The West must live up to its own principles on democracy – Brookings Institution

One of President-elect Joe Bidens promises is that the US will recommit itself to defending democracy in the world, together with other democratic allies. The EU, it appears, plans to firmly embrace this proposal, with a particular focus on presenting a united front to China.

Yet criticizing Beijings mass internment of Muslim Uighurs or the Kremlins attempts to manipulate elections draws accusations of hypocrisy at a time when many western governments struggle to convince their citizens that representative democracy remains the most trustworthy way to deliver good governance. If the transatlantic alliance is to hold its own in competition with illiberal authoritarian rivals, its members had better fix their democratic problems at home. But how?

Granted, in the context of a decade of global democratic recession, the US and Europe still look quite respectable on the surface. The US presidential election last month was in many ways a triumph of democracy: Americans saw historic voter turnout, a process that broadly worked and officials and judges who refused to be intimidated. In Europe, populists hoping to exploit the Covid-19 pandemic to stoke fear and polarization have instead seen voters support centrist governments and fact-based policies.

Yet it is also true that the widespread commitment to liberal democracy a foundational value of the west is under fire. The fact that, in some cases, the attacks come from opposition parties within the political system is no cause for complacency.

In Germany, for example, the hard-right Alternative for Germany has been plateauing in the polls at around 10 per cent, and its leadership is mired in shambolic infighting. But it continues to wage a quiet and disciplined campaign to undermine and delegitimize democratic institutions. In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, remains a serious contender in the 2022 presidential election.

Elsewhere, in Hungary, Poland and Turkey, the authoritarians are in government and have used their positions to change the rules of governance in order to expand or perpetuate their hold on power. And in the US, the alliances anchor democracy, an outgoing president is claiming against all evidence and with the support of his partys leadership that a massive fraud has denied him an election victory.

This democratic backsliding undercuts the cohesion of Nato at a time when conflicts around the world are heating up. It undermines trust between allies, limits intelligence sharing and reduces the effectiveness of diplomacy, deterrence and operations.

As for the EU, which the incoming US administration (unlike its predecessor) sees as a key provider of diplomatic and economic leverage, its budget is being blocked by Budapest and Warsaw in a fight over the rule of law. All this allows adversaries to exploit the wests divisions and gives them a welcome pretext to dismiss critiques of their own failings.

The transatlantic alliance, born out of the crucible of the second world war and the Holocaust, always had liberal democracy at its heart. For decades, the American security umbrella enabled the conditions for stable representative governance to take root in Europe: functioning states, open market economies, inclusive social contracts. Yet when some Nato member states took authoritarian turns as happened in Greece, Portugal and Turkey others turned a blind eye. Our allies domestic affairs, it was held, were none of our business.

This has to change. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one member is the security of all. The 2008 financial crisis and its long aftermath taught us a hard lesson: in an interdependent world, the vulnerability of one is the vulnerability of all. And security today begins with resilient domestic governance.

Americans, Canadians and Europeans must now help each other think through how their own democracies can be made fit for purpose in an age of great power competition and deepening global networks. State institutions must be able to do their job providing public goods effectively and free from political interference or corruption. Economies must be made fairer, to minimize the kind of structural inequity that fuels popular grievances. Social and racial injustices, as well as the toxic legacy of slavery and colonialism, must be tackled head-on.

In short, we must live up to our own principles again. Then, and only then, can we offer others advice about democracy.

Excerpt from:

The West must live up to its own principles on democracy - Brookings Institution

Mook: Response to Berger | Commentary | rutlandherald.com – Rutland Herald

I am writing in response to Peter Bergers recent commentary on the moral consequences of the Trump presidency. While I agree with his belief Too many of us still fail to recognize how dire our circumstance is, I was surprised in the middle of a moral argument to see his attacks on the Squad and on the progressive movement.

The Squad is made up of four women elected to the House of Representatives in 2018: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (all easily won reelection in 2020) and will soon be joined by Congresswoman-elect Cori Bush, who won a historic election in the state of Missouri. Bergers indictment of these women is, They dont appear to understand what it means to be a fraction of a fraction of a nation.

A white man telling Latina, Indian, Muslim and Black women they dont understand what it means to be a minority, is absurd. I doubt he would have said the same about the congressional Black caucus when they were only a handful of newly elected congressmen led by Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and their fight for civil rights. Nor would he say that about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and their upstart group of suffragettes who fought for, and eventually won, the right to vote in public elections. Margaret Mead, the renowned anthropologist, said it well: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. The Squad, growing in numbers and influence, is one such group, and are viewed by many as the future of progressive politics in America. As such, they are considered to be a threat by Republicans and by status quo/corporate/mainstream (choose your own adjective) Democrats.

Equally troubling is Bergers judgment on the progressive movement that these women represent, calling it arrogant, unrealistic and doctrinaire. Arrogant is not how I would describe Cori Bush (registered nurse, pastor, previously homeless single mother and activist) who, after being tossed from a Trump rally in 2016, won on her third try, the Democratic nomination over a 10-term opponent. Bush went on to a landslide victory to become the first Black woman elected to the House of Representatives from the state of Missouri. Hardly arrogant, I respect these women for their determination, hard work and their vision for a better future.

Real leaders, in order to establish and pursue higher ideals, often ignore accusations of being unrealistic. For example, one might also fault our small group of original Founding Fathers as unrealistic when they wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These high ideals were far from the reality of the time, just as the ideals of liberty and justice for all are still not a reality for too many Americans.

As for doctrinaire, Berger claims to be talking in practical terms about this world. In my view, nothing is more practical in dealing with the worlds problems than the agenda set forth by progressive leaders: environmental, economic, social and racial justice. Our much-hailed doctrine, the U.S. Constitution, cites as a primary purpose of government to promote the general Welfare of its citizens. Progressive social programs that support the well-being of people (nutrition, shelter, basic health care, education, a living wage) are human rights consistent with the highest ideals of decency and democracy. Progressives have exactly the right idea, a 21st-Century Economic Bill of Rights for all of us!

Bergers analogy of not falling off the roof is a good one. We might well have avoided a bad fall, but we dont have to continue to live on the edge of the roof. Bergers historic example is also apt. We could have ended the Civil War and continued to allow slavery, but the status quo was not the solution then, nor is it today. Progressives do recognize how dire our circumstances are and have a plan to address the problems created by the status quo.

I, for one, believe that together, the Squad and the progressive movement represent our best chance to cause the arc of our democracy to bend ultimately toward justice for all.

David Mook lives in Poultney.

Read this article:

Mook: Response to Berger | Commentary | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald

Evening Brief: Light at the end of the COVID tunnel – iPolitics.ca

Todays Evening Brief is brought to you by Talent Fits Here, a campaign created by the Canadian Construction Association. Canadas construction industry is full of innovation and opportunity. Lets help more Canadians discover a rewarding career. Learn more.

Good evening to you.

Do you see that? After nine months of masks, hand sanitizer, distancing and restrictions, there is finally a light at the end of what has been a very long and dark tunnel. There was word today that Pfizers vaccine against COVID-19 has been approved in Canada, and the first shots could be given to Canadians as early as the middle of next week. Health Canada authorized the vaccine this morning. Pfizers shot, which it created with the company BioNTech, is the first to be approved in Canada, and Canada is the third country in the world to give it the green light, after the United Kingdom and Bahrain.

This is a critical milestone in our fight against COVID-19 and in our efforts to provide every Canadian with access to a vaccine, Dr. Supriya Sharma, Health Canadas chief medical adviser, told reporters. Canadians can have confidence in our rigorous review process, and that the vaccine was authorized only after a thorough assessment of the evidence demonstrated that it met health Canadas strict standards for safety, efficacy, and quality.

Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, who is overseeing the vaccines distribution, said Pfizer is shipping the first of 249,000 doses that Canada expects to receive before the end of the year on Friday. Charlie Pinkerton reports.

Not everyone will get this vaccine, however. Its only approved for people over 16. Heres why. And if todays news has spurred you to burn your mask in a sanitizer fuelled blaze, you might want to hold off for just a wee bit.

Across the pond, Britains medicine regulator has advised that people with a history of significant allergic reactions do not get the Pfizer vaccine after two people reported adverse effects on the first day of rollout. Thats something Canadian officials are watching closely.

Its really important to say that as we monitor the vaccines, adverse event reports will come up, Sharma told reporters. We are always looking for any additional side effects. And thats why we continue to monitor. But it is still a drug, still a vaccine, and there are potential risks even if they are rare.

Margaret Keenan isnt feeling any side effects. One day after the 90-year-old British grandmother became the first in the world outside a trial to receive the vaccine, she said shes feeling great.It has all been such a whirlwind and everything hasnt really sunk in yet, she said. I feel great and Im so pleased to be able to go home and to spend some quality time with my family.

As part of its dive into how pandemic response funds have been spent, CBC News reported today that two Ontario long-term care providers that received more than $157 million in federal and provincial COVID-19 relief while doling out $74 million in dividends for shareholders this year. Meanwhile, more than 480 residents and staff at Extendicare Inc. and Sienna Senior Living Inc. homes have died.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland warned yesterday that companies that have tapped into the governments wage subsidy program are not to use that money to pay dividends or bonuses. I want to emphasize for any companies that may be listening, that the wage subsidy must be used to pay workers, she told the House finance committee . That is very, very clear and we expect companies to comply with that. To date, the governments lips have been sealed when it comes to revealing which groups and businesses are benefiting from some of its highest-spending programs. CBC News has that story as well.

Still in Ottawa, MPs from multiple parties are making a renewed push to get the federal government to recognize Aug. 1 as Emancipation Day. That day, in 1834, the Slavery Abolition Act came into force, ushering in the end of slavery throughout the British Empire. It included Canada, where slavery had existed for more than 200 years, and there were still a small number of enslaved persons. Jolson Lim reports.

Back on the topic of money, Quebec Premier Franois Legault said today he doesnt expect the premiers request for a $28-billion annual increase to the Canada Health Transfer will be accepted at their meeting with the prime minister tomorrow. But he is hoping that the money which Ottawa gives to provinces and territories to help them pay for health care will arrive before the next election. We understand thats a lot of money, said Legault, whos also the chair of the Council of the Federation that represents Canadas 13 provinces and territories. He told iPolitics judging by their revenue streams, provinces and territories will have deficits that are a lot larger than the federal deficit.

Legault is also threatening Quebecers with immediate fines of up to $6,000 if they throw house parties, refuse to wear masks or breaking physical distancing guidelines. He also says his government will follow the (COVID) situation in the coming days, to evaluate if stricter lockdown measures are needed. Thats from Kevin Dougherty.

The leader of Ontarios NDP wants MPPs to return to Queens Park after the Progressive Conservative government on Tuesday moved to adjourn the fall session two days early. At this moment, when so many folks are in crisis and they need their government to step up and help them, (Premier) Doug Ford is literally calling it quits. Hes throwing in the towel, Andrea Horwath told reporters. I am calling for the legislature to return.

While making her case for MPPs to return to Queens Park, Horwath zeroed in on Tuesdays Financial Accountability Office of Ontario (FAO) report, which found that the government has been sitting on $12 billion that could be put to use fighting the pandemic. Theres important work we can and must do right now to invest that $12 billion in COVID-19 funding that Doug Ford has been keeping from the people of Ontario, she said. We should be working to stop the spread of the virus (and) helping people and businesses stay afloat. Iain Sherriff-Scott reports.

A day after implementing much tighter restrictions to try and curb the spread of COVID-19, Premier Jason Kenney is rejecting criticism he waited too long to do so. He says that kind of talk is Alberta bashing. Actually, wed call it Jason Kenney bashing, and that comes with the territory as premier where the buck stops with you.

