Monthly Archives: July 2021

Ungodly people elected to government positions bring false and destructive doctrines into our government and society. One of the worst destructive doctrines is Critical Race Theory (CRT) falsely claiming all whites are racist and therefore oppressive. White oppression is labeled White Supremacy.

The radical left Democratic Party borrowed this CRT doctrine from communism. Karl Marx, the father of communism (also known as Critical Theory), postulated that oppression of people was caused by class conflict where an imbalance of power existed between capitalists and workers. Marxs remedy was revolution. Communism has failed miserably. The Democratic Party has resurrected this false communist theory to justify their socialistic agenda. Democrats merely substituted the word race for class and renamed it Critical Race Theory. The oppressors are now whites rather than capitalists. The oppressed people are now militant blacks, feminists, homosexuals, transgenders, illegal aliens, college and government employees, and the poor rather than workers. The tactics of violence, intimidation and criminal arrest are deemed justified to eliminate white oppression. Their remedy is Democratic takeover of government in order to ram socialism to We the People rather than Marxist revolution.

CRT is now being used as an offensive political weapon to force a majority of people to accept socialism. Their tactics create fear in people forcing them into acceptance. Successful? Yes. As examples, it forced the Supreme Court to refuse to hear election fraud cases by threats to pack the Court. It forced multi-state businesses to accept the Democratic mask mandate in Republican states that have no mask mandate by threats of economic boycott. It forced the jury in the George Floyd case to render a verdict of guilty against a white cop by rioting during the trial as a threat to burn jury members homes or harm their family if they gave a not guilty verdict.

The Democratic Party has now become a Demonic Party by condoning violence and using communist doctrines to increase their political power. Stand up against these ruthless tactics and refuse to accept communist socialism.

' + this.content + '

More here:

The Democratic Party has become a "Demonic Party" | Letters to the Editor | thecourierexpress.com - The Courier-Express

By DR. LARRY MOSES

No one asked me but This week I would like to expand upon a thought in which I finished my column with last week. Do not conflate this with a call for revolution and rebellion. I am not advocating any such thing. I am merely explaining how America came about as a nation and this seems like the right time to do so since we have just celebrated the creation of America as a nation.

You might recall that President Biden delivered what was cast as a get tough on crime speech. It was actually an attack on the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding American citizens. He vehemently stated that no American citizen has a right to own a military grade weapon. He based this on the fact that deer do not wear Kevlar vests. Most disturbing was his twice repeated threat that rebellious citizens would be met with a government force armed with F-115s and nuclear bombs. He indicated this superior fire power would make resistance impossible.

I would remind the President that in 1776, colonial patriots faced the greatest military of the day with squirrel guns and won independence for the American colonies. They faced 35,000 British soldiers, the largest military gathering America would see again until 1860. George Washington met them with 18,000 poorly equipped and ill-trained mostly militia troops.

Protests, nullification, armed resistance, and finally revolution were the steps in the reply to what colonist deemed British oppression. Revolution was the last step for these patriots, or traitors, depending where you stood on the issue of rebellion. Sound familiar?

While Black Life Matters and Antifa look to overthrow what they believe is an oppressive racist government the vast majority of Americans disagree with these radicals and their political views. One of the advantages of the revolutionary sentiment coming from the liberal left is that they agree with the President that there is no need for any American to have a military style weapon.

This, however, is not the policy of the radical right. For those who see no threat in these small minorities of discontents, from both of these extremes, should keep in mind the vast majority of colonists either opposed independence or were at best ambivalent to it.

James Otis in 1765 stated: Independence, which none but rebels, fools, or madmen will contend for.Ben Franklin stated in 1774: I have never heard in any conversation from any person drunk or sober the least expression of a wish for separation from England.

That there are any who pant after independence is the greatest slander on the province, said John Adams in 1775.

Until after the rejection of the second petition of Congress, I never heard an American of any class or description express a wish for Independence, stated John Jay.

It is well known that in July of 1775, a separation from Great Britain and the establishment of a Republican government had not yet entered into any persons mind, said Thomas Jefferson, in 1782.George Washington in 1774, echoed his fellow colonial leaders with this statement: I am well satisfied that no such thing is desired by any thinking man in North America.

As late as January, 1776, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey instructed their delegates to vote against independence.

Why this reluctance to declare independence from England? The declaration of rebellion would close the door to reconciliation. English rebels were executed, quartered, their heads were displayed as a warning to others.

