northern Command said, "We don't communalise martyrs, those making statements don't know the Army well." Having served in the Indian Army for more than a decade, I know for sure how the secular nationalist spirit of the forces binds our soldiers together. Almost two decades back when I joined the Indian Army as an officer, I participated in the Mandir Parade which is a customary practice for all the soldiers of Army. It is called parade because everyone available must attend it and there is no exemption. All officers and jawans are expected to perform as per the religion of the regiment. If a regiment is predominantly Sikh then all will go for ardas and if Hindu then everyone will perform aarti. In some Christian dominated regiments, such as those populated by people from Nagaland and Assam, Christmas is a regimental function. If the regiment is dominated by Muslim soldiers, everyone will be present at the time of Eid Namaz and keep Roza. It is a standard practice in the Army that all the religious places of different religion share the same premises and is called the “Sarva Dharma Sambhav Sthal”. It is a common scene in a regiment to see officers moving out of Mandir after aarti and rushing to gurudwara or church or mosque for prayers. This is the form of religion in the Armed forces. There is another interesting custom in the Infantry Regiments which are primarily raised around regional (Punjab, Garhwal, Kumaon), community (Mahar, Naga, Jat) or religious (Sikh) identities. The newly commissioned officer is not sent to the unit but to the regimental centre where he learns about his men. He learns their religion, habits, language so that he can become one of them. Then only he can go and command those troops. To put it simply, all the religious divisiveness cease to exist when a person joins the armed forces. The olive-green skin dominates all religions and faiths. The person joins a force of believers who are following only one religion- Indian, and that’s the peculiarity of the secular nature of Indian Armed Forces. This was the reason why many of the Muslim Indian Army officers decided to stay back with their troops after the Indian Partition and refused the offer of Pakistani Generals to join their army even when offered a promotion. Here, I would like to quote the example of Brigadier Mohammad Usman, Mahavir Chakra (Posthumous) who chose to stay with the Indian Army and laid down his life saving our borders. Indian army had been accused of human rights violation, and such accusations are common for any force operating in the disturbed areas but there had never ever been a single incident where anyone has accused it of religious or caste-based differentiations. This was the reason why Indian Armed forces could work in complex peacekeeping operations under United Nations. In 1984, during Operation Blue Star, when the Army was tasked to move in, the soldiers removed their shoes, prayed for the almighty and then entered the Golden Temple Complex. They had been given instructions not to cause any harm to Harmandir Sahib. They laid down their lives but followed the orders to the letter and spirit. Such is the secular nature of Indian Army. On the other hand, at the time of great mosque seize in Mecca in 1979 even Pakistani Commandoes entered the complex in full battle gear and created havoc. There are other examples too. When I was posted on the Line of Control in Poonch area, the Jat regiment was replaced by a battalion of grenadiers which had a company of all Muslim soldiers. The Jats had a small temple on that post. Soon after the grenadiers took over, the senior most JCO of the company appointed one of the Muslim soldiers to the service of the temple. His logic was clear, the temple belongs to the post and not to any religion. The person was responsible for not only cleaning the temple but also to light up the diya before the deity twice a day. During the Kargil War, several hundreds of Pakistani soldiers were killed. Indian government offered their mortal remains to Pakistan but our rogue neighbour refused to identify their officers and soldiers. This was a crucial time and the Indian Army not only arranged the respectful burial of those bodies but managed to get maulvis and Muslim soldiers to do the Salat-El-Janazah for them. They are peacefully buried in Indian territory and the graves are periodically looked after by the Indian soldiers only. Till date, the entire Indian Army avoids having non-vegetarian food and alcohol on Tuesday and Thursday, the two days considered auspicious for the Hindu and Muslim communities. The Indian Army is the only force in the world, wherein I have seen Captain Ahmad with a tilak on his forehead, Major James bowing before Guru Granth Sahib and speaking fluent Punjabi, Lieutenant Chaturvedi keeping all the 30 Rozas and Major Gurkirat Singh decorating his house for Christmas. There are people in this country who see the armed forces through religious lenses but the reality is far from their perception. The only faith Indian Army follows is the National Faith and no other faith comes after that. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Not religion, nationalism is sole inspiration of Indian Army

The Rajasthan government has made singing of national anthem mandatory in all government and government-aided hostels in the state.

Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Arun Chaturvedi said the move would instill a &quot;sense of nationalism&quot; among students.

&quot;Students will sing &#39;Jana Gana Mana&#39; in the morning meeting at 7 am. Hostel wardens will have to be present during such sessions,&quot; he said.

The order came into force on November 26, celebrated as the Constitution day.

There are close to 40,000 students in nearly 800 state-run hostels in Rajasthan.

The Jaipur Municipal Corporation had last month started the daily practice of playing the national anthem at the start of the day and the national song in the evening.

Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Arun Chaturvedi said the move would instill a 'sense of nationalism' among students

The Rajasthan government has made singing of national anthem mandatory in all government and government-aided hostels in the state. Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Arun Chaturvedi said the move would instill a "sense of nationalism" among students. "Students will sing 'Jana Gana Mana' in the morning meeting at 7 am. Hostel wardens will have to be present during such sessions," he said. The order came into force on November 26, celebrated as the Constitution day. There are close to 40,000 students in nearly 800 state-run hostels in Rajasthan. The Jaipur Municipal Corporation had last month started the daily practice of playing the national anthem at the start of the day and the national song in the evening.

Rajasthan makes national anthem mandatory in state-run hostels

Among those radicals associated with the Left Wing of the Congress Party during the decades prior to independence, there was probably no one who could rival Ram Manohar Lohia in genius and originality of thought.

Lohia was a truly novel thinker, a fierce polemist and a ruthless critic. His ideas on power, inequality, freedom and the role of the state drew upon and contended with those of contemporary figures like Jayaprakash Narayan, Jawaharlal Nehru and Ashoka Mehta, as well as upon the thought of Marx and Gandhi, but were always tinged by his own personal views and highly critical intelligence.

Following the transfer of power, Lohia arose as the most important and visible figure in the ranks of the new Socialist Party. Along with many socialists around the world during the 1950s and 60s, Lohia identified socialism with the possibility of a radical transformation of society and, through it, the coming of a new civilisation. He developed an open-ended conception of socialism based on an impetuous vernacular and anti-elitist stance regarding political power and the role and management of the state.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Lohia openly attacked the elitism of the Nehruvian statist project of modernisation, as well as the potentially violent programme of communists in India</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Lohia openly attacked the elitism of the Nehruvian statist project of modernisation, as well as the potentially violent programme of communists in India" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

In his view, socialism could not mean a mere revival of cottage industries and a return to the village. Indeed, he described the latter as spaces of arbitrary power, embodied in the trinity formed by &ldquo;vested interests, the police and village goondas.&rdquo; At the same time, however, he refused to adhere to a teleological version of Marxism, a doctrine he denounced as Eurocentric and unable to account for the link between capitalist accumulation and colonialism. Moreover, he openly attacked the elitism of the Nehruvian statist project of modernisation, as well as the potentially violent programme of communists in India.

During the 1950s and early 60s, Lohia emerged as the most vocal representative of anti-Congressism and a virulent critic of what he termed &ldquo;the Nehru myth.&rdquo; In his view, the revolutionary potential of the freedom movement was being arrested by the project of modernisation defended by the elites of independent India, in which &ldquo;criminal luxury and waste were concealed under the deceptive slogans of national dignity and needs of representation.&rdquo; He extended his sharp criticism of the prime minister to the &ldquo;leadership of sterile Marxists&rdquo; in other recently decolonised countries, a group in which he included Nehru&acute;s fellow champions of Non-Alignment during the late 1950s, Nkrumah and Sukarno.

Lohia denounced Nehru as the leader and main promoter of this harmful project, and consequently directed some of his most virulent attacks against the figure of the prime minister. This strategy, coupled with a similar dismissive and aggressive approach towards communists, would contribute to Lohia&acute;s gradual political marginalisation during the first two decades of independent life in India

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>More than any other socialist leader of his time, Lohia&nbsp;reflected upon issues of caste, gender, language diversity and vernacular knowledge</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=More than any other socialist leader of his time, Lohia?reflected upon issues of caste, gender, language diversity and vernacular knowledge" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