In other news, the government introduced legislation this afternoon to implement Canadas newly signed transitional trade agreement with the United Kingdom that will keep trade flowing after it leaves the European Union at the end of the year.

Tomorrow, the government is expected to table legislation that will bring changes to the Canada Elections Act. As CTV reports, Elections Canada had recommended a series of amendments so that the agency can make voting more accessible and safe should Canadians have to go to the polls during the pandemic.

South of the border, things are getting frothy. As the Canadian Press reports, the U.S. is in a bit of a lather, formally accusing Canada of unfairly limiting the ability of American dairy producers to sell their products north of the border.

And, look whos back. Like a boomerang, former MP Maxime Bernier is eyeing his old seat. The Leader of the Peoples Party of Canada has announced he will be running in Beauce, Que., the riding he held from 2006 to 2019. He lost to Conservative Richard Lehoux in the last election. He also lost a bid for a seat in York Centre in a byelection in October. In a fundraising letter announcing his bid to return to the House of Commons, Bernier said he has considered all of my options and he has decided to return to his political home turf of Beauce.

Our defeat in Beauce last year was a discouraging upset, he notes in the announcement. Today, we begin work and planning for the campaign in Beauce. Its going to take everything we have to beat the corrupt establishment.

In The Sprout: A familiar face expected back at USDA

In The Drilldown: Global temperatures will rise by over 3 C: UNEP report

In Other Headlines:

Liberal MP and doctor says hell vote against assisted death bill (CBC)Mink at B.C. farm test positive for virus that causes COVID-19 in humans (CTV)Follow the COVID-19 rules or youll be fined, Quebec Premier Legault warns (CBC)Military was warned of reservists hard-right online ties by allied intelligence agency (CBC)Pornhub bans user uploads after abuse allegations (BBC)Canadian envoy says Kovrig, Spavor healthy despite being in Chinese prison for 730 days (Globe and Mail)Trudeaus half-brother is an anti-vaxxer, bitcoin entrepreneur and (affectionate) critic of the PM (Postmedia)Global Affairs objected to Canadian military decision to cancel training with Chinas Peoples Liberation Army (Globe and Mail)

Internationally:

Although its gotten the nod from regulators north of the border, officials at the FDA may not make a decision about authorizing Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine until next week. Peter Marks, the director of the FDA division overseeing vaccines, said today that a decision would come in days to a week after an agency advisory panel meeting tomorrow. More from The Hill.

Elsewhere, federal regulators asked for Facebook to be ordered to divest its Instagram and WhatsApp messaging services as the U.S. government and 48 states and districts accused the company of abusing its market power in social networking to crush smaller competitors. The antitrust lawsuits were announced by the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Its really critically important that we block this predatory acquisition of companies and that we restore confidence to the market, James said during a press conference announcing the lawsuit. The Associated Press reports.

U.S. president-elect Joe Bidens son Hunter said today that his tax affairs are under investigation, putting a renewed spotlight on the questions about his financial dealings that dogged his fathers campaign. As CNN reports, investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China, according to two people briefed on the probe.

The Kicker:

Finally tonight, the Bad Sex In Fiction awards have been cancelled. Set up in 1993 by the Literary Review, the annual prize honours the most outstandingly awful scene of sexual description in an otherwise good novel.

But this being 2020, the judges figured weve suffered enough already: The public had been subjected to too many bad things this year to justify exposing it to bad sex as well.

True enough.

On that note, have a great night.

More from iPolitics

Original post:

Evening Brief: Light at the end of the COVID tunnel - iPolitics.ca

Why the Omnibus Law is not only an assault on workers’ rights but also on Indonesia’s SDG progress – Equal Times

Besides a raging Covid-19 pandemic that has seen Indonesia produce the second highest confirmed death toll in Asia after India, widespread opposition to President Joko Jokowi Widodos recent Omnibus Law has dominated public discourse in Indonesia for months.

The government claims that the controversial law, which entered into force on 5 November and is officially known as the Job Creation Law, will help provide legal certainty for investors by streamlining more than 70 existing legal provisions into a single piece of legislation. Relaxing labour laws, cutting bureaucratic red tape and making the procurement process easier (especially when it comes to land), will boost investment, the government claims a vital requirement as Indonesia attempts to wrench itself out of a pandemic-driven recession.

However, a coalition of labour, environmental and civil society groups have vehemently opposed the law, saying that it would impede Indonesias ability to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, particularly in relation to Goal 8 on decent work and sustainable economic growth, as well as Goals 13 to 15 concerning climate action and environmental protection. Days after the law was ratified on 5 October 2020, civil society held massive protests and rallies in opposition to the bill, resulting in thousands of arrests.

Trade unions say that the Omnibus Law degrades workers rights and will eliminate the comfort of working and social security, according to Elly Rosita Silaban, president of the Confederation of All Indonesian Trade Union (KSBSI).

As well as removing certain protections against outsourcing, the law cuts leave entitlements and social security provisions for many workers. It weakens minimum wage provisions, extends maximum overtime hours and allows employers to keep workers on temporary contracts for an indefinite period of time, amongst other contentious measures.

Campaigners also say that by scrapping existing environmental protections, the new law poses a serious threat to Indonesias carbon emissions reduction targets. For example, over 60 per cent of Indonesias carbon emissions are said to come from the land use change, forest and peat fires. The rollback of protections laid out by the new law could open the door to unrestrained logging and an upsurge in coal mining. Indonesia is a major coal exporter and coal powers around 60 per cent of the countrys electricity. Indonesia is also one of the few countries in the world to have new coal plants under construction in 2020. Anything that facilitates increased deforestation and more coal mining does not bode well for Indonesias pledge to cut carbon emissions by 29-41 per cent by 2030 as part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement, and to phase-out coal completely by 2040.

The government is also under fire for the drafting process, which took less than six months. The government says that it expedited the bill to help increase employment during the Covid pandemic. But legal experts have deemed the process as flawed for rushing through wide-reaching legal changes with minimal social dialogue or public participation.

While deregulation may increase the number of jobs, the new law will also increase the informalisation of workers, leading to longer working hours while making it easier for employers to sack workers. Job opportunities might be increased in MSMEs [micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises], but the wages and protection will not be sufficient, says International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) chairperson Dian Kartika Sari.

Raynaldo G. Sembiring, executive director of the Jakarta-based Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), says that there will definitely be an impact on our ability to achieve the SDGs. He tells Equal Times that the academic paper that formed the basis of the Omnibus Law only briefly mentions the environment and fails to mention anything relating to sustainable development, let alone the SDGs.

What the law does, according to some analysts, is follow much of the blueprint set out by the Chinese model of development. Indonesias policymakers view that there is much to learn from the Chinese model of strong state control and export-oriented industrialisation, wrote Jefferson Ng, senior analyst at the Indonesia Programme of S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, in his opinion piece for The Jakarta Post in March this year. The Chinese model is highly effective, however, it was also marked by environmental damage, weak labour protections and the pitfalls of over-centralisation, he added.

Alarmed by the Omnibus Law proposals, in October 36 global investors managing approximately US$4.1 trillion in assets published an open letter to the Indonesian authorities, expressing concern over the proposed deregulation of environmental protections.

It said: we fear that proposed changes to the permitting framework, environmental compliance monitoring, public consultation and sanctioning systems will have severe environmental, human rights and labor-related repercussions that introduce significant uncertainty and could impact the attractiveness of Indonesian markets.

In response to this letter, Indonesias environment and forestry minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar defended the law, saying it was designed to encourage investment whilst safeguarding the environment. She wrote that a permanent moratorium on the development of primary forests and peatlands means that no new permits will be issued for the areas included in the moratorium map, spanning more than 66 million hectares.

But Sembiring of the ICEL remains unconvinced. He says the simplification and acceleration of business licenses will have a lot of impact on the environment, as well as peoples access to public information, participation and justice in environmental and land disputes. We can already see there will be many problems, not only in terms of pollution damage, but perhaps also future problems that have the potential to trigger a conflict with the community, he said, referring to possible evictions due to development projects. He also warns that the current requirement that every region in Indonesia should have a minimum threshold of 30 per cent forest coverage will be eliminated by the new law.

Indonesias Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs said in a press statement issued on 2 October that foreign investments into the country that are labour-intensive in nature have been more constrained by labour problems, citing Indonesias large standards of minimum wages and high cost of severance pay in case of termination of employment.

The ministry highlighted that, on average, Indonesias monthly wage is around US$170, while in Vietnam workers typically earn around US$150 a month. It also suggested that severance pay in Indonesia covers an average of 52 weeks of work, compared to 32 weeks in neighbouring Thailand and just 17 weeks in Malaysia.

However, labour unions accuse the government of legalising modern slavery, particularly in reference to new outsourcing regulations that were previously limited to five sectors but will now be extended to all kinds of work according to Said Iqbal, president of the Indonesian Trade Union Confederation (KSPI), speaking at a press conference held via Zoom on 24 October.

He also said that if outsourcing was freely implemented, there would be no job security for Indonesian labourers, who could find themselves being outsourced for life.

In October, President Widodo said that those who are opposed to the Job Creation Law were welcome to file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court, which could result in a revocation of the law. However, this outcome is highly unlikely given how much political capital President Widodo has spent on the project. This hasnt stopped KSPI and KSBSI from filing a judicial review, for which they are currently awaiting the outcome.

The discovery of various typos in final draft of the Job Creation Law and changes made even after the law was ratified in October caused an uproar on Indonesian social media and has even led some activists to question the validity of the law. In a statement released on 3 November, the Jakarta-based Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK) said that the law still contains formulation errors that have an impact on the substance of the articles, which needs to be interpreted as the fruit of a forced regulatory formation process that sacrifices the principles of transparency, participation and accountability.

It continues: Editorial errors and bad practices in the process of its formation are clear evidence for the Constitutional Court to state that the Job Creation Law is formally flawed so that it must be declared not legally binding in its entirety. While a decision on this still needs to be made, Indonesias workers and its environment will continue to face a less secure and sustainable future.

Follow this link:

Why the Omnibus Law is not only an assault on workers' rights but also on Indonesia's SDG progress - Equal Times

Army put on high alert amid threat of Indian strike – DAWN.com

ISLAMABAD: Amidst a possible threat of another attempt by India to conduct a surgical strike inside Pakistans territory, Pakistan Army has been put on high alert, informed sources told Dawn on Wednesday.

They said that after facing humiliating defeat in Ladakh and Doklam, India was preparing to launch another attack on the Line of Control (LoC) and across the Working Boundary at Pulwama, posing a threat to the regional peace and stability.

Meanwhile, Indian forces initiated ceasefire violations later in the day, martyring two Pakistan Army soldiers and injuring a civilian woman in different areas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, officials said.

The Inter Services Public Relations in a tweet identified the soldiers as Lance Naik Tariq, 38, and Sepoy Zaroof, 31. Pakistani forces responded befittingly to the ceasefire violations, added the ISPR.

In Taai village, Nasim Fatima was injured, a police official told Dawn.

An official said a false flag operation was being planned by India to divert the worlds attention from several of its internal issues, including the ongoing farmers protest, its treatment of minorities, atrocities committed by Indian forces in occupied Kashmir and criticism of its policies by international institutions and media.

India may at any time repeat a Pulwama-like drama to divert attention from the internal problems and was planning an action along the LoC and Working Boundary, he said.

In 2016, India had claimed to have carried out a surgical strike on the LoC, a claim rubbished by Pakistan. Similarly, on Feb 26 last year, India had tried to launch a similar operation against Pakistan but failed and two of its planes had been shot down by Pakistan Air Force. Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan was arrested and later released.

The sources said India had committed 9,215 ceasefire violations between 2014 and 2019, involving 1,403 casualties. India has so far this year committed 2,830 ceasefire violations, with the number of civil casualties totaling 271.