Independence would upset the commercial class and their profitable connection with the motherland.English politics also complicated the question of American independence. The Whigs already approved of Americas resistance to the punitive acts of the King and Parliament. The Whig leader William Pitt stated, I rejoice that America has resisted! However, he further stated if Americans entertained the idea of independence, he would be the first to enforce British authority.

Besides there was no guarantee that the colonies would not be merely trading one dictator for another as a strong military leader might emerge.

The American revolution was the work of a committed minority who succeeded in neutralizing a large majority who had little interest or commitment to their cause. In New York and some southern states, the loyalists outnumbered the rebels. These factors all delayed the actual declaration of independence.On June 7, 1776, the Continental Congress considered a resolution stating, These United Colonies are and of right ought to be, free and independent states;

Three days later the Committee of Five asked Thomas Jefferson to draft a Declaration of Independence. After a few adjustments by John Adams and Ben Franklin, this document stated that the government exists by the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It went further to state that it was a sacred duty of man to revolt when governments seek to destroy and invade those rights.

The Declaration of Independence justified the intervention of Spain, France, and Holland as they came to the aid of the colonies. As an independent country, America could aid them in their continual battle with England.

Does the President not understand that F-115s and nuclear bombs would not be facing a people but they would be facing an ideology. In a battle over ideology, the inferior force does not have to win, it merely has to out-last the powerful. Military power may kill individuals, however it cannot destroy an ideology.

If this lesson was not learned from our battle for independence, we surely should have learned it from Vietnam. It is a lesson Russia learned in Afghanistan anda lesson which America, too, will accept on September 11, 2021, as we withdraw our troops from the same.

It all reminds me of the fights I had with my older brother. He would dominate me, but I would not submit, and he would eventually give up and go away which was a win for me.Does the President not understand that many nations would come to the aide of any group that would organize to overthrow the American government?

Mr. President, the Second Amendment has nothing with to do Kevlar jackets for deer or defense against ones neighbor. It is about the defense of the American people against an oppressive government whether it is imposed by an external or internal force.

Thought of the week This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. Abraham Lincoln

Here is the original post:

No One Asked Me But (July 7, 2021) - mvprogress

During a visit to Duke University last August, I spoke to three freshmen who told me that the sororities were all about to close down. When I asked why, they said that it was because of their past association with systems of oppression.

Whether they knew it or not, they were all victims of critical race theory.

CRT is an academic discipline, but also a call to revolutionary action. It casts everything in terms of power dynamics between oppressors (who have created systems of oppression) and the oppressed (whose victimhood statuses are defined in terms of race, sex, and other immutable traits). For decades, it was dominant in the civil rights field in the academy.

Since the death of George Floyd, and the Black Lives Matter mayhem that followed it, CRT has jumped the Ivy-covered walls. Suddenly, it has taken over all of our lives to such a degree that Americansa people long recognized by social scientists and foreign visitors to be inordinately attached to libertyare now rising to saybasta, and are prepared to resist.

Threats to the Revolution

My visit to Duke came at the peak of what CRTs proponents thought would be an unimpeded march through the institutions. Yet resistance to CRT started not a month later, when President Trump, having been alerted to the threat by the activist/documentary filmmaker Chris Rufo, decided to ban the implementation of CRT through training programs in the federal workforce.

>>>How to Identify Critical Race Theory

Since then, grassroots movements against the use of CRT in schools or the workplace have risen from coast to coast. Following President Trumps defeat, the energy went to the states, where political leaders have taken anti-CRT action in almost 20 capitals.

Those who thought they would be able to impose this ideology without meeting resistance have taken note, and they are furiously scrambling to mount a rearguard action to defend their orthodoxy. So taken aback are they that their tactics are even contradictoryfor example, they pretend that what is happening is not really CRT, but at the same time accuse anyone who criticizes CRT of being racist.

There is no better example of this rage and bewilderment thana recent exchangebetween MSNBC host Joy Reid and Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of theNew York Times1619 Project. For almost seven minutes, they spread what the cockneys of East London call porkies, or big fat lies.

Among these are the claims that teachers do not use CRT in K-12 classrooms and have not even studied it, and that Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DEI) training programs (many quite racist in themselves) spreading throughout corporate America are not part of CRT.

Reid, for example, maintained that CRT has nothing to do with K-12 education. Hannah-Jones said at another point that Most, teachers have not heard nor studied critical race theory. Hannah-Jones also accused conservatives of saying, look at this bad diversity training. Thats critical race theory run amok, whereas, these two things are not related whatsoever.