More than any other socialist leader of his time, Lohia&nbsp;reflected upon issues of caste, gender, language diversity and vernacular knowledge in the course of his intellectual development. His rise to prominence as a party leader coincided with a period of intense debate around the issue of caste-based reservations. Even before the appearance of the First Report of the Backward Classes Commission, written in 1953 and published in 1955, Lohia has advanced his interest in involving members of the lower castes in the ranks and leadership of the Socialist Party, and had begun his active campaign for the application of preferential opportunities for the backward sections of society.&nbsp;

During the second half of the 1950s, Lohia made significant efforts to contact the leaders of the most important anti-caste movements, as well as major leaders of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. Between 1955 and 1956, he maintained a correspondence with B. R. Ambedkar, inviting him to attend the 1955 Conference of the Socialist Party, and, in 1957, the Lohia-led SP merged with the Indian National Backward Classes Federation. Moreover, Lohia extended Ambedkar&acute;s demands and advocated for extending the scope of the Backward Classes label to include other sections of the population, notably depressed Muslims, Adivasis and women.

His focus on the specificities and concrete needs of Indian society, however, did not prevent him from taking into consideration the contingencies of the international arena and devising a plan for a global parliament. His open-ended vision of socialism was shaped by an awareness of international events, as well as by the deeply felt need to go beyond Eurocentrism and promote indigenous and independent models of socio-political development.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Lohia was a fierce critic, a combative thinker, and a tireless organiser</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Lohia was a fierce critic, a combative thinker, and a tireless organiser" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

Lohia was a fierce critic, a combative thinker, and a tireless organiser. The boldness and potency of his intellectual project, however, was contrasted by the dismal political failure of his politics in electoral terms. During the 1950s and early 60s, he presided over the SP, the Praja Socialist Party and the Samyukta Socialist Party, all of which remained unable to challenge the potency of the Congress or the communists in electoral terms until his death in 1967.

Despite the fact that it did not materialise in any significant institutional gains, Lohia&acute;s political project made a crucial contribution to the emergence of original conceptions of socialism that were wholly unrelated to anything known elsewhere by that name. It also opened up a space for political trajectories that are still being played out in the horizon of contemporary Indian politics.

But perhaps the greatest legacy of his politics can be found in his constant effort to question established dogmas and re-think the seemingly obvious. Despite the fact that it entailed his marginalisation from the mainstream of national politics, Lohia was never one to compromise. He spoke of the importance of fighting the entrenched injustices of Indian society in a time of nationalist triumphalism. He defended the role of the state in a time of growing Gandhian anti-statism.

Further, he dreamt of an alternative economic system based on the creation of &ldquo;small machines&rdquo; in an epoch infatuated with the prospect of big-scale industrialisation. In a time, such as ours, in which there seems to be an increasingly narrow window for dissent and rational thought in global politics, Lohia&acute;s fiery adherence to debate and critical thought is a legacy to be cherished and taken seriously once more.

Lohia spoke of the importance of fighting entrenched injustices of Indian society in a time of nationalist triumphalism