The decision to put the army on high alert comes days after the Indian government approved the creation of a new post of deputy chief of strategy at the army headquarters as per a plan envisaged during the Doklam crisis with China in 2017, besides creating the position of director general information warfare who will also be dealing with media affairs.

In a related development, speakers at a global virtual seminar on Wednesday discussed the question, Is India becoming a fascist state? in response to the rising authoritarian tendencies of the Modi government and human rights violations in the country.

The erosion of civil liberties, the aggression of police and the increasing politicisation of the judiciary mean that people are now seriously asking, Is India slipping towards fascism? As a friend of India, Australia and Australian politicians should support those voices from India and the diaspora who commit to our shared values of democracy, liberty and rule of law, NSW MP David Shoebridge said in his opening statement on the significance of the event.

Greens Foreign Affairs spokesman and Federal Senator Janet Rice said that human rights were fundamental and must be protected in all countries and for all people.

Sadly in India, as in many countries around the world, peoples human rights are frequently not respected. We are particularly concerned at the impacts on religious minorities, political opposition groups, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable communities, he added.

He said the forum was an important opportunity to hear from human rights advocates and a range of voices from around the world.

Australias former senator Lee Rhiannon said there has been an alarming decline in democratic and secular standards in India. I am often asked Is the Modi government promoting a fascist vision for India? I understand why people ask this question, she wondered.

Ms Rhiannon said massive detention centres have been constructed in India for the millions deemed to be non-citizens under new laws. Minorities are being killed. In occupied Kashmir, in addition to the unilateral abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, the entire population of the region has been deprived of their right to freedom of expression and opinion through protracted communication restrictions, in place for the past year. These actions are compounded by a censored media, continuing detention of political leaders and a compromised judicial system. This forum is timely. The global community needs to be informed, she added.

Shaffaq Mohammed, a British politician of Kashmiri heritage who served as a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Yorkshire & Humber region from 2019 to 2020, compared the fascism in Europe that led to the killing of around six million Jews and the ideology of Hindutva targeting minorities in India, especially Muslims.

He talked about the brutal lockdown now for more than a year imposed in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation in August 2019 of Articles 370 and 35A that gave the region special status and autonomy.

In January this year, Shaffaq Mohammed was the lead proposer of a resolution against the Indian Citizen Amendment Act that gained the support of the main five political groups that made up the 750-seat European Parliament.

US Congresswoman-elect Marie Newman, who won election in Illinoiss 3rd congressional district to the United States House of Representatives as the Democratic nominee, talked about the change in the US and assured her full support to rights groups calling for accountability of the Indian government with respect to human rights in the country.

Suchitra Vijayan, the founder and Executive Director of The Polis Project who writes about war, conflict, foreign policy, politics, literature and photography, listed the increasing fascist policies of the Modi government and its total control on the judiciary, law enforcement and mass media in India in order to suppress the voices of dissent in the country.

Raju Rajagopal, co-founder of Hindus for Human Rights, talked about the cooperation of civil society activists from Indian diaspora to coordinate their efforts on a global level fighting against Hindutva ideology and creating awareness of human rights abuses in India by the Modi government amongst the international community.

Professor Anjali Arondekar, a professor of Feminist Studies and director of Centre for South Asian Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, talked about the caste-based politics in India and discrimination, oppression and marginalisation of low caste Indians and other minorities, including Muslims, by the incumbent BJP government.

The round table was organised by a broad international coalition comprising Australia-based The Humanism Project, Indian American Muslim Council, Hindus for Human Rights, US, and Amnesty International, Australia.

Published in Dawn, December 10th, 2020

See original here:

Army put on high alert amid threat of Indian strike - DAWN.com

The Bias Narrative v. the Development Narrative – City Journal

Editors note: The following is an edited version of alecture that Professor Loury presented to faculty and students in MITs Department of Economics in October 2020.

Let me be provocative right at the start. George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin is white, and Floyd is black. Was it a racial incident? What would we mean if we said it was such an incident, beyond the trivial statement that one of the participants was white and one was black? Well, we might mean that we think we know Chauvins motive when he put his knee on the mans neck: that he acted out of racial animus. Alternatively, we might mean that people identify with the incident and interpret it in a particular way because of the race of the participants, quite apart from any discriminatory intent of the people acting in that situation. The fact is that the racial force of the incident is largely independent of causality and intentionality. Rather, it has a lot to do with interpretation, with narration.

There are Four Ps that I will use as my organizing principle for this talk about race and inequality in the United States.

Perennial. The problems been around forever. This is America.

Personal. Im black. Im from the south side of Chicago. These are my people that were talking about. How can I completely divorce that reality from the scientific imperatives? Whats my responsibility? How am I going to be read? If I speak out with a particular outlook, its going to be read in part in the context of my racial identity. People will understand that its a black economist, a black professor, a black intellectual, who says this or that. I cant control that.

Political. The stakes are incredibly high when talking about race and racial inequality in the United States. You had people marching for Black Lives Matter in cities across the country, even across the globe. The presidential election was partly enmeshed in this argument going on within American society about race, systemic racism, white supremacy, black marginality, diversity and inclusion, equity, and all thatthis is very political.

Perplexing. Because we do have problems here. We have a social-science problem. We have a challenge-to-the-country kind of problem. Were 50 years past the Civil Rights movement. Thats almost as long a period of time as from Appomattoxwhere Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grantto Versailles, where the Europeans sorted out the mess that was World War I. Technology has completely changed over the last 50 years. The economy is completely different. Polity is completely different. Tens of millions of non-European immigrants have come to the country in the last half-century. Everything is different. And yet, if you look at some of the speeches that are being given, consider some of the events recorded for posterity in social media, some of the incidents taking place, and the arguments being madeand its as if were still back in the 1970s. Why is this so? Its a puzzle.

Let me say something about my own biography. I grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s, in a working-class neighborhood. I came to MIT in the early 1970s. Before that I got a good education at Northwestern. Upon arriving at MIT, I discovered a few things. One was the deep structure of analytical economics, but I also learned that economics is a social science. Its not divorced from policy, politics, society, or people. Paul Samuelson and Bob Solow and Peter Diamond and Franco Modigliani and many othersStan Fischer, Marty Weitzman, Dick Eckaus, Frank Fisher:these were all among my teachers at MIT way back in the early 1970s. They cared about what was going on in the real world, not just about impressing their peers with the virtuosity of their technical practice. They addressed the great questions of their day. That lesson stuck with me.

I went on to teach at Harvard in the 1980s and at Boston University in the 1990s. Ive been teaching at Brown since 2005. I was a black, conservative, public intellectual, for a while affiliated with the Reagan administration, and then I tacked back toward the center. Nowadays people would probably classify me as a conservative again because Im a kind of contrarian on the issue of persistent racial inequality.

So thats my setup. Racial inequality in America. It has been around for a long time. It is a deep, political question. It involves me personally. And it is a puzzle.

I want to preface my argument about persistent racial inequality by invoking the notion of narrative, by at least gesturing toward an appreciation for the power of the story and by noting that historical evidence does not pin down the story that we tell ourselves about the evidence. Indeed, multiple accounts can be consistent with the same facts. So, there is an inescapable element of choice about how we narrate those facts.

Recently, some prominent economists, UC Berkeleys George Akerlof and Robert Shiller of Yale, for example, have also stressed the importance of narratives for understanding social outcomes. It is this viewpoint that I am invoking when I say that there are two opposing narratives on the persistence of racial inequality: the bias narrative and the development narrative.

Hands up, dont shoot: that was Michael Brown, killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, 2014the origin of the mainstreaming of Black Lives Matter. This is a singular event in recent history with respect to race relations and racial conflict in America. And it seems like it wasnt hands up, dont shoot. It really looks like Brown first attacked the police officer, who then shot him. The police officer probably feared for his life, and fired his gun. Two independent investigations, one by local authorities and one by the Justice Department, concluded that Michael Brown didnt have his hands in the air when shot. Eyewitnesses have testified to this effect. My sense of the matter is that hands up, dont shoot didnt happen.

But it did happen virtually. It happened in effect. It happened because of the force of the narrative: a black man brutalized by overbearing, vicious, and racist state powerfor many, that story overwhelmed all the facts in the case.

Theres a new documentary by filmmaker Eli Steele, narrated by his father, Shelby Steele, called What Killed Michael Brown? The film reviews the Michael Brown case and concludes that hands up, dont shoot is what Shelby Steele calls a poetic truthan account so powerfully resonant with a narrative paradigm that it may as well be true. Once it gets out there, many will have a hard time believing that its not true because the power of the narrative is so great.

Structural racism is a kind of narrative. What, after all, do people mean when they say structural racism? I think they mean that racially disparate outcomes are produced by a complex system of social interaction embodying historical practices that, in retrospect, were morally suspect, but that have taken on a life of their own with consequences that persist into the present. Mass incarceration, on this view, is structural racism because of the way that urban areas are organized, because of decisions that society has made about prohibiting trafficking in addictive substances, due to poor education and the inadequate economic opportunities for certain sectors of the society, all of which leaves many young people of color with fewer alternatives other than to engage in illicit activities.

They mean something like that, I think. They dont mean that theres a conspiracy somewhere trying to figure out how to hurt blacks. They are not talking about racism in the sense that the General Social Survey measures, when it asks questions like: How do you feel about having neighbors or having your child marry someone of a different race?

Still, I am not a big fan of the structural racism narrative. I think it is imprecise;I think that those who invoke structural racism are begging the question. I want to know exactly what structures, what dynamic processes, they mean, and I want to know exactly how race figures into that story. Often the people using this kind of language do not tell me this. History, I would argue, is complicated. So, racial disparities must have multiple, interwoven, interacting causes that range from culture, politics, and economic incentives to historical accident, environmental factors and, yes, the nefarious doings of individuals who may be racists, as well as systems of law and policy that are disadvantaging to some racial groups without having so been intended. So, I am often left wanting to know just what they are talking about when they say, structural racism. Often, use of the term seems to be expressing a disposition while calling me to solidarity, asking for my fealty, for my affirmation of a system of belief. It is only one among many plausible narratives.

If we restrict ourselves to the labor market and just talk about wages, then the structural racism narrative would be all about the demand side of the labor market. It would be about: what do employers do? What kind of information do they have? What contracts are they willing to enter into? What are the training opportunities being offered inside of organizations for employees to move ahead? Fixing this situation means anti-discrimination enforcement. We need a change of hearts and minds, on this view. We need implicit-bias training. Thats all on the demand side, where racial inequality is due to racial discrimination, and is best understood via the bias narrative.

I am offering instead, as a counterpoint to the bias narrative, what I am calling the development narrative, which stresses that patterns of behavior within the disadvantaged population need to be looked at. I speak now about African-Americans, about 35 million or 40 million people in the United States. This, of course, is a variegated, differentiated, and heterogeneous population. One size does not fit all. Nevertheless, I am willing to ask: are there patterns of behavior observable in certain communities of color that have the consequence of inhibiting the development of human potential?

Here is an illustration of why the distinction between these narratives might be important. Consider school discipline. I call attention to the Department of Education policy under the Obama administration of admonishing school districts that reported racial disparity in the frequency with which students were suspended from school for disruptive behavior. The statistics reveal that black students get suspended more often relative to their numbers. You can look at the average frequency of suspension for black and white students in a school district, that is, and you can see a disparate incidence of suspension by race.

Obamas Secretary of Education, via the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, sent a letter to local school districts warning them that they should be aware of and take efforts to reduce this disparity, or they might find themselves subject to a civil rights investigation for racial discrimination.