Both women were in high dudgeon: We are actually in a very dangerous period right now, Hannah-Jones averred. I am really concerned about what these laws mean. . . . They are really designed to stoke white resentment . . . We really should be concerned.

As to why she is so discomfited, Hannah-Jones said something revelatory. She asked rhetorically at one point why Americans were suddenly resisting all this. Her answer to herself was that the transformation of American society since the death of Floyd had been deep; BLM and her 1619 Project had unsettled power. Many Americans had finally begun to look at their own country in a less benign fashion, and didnt like what they were seeing. Even conservatives were beginning to say to themselves, Oh my God, my country isnt what I thought it was, said Hannah-Jones.

Such rejection of America had always been the holy grail of a hard left, a necessary step in a root-and-branch makeover of our political and economic systems. But now the resistance to CRT threatens to derail the Great Transformation.

Such opposition is all about the struggle for power, Hannah-Jones tellingly said: That is what were seeing. It is really a need to hold on to and maintain that power.

It is important to remember that CRT proponentsand Hannah-Jones is one, whatever her empty protestationsseeeverythingin terms of power dynamics. This is why they are prepared to do anything it takes to ensure their victory (the slogan by any means necessary of revolutionary hero Frantz Fanon is often used for that reason).

In fact, the Reid-Hannah-Jones exchange served to shed light on the lefts likely strategy to neutralize the angry parents and employees who dont want CRT: they are laying a predicate for getting their tech-giant allies to ban criticism of CRT as hate speech, and scaring the owners of premises from renting out anti-CRT rallies.

CRT: A Brief History

Maybe its been a while since Reid and Hannah-Jones curled up on the couch with a long essay or book by CRT architects. So here is a little reminder.

CRT arose in law schools in the 1980s and 90s. Some law professors of color wanted the oppressor-subordinate paradigm to be expressed in terms of race at the conferences of Critical Legal Theory they attended. So they walked off and created their own thing.

The core belief of CRT is that racism is not a matter of individuals making a sinful decision (ignoring the obligation to love ones neighbor), but that it is written into the law, the societys substructures, and especially the language (even sororities, apparently), which must be dismantled. Racism, in other words, issystemic, and this system of oppression must be uprooted.

The Civil Rights Era accomplished many things, but it was aborted when it did not end the American system as it existed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964. What was needed, and what CRT seeks, is regime change; American de-Baathification.

The very same whites who administered explicit policies of segregation and racial domination kept their jobs as decision makers, write Kimberl Crenshaw and others inCritical Race Theory, the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. Because of this, and because the civil rights movement embraced color-blindness, the deeply transformative potential of the civil rights movements interrogation of racial power was successfully aborted.

Raceeven though CRTs advocates insist it is socially constructedis the alpha and the omega of everythingeven if sexual oppression and other immutable traits do make a cameo through Crenshaws intersectionality ideas. Race-consciousness is suddenly pushed in sports, the police, and the militarysome of the most integrated areas of modern American life. In CRTs postmodern narratives, racism is an inescapable feature of western culture, and race is always already inscribed in the most innocent and neutral-seeming concepts,writes Angela Harris, a giant of CRT. CRTs perspective places racial oppression at the center of analysis and privileges the racial subject.

And it is from this principle that we get the identity politics of today. The subject who must carry out this structural transformation is not the individual, but the identity categories of the oppressed that CRT preaches must be created through myth-making. The first step is the self-conscious formation of identity groups that have been subject to racial oppression and now demand equalitya formation accomplished by collective myth-making, writes Harris.

Even when individuals or factions within the created collective category (Hispanics, for example, or the never-ending alphabet soup that is LGBTQIA+) disagree, the revolutionizing goal of category-making overrides these concerns. [T]he goals of a unified group may not reflect exactly those of certain factions within it, yet the larger group benefits from their participation because of the increased numbers they bring,writesRichard Delgado of the University of Alabama School of Law. You see, it takes a multitude of the oppressed to make their voices heard and felt.

This brings us to another important tenet: Truth is not what one experiences through the five senses, but something that has been created by the hegemons narrative. White, Christian Americans have created this superstructure to protect their white privilege, cleverly trying to pass it off as a neutral American culture. Our ideas about meritocracy, where everyone can make their dreams come true through hard work, are therefore also false. Members of the oppressed categories can only succeed individually if they join the oppressive white system and perpetuate the oppression.