Among those radicals associated with the Left Wing of the Congress Party during the decades prior to independence, there was probably no one who could rival Ram Manohar Lohia in genius and originality of thought. Lohia was a truly novel thinker, a fierce polemist and a ruthless critic. His ideas on power, inequality, freedom and the role of the state drew upon and contended with those of contemporary figures like Jayaprakash Narayan, Jawaharlal Nehru and Ashoka Mehta, as well as upon the thought of Marx and Gandhi, but were always tinged by his own personal views and highly critical intelligence. Following the transfer of power, Lohia arose as the most important and visible figure in the ranks of the new Socialist Party. Along with many socialists around the world during the 1950s and 60s, Lohia identified socialism with the possibility of a radical transformation of society and, through it, the coming of a new civilisation. He developed an open-ended conception of socialism based on an impetuous vernacular and anti-elitist stance regarding political power and the role and management of the state. Lohia openly attacked the elitism of the Nehruvian statist project of modernisation, as well as the potentially violent programme of communists in India × In his view, socialism could not mean a mere revival of cottage industries and a return to the village. Indeed, he described the latter as spaces of arbitrary power, embodied in the trinity formed by “vested interests, the police and village goondas.” At the same time, however, he refused to adhere to a teleological version of Marxism, a doctrine he denounced as Eurocentric and unable to account for the link between capitalist accumulation and colonialism. Moreover, he openly attacked the elitism of the Nehruvian statist project of modernisation, as well as the potentially violent programme of communists in India. During the 1950s and early 60s, Lohia emerged as the most vocal representative of anti-Congressism and a virulent critic of what he termed “the Nehru myth.” In his view, the revolutionary potential of the freedom movement was being arrested by the project of modernisation defended by the elites of independent India, in which “criminal luxury and waste were concealed under the deceptive slogans of national dignity and needs of representation.” He extended his sharp criticism of the prime minister to the “leadership of sterile Marxists” in other recently decolonised countries, a group in which he included Nehru´s fellow champions of Non-Alignment during the late 1950s, Nkrumah and Sukarno. Lohia denounced Nehru as the leader and main promoter of this harmful project, and consequently directed some of his most virulent attacks against the figure of the prime minister. This strategy, coupled with a similar dismissive and aggressive approach towards communists, would contribute to Lohia´s gradual political marginalisation during the first two decades of independent life in India More than any other socialist leader of his time, Lohia reflected upon issues of caste, gender, language diversity and vernacular knowledge × More than any other socialist leader of his time, Lohia reflected upon issues of caste, gender, language diversity and vernacular knowledge in the course of his intellectual development. His rise to prominence as a party leader coincided with a period of intense debate around the issue of caste-based reservations. Even before the appearance of the First Report of the Backward Classes Commission, written in 1953 and published in 1955, Lohia has advanced his interest in involving members of the lower castes in the ranks and leadership of the Socialist Party, and had begun his active campaign for the application of preferential opportunities for the backward sections of society. During the second half of the 1950s, Lohia made significant efforts to contact the leaders of the most important anti-caste movements, as well as major leaders of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. Between 1955 and 1956, he maintained a correspondence with B. R. Ambedkar, inviting him to attend the 1955 Conference of the Socialist Party, and, in 1957, the Lohia-led SP merged with the Indian National Backward Classes Federation. Moreover, Lohia extended Ambedkar´s demands and advocated for extending the scope of the Backward Classes label to include other sections of the population, notably depressed Muslims, Adivasis and women. His focus on the specificities and concrete needs of Indian society, however, did not prevent him from taking into consideration the contingencies of the international arena and devising a plan for a global parliament. His open-ended vision of socialism was shaped by an awareness of international events, as well as by the deeply felt need to go beyond Eurocentrism and promote indigenous and independent models of socio-political development. Lohia was a fierce critic, a combative thinker, and a tireless organiser × Lohia was a fierce critic, a combative thinker, and a tireless organiser. The boldness and potency of his intellectual project, however, was contrasted by the dismal political failure of his politics in electoral terms. During the 1950s and early 60s, he presided over the SP, the Praja Socialist Party and the Samyukta Socialist Party, all of which remained unable to challenge the potency of the Congress or the communists in electoral terms until his death in 1967. Despite the fact that it did not materialise in any significant institutional gains, Lohia´s political project made a crucial contribution to the emergence of original conceptions of socialism that were wholly unrelated to anything known elsewhere by that name. It also opened up a space for political trajectories that are still being played out in the horizon of contemporary Indian politics. But perhaps the greatest legacy of his politics can be found in his constant effort to question established dogmas and re-think the seemingly obvious. Despite the fact that it entailed his marginalisation from the mainstream of national politics, Lohia was never one to compromise. He spoke of the importance of fighting the entrenched injustices of Indian society in a time of nationalist triumphalism. He defended the role of the state in a time of growing Gandhian anti-statism. Further, he dreamt of an alternative economic system based on the creation of “small machines” in an epoch infatuated with the prospect of big-scale industrialisation. In a time, such as ours, in which there seems to be an increasingly narrow window for dissent and rational thought in global politics, Lohia´s fiery adherence to debate and critical thought is a legacy to be cherished and taken seriously once more.