Now, there is indeed a disparity, and its nontrivial. If it reflected the differential behavior of the school districtsprincipals, teachers, and security officersin how they treated disruptive behavior, such that the same behavior by a white student would be met with a less punitive responsethen that would, indeed, be alarming and would warrant the attention of the authorities to do something about it. Thats one possibility.

Another possibility, however, is that disruptive behavior occurs more frequently among black students for reasons that lie outside the school. If thats the caseif the problem is on the supply side of this marketthen interpreting disparate suspension rates as evidence of racial bias and responding to that by disciplining the school districts, cutting off their funding, perhaps hauling them into court, would be a terrible mistake. Rather, one would want to address the sources of this behavioral differences. One would certainly not dismiss the disparity, but one would address the disparity by attempting to enhance the opportunities or the experiences of the affected young people, which shape their behavior patterns, so as to make those students less subject to disciplinary measures. (There are other possibilities. For example, one might become more tolerant of disruptive behavior across the board because a punitive reaction to disruption could be predicted to generate an unacceptable racial disparity. One can go many places with this example, but Im using it here merely to illustrate the differences between the bias narrative and the development narrative as ways of responding to the fact of a racial disparity.)

Lets talk more specifically now about the development problem. Im willing to invoke the demographic observation of a high rate of single-parenthood in African-American families, where a mother is raising kids on her own. Three in four black kids, 70 percent, something like that, are today born to women without husbands. Common sense suggests that this reality cant be unrelated to some of the outcomes, like disruptive behavior, that concern us. Perhaps it is not the main factor, but it would be an important part of the picture when talking about persistent racial inequality. The fact that I am willing to take it onboard does not, however, answer the question: what is the causal mechanism? A historical sociologist, historian, or demographer well might argue that you have these different organizational patterns within families, but they are explicable in terms of the historical experience of the respective groups. For Orlando Patterson, a sociologist at Harvard, they are a result of slaveryof the fact that families were disrupted at their core by the intercession of the masters property claim over and against the filial and familial connections of natal bonding. It is impossible, on this view, that you could have had as intrusive an intervention into intimate social relations among African-descended people as was slavery and not see some present-day familial consequences.

Family organization matters. There is a big racial disparity in family organization. Therefore, part of the story that you need to tell to account for persisting racial inequality involves family organization. In saying that, I would not have precluded an historical argument about the sources of the family organizational patterns. I would simply have been willing to consider the supply side as well as the demand side when trying to understand persistent racial inequality. This narrative is fiercely resisted by many, but I am urging here that we consider it.

Violence, murder, homicidehuge racial disparities exist in this area. Everyone can read the newspapers. This is a reality of the contemporary urban scene. And theres a tightly networked set of social connections among the people who are committing and are victimized by much of this criminal violence. Is that phenomenon, in any straightforward way, a manifestation of biasof racism? Could it really be about white supremacy? Or is it about the failure of some part of a population to be socialized with the restraint, self-discipline, and commitment to civil behavior that, when widely embraced, make ordinary life and commerce in a community possible?

A willingness to ask about the behavior of the violent criminals preying on their neighbors, and the sources within a community of such behavior, is part of what it means to take seriously the development narrative. Again, I am not saying that we should forego trying to do anything about it, that policy has nowhere to go since the problem is mostly on the development side. Policy obviously has a lot to do with the development side, from better education to subsidizing child development to improving parenting skills. But we need to take seriously these patterns of behavior and their cultural antecedents.

Everyone talks about the academic achievement gap. Several groups are suing Harvard University, saying that the schools affirmative-action practices are penalizing Asian-Americans. And the special high schools in New York City are being pressured to change their selection criteria, so as to ensure that they dont enroll a class of more than 1,000 first-year students and have only a handful of black kids among that cohort. If you look at the National Assessment of Educational Progress, where a representative sample of American students are regularly tested for their cognitive abilities in mathematics and writing, you can see huge racial disparities in those data.

Am I willing to consider the supply side when I talk about that? Am I willing to ask: whats going on in the homes? And: what do peer groups value? Am I willing to measure how much time people spend on homework? How many books there are in the home? Is the large disparity by race in academic achievement better understood when it is viewed in terms of the bias narrative or the development narrative?

If you are prepared to discuss the supply sideif you are prepared, that is, to talk about the extent to which members of a disadvantaged, marginalized and oppressed group are implicated in their own disadvantagethen some will charge that you are blaming the victim. I reject that charge categorically. It is not assigning blame to simply observe that the labor market has a supply side; that people make choices and engage in behaviors having deleterious consequences for their future economic prospects.

Of course, those behavioral patterns well may be the consequence of structural conditions and historical dynamics. On the other hand, if the reflexive response to seeing any disparity of behavior is to say: Well, this is simply due to historical exigency, then that has its own moral and philosophic implications in regards to agencyi.e., the extent to which people can be presumed to control their own fate, and the extent to which their communal norms and ways of living are seen as being within their ability to change.

For instance, is it a necessity that the homicide rate be as high as it is in the black communities we talk about when discussing racial inequality? Is that really how we want to talk about such mattersto say, What can they do? Of course, there is a high level of violence. Look at our structures; our gun laws; our hypocrisy about drugs consumption and trafficking. Look at our history of racism in this country. Of course, theres going to be a higher level of violence. It is, in my view, morally repulsive to impute such a lack of agency to people in this fashion. It infantilizes them, makes them mere puppets at the end of strings being pulled by others. In the extreme, it robs them of their human dignity.

And perhaps worst of all, it robs a group of the ability to make social judgments. It undermines the capacity to clearly delineate right and wrong ways of living and to urge that individuals live rightly. I am not a philosopher, but I have read the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals several times, trying to understand what brother Immanuel Kant was talking about. I understand him to be making a principled argument for the capacity to have a theory of morals. While it is certainly true, he says, that we are all embedded within the flux and the flow of history and under the influence of forces that are beyond our control of environment, psychology, and such, nevertheless, the theorist must assume the capacity of individuals to make free-will choices about their moral life, lest there be no possibility for any theory of morals whatsoever.

I am signing on to that argument here when insisting on the necessity to engage the development narrative alongside talk about bias; the necessity for calling attention to patterns of behavior and value that are internal to a community which limit their success; and when defending myself against the accusation that I give aid and comfort to racists, or that by making these observations I am somehow blaming the victims for their plight.

I am not unmindful of the pitfalls. I can hear the retort: But, what will the racists say if you talk like that? Whatever the merits of such a narrative, in a society like the one that we live in, where many people are much less sympathetic than are you to the well-being and the aspirations of black people, some will take your wordsthe words of a black manas license to entertain their own racist thoughts about why racial inequality persists. I cannot prove all this scientifically. But between the two pathswithholding arguments I believe true in order to manage political discourse, versus giving voice to such insight as I think that I might have, subject to rebuke, repudiation, and refutation by other critics, so as to enliven and enrich the political and public discourseI choose the latter course. I am willing to take the risk of telling the truth, as best I can discern it.

One other reason to be honest about what is going on, on the development side of the equation, is that everybody can see it. People are bluffing when they say, oh, Im not going to talk about the black family. Out-of-wedlock birthrates dont matter. People are bluffing when they say, Were Black Lives Matter, and were about cops killing kids, but we have nothing to say about kids killing kids. Everybody can see what is going on.

The fact is that, as long as race is a meaningful part of peoples identity in society and they reproduce those meanings through their patterns of association, then you are going to get some disparity by race in the structure of the social networks in which people are embedded. And when network-mediated spillovers in human capital development are important, this means there will be some persisting racial disparities of social outcome.

What about affirmative action and reparations? I have concernsgrave concernsabout these policies. I want briefly to give some hint of what it is that I am concerned about, which reveals something about my larger outlook on the age-old American dilemma of racial inequality.

Im against slavery reparations for a few reasons. One is, okay, when the Japanese Americans interred by the Roosevelt administration during the Second World War were finally, in an act of Congress signed into law by Ronald Reagan, acknowledged as having been wrongly victimized and offered a token reparation payment, it was $20,000 a head for 80,000 people. Thats $1.6 billion, paid out of the Treasuryand it should have been paid. I have no problem with that. By contrast, there are 35 million or 40 million African Americans, and if you take the modern equivalent of 40 acres and a mule, and you bring it forward at a normal rate of return, were reaching astronomical sums. Maybe it is $100,000 a head, with inflation, for 40 million people. That would be $4 trillion, compared with 80,000 people and $1.6 billion.

Heres what Im saying. Enacting reparations for slavery would be to create a Social Security-level-of-magnitude fiscal/social policy in America, the benefits from which would be based on racial identity. That, quite simply, is a monumental mistake. Its South Africa-esque. Our government would have to classify people and enact statutes and administer law based on peoples race. We ought not go down that path. That is the overarching moral argument that I would make.

My practical argument is that remedying racial disparity ought to be left as an open-ended commitment. True enough, this problemwhich is due in no small part to our bitter history of slavery and Jim Crow segregationmust be addressed. But, in my view, it would not be the smartest thing in the world for black Americans to cash out that obligation; to have a transaction where, metaphorically speaking, we sit on one side of the table with our moral capital, where America as a whole sits on the other side with its checkbook, and a transaction is negotiated wherein the debt gets discharged. We ought not to be in a hurry to commodify that obligation, I would say. For then, when confronted with lingering racial disparities, the country can say youve all been paid. Rather, what we should do is to take our moral chips, combine them with other progressive political initiatives, and aim to create a decent society for everyone, whether that concerns health care, housing, food security, employment, education, or old-age security. Were these efforts sufficiently robust on behalf of everybody, the most pressing concerns about racial disparity (having to do with extreme deprivation) would be ameliorated and we will have lent our moral capital to the right causenot a racially defined reparation, but rather a humanely defined improvement in the quality of the nations social contract.

One final word about affirmative action. We are now 50 years down the line with this policy. It has been institutionalized. Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Belonging: in practice what that means is affirmative action. I have a concern, though, which is that equality of representation, when you are in the most rarified venues of selection, is in competition with equality of respect. Im specifically referring here to selecting at the 95th percentilethe right tail of the distribution of talents, not the population median.

It is impossible that there would not be post-admissions performance differences by race in students selected at this percentile if racially different criteria of selection are used pre-admission, so long as those criteria are correlated with performance. And, if the criteriaSAT test scores, grades, advance placement tests, quality of essay, letters of recommendation, whatever indicia of performance you want to useare not correlated with post-admissions performance, then they shouldnt be used. But they are being used because we all know that they are correlated with post-admissions performance to some degree.

I invite you to look at the data produced by discovery in the Harvard case, for example, to see the huge disparity in academic preparation characteristic of applicant populations by race to Harvard University in recent years. Theres going to be different post-selection performance if those criteria are correlated with performance, and thats what we see. What is the consequence of that? Either we will acknowledge the difference in post-admissions performance; or we wont; well cover it up by flattening assessment criteria and, in effect, pretending its not there. The dishonesty can be stifling in my view. Im in the economics department, so let me talk in terms of economics. My point: Right-tail selection plus racially preferential selection is inconsistent with true equality. It will get you representation, perhaps, but it wont get you equalityat least not equality of respect.

You need a closely approximating parity of performance to get equality of respect. But youve applied different levels of selectivity into a highly competitive and elite activity, where the selection criteria are correlated with post-admissions performance, so youre getting disparities in performance post-admission that youre not owning up to, or that youre covering up.