From Theory to Praxis

Reid and Hannah-Jones pretend that theory is all there is, but in fact,Derrick Bell made clear from the startthat, like Critical Theory before it, and Critical Legal Theory later, CRT is a call to action. The aim of CRTand the reason it must be opposed if one thinks America, for all its imperfections, is worth preservingis the transformation of American society. As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it, wrote Bell.

And this will be done through criticism. By calling everything taken for granted into question, postmodernist critique potentially clears the way for alternative accounts of social reality, writes Harris.

All these elements are the warp and woof of DEI training programs, and it is silly for Reid and Hannah-Jones to deny it, just as it is ludicrous for them to pretend that K-12 teachers have not studied CRT.

The DEI trainings spreading through workplaces aim to accomplish the complete conceptual overhaul that CRT requires, relying on key CRT ideas such as racism not being individual, but systemic, and truth being a matter of perception.

Take Lockheeds cringe-worthy DEI trainings, which forced white men to take part, for three days, in training sessions that would deconstruct their white male culture and make them atone for their white male privilege. Or Disneys DEI program, which instructed its workers to reflect on Americas racist infrastructure and think carefully about whether or not your wealth, income, treatment by the criminal justice system, employment, access to housing, health care, political power, and education might be different if you were of a different race.Both of these examplescome courtesyof Chris Rufo. There are many, many others.

Ibram X. Kendi, perhaps the best-known DEI trainer out there, writes that racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic. Robin DiAngelo, another famed DEI maven, writes in her bestsellingWhite Fragility, that to even deny the systemic nature of racism shows our defensiveness, or white fragility. Their books and articles are a mish-mash of the concepts discussed above.

Ditto for the curricula at K-12 schools, which are classic CRT with their heavy emphasis on systemic racism and unearned white privilege.

My colleague Lindsey Burke this year conducteda studyof colleges of education that concluded that scholarship on race, diversity, or equity constitutes a significant part of the research agendas of nearlyhalfof all faculty training teachers today. Further, about one out of five faculty make clear that these issues are their area of primary study.

>>>Seven Steps to Combatting Critical Theory in the Classroom

An earlierstudyby Jay Schalin at the James G. Martin Center found that the most influential thinkers in our education schools are political radicals intent on transforming the nation to a collectivist, utopian vision. One of the most read texts at schools of education isPedagogy of the Oppressedby Paulo Freire, the father of Critical Pedagogy.

The CRT-influenced agitations that we have seen for the past 12 months have not been limited to K-12 schools, workplaces, or even sororities. The idea that racism is systemic and that we must changeeverythinghas led to numerous transformations: Characters in TV shows and movies have been canceled. Sports has become woke. Places named after Founding Fathers we revere have changed their names. The priorities of businesses have shifted from production to social justice. Churches have changed discipleship programs and sermons. Schools have changed their curriculum. Government has changed its training for workers. And the military has changed its focus from defense to racial consciousness.

Hannah-Jones was right about one thing: the plan was working. Then along came Americans insisting, not so fast. They dont agree that racism lives in everything, everywhere; they think its crazy to portray America as an oppressive place where individual success perpetuates the oppression; they think that to teach this mush to little children is a form of child abuse, and to be trained into this at the office a form of workplace harassment.

Their willingness to stand up to the CRT scourge is encouraging. Denying that CRT is in play is a clear sign that the resistance is having success, as was amply shown in theembarrassing exchangeReid had with Rufo on June 23, in which Reid attempted to deny easily provable links between CRT and what is happening on the ground in America today. Whether the tech giants and their political leaders will let ordinary Americans continue their resistance and try to lead their lives without this pestilence remains to be seen.

See the rest here:

The Great Transformation in Jeopardy? - Heritage.org

Chinese soldiers march in front of the Id Kah Mosque on July 31, 2014, in Kashgar, China. (Getty Images)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

Opposing American empire should never justify supporting perpetrators of atrocities, and yet thats exactly what some anti-imperialists are doing with their analysis of events in Chinas Xinjiang region. These pundits claim that efforts to expose human rights abuses in Xinjiang are really aimed at generating consensus for a new Cold War against China. It is only the latest manifestation of American denialism, and instead of challenging US empire, it only helps to cover up US government complicity in the oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Americans have a history of rejecting the facts of unjust violence abroad. The tactic is most associated with right-wing Holocaust denialism. The historian Deborah Lipstadt traces American Holocaust denialism back to interwar historians and their criticisms of Americas decision to enter World War I. Unlike denialists, these revisionists had truth on their side. Britain had falsified reports of Germans using babies as target practice, mutilating civilians, and committing other acts of brutality in order to lure America into the war.