Ram Manohar Lohia: The fiery critic of Nehru

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian lawmaker&nbsp;and former minister of state for external affairs and&nbsp;human resources development, looked at my notepad and pen and asked, &ldquo;Aren&rsquo;t you going to record the interview?&rdquo; Slightly taken aback, I replied with a gentle shake of the head. I still rely on the old school method especially when interviews are scheduled in haste and recording equipment lay in deep slumber in the bottomless pit of my &lsquo;ladies bag&rsquo;. &ldquo;Oh, but you must! I&rsquo;ve been misquoted so many times that I now insist on recordings,&rdquo; he said.&nbsp;

My phone, a usually reliable back-up, chooses to misbehave at this juncture. Amused, Tharoor offers to record it on his phone and email the audio file. With this newly-forged rapport, we embark on a freewheeling conversation.&nbsp;

I begin by asking what he sees himself as: a writer, a one-time academic, a diplomat or a politician. He has his answer ready. &ldquo;Why does it have to be just one thing? Why can I not be all of it at the same time? A politician can also be a thinking man, you see!&rdquo; He invites the interviewer to shed her predefined notions.&nbsp;

Of Histories, Personal and National&nbsp;

With 15 books belonging to different genres to his name, Tharoor certainly takes his writing seriously. Glancing at the oeuvre, it is easy to discern his preoccupation with history. He nods in agreement. &ldquo;I was always fascinated by history as a child.&rdquo;

He then begins to chart his journey. &ldquo;In high school, I was that crazy kid who wrote history essays out of sheer pleasure and not because the teacher asked. Because I was so interested in the subject, I read way beyond what was required. I wrote essays on topics that interested me, particularly modern Indian history.&rdquo; He shares with a proud smile, &ldquo;I stumbled upon that notebook recently and found out that they weren&#39;t too bad for a fourteen-year-old in 10th standard.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Tharoor sheds light on the traditional science versus arts battle. He too got a taste of it. &ldquo;When I was to go to college, it came as a surprise to many people. I stood first in West Bengal. I had the highest possible marks in ISC examinations. I opted for History and everyone was horrified including my parents and teachers. St Stephens College was astonished because they had never got an application for History from somebody who had such good marks. They admitted me without an interview.&rdquo; He adds, &ldquo;My interest continued and I topped the university in History. When I graduated, I left the field but never lost&nbsp;interest. Finally, today I found myself writing a book on history, admittedly popular history, which does take into account a lot of contemporary debates and scholarship in the field.&rdquo;&nbsp;

The &#39;Us and Them&#39; of Nationalism

But what explains his preoccupation with national history?&nbsp;

Tharoor says:&nbsp;&ldquo;Nationalism is an inescapable part of our 20th-century history because it was a dominant issue in the first half of the 20th century.&rdquo;

&quot;In terms of contemporary politics, I have argued quite a few times, even publicly, that Congress party should not cede Indian nationalism to the ruling party. We have as much of a claim to speak in the nationalistic spirit. And what is more, we do so in a more expansive and inclusive way and not the other kind.&rdquo;&nbsp;

There is no getting away from the &lsquo;us and them&rsquo; binaries.&nbsp;

&ldquo;What I&#39;ve done in my books speaks for a more inclusive vision of India that my party also stands for. But nationalism has many meanings and connotations in people&#39;s minds. There are people who think of nationalism only in terms of &lsquo;bharat mata ki jai&rsquo; kind of bigotry. The current ruling dispensation seems to be thrusting patriotism down people&#39;s throat where loyalty becomes an act of performance rather than something that is felt in the heart. That&#39;s not my kind of nationalism,&rdquo; he continues.&nbsp;

Is this urge of Tharoor, the writer, to narrativise history linked to Tharoor -- the politician&rsquo;s aim to build a certain brand of nationalism?&nbsp;

Every narrative of a contemporary country has to be steeped in its history. Today when we speak of what India is and celebrate Indian nationhood, we need to have a sense of what we are celebrating. As you may have seen in some of my books, I articulate a vision of Indian nationalism that is anchored in Indian pluralism. I talk about all the forces that have made India and nearly unmade it. I celebrate multiplicity, inclusiveness, and involvement of multiple communities and regions in making the Indian national narrative. Others interpret nationalism more narrowly.&nbsp;

&lsquo;Us and them&rsquo; again but he is gracious enough to allow some space.&nbsp;