So, many have observed that there are not enough black economists on the faculty of leading universities. We can do better. We should be more diverse and inclusive at the top departments in the country. There should be at least two blacks at each one, lets say. Maybe I can agree with all of that. But suppose there are just not enough top-flight black economists to go around. If the way to do better is to make the criteria of selection into this rarified enterprise of academic economics, at the top, depend upon the racial identity of job applicants, then youre not going to get equality. Instead, youre going to get some degree of black mediocrity. This fact is currently unsayable. It is unsayable to observe openly that there could be racial differences in performance in venues such as this. Yet, I get emails all the time. Im a partner at a big law firm in New York City. Heres what I cant say publicly. Please dont quote me. Many of our associates who are of color are not up to snuff, but we hired them anyway because . . . Some of them are going to make partner here, and I shudder at that prospect. This is not equality of respect.

Heres what we ought to do instead. We should devote our efforts to enhancing the development of African-American prospects, such that when you apply roughly equal criteria of selection at the right tail, the numbers of blacks selected still goes up, but based on achievement. You dont increase the population of applicants by changing standards in order to achieve racial paritythat is a huge mistake.

Further, we dont have population parity in every pursuit. How can you expect population parity in an enterprise when there are some groups (Asians? Jews?) who are overrepresented by a factor of two or three relative to their population? You cannot get population parity with equal criteria of selection when all the groups are not feeding into the pool of qualified applicants at the same rate in every activity.

My view is that the permanent embrace of preferential selection in extremely selective, competitive venues by race is a mistake. I can understand its transitional use, historically speaking, but its institutionalization is inconsistent with true equality.

I have told you what I am against: elite affirmative action that uses different standards for selection of blacks and other people, and reparations, in the broad sense of America repaying a debt to black peoplefor the reasons that I adduced. But what am I for?

Educational opportunity, for starters. Heres what I would say about it. One principle of equality in the provision of educational services is influential these days. According to this principle, because local districts differ in the value of real estate and hence in their tax basis, and so are not equally situated for spending on kids education, the state should, through its revenue-transfer programs, redistribute resources among those districts, so as to equalize the expenditures per pupil.

But one could think about a different principle, something like equal effective educational opportunity, where the goal is to acknowledge that different districts are differently placednot with regard to real-estate values alone, but with respect to the social conditions of the students there. So, a district with lots of disadvantaged studentsmore special education, more behavioral problems in the classroom, less resources at home, economic disadvantage, food insecurity, things like thatmay require you to spend more per pupil there, if the goal is to try to equalize the effective educational opportunity of all students. This would be a different kind of equality principle to bring into the educational sphere and achieving it may require moremuch morethan merely shifting funds between districts.

Furthermore, I would say that we ought not worry about educational opportunity for Americans primarily in terms of the fact that African-Americans are disproportionate among those ill-served by educational opportunity. It feels to me like the proverbial tail wagging the dog, to make social policy in a country of 330 million people on the basis of an effort to rectify the historically inherited racial disparity that is affecting a quarter to a third of the African-American population. (Mind you, now, we are not saying that every person of African descent is fundamentally disadvantaged purely because of the color of their skin.) Remedying racial disparity ought not to be the primary motive when making social policy. I would argue this not only from a political perspective but also from a moral perspective. I think the right theory of social justice is one in which any persons idiosyncratic demographic characteristics should not have any bearing on the weight the social decision maker gives to that persons welfare when formulating policy. That is to say, ultimately some version of trans-racial humanism is the right philosophical stance.

Glenn C. Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He currently hosts a podcast called The Glenn Show on bloggingheads.tv.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Read this article:

The Bias Narrative v. the Development Narrative - City Journal

NC remembers Sheikh Abdullah on his 115th birth anniversary – Greater Kashmir

National Conference (NC) Friday paid glowing tributes to Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah on his 115th birth anniversary and termed him the founding father of political awakening and social transformation in Jammu and Kashmir.

A statement of NC issued here said that while paying tributes to the NC founder on his 115th birth anniversary, NCs rank and file said, In Sheikh Sahabs legacy we find answers to many current challenges that we are faced with today including a challenge to our identity and unique political status.

They said the best tribute to him at this juncture would be to imbibe the same indomitable courage which he exhibited all his life.

He not only ushered in an era of development and social justice in the State post independence but also guided the people with emancipation, secular, and progressive ideologies, they said. He illumined the masses about the power of democracy and humanism.

They said even Mahatma Gandhi saw a ray of hope in his efforts and prayed that Kashmir under him should become a beacon light to the benighted subcontinent.

He was undeniably a brightest star of the state and of the country. A magnetic personality, he always held Articles 370 and 35-A as a free and dignified bond of association with secular India, they said.

The NC statement said the main Fateh ceremony on Sheikhs birth anniversary would be held at his grave at NaseemBagh that would be followed by kick-starting NCs membership drive 2020-21 by NC President Farooq Abdullah.

NC leaders Ali Muhammad Sagar, NasirAslamWani, Abdul Rahim Rather, Muhammad Shafi (Uri), MianAltaf Ahmad, Mubarak Gul, Choudhary Muhammad Ramzaan, SakinaItoo, Nazir Khan (Gurezi), G A Shah, ShariefuddinShariq, ShameemaFirdous; ShammiOberoi, Muhammad Akbar Lone, Ali Muhammad Dar, Bashir Ahmed Veeri; HasnainMasoodi, Irfan Ahmed Shah, Mir Saifullah, Aga Syed Mehmood, Syed Tauqeer, Showkat Ahmed Mir, Peer Afaq, QaiserJamsheed Lone, AltafKaloo, Abdul MajeedLarmi, Sheikh IshfaqJabbar, GhulamMohiudin Mir, G R Naaz, Abdul Ahad Dar, Javed Dar and others paid glowing tributes to the NC founder.

Link:

NC remembers Sheikh Abdullah on his 115th birth anniversary - Greater Kashmir

Pedagogy of difference: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and education – The Jerusalem Post

Like many others, my work has been deeply influenced by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I had the privilege of meeting him twice, once at a London conference on Jewish identity and a second time at a Cambridge University lecture on science and religion. I was overwhelmed by his eloquent ability to negotiate the dynamic complexities between traditional Judaism and academic philosophy. But the real impact of his ideas on my work came when I read his wonderful little book, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. In that book, Sacks challenged what he called universal monotheism. According to this view, not only is there one true God, but also only one proper way to worship that God, which ought to be imposed, by force or violence if necessary, on those who either do not recognize this universal divinity or do not follow the correct cannons of worship.

Sacks referred to this interpretation of monotheism as the ghost of Plato. It reflects Platos absolutist politics according to which the true nature of justice should permeate all discourse in a well-ordered society, including schooling at every level. The idea that society should serve a universal understanding of truth and goodness made its way through medieval thought into several influential interpretations of Christianity and Islam, and later into modern political ideologies of both the Right and the Left. It has also impacted several streams in Jewish life, both political and religious, although as Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Sacks refrained from drawing this conclusion and even famously altered some of his text to accommodate critics.

This attitude has devastating consequences for how one conceives public deliberations in diverse societies and an education that would enable participation in those deliberations. It justifies, even encourages, inculcation in belief and unbelief through an especially aggressive form of what educational philosophers call indoctrination, instruction that undermines moral agency, rather than through nurture, formation, persuasion, or education. Religious educator John Hull referred this indoctrinary attitude disparagingly as religionism, which entails cultivating devotion to one faith by debasing another, a critique that can be applied with equal concern to several nonreligious worldviews as well.

Platos universalistic understanding of society also generated a uniform conception of the person to be educated, which has reverberated across the generations. Sacks, on the other hand, held that the Hebrew Bible offers an alternative concept of humanity. To be human, on this account, is to be a reflection of God different, not the same; special; unique; singular; in a word, holy. But to be like God in the biblical sense is not to be a god as understood in the ancient Near East. As portrayed in Exodus, for example, the Egyptian Pharaoh saw himself as entitled to enslave others because he thought that the universe was centered on him. The biblical view, on the other hand, is expressed in the first chapters of Genesis, according to which every human being is a mirror of the Divine. Hence, the quintessential expression of ones holiness is to be found in acknowledging and preserving the uniqueness of others, not in centering on the self.

The consequence of this conception of personhood is what Sacks called particular monotheism. In this view, although there is one God, there may be multiple ways to worship that God, provided adherence to the principles of basic decency found in the seven Noahide laws. This is the position of classical Judaism according to Sacks. In principle, this inclusive attitude might even embrace those who refrain from formal worship or faith in God altogether, on the condition that each persons dignity is recognized. Treating people as if they were created in Gods image is counted by many sages as equivalent to faith in the Divine.

Cultivating such an other-centered yet unique sense of self requires an education grounded in dialogue within and among communities. Such an education fosters a robust individuality, encumbered in a tradition that is at once capable of inspiring a sense of obligation toward others, yet also able to engage others whose sources of inspiration and obligation may be very different than ones own. This sort of rooted openness can be cultivated through two complimentary pedagogies. One initiates into particular faith traditions, cultures or worldviews. The other juxtaposes one position to another. I have called the first pedagogy of the sacred and the second, pedagogy of difference.

Pedagogy of the sacred is concerned with initiation into a worldview that can form the basis of ones primary identity. This entails the acquisition of cherished ideals through instruction in a vision of how to live a good life its languages and history, stories, songs and dances, customs and ceremonies, and beliefs, values and practices. Clearly, faith traditions constitute one important option for such an identity-shaping worldview; but nonreligious ethical orientations can also serve this role. These worldviews outline a curriculum for discovering worthwhile lives within learning communities devoted to visions of a higher good that are prepared to engage alternative perspectives in dialogue. I have called them intelligent spiritualties. But how is it possible to generate such a dialogue?

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

This is where pedagogy of difference comes into play. It involves instruction from or about worldviews other than ones own. The former encourages students to learn lessons from one tradition or another that might be applicable to their lives; the latter refers to studying a worldview from the outside, so to say, phenomenologically, as it might be experienced by the faithful, or culturally, in its historical or political context. Pedagogy of difference exposes students to alternative perspectives, beyond those into which they have been initiated through pedagogy of the sacred. One learns to critique, not only according to the internal standards of traditions to which one is heir or with which one has chosen to affiliate but also according to the criteria of at least one alternative, if not more. Each orientation is strengthened, not weakened, in this sort of critical dialogue, through a process of mutual learning.

The point of such an engagement is the same for both faith-based and common schools, the one serving a single religious community (such as state religious schools in Israel or Jewish day schools abroad) and the other a community of communities that encompasses multiple approaches to belief and unbelief (such as state general schools in Israel and abroad). It is to empower students with an inquisitive attitude toward the worldviews to which they are heir or with which they choose to affiliate and to promote respect for perspectives deeply different from their own. This is accomplished by subjecting all perspectives to critical scrutiny, both from within and without, in ways that are appropriate to the educational setting in question.

This application of Sackss theology of difference to education has far reaching consequences for policy and practice at all levels. In contrast to pedagogy of the oppressed associated with Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, which tends to homogenize cultures in a multicultural classroom in order to equalize power relations, pedagogy of difference reflects the spirit of value pluralism associated with British political philosopher Isaiah Berlin. This spirit demands respect in school for various cultures, traditions, and worldviews without diminishing their distinctiveness. Pedagogy of difference also embraces the other-centered humanism associated with French phenomenologist Emanuel Levinas. This ethic calls us to take responsibility for others with the response of the Hebrew prophets: hineini here I am, ready to serve, precisely because, not in spite, of their differences.

For example, funded by the European Commission of Higher Education and in collaboration with institutions of higher learning in Spain, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom and Georgia, the University of Haifa coordinated initiatives at Gordon Academic College of Education, Achva Academic College and Sapir Academic College in a project entitled DARE: Developing Programs for Access of Disadvantaged Groups of People and Regions to Higher Education. Following Sackss To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, this project used pedagogy of difference to promote access to higher education for marginalized populations, including cultural minorities and disabled students. It demonstrated that each group offers important new perspectives to the diverse conversations of higher education.