PostWorld War II critics adopted similar strategies, often portraying the Germans as victims and the Allies as aggressors. But Germany had actually committed mass murder this time. And so revisionists became denialists. They claimed that the Holocaust had been fabricated to coax America into another European war. For these right-wing denialists, the point was never about what had happened to the victims. It was about making domestic political gains. And if that involved supporting abhorrent regimes and refusing to acknowledge their crimes against humanity, so be it.

Although these denialists mostly aimed to promote US isolationism, others have followed, pursuing different agendas using the same techniques. These have included anti-imperialists on the left who, in order to critique American empire, dismiss obvious truths and question whether well-documented massacres ever happened.

Most notorious among anti-imperialist deniers are Edward S. Herman and David Peterson. In their book The Politics of Genocide, they argue that most accusations of genocide are justifications of US imperialism in the name of humanitarian intervention. Looking for US interests behind every report of genocide, they even invert the role of victim and perpetrator in the Rwandan Tutsi genocide, portraying the post-genocide government as a tool of US empire. Noam Chomsky, despite his otherwise nuanced views on genocide, legitimized these arguments by providing a foreword to the book.

For many anti-imperialists, the need to denounce US empire is reason enough to support any of its opponents. And if those opponents commit atrocities, their abuses can be denied. Xinjiang is just the latest iteration in this pattern. The specific identities of the Xinjiang denialists dont really matter, and I have no intention of inflating their cause by naming them or linking to their work. What brings them together is a tireless effort to debunk every aspect of the mainstream narrative about Xinjiang, and to scream got his ass at anyone who refuses to debate their ludicrous ideas.

To understand the perversity of this denialism, you dont have to believe every think tank report and news item about Xinjiang; indeed, there are good reasons to approach all of these critically. Nor do you have to agree that whats happening to the Uyghurs constitutes genocide (though I do). This is because what these anti-imperialists deny is much broader than the application of a term in international law. They deny basic facts of history.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Like the United States itself, China is an imperial state. Its contemporary borders are the result of conquest, and its current population is a collection of peoples violently confined by the forces of the state. Whether you think China is socialist or capitalist doesnt change this.

The territory now known as Xinjiang (literally, new frontier) was invaded in the mid-18th century amid a global spree of imperial expansions. It was retained by the Peoples Republic of China because of a loophole in the decolonization process that enabled states to hold on to colonial possessions that were part of the same landmass. Because China didnt cross an ocean to colonize Xinjiang, the territory and its people were ineligible for decolonization within the UNs framework. Thus, praising Chinas policies in Xinjiang is praising contemporary imperialism. It also means praising mass incarceration and surveillance, the criminalization of minority identities, assaults on language and culture, and the violent repression of dissent.

And yet, applauding China is often a part of these anti-imperialists strategy. In addition to endless ad hominem attacks and insisting that everything they disagree with is a CIA psy-op, these denialists create YouTube deep-dives and interminable Twitter threads presenting the real Xinjiang. These inevitably present a flipped script, where everything in Xinjiang is good, actually. People are happy; the government is providing jobs; reeducation camps are super-helpful; and minority languages are flourishing exuberantly. Everyone can practice whatever religion they want in exactly the way they want, and the people are protected from extremist Muslims by friendly cops.Related Article

These assertions are backed up by an endless stream of facts. A photograph shows an elderly Uyghur man praying. A graph shows an increase in Xinjiangs population. A video shows Uyghur men and women dancing. Someone points out that the Chinese constitution states that minorities have the freedom to use and develop their languages.

And some of these things are true. But in presenting these facts as evidence of benign governance in Xinjiang, rather than the shallow tokenism of colonial rule, they exemplify a hallmark of what Richard Hofstadter once called the paranoid style in American politics. These denialists do not lack verifiable facts, just sensible judgment.

If these people want to criticize America, they can highlight US complicity in ongoing colonialism in Xinjiang. One doesnt need to invent conspiracies. For example, Chinas designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror. Within a year of the 9/11 attacks, the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had capitulated to pressure from China and identified the Uyghur resistance group East Turkestan Islamic Movement a terrorist group, which helped pave the way for the eventual mass incarceration of Uyghurs in the name of De-Radicalization. The US War on Terror made it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to redefine Uyghur resistance as terrorist extremism, rather than national liberation or anti-colonialism.