&ldquo;This is a contested terrain. Obviously, Mr Savarkar&#39;s view of Indian nationalism is not my view of Indian nationalism. This difference is what goes into the process of making of an Indian identity.&rdquo; He pauses to think. &ldquo;But at the same time, nationalism cannot be impervious to the past. Talking of British nationalism today, brushing colonialism under the carpet is inexcusable. You can&#39;t really celebrate Elizabeth, Francis Drake, Victoria, and Walter Raleigh and&nbsp;overlook the subjugation of hundreds of millions of people around the world whose resources were plundered for British industrial revolution. All nationalism is steeped in history whether people acknowledge it or not.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Tharoor&rsquo;s latest &lsquo;An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India&rsquo; seeks to revive the memory of India&rsquo;s colonial past and the attached horrors.&nbsp;

How, as a historian, does he deal with flashpoints in history? Does he see and react to the ploy of outsourcing the violence by the West?&nbsp;

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a very well expressed idea. &lsquo;Outsourcing the violence.&rsquo; As a UN official, I had to deal with the contemporary outsourcing of violence. We can celebrate the fact that the UN prevented the third world war. However, the fact is that wars went on in the periphery while the so-called global centre was celebrating peace. The world, on the whole, has not been at peace,&rdquo; he responds.&nbsp;

What about the flashpoints in Indian history?&nbsp;

Tharoor begins by referring to &lsquo;An Era of Darkness&rsquo;. &ldquo;While I haven&rsquo;t looked at the contemporary Indian history in the latest book which stops at 1947, it does shed light on the roots of communal trouble in the country.&rdquo; Raising his pitch a bit he adds, &ldquo;The divide and rule, divide et impera, was a very conscious colonial policy. Caste system became much more ossified and rigidified thanks to British intervention. I&#39;ve talked about how the classification of entire tribes as criminal tribes, or entire groups as martial races, and so on have had pernicious and lingering effects.&rdquo; He slips in casually, &ldquo;There are some echoes of the Raj in today&#39;s contemporary politics. I&#39;ve alluded to it a bit in the last chapter.&rdquo;&nbsp;

The Opposition Within

Since the historian&rsquo;s politician avatar becomes visible, the next question is about the vulnerabilities of a freely writing and expressing active politician. Tharoor has faced opposition from his own party members for not toeing the line.&nbsp;

&ldquo;I remain a strong critic of the BJP, the ruling party. But I believe that a part of being responsible opposition is giving acknowledgement&nbsp;and at times more than acknowledgement&nbsp;when it&#39;s due. Two such incidents happened in recent past which were only a few months apart. The first one was due to an article in which I asked the question: is there a Narendra Modi 2.0? Without giving a definitive answer, I only said it&#39;s too early to tell. But the headline and a very inadequate paraphrase in the Times of India created a huge uproar.&rdquo;&nbsp;

&ldquo;The second one involved my appointment as a goodwill ambassador of the Swachha Bharat Mission which I saw as a national endeavour that needed to be supported beyond politics. Now, our political atmosphere has reached a point where nothing is beyond politics and as a result, I suffered. But I stand by my&nbsp;ideas,&rdquo; shares Tharoor. He hopes that his &ldquo;intellectual independence and integrity of views&rdquo; will eventually be respected. &ldquo;Hopefully, people will see that though I attack the government as strongly as any other congressman on the majority of issues&nbsp;if there are any issues that I feel the government deserves credit I&#39;m willing to take a different stand,&rdquo; he adds.&nbsp;

Does his status as a politician stand at loggerheads with his writing career?&nbsp;

Tharoor responds to it by talking about responsibility and censorship. &ldquo;I don&#39;t censor myself on those grounds. A part of my responsibility as public figure is to accept the opportunities that a public forum gives me to write and speak. I may not always find myself earning applause from my party but at the very least I&#39;m able to have a point of view. In some cases, if there&#39;s an established party line I&#39;ll shut up after a while. But I&#39;ll continue to share my viewpoint within the party and behind the closed doors. I&#39;ve done it on several occasions.&rdquo;&nbsp;

He shares another instance of backstabbing from some of his own party members. &ldquo;My opposition to the tactical disruption of the parliament was leaked by insiders. I did not go to the press with it. Some others did it to make me look as being disloyal to the party. I wasn&#39;t. Even though I dissented, once the party decided to go ahead with it despite my objection, I worked as an acquiescent member of the party&#39;s presence in the Lok Sabha.&rdquo; It is easy to trace the signs of hurt in his voice.&nbsp;

So what will Dr Shashi Tharoor like to be remembered as, a writer or a politician?&nbsp;

Smile comes back to his face. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a fairly easy question to answer. Writing endures for an individual far more than politics. At the end of the day, a politician may feel that he can do better for the society as a whole than a writer can. But look at me as an individual: I&#39;m already a former minister. One day, I&#39;ll be a former MP. I hope never to be a former writer.&rdquo;&nbsp;

His choice is clear. He may not be a reluctant politician but the writer in him is what keeps him thriving.