Similarly, with support from the Templeton World Charity Foundation, a team of researchers at the University of Haifa and the Technion are exploring dialogue between science and religious education in Israeli high schools secular and religious, Jewish and Arab using pedagogy of difference. In keeping with Sackss The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, this project is particularly important at a time of pandemic when religious communities around the world experience tensions between cherished faith commitments and the role of science in protecting public health.

Finally, in partnership with the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Education Ministry, a University of Haifa research team is examining this sort of dialogical pedagogy in the middle-school curriculum according to the spirit of Sackss most recent book, Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times. Through interdisciplinary learning and teaching in the arts and humanities, this project will prepare students to draw on multiple and even conflicting sources of value and truth to address complex social problems such as those arising from the pandemic.

The educational import of Rabbi Sackss open but religiously grounded social philosophy comes down to one simple truth: To know oneself, one must engage others in dialogue, but to properly engage others, one must also know oneself. And through this engagement, one bears witness to the presence of God, in this world and toward the next.

May his memory be a blessing!

The writer is professor of philosophy of education at the University of Haifa and president of the Religious Education Association. His book Reimagining Liberal Education: Affiliation and Inquiry in Democratic Schooling (Bloomsbury, 2015) grounds pedagogy of difference in Sackss thought.

See original here:

Pedagogy of difference: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and education - The Jerusalem Post

Balarabe Musa, true champion of the masses – Vanguard

The late Mallam Balarabe Musa

THE outpouring of accolades that trailed the death of Second Republic Governor of old Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, is a rich testimonial of appreciation of the exemplary life and political legacies he left behind.

A diehard exponent of democratic humanism, a form of socialist ideology of the Mallam Aminu Kano school of politics, Musa also lived an ascetic lifestyle devoid of corruption and material pursuits that are emblematic of todays politicians.

He studiously shunned the ideologically-rudderless large political parties which corruptly controlled public office because they had very little interest in the well-being of the people of the grassroots.

He was impeached in 1981 by the Kaduna State House of Assembly, whose majority members were of the National Party of Nigeria, NPN, a centre-right party that espoused a strong capitalist ideology.

Balarabe Musa was removed because of his perceived intention to turn Kaduna State into a socialist enclave.

Those were the days when ideology still drove politics in Nigeria unlike today when politicians change parties like undergarments for selfish and corrupt reasons.

Throughout his post-impeachment era, Balarabe Musa was always available to the media with his radical, insightful and fearless views on the state of the nation. Having nothing to hide, he had no reason to keep his views secret.

He was, indeed, one of the few remaining members of the radical order which helped make Nigerian politics so vibrant.

Born on August 21, 1936 in Kaya, Kaduna State, Musa studied at Zaria Middle School (19471952) and at the Institute of Administration, Zaria (19521953). He also later attended different institutions in London where he studied Accountancy.

His working experience consisted of his stint as an accounts clerk (19531955) and a school teacher (19551960). He also held various managerial positions between 1960 and 1976. As a leftist-leaning politician, Balarabe Musa belonged to the Northern Elements Progressive Union, NEPU, founded by Mallam Aminu Kano.

He was later elected Governor of Kaduna State in 1979 on the platform of Peoples Redemption Party, PRP, a party also founded by Aminu Kano and drew others of like minds such as Abubakar Rimi, Sabo Barkin Zuwo, Abdullahi Aliyu Sumaila, Michael Imoudu, Chinua Achebe, Yusufu Bala Usman, Uche Chukwumerije and Sule Lamido.

Unfortunately, his ascendancy to the pinnacle of political power in Kaduna State and desire to use same to improve the lot of his people were cut short by his controversial impeachment instigated by powerful elements within the Federal Government then controlled by the defunct National Party of Nigeria, NPN.

While joining millions of Nigerians in mourning Balarabe Musas passage, we take solace in declaring, like President Buhari, that he left a bold footprint on Nigerias democracy, and his role in promoting good governance and development will always be remembered and appreciated by posterity.

Vanguard News Nigeria

See the article here:

Balarabe Musa, true champion of the masses - Vanguard

UPs anti-conversion laws are a political weapon to further communalism – The Indian Express

Updated: December 7, 2020 10:21:01 pm

Written by Javed Iqbal Wani and L David Lal

In recent years, the Hindu right has peddled a false narrative about Muslim men conducting a jihad by manipulating Hindu women into falling in love with the intention of eventually converting them to Islam. A few years back, it would not seem realistic that a vague communal idea such as love jihad could be weaponised by bringing in an ordinance that promises to deal with a problem that does not exist.

On November 28, 2020, the Uttar Pradesh government further entrenched communalism by law in the state by activating The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Ordinance, 2020. It prohibits conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement or marriage. The stated goal of the law is to check unlawful religious conversion and interfaith marriages with the sole intention of changing a girls religion. It criminalises conversions in violation of the provisions of the law and will punish the guilty with a jail term of up to 10 years. The offences defined and stated in the ordinance are cognisable and non-bailable. Many BJP-ruled states have expressed an interest to legislate similar provisions.

P Chidambaram writes | The love jihad law is an onslaught on choice; on freedom; on privacy; on dignity; on the equality of man and woman; and on the right to love or live together or marry.

According to the new law, a person intending to convert to another religion needs to inform the district magistrate or additional district magistrate at least 60 days in advance and submit a prescribed declaration that the decision is free from any pressure or allurement and of the individuals free choice. Another declaration needs to be submitted within 60 days once the conversion happens. Only then will the person be able to attain a confirmation certificate that the conversion is lawful. The district magistrates office is required to exhibit a copy of the declarations on the notice board of the office till the date of confirmation of conversion. On paper, it claims that it is aimed at preventing forced conversions only. The legislation is indeed old wine in a new bottle, but this time has been weaponised further.

Among others, the issue of conversion was one of the main factors that motivated the enunciation of Hindutva in the colonial era. Anti-conversion laws in theory were designed as protective laws for the marginal groups, but, in reality, act as prohibition laws as they restrict freedom of marginal groups. The issue of religious conversion and limiting conversion through laws extends back to colonial times. Many princely states had one law or another dealing with the issue the Raigarh State Conversion Act, 1936, Patna Freedom of Religion Act, 1942, Surguja State Apostasy Act, 1942, and Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act, 1946 etc are examples. Similar laws were in place also in Kota, Bikaner, Jodhpur and Kalahandi.

In the past, several states have passed what are also referred to as Freedom of Religion Acts or anti-conversion laws. These are mostly state-level statutes aimed to regulate involuntary religious conversions. Odisha was the first state to bring in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh that has a Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968. In 1978, anti-conversion bills were enacted in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Arunachal Pradesh. Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh also passed their Freedom of Religion Act in the year 2000, 2003 and 2006 respectively. Rajasthan also passed a similar Bill in 2006. Tamil Nadu adopted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act 2002, but it was repealed in May 2004. The most recent legislation of a similar kind was passed in Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2017. The point here is that the trend for communalisation of the issue of conversion is not new and has been sustained over the last 50 years in postcolonial India. In UP, it gains a new momentum because it is politically aimed to regulate (read prohibit) conversions to Islam through what the right-wing terms as love jihad.

Despite contestations over the nature of similar laws, the UP government did not learn anything from past mistakes and went a few steps further to make the law more regressive. The maintenance of statistics of conversions by the DM in the form of a register is nothing but policing of women and love beyond boundaries. It raises concerns about the privacy of individuals who wish to adopt other religions. Not to mention the liberty of an individual to choose a partner from another religion.

One of the most questionable templates on which the law in UP rests is the Brahminical-patriarchal treatment of women as property. It infantilises women and perceives them as lacking any agency, as if they are property that needs to be recovered. Above all, the law is antithetical to the freedoms granted by provisions in the Special Marriage Act. Persons belonging to two different religions get married under the Special Marriage Act, which has a long-drawn process already. In cases, where a woman feels coerced, she can take recourse to the law under existing provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Excessive legislation only criminalises everyday acts. The need is not to create more laws but to utilise the existing provisions if any foul play or coercion is reported. The new ordinance is a many-headed hydra. It subverts the basic principles of a constitutional democracy that grants individuals freedom of choice and religion. It undermines the free choice of adult women by referring to terms like allurement. It fails to see that in matters of love, faith is secondary, and the choice is primary.

Such political tactics are, of course, aimed at policing intermingling of castes and faiths. But it achieves a key supplementary goal in the process. It takes focus away from questions of caste and caste oppression within the Hindu fold and thrives on creating threatening exteriority in the names of fighting demons that do not exist. It is interesting that there has not been a single case where the conversions of tribal and Dalit people in the states of Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, etc., have invited action against organisations affiliated to the Hindu right.

Faith is not a matter of spectacular conversion; it is the most personal commitment one has with the belief. You enter a faith as soon as you believe in the basic premise of it. What the UP ordinance shows is that we have entered an era of belligerent Hindutva, which thrives by weaponising laws against love and choice. Adding the term jihad to love is not accidental. The term love jihad aims to extend the post 9/11 stereotype of Muslims as predators who operate in multifarious ways to conquer the world. It sees love, or its pretension at least, as a tactic of the war. In the process, it dehumanises a particular community.

An appropriate countermobilisation is required to challenge the communal spirit of the law. The posturing of law in India in issues of caste, gender and religion might appear impartial, but it operates in a web of partisan relations of power. The goal of such legislation is to gain the implicit partiality of law. It aims to gain political mileage by officially recognising unfounded concerns of the Hindu right. It converts personal choices and personal liberties into spectacular legal processes and battles. The complex web of administrative requirements involved in the process thrives based on an implicit threat. Moreover, it will have direct implications on the right of the individuals, level of tolerance in society, and the plural and secular fabric of the country. It will create a society of suspicion and petty vengeance.

The socio-cultural life of north India was based on the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, thriving on a harmonious co-existence of distinct cultures. The society was structured through mutual acceptance of different practices, norms and values. The alternative social vision based on social equality propagated by social thinkers such as Kabir, Ravidas, Tukaram, Chokhamela, Phule, and others holds immense significance in contemporary times. Kabirs imagination of tehzeeb carried the message of cultural plurality, respect for different value systems and humanism. Kabir in his poetry imagines building a social vision of a Prem nagar the city of love a land filled with love, mutual co-existence, and celebration of pluralities devoid of any hatred. He was one of the important architects of syncretic tradition in Indian society, which propagated the inter-mixing, tolerance and respect of different ideas. Kabir universalised the concept of love, opposed the ownership of love as caste and religion-specific, and emphasised its constructive role in the society. Even after centuries have passed, thousands of Kabir panthis (followers of Kabirs teaching) comprising Hindus, Muslims, and other communities continue to uphold the plural values in the society. The idea of Prem nagar continues to live in the imagination of millions of people in our society.

Ideally speaking, there is no bigger jihad than love. Love is an act of ultimate freedom. It does not know the boundaries of caste, gender, race, religion, language or region. It cannot be a means to anything, love is an end in itself. Philosopher Alan Badiou is right in noting that love is anything but an adhesive substance, a medieval glue that binds two tragically divided subjects back to a single loving unit. Marriage or conversion or other social protocols could be a means to love but not its end. Those who are peddling a false narrative are doing a disservice to humanity by sabotaging the basic premise of human existence i.e., love. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, there is madness in love, but there is some reason in madness. And that reason for love in a constitutional democracy is known as choice. We contend that law does not have the power to evaluate love. Because law thrives on justification and love requires none.

Wani is assistant professor, Ambedkar University Delhi and Lal is assistant professor, IIIT-Guwahati

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

More:

UPs anti-conversion laws are a political weapon to further communalism - The Indian Express

Developing science & scientific temper, the fundamental duties of Indian citizens – IndiaCSR

The Article 51A of The Constitution of India has duly pointed out that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures, to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform, to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the Nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

The above three fundamental Constitutional duties are immensely relevant to the vision of an Atma Nirbhar Bharat (Self Reliant India), effective implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, meeting Indias commitment to climate change and the country to become a global leader in science and technology.