Until recently, this framing of the issue has allowed them to act with impunity in Xinjiang, partly because they have followed the American anti-extremist playbook. Then President Donald Trump even told Xi Jinping, in person, that building the so-called reeducation centers was exactly the right thing to do.

We know that the founder of US mercenary corporation Blackwater, Erik Prince (also brother of former US secretary of education Betsy DeVos) transferred his expertise from Iraq to China via the security service provider Frontier Services Group, which trained anti-terrorism personnel in Beijing and planned to open a training center in Xinjiang. And despite Blackwaters claim that it is pulling out of the region, a 2020 financial report sets aside nearly $2.7 million for setting up business in Xinjiang. We also know that US tech companies have helped create a surveillance state in Xinjiang. Companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific and Promega have sold equipment to help police in Xinjiang build a system of racial profiling, based on DNA samples obtained, in part, from a prominent US geneticist. And finally, we know that the supply chains of dozens of US companies run through Xinjiang. Companies like Nike and Apple even lobbied against legislation that would affect their capacity to do business in Xinjiang.

Whether you think these complicities support genocide, mere atrocities, or only colonialism doesnt change the fact that the US security state has inspired, aided, and profited from the domination over Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

US involvement in Xinjiang means that its perfectly possible to oppose US empire without engaging in denialism, praising colonialism, and debasing the dignity of victims and survivors. But doing so would undermine the impact of the anti-imperialist argument on their target audience: Americans. As part of their laudable but misguided efforts at building popular opposition to US imperialism among Americans, these anti-imperialists want to portray the United States as a two-dimensional comic book villain engaged in a program of global deceit.

In the end, although not all these denialists are Americanthere are many in Canada, Pakistan, and Australiaall of them are engaging in a celebrated American tradition of denying other countries human right abuses in order to make arguments about America to Americans. This narcissistic parochialism is surely one of the most successful exports of American empire.

More:

Xinjiang Denialists Are Only Aiding Imperialism - The Nation

The government keeps insisting that its new Nationality and Borders Bill is fair. It even tries to argue that the Bill will be beneficial for refugees and provide new opportunities. But, as Boris Johnson and his colleagues know full well, the opposite is true.

Johnsons government has torn up long-standing commitments to help those fleeing torture and oppression. With this Bill, they are seeking to incorporate cruelty into law. It would perhaps be simpler if they were to put their cards on the table and call it what it is: an Anti-Refugee Bill, which deliberately sets out to deny protection for those we could help.

With its new Bill, the government threatens that, from now on, it will criminalise or jail those who flee torture and oppression and risk their lives to seek asylum in the UK, if their journey was not pre-approved. A small number are granted official resettlement, which is welcome though the numbers could and should be much higher. But the Refugee Convention could not be clearer: governments may not impose penalties on asylum seekers, however they arrive, providing that they show good cause. In other words, what matters is the why, not the how.

David, who fled torture and persecution in his native Cameroon in 2014, is now rebuilding his life as a refugee in the UK, and works on the Covid-19 testing that helps keep this country safe. If this new legislation were in place today, he would be jailed and deported. It is hardly surprising that David and countless others like him, part of the fabric of Britain and often working in the NHS finds the governments proposals to be deplorable, heartbreaking.

As if seeking to create a new dystopia, the government throws out ever-more random and cruel suggestions for how to address the issues: offshoring those fleeing oppression to distant countries or specks in the Atlantic; constructing camps which would make integration impossible to achieve; and paving the way for people like David to be sent back to the risk of torture or death.

The government talks about improving and streamlining the process of decision-making. That would be welcome, to reduce the current years of painful limbo that so many experience. But the problems rest above all with the government itself, as a string of reports by NGOs and government agencies in recent years has repeatedly made clear. Instead of trying to solve problems of its own making, the government seeks to scapegoat the very people it should be helping.

With bitter irony, the Bill has been published just weeks ahead of the 70th anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention, which Britain helped to shape in the aftermath of the Holocaust and which should be a moment of celebration for what Britain has done in the decades since the treaty was signed, and for what those refugees have given back to Britain since.

Johnson has form when it comes to misdescribing the legality of his governments own proposals. Earlier this year, he and his colleagues attempted to push through proposals for torture impunity, while denying that that was what they were doing. They gave way only at the eleventh hour when this became unsustainable.