(WION)

WION's Nishtha Gautam talks to the erudite Indian lawmaker Shashi Tharoor on history, nationalism, and betrayal

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian lawmaker and former minister of state for external affairs and human resources development, looked at my notepad and pen and asked, “Aren’t you going to record the interview?” Slightly taken aback, I replied with a gentle shake of the head. I still rely on the old school method especially when interviews are scheduled in haste and recording equipment lay in deep slumber in the bottomless pit of my ‘ladies bag’. “Oh, but you must! I’ve been misquoted so many times that I now insist on recordings,” he said. My phone, a usually reliable back-up, chooses to misbehave at this juncture. Amused, Tharoor offers to record it on his phone and email the audio file. With this newly-forged rapport, we embark on a freewheeling conversation. I begin by asking what he sees himself as: a writer, a one-time academic, a diplomat or a politician. He has his answer ready. “Why does it have to be just one thing? Why can I not be all of it at the same time? A politician can also be a thinking man, you see!” He invites the interviewer to shed her predefined notions. Of Histories, Personal and National With 15 books belonging to different genres to his name, Tharoor certainly takes his writing seriously. Glancing at the oeuvre, it is easy to discern his preoccupation with history. He nods in agreement. “I was always fascinated by history as a child.” He then begins to chart his journey. “In high school, I was that crazy kid who wrote history essays out of sheer pleasure and not because the teacher asked. Because I was so interested in the subject, I read way beyond what was required. I wrote essays on topics that interested me, particularly modern Indian history.” He shares with a proud smile, “I stumbled upon that notebook recently and found out that they weren't too bad for a fourteen-year-old in 10th standard.” Tharoor sheds light on the traditional science versus arts battle. He too got a taste of it. “When I was to go to college, it came as a surprise to many people. I stood first in West Bengal. I had the highest possible marks in ISC examinations. I opted for History and everyone was horrified including my parents and teachers. St Stephens College was astonished because they had never got an application for History from somebody who had such good marks. They admitted me without an interview.” He adds, “My interest continued and I topped the university in History. When I graduated, I left the field but never lost interest. Finally, today I found myself writing a book on history, admittedly popular history, which does take into account a lot of contemporary debates and scholarship in the field.” The 'Us and Them' of Nationalism But what explains his preoccupation with national history? Tharoor says: “Nationalism is an inescapable part of our 20th-century history because it was a dominant issue in the first half of the 20th century.” "In terms of contemporary politics, I have argued quite a few times, even publicly, that Congress party should not cede Indian nationalism to the ruling party. We have as much of a claim to speak in the nationalistic spirit. And what is more, we do so in a more expansive and inclusive way and not the other kind.” There is no getting away from the ‘us and them’ binaries. “What I've done in my books speaks for a more inclusive vision of India that my party also stands for. But nationalism has many meanings and connotations in people's minds. There are people who think of nationalism only in terms of ‘bharat mata ki jai’ kind of bigotry. The current ruling dispensation seems to be thrusting patriotism down people's throat where loyalty becomes an act of performance rather than something that is felt in the heart. That's not my kind of nationalism,” he continues. Is this urge of Tharoor, the writer, to narrativise history linked to Tharoor -- the politician’s aim to build a certain brand of nationalism? Every narrative of a contemporary country has to be steeped in its history. Today when we speak of what India is and celebrate Indian nationhood, we need to have a sense of what we are celebrating. As you may have seen in some of my books, I articulate a vision of Indian nationalism that is anchored in Indian pluralism. I talk about all the forces that have made India and nearly unmade it. I celebrate multiplicity, inclusiveness, and involvement of multiple communities and regions in making the Indian national narrative. Others interpret nationalism more narrowly. ‘Us and them’ again but he is gracious enough to allow some space. “This is a contested terrain. Obviously, Mr Savarkar's view of Indian nationalism is not my view of Indian nationalism. This difference is what goes into the process of making of an Indian identity.” He pauses to think. “But at the same time, nationalism cannot be impervious to the past. Talking of British nationalism today, brushing colonialism under the carpet is inexcusable. You can't really celebrate Elizabeth, Francis Drake, Victoria, and Walter Raleigh and overlook the subjugation of hundreds of millions of people around the world whose resources were plundered for British industrial revolution. All nationalism is steeped in history whether people acknowledge it or not.” Tharoor’s latest ‘An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India’ seeks to revive the memory of India’s colonial past and the attached horrors. How, as a historian, does he deal with flashpoints in history? Does he see and react to the ploy of outsourcing the violence by the West? “It’s a very well expressed idea. ‘Outsourcing the violence.’ As a UN official, I had to deal with the contemporary outsourcing of violence. We can celebrate the fact that the UN prevented the third world war. However, the fact is that wars went on in the periphery while the so-called global centre was celebrating peace. The world, on the whole, has not been at peace,” he responds. What about the flashpoints in Indian history? Tharoor begins by referring to ‘An Era of Darkness’. “While I haven’t looked at the contemporary Indian history in the latest book which stops at 1947, it does shed light on the roots of communal trouble in the country.” Raising his pitch a bit he adds, “The divide and rule, divide et impera, was a very conscious colonial policy. Caste system became much more ossified and rigidified thanks to British intervention. I've talked about how the classification of entire tribes as criminal tribes, or entire groups as martial races, and so on have had pernicious and lingering effects.” He slips in casually, “There are some echoes of the Raj in today's contemporary politics. I've alluded to it a bit in the last chapter.” The Opposition Within Since the historian’s politician avatar becomes visible, the next question is about the vulnerabilities of a freely writing and expressing active politician. Tharoor has faced opposition from his own party members for not toeing the line. “I remain a strong critic of the BJP, the ruling party. But I believe that a part of being responsible opposition is giving acknowledgement and at times more than acknowledgement when it's due. Two such incidents happened in recent past which were only a few months apart. The first one was due to an article in which I asked the question: is there a Narendra Modi 2.0? Without giving a definitive answer, I only said it's too early to tell. But the headline and a very inadequate paraphrase in the Times of India created a huge uproar.” “The second one involved my appointment as a goodwill ambassador of the Swachha Bharat Mission which I saw as a national endeavour that needed to be supported beyond politics. Now, our political atmosphere has reached a point where nothing is beyond politics and as a result, I suffered. But I stand by my ideas,” shares Tharoor. He hopes that his “intellectual independence and integrity of views” will eventually be respected. “Hopefully, people will see that though I attack the government as strongly as any other congressman on the majority of issues if there are any issues that I feel the government deserves credit I'm willing to take a different stand,” he adds. Does his status as a politician stand at loggerheads with his writing career? Tharoor responds to it by talking about responsibility and censorship. “I don't censor myself on those grounds. A part of my responsibility as public figure is to accept the opportunities that a public forum gives me to write and speak. I may not always find myself earning applause from my party but at the very least I'm able to have a point of view. In some cases, if there's an established party line I'll shut up after a while. But I'll continue to share my viewpoint within the party and behind the closed doors. I've done it on several occasions.” He shares another instance of backstabbing from some of his own party members. “My opposition to the tactical disruption of the parliament was leaked by insiders. I did not go to the press with it. Some others did it to make me look as being disloyal to the party. I wasn't. Even though I dissented, once the party decided to go ahead with it despite my objection, I worked as an acquiescent member of the party's presence in the Lok Sabha.” It is easy to trace the signs of hurt in his voice. So what will Dr Shashi Tharoor like to be remembered as, a writer or a politician? Smile comes back to his face. “It’s a fairly easy question to answer. Writing endures for an individual far more than politics. At the end of the day, a politician may feel that he can do better for the society as a whole than a writer can. But look at me as an individual: I'm already a former minister. One day, I'll be a former MP. I hope never to be a former writer.” His choice is clear. He may not be a reluctant politician but the writer in him is what keeps him thriving. (WION)

In Conversation with Shashi Tharoor: Congress has as much stake in Indian nationalism as BJP does

nationalism

Nationalism, News on Nationalism, stories on Nationalism, articles on Nationalism, Nationalism stories at Wion, Nationalism news, Nationalism latest news