India is poised to be self-reliant in energy, agriculture, food and health care and communication, which can be achieved by discharging the Constitutional Duties with utmost sincerity and dedication by every individual associated with the program. It is relevant to cite the example of Indias atomic energy and space programme and its is one of the very few nations in the world to have mastered the nuclear technology and accomplished several mission oriented space projects.

The dedication and commitment of the scientific community to strive towards excellence so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements, is one of the fundamental duties of the Constitution of India. Indias nuclear energy program, being in a technology denial regime, has been Atma Nirbhar since its inception.

Indias abiding interest in nuclear energy grew out of a deep conviction that the power of the atom can be harnessed to produce carbon-free electricity in a sustainable manner for energy security of the country with a growing population and at the same time produce radio-isotopes for use in healthcare, particularly cancer treatment.

It has been a bold step taken by the Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi during the year 2017 by approving construction of 10 indigenous Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) with total installed capacity of 7000 MW. The decision for constructing the reactors in a fleet mode is unprecedented in the history of Indias atomic energy program.

India is one of the very few select nations in the world pursuing an accelerated expansion of nuclear power based on closed fuel cycle. The exceptional success in our nuclear program is due to the nuclear culture which is inspired by the fundamental duties of the Constitution of India, that is to develop the scientific temper and to strive towards excellence so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

There are many priorities, but protecting the environment which is one of the fundamental duties in the Constitution of India, is given paramount importance by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. One of the Indias post-2020 climate goals is to achieve about 40 percent electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030. India has consciously made a strategic choice to pursue a low-carbon growth model in the coming decades a global vision A clean Planet for All.

Research shows that most of the jobs in the 21st century will be requiring digital skills, higher-order thinkers (multidisciplinary and integrated learning), lateral and deep thinking and employable skills. The NEP 2020 formulated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development has elegantly addressed the needs and dreams of the 21st century young India.

To mention a few, it has provided the opportunities for the creative thinking, holistic and multi-disciplinary education, attainment of foundational literacy, basic and advanced courses in each subject, scientific temper and evidence-based thinking, ancient Indian knowledge, less content for better understanding and absorption, technology use and integration, it is pertinent to emphasize that the policy implementation is the real challenge than the policy formulation.

India has faltered in policy implementation primarily due to the involvement of large number of individuals requiring highest level of integrity, honesty, accountability, responsibility and above all a commitment to the duties of the Constitution of India. NEP 2020 is an excellent progressive and constructive document, which once implemented will enable India to impart world-class education and become a global knowledge center.

The development of scientific temper is one of the duties of the scientists and technologists to be able to contribute to the nation building through scientific discoveries and technology development and deployment. There should be continuous effort by the Government, Scientific and academic institutions, Industrial units and each and every organization to inculcate awareness in the citizens of India about the fundamental duties of in the Constitution of India under Article 51A.

My vision of the Indian Republic is to see my country as a global leader in science and technology, truly self-reliant and the best in the world in producing clean energy to protect the environment. Achieving the above objectives is a real challenge as it require relentless efforts, commitment to nation building, highest level of integrity and honesty. It is emphasized that the scientific community should remain fully committed to abide by the Fundamental Duties of The Constitution of India. The year-long celebration of the Constitution Day has enhanced the awareness about the Constitution of India a momentous occasion to cherish forever.

Amitava Roy, a distinguished scientist & a Padma Shri awardee, is a former Chief Executive Nuclear Recycle Board, Department of Atomic Energy.

(Source: 70 Years of Indian Constitution, Published by Govt. of India)

Here is the original post:

Developing science & scientific temper, the fundamental duties of Indian citizens - IndiaCSR

Former Israeli General: Aliens Exist, and Earth Is Not Ready to Deal With Them – Futurism

Interstellar Disclosure

Well, alien believers, Christmas came early for your kind. According to the Jerusalem Post, a former Israeli general spoke withTel Aviv newspaper Yediot Aharonot and claimed that humans have made contact with aliens.

Not only that, but the reason its been withheld from the public record? Were not ready for them. In any other year, this excuse might not hold water. This year: Yeah, that tracks.

The whistleblower is a retired 87-year-old Israeli Defense Force general and space security chief named Haim Eshed, currently employed as a professor. According to Eshed, theres a galactic federation, thats agreed to keep things on the low. Also, the aliens are on a massive research project to understand the fabric of the universe.

Also, theres a secret alien and American base underground on Mars. According to Eshed, American President Donald Trump knows about them, and wanted to speak on the fact of their existence, but was stopped fromsaying something out loud, which, if youre at all aware of President Trumps ouvre, is where this story gets sketchy by the Galactic Federation.

Eshed isnt the first high profile official to claim, with questionable evidence, that theres alien life out there. Take Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the Moon, who became a gadfly to NASA late in life with similar claims.

As for why hes waited until, uh,todayto say anything, Eshed claimed that the world of academia has changed quite a bit since he first came across these aliens. If hed talked prior to now, he claims he wouldve been seen as mentally unhinged and hospitalized.

It may also be pertinent here to note that Esheds got a new book out (title: The Universe Beyond the Horizon conversations with Professor Haim Eshed) just in time for the holiday shopping season. Thankfully, theJerusalemPostdid the public a service so we dont have to. Quote their story:

The Jerusalem Post was unable to reach out to this supposed Galactic Federation for comment.

READ MORE: Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready [J-Post]

Read more:

Former Israeli General: Aliens Exist, and Earth Is Not Ready to Deal With Them - Futurism

China Is Rolling Out an Enormous "Weather Modification" System – Futurism

Cloud Cover

This week, the Chinese government announced that it plans to drastically increase its use of technology that artificially changes the weather.

Cloud seeding technology, or systems that can blasts silver molecules into the sky to prompt condensation and cloud formation, has been around for decades, and China makes frequent use of it. But now, CNN reports that China wants to increase the total size of its weather modification test area to 5.5 million square miles by 2025 a huge increase,and an area larger than that of the entire country of India, which could affect the environment on an epic scale and even potentially spur conflict with nearby countries.

Most notably, China and India share a hotly-disputed border that theyve violently clashed over as recently as this year, CNN has previously reported. Indias agriculture relies on a monsoon season thats already grown unpredictable due to climate change, prompting experts in the country to worry that China may use its ability to control rain and snowfall as a weapon.

Lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of rain stealing between neighboring regions, National Taiwan University researchers conclude in a 2017 paper published in Geoforum.

In the past, China has used its weather modification tech to seed clouds well in advance of major events like the 2008 Olympics and political meetings so the events themselves happen under clear skies, CNN reports.

But this planned expansion of the system means that other countries may be subject to its meteorological whims seeding international conflict in addition to clouds.

READ MORE: China to expand weather modification program to cover area larger than India [CNN]

More on weather modification: Chinas New Weather-Controlling Tech Could Make it Rain on Demand

Go here to read the rest:

China Is Rolling Out an Enormous "Weather Modification" System - Futurism

There Appears to Be an Elon Musk Cameo in "Cyberpunk 2077" – Futurism

Spoiler Alert

Cyberpunk 2077, arguably one of the most hyped up video games in recent history, is finally dropping on Thursday and the world cant wait to get their hands on a copy.

And as it turns out, the CD Projekt Red game is flush with Easter eggs that are likely to keep gamers guessing for months to come. Eagle-eyed early reviewers of the game, for instance, spotted an NPC non-player character in the background that looks astonishingly like SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, as CNET points out.

According to CNET, the mysterious Musk-like figures main purpose is to be shooed away in a public bathroom by the protagonist, who is being controlled by the player.

It wouldnt be surprising for Musk to make an appearance in the game. In fact, his partner, the acclaimed musician Grimes, makes her own appearance as a frontwoman of a rock band.

Musks electric car company may have its own cameo baked into the game as well. A brief exchange on Twitter last year between the video games official account and Musk indicate that players may soon come across Teslas long-awaited electric pickup called the Cybertruck.

We had a deal, Elon, the games account wrote in response to a November 22 post about the Cybertruck. See ya in 2077, Musk replied.

READ MORE: Cyberpunk 2077: Is this an Elon Musk cameo? [CNET]

More on Musk: Elon Musks Boring Company Turned Its Vegas Tunnel Into a Rave

See the article here:

There Appears to Be an Elon Musk Cameo in "Cyberpunk 2077" - Futurism

Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy – Mental Floss

While speaking at a multi-course banquet in Milan on November 15, 1930, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti presented his fellow Italians with an incendiary call to action. Pasta, he said, was a passist food that [deluded people] into thinking it [was] nutritious and made them heavy, brutish, skeptical, slow, [and] pessimistic. As such, it should be abolished and replaced with rice.

So began a fascinating moment in food history: an outrageous crusade against the countrys most beloved carbohydrate. Not only did Marinetti's movement elicit passionate reactions on both sides, but it also had some less-than-tenuous ties to Benito Mussolini's fascist regime.

Marinettis initial statement spread so widely because he himself loomed large over society at the time. His 1909 Manifesto of Futurism launched the Futurist movement, which championed a shift away from the slow, outmoded processes of the past and toward the sleek technologies of the future. Though originally specific to art, Futurism was a nationalist cause at hearta way for the newly unified country to catch up to other world powersand it aligned with Mussolinis fledgling political campaign. In fact, the two men collaborated closely while establishing their respective political parties (Marinettis Fasci Politici Futuristiand Mussolinis Fasci di Combattimento) as World War I came to a close. Marinetti had distanced himself from Mussolini by the early 1920s, but he still invoked Il Duces policies when they served his goals.

For the pasta prohibition, they did. To make Italy less reliant on imported wheat, Mussolinis administration had started promoting ricewhich was much easier to produce domesticallyover pasta. In the late 1920s, he established the National Rice Board and even declared November 1 to be National Rice Day. As Philip McCouat writes for the Journal of Art History, the dictator never went so far as to ban macaroni, but citizens were already familiar with anti-pasta sentiment by the time Marinetti began his smear campaign.

On December 28, 1930, the Futurist followed up his dinner speech with the Manifesto of Futurist Cooking, co-written with the artist Luigi Colombo (known as Filla) and publishedin Turins Gazzetta del popolo. In it, they described pasta itself as an absurd Italian gastronomic religion and pasta lovers as being shackled by its ball and chain like convicted lifers or [carrying] its ruins in their stomachs like archaeologists.

In short, they believed that pasta weighed Italians down and prevented them from achieving any kind of greatness. The ultimate solution was for the government to replace all food with nutritional pills, powders, and other artificial substitutes, but until the chemists could create such innovations, the Futurists would settle for swapping out pasta with rice. And remember too, they wrote, that the abolition of pasta will free Italy from expensive foreign wheat and promote the Italian rice industry.

While Marinettis initial speech had incited a small uprising among Italians, his written manifesto gave the issue a global audience. Fascist Writer, All Wound Up in Health Subject, Begs Countrymen to Swallow New Theory, the Chicago Tribune summarized in an article titled Italy May Down Spaghetti, which hit newsstands just two days after Marinettis manifesto.

Smaller presses covered the bombshell, too. No, signor. We beseech you, call off your holy war, Ernest L. Meyer pontificated in Madison, Wisconsins The Capital Times. Would you abolish macaroni and all its tunefully christened cousinsmacaroncelli, foratini, maglietti, ditalini, vermicelliand reduce Italians to the ugly dissonances of beans, cabbage, chops, chard, and chewing gum? Fie, signor, there is no poetry in your soul, and your palate lacks wit.