With luck and determination, such a victory for basic humanity and justice is achievable again. Unsurprisingly but hearteningly, polls show that Britons want to protect those who are fleeing war and persecution. Hundreds of groups have come together at record speed as part of a new Together With Refugees coalition, to ensure that compassion, decency and truth win through. That battle has only just begun.

Steve Crawshaw is Policy & Advocacy Director at Freedom from Torture

Read more from the original source:

The post-Brexit asylum rules shake-up is a travesty it will scapegoat those we need to help - The Independent

Mythily Sivaraman, the Communist leader who died on May 30 in Chennai, was for decades the face of Left-led mass movements of toiling women and workers and an activist who pushed for the recognition of rights, fought for changes in state policy and opposed imperialism unrelentingly. Her actions, the manifestoes and demand charters she drafted, and the organisations she helped build from the 1970s, exposed and confronted the violence perpetrated by the ruling political classes and their policies that promoted a path of development which denied basic human rights to Dalits and workers. The diminutive yet daunting Mythily Sivaraman confronted the state and its representatives, invoking promises they had made to the people and demanding accountability and adherence to the law of the land. Her politics and dynamism transcended the boundaries set by bourgeois politics, and redefined the frontiers of womens activism in such a way as to actively confront the myriad forms of oppression that contemporary development strategies sought to impose in line with the needs of the new world order.

Hers was truly a life lived in struggle. In a conversation in April 2008, she spoke to Indu Agnihotri, womens studies scholar and fellow activist, about her long journey, her anger against imperialism, her commitment to socialism and the struggle to advance peoples rights.

I was born in 1939 and went to school in Presidency Girls High School in Egmore [Madras], which was down the road from my house. After graduating from the Presidency College of Madras in 1959, I did a Masters in Public Administration at the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), Delhi (1961) and a second M.A. from Syracuse University, United States (1963-65). Before going to the U.S. I briefly worked with the U.S. Consulate in Madras teaching Tamil language to students from overseas. I also undertook a research study of voluntary welfare agencies in Madras city between 1962 and 1963.

Between 1963 and 1968, when I was in the U.S., I found the exposure useful. I was going from place to place, seeing new places, meeting new people, and be happy to be doing that. During my stay there, I worked with the Special Committee on Decolonisation (C 21) established by the United Nations General Assembly and the Permanent Mission of India to the U.N. (1966-1968). In 1968, I undertook a clandestine trip to Cuba and Mexico.

The trip to Cuba, the racism I saw while in the U.S., and the campaign against the Vietnam War opened my eyes to the blatant attacks by imperialism on people across the world. For me this was important. I was able to link the experience of the people and their conditions with the history of colonial rule and imperialism. I came to see the issues of womens oppression and exploitation as integrally linked to capitalism. This became central to my perspective and defined my politics and understanding of rights. I have never seen the battle for womens rights outside this worldview.

On my return to Madras in 1968, I did not take up a job, though I was offered one in India by the Ford Foundation.

I was briefly involved with the Sarvodaya movement, but Vinobha Bhaves ashram did not sustain my political interest. Seeing the nature of attacks in the rural areas, I was drawn to Marxism and I soon joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which is where I stayed.

No, they were used to my being rebellious and independent from an early age. I dont remember anyone ever saying to me thou shalt not do this.

My mother, of course, tried to tell me what I should do. But I think for a long time they did not realise the implications of my joining the Communist Party.

Also read: Mythily Sivaraman, scholar, revolutionary feminist and trade union activist, passes away

I married Karunakaran in January 1972. He had just returned from the United Kingdom after three years of studying engineering when we met and was working with a steel tube and bicycles manufacturing unit. He came from a traditional Tamil non-Brahmin background and his family was averse to his involvement in politics. We had a simple wedding along the lines of the Self-Respect Movement with no rituals. The maximum planning went into checking out on a train which was leaving for Mangalore, at 1 o clock in the afternoon; on the same day we got married, to escape family pressure to host festivities on a larger scale. A spartan early lunch with a few guests was all that we agreed to.

Our marriage was initially not supported by either of the families. Though my family was soon resigned to it, his family was more conventional and had stronger reservations on account of caste as well as my firebrand political profile. Afterwards the issue was settled. After my daughter Kalpanas birth, we moved close to my parents. My mother was better with child care and for me that was a big relief.