People living everywhere from France to Australia commented on the matter, but nowhere was the response more impassioned than in Italy. Women in the city of LAquila sent Marinetti a protest letter, and the mayor of Naples went so far as to proclaim that the Angels in Paradise eat nothing but vermicelli with tomato sauce. (Marinetti later retorted that this was simply proof of the unappetizing monotony of Paradise and of the life of the Angels.) But Futurism wasnt unpopular, and the pasta ban had ardent advocates of its own. Italian writer Marco Ramperti, for example, lambasted the beloved repast in a highly imaginative op-ed.

[Pasta] puffs out our cheeks like grotesque masks on a fountain, it stuffs our gullets as if we were Christmas turkeys, it ties up our insides with its flabby strings; it nails us to the chair, gorged and stupefied, apoplectic and gasping, with [a] sensation of uselessness he wrote. Our thoughts wind round each other, get mixed up and tangled like the vermicelli weve taken in.

Marinetti collected the best testimonies from scientists, chefs, and literary firebrands like Ramperti and reproduced them in 1932s La Cucina Futurista (The Futurist Cookbook), which also contained Futurist recipes and instructions for hosting various kinds of Futurist dinner parties. But the 1930s were an exceptionally tumultuous decade for the countrywhich faced the Great Depression, Adolf Hitlers growing influence, a war with Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, and eventually World War IIand Italian citizens were focused less on what they were eating and more on simply eating.

Furthermore, Futurism soon ran afoul of fascism. In 1937, Hitler decried modern art as degenerate, anti-nationalist, and somehow inherently Jewish. Though Marinetti spoke out against these associations, anti-Semitism had already infected Italy, and fascists started condemning the Futurist movement. Since Mussolini was courting Hitler as an ally, his regimes ties to Futurism could easily have become a political liability. In 1939, when Marinetti published a fiery denial of Hitlers accusations in a Futurist journal called Artecrazia, the government forced it to shutter.

So, by the 1940s, Marinetti was no longer spewing consistent vitriol against pasta, Il Duce was no longer supporting the Futurist movement, and the world at large was consumed with much greater threats than linguini-induced languor. And if Marinetti ever entertained fantasies about resurrecting the cause after the war, he never got the chancehe died of a heart attack in December 1944, just months before the deaths of both Mussolini and Hitler the following April.

See the original post here:

Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy - Mental Floss

A Third Monolith Just Appeared in California – Futurism

Here We Go Again

Okay, seriously, whos doing this? Knock it off.

A third monolith has appeared on top of Pine Mountain in Atascadero, California, as spotted by local news correspondent Connor Allen.

Unlike the amateur welder travesty that was the second monolith found near a famous archeological site in northern Romania, this monolith appears to be as pristine as or perhaps even shinier than the first one, discovered in the Utah wilderness late last month.

Is it a marketing stunt? Aliens playing a joke? We still have zero clarity on the origins or purpose behind the strange structures.

Its the same triangular design made out of stainless steel, and stands about ten feet tall. Strangely, this monolith wasnt anchored to the ground like the one found in Utah and could easily be knocked over with a firm push according to local news outlet Atascadero News.

If past is prelude, well now be waiting for the roughly 200 pound installation to disappear overnight just like the ones found in the Utah and Romania.

While we dont know how the Romanian monolith disappeared, we have a first-hand account of how a gang of four men toppled over the one in Utah late Friday evening and taking it with them.

READ MORE: New mysterious monolith appears in California [CNET]

More on monoliths: A Gang of Men Apparently Stole the Utah Monolith

More:

A Third Monolith Just Appeared in California - Futurism

‘If you want to think like a futurist, do these 4 things every day,’ says renowned futurist of 20 years – CNBC

While 2020 is coming to an end, questions prompted by uncertainty aren't going away anytime soon: What changes are coming tomorrow? Will they be good or bad? What will the world look like 10 years from now?

So it makes sense that, having been a futurist for more than two decades, one question I've been asked a lot this year is: "How do I think futurist?"

It can often seem difficult to anticipate what's coming around the bend. But you don't have to be Elon Musk to predict the future. In fact, it's far easier and far less time-consuming than most people might suspect. The key is simply knowing what to focus on, the right questions to ask and whom to turn to for insight.

If you want to think like a futurist, do these four things every day:

Anticipating the future is a process of looking at complex, interrelated events, and the underlying connections between them not simply studying the temporary effects that they're producing.

Consider the difference between waves and tides: Waves are fleeting events that come and go. They are what we see on the surface of the business world. But an anticipatory leader trains herself to see tides the megatrends at work deep beneath the surface that are causing those waves, or disturbances.

Example: Data entry clerks, typists and travel agents are among the fastest-declining professions this decade, which is concerning for anyone who's made a career of manually entering requests and filing forms. But more concerning to a futurist is the growing push towards robotics and automation.

Futurists focus on asking the right questions: What's driving this declining trend? What's fueling companies' rising interest in outsourcing tasks to software tools?

The goal is to determine which forces are at work at all times, how they impact the marketplace, and where there's opportunity to shape the future for the positive.

The future is constantly changing. Unfortunately, historical data (which is mostly what we have) isn't always reliable in predicting when things are in a state of change, especially if we're at radical inflection points.

That's why paying attention to signals, which are small developments happening on the margins (i.e., an innovative new product that has the potential to grow in scale and geographic distribution), is important.

Example: The growing use of A.I. software assistants smart enough to pass for humans hasn't upended the business world entirely just yet. (Although you've probably noticed these chatbots asking if they can help you within seconds of visiting your favorite websites.)

But if many can already answer 90% of customers' questions satisfactorily as we speak, what happens when they start to replace dedicated salespeople en masse?

Futurists constantly get in the habit of looking for signals like this.

The point of aggregating signals and determining how they connect to big picture trends is to help us spot emerging patterns.

These patterns tell a larger story and point to where the future will head. By observing them, you can see which tools, technologies and business models are on the decline, and which are on the rise.

Example: We're already transitioning from a world where newspapers and magazines were once a primary force for moving the political needle to one where elections may be influenced by tweets and social networks.

As another, while their market share is still nascent, we're also transitioning from an age of conspicuous consumption and gas-guzzling autos to one where sustainability and electric vehicles are poised to eventually be king.

No one alone can predict the future 100% of the time. Rather, if you want to improve your accuracy, these days it's more of a collaborative and communal affair.

This requires us to cultivate diversity of thought and perspective amongst our teams, and involve experts from many different domains when making decisions.

By doing so, you'll gain more feedback and insight and be more successful at envisioning the future.

Example: Challenge.gov, a platform maintained by the U.S. General Services Administration, assists federal agencies with inviting ideas and solutions directly from the public.

If you look at the website, you'll see that even agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) both staffed by some of the world's brightest minds are putting up cash bounties and contests asking the general public for help developing tomorrow's most advanced technology solutions.

Scott Steinbergis a futurist, keynote speaker on business trends and the bestselling author of"Fast >> Forward"and "Think Like a Futurist."An award-winning strategic consultant, Scott was named by Fortune magazine as a leading expert on innovation. Follow him on Twitter.

Don't miss:

See the article here:

'If you want to think like a futurist, do these 4 things every day,' says renowned futurist of 20 years - CNBC

This Is the World’s Biggest Drone – Futurism

Absolute Unit

Alabama-based startup Aevum has unveiled a fully autonomous drone designed to release satellite-launching rockets in midair and its an absolute monster.

The Ravn X Autonomous Launch Vehicle is a mammoth 80-foot aircraft with a wingspan of 60 feet. The 18 feet tall behemoth weighs in at 55,000 pounds, which makes it the worlds largest Unmanned Aircraft by mass, according to The Hill.

The drone takes off and lands like a regular aircraft and requires a runway at least one mile in length. Once its airborne, the Ravn X is designed to release a small rocket into orbit.

The startup has ambitious goals: it claims the aircraft can launch satellites into space every three hours,seven days a week.

Through our autonomous technologies, Aevum will shorten the lead time of launches from years to months, and when our customers demand it, minutes, Jay Skylus, founder and CEO of Aevum, said in a statement. This is necessary to improve lives on Earth. This is necessary to save lives.

According to the company, the massive vehicle is 70 percent reusable in its current form, but will be up to 95 percent reusable in the near future.

The startup has also already worked with the Space Force to launch the nascent service branchs first small satellite launch mission.

READ MORE: The worlds biggest drone debuts, and it weighs nearly 28 tons [The Hill]

More on drones: Firefighters Are Using Drones That Drop Fireballs

See original here:

This Is the World's Biggest Drone - Futurism

Horrifying Hack Takes Over iPhones Just by Pointing an Antenna at Them – Futurism

Passion Project

During the coronavirus lockdown, professional hacker Ian Beer, a member of Googles hacking team Project Zero, developed a way to remotely hijack iPhones simply by pointing a homebrewed antenna at them.

Beers technique requires only about $100 worth of equipment, Motherboard reports, and granted him total control of whatever phones he targeted. This is Beers specialty, but the fact remains that his comparatively-simple hack made the iPhones security measures seem disturbingly trivial.

In an eerie video, Beer hijacks 26 iPhones at once with a single broadcast. The hack sends out a WiFi signal that will work even if the target phones arent connected to the internet, according to Motherboard.

In a longer and more technically-dense video, Beer explains how the broadcast works and how it can be propagated among iPhones even beyond those that were initially targeted.

Theres something hauntingly beautiful watching all these iPhones die at slightly different times, as they get a WiFi broadcast packet of death, Chris Evans, the original head of Project Zero, tweeted.

Thankfully, Apple fixed the bugs that Beers hack targets with its May release of iOS 13.5, according to Motherboard, which was released earlier this year. But the hack still poses a security threat, aside from the broader implications of how easily Beer was able to develop it.

Not every iPhone has been updated, and cybersecurity expert Ray Redacted warns that iPhones sitting in police custody, previously inaccessible, could be cracked open with an exploit like Beers.

READ MORE: Watch This Google Hacker Pwn 26 iPhones With a WiFi Broadcast Packet of Death [Motherboard]

More on cybersecurity: The FBI Forced A Suspect To Unlock His iPhone With His Face

See the original post:

Horrifying Hack Takes Over iPhones Just by Pointing an Antenna at Them - Futurism

This Is the Most Detailed Map of the Milky Way in History – Futurism

Star Chart

The European Space Agency (ESA) just released the most detailed map of the Milky Way galaxy ever assembled.

The 3D map which makes the Milky Way look like an egg-shaped lattice includes the positions and movements of almost 2 billion stars within our galaxy, according to The Guardian. Aside from being an outstanding accomplishment on its own, the map has already helped scientists uncover new secrets about the cosmos.

The map is the end product of seven years worth of observations conducted by the ESAs Gaia observatory, which has been studying the cosmos from its orbit around the Earth since it was launched back in 2013.

What were really doing here is getting a very detailed map of the local universe thats in three dimensions for stars out to a few hundred light years, Nicholas Walton, Gaia team member and University of Cambridge astronomer, told The Guardian.

The map is so detailed, in fact, that scientists are already using it to learn about the Milky Ways relationship to its satellite galaxies, according to The Guardian. It could also help scientists finally weigh the galaxy, a shockingly complex calculation thats been attempted several times over the years.

Gaia has been staring at the heavens for the past seven years, mapping the positions and velocities of stars, Caroline Harper, space science head at the U.K. Space Agency, told The Guardian. Thanks to its telescopes we have in our possession today the most detailed billion-star 3D atlas ever assembled.

READ MORE: Astronomers unveil most detailed 3D map yet of Milky Way [The Guardian]

More on the Gaia map: Strongest-Ever Candidate for Alien Message Came From Sun-Like Star, Researcher Says

Read this article:

This Is the Most Detailed Map of the Milky Way in History - Futurism