Interestingly, Captain Lakshmi Sahgal and my mother were classmates in school. In later years, my home was often the workplace for many young activists, since the lone typewriter available was in my home.

In December 1968 there was a murderous assault on Dalit labourers, of whom 44, mostly women and children, were burnt alive in Keezhvenmani village [near Thanjavur], which had seen a struggle for higher wages by landless labourers under the red flag. Going there a week after the incident, I was shocked by what I witnessed and wrote an article in Mainstream.

Those years saw militant struggles by tenants and agricultural workers, across India and in Tamil Nadu. The gruesome incident laid bare the contradictions inherent in rural society, be it caste, class or gender, and the manner in which the state machinery stood by the upper castes. I was also very upset by the media reportage of that incident. From then on, issues of rural women and agricultural workers remained a special concern.

I was involved with a group which ran Radical Review (RR) from 1969 to 1973. The magazine came out as a quarterly and the joint editors for the first issue were N. Ram [former editor-in-chief of The Hindu], P. Chidambaram [former Finance Minister] and myself. The group had initially started off as a discussion forum called the Saturday Evening Club. However, after the first issue, Chidambaram conveyed that he did not wish to be associated with it due to political and ideological differences. Several issues of the magazine were subsequently published. Karunakaran was part of this group, and that is where we met, and were to be married later.

I wrote several pieces for Radical Review, some in my name and many others with no byline. The January-March 1971 issue carried a piece jointly written with N. Ram. The article, A Report on MRF: A Monopoly, its Workers and the State, analysed the events leading up to the MRF workers strike from April to July, 1971, discussed the struggle in the larger perspective of the Indian tyre industry, its nature and strength and the forces involved: the company management and the government backing them. (Radical Review April-June 1972, vol. 3 no. 2.)

Another was a long report written jointly with N. Ram, called Standard Motors: Behind the Closure, in May 1970, tracking the events leading to the closure by the management. Another piece I wrote in 1972 focused on the Anamalai Plantations workers strike in Coimbatore district. The workers were demanding higher wages and protesting against the sell-out agreement made by the unions as well as fighting the tremendous repression and violence unleashed on them. (Plantations: The Green Industry and its Wage Slaves, Radical Review, April 1973, vol. 4. no. 1).

My involvement with the CPI(M) gave me an opportunity to be part of the political struggle for democratic rights, in the background of the Emergency, though the early years of activism were mostly when I was with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). The forming of the union in Tablets India in 1970-71 was a high point. It was, perhaps the first union I was involved in. The company had mostly young girls as workers. They became conscious of their rights and unionised; until then, unions were mostly the domain of men. Then there were the unions in TVS, Ashok Leyland, Metal Box and many more.

The trade union experience helped me to understand the strength of mass-based struggles drawing on workers, women workers, consciousness. These clearly showed the linkages between class and gender-based exploitation. In December 1973, the Jananayaga Madhar Sangham (Democratic Womens Association) was founded. I worked together with Pappa Umanath, a former MLA and later member of the CPI(M)s Central Committee.

We organised discussions on womens rights from a socialist perspective after the report Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on Status of Women in India was published in 1974. Social Scientist published my paper, Towards Emancipation, reflecting on the links between the womens question and socialism in a special issue brought out to mark the International Year of Women in 1975.

In 1979, the CITUs national convention on working women was held in Madras, which led to the formation of coordination committees focused on organising working women. These discussions marked the beginning of a process of critical engagement with patriarchal practices in society and their reflection within organisational platforms, dissuading women from more active participation in trade unions and movements.

Organisation-based interventions on multiple aspects of womens oppression in different spheres began with these initiatives. In the political arena this involved engaging with the ideology of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the earlier social reform movement. I myself continued to be active with the trade unions for many more years, even after the founding of the All India Democratic Womens Associations (AIDWA) at a conference held in Madras in March 1981. This was a significant step forward.

We had the experience of working with Dalit landless labourers and working women, given that there was an increase in incidents of violence, including against women. This was happening in Tamil Nadu and also all over India. During the Emergency these atrocities came to be highlighted as part of the peoples struggle. We organised women employees in the public sector: bank employees, electricity board and insurance sector women, teaching staff, State and Central government employees and postal employees. There were middle-class women and factory/textile mill workers, transport workers living in the slums of south Madras and its suburbs. The focus on working women remained a special feature of our work. This was reflected in a militant leadership that emerged from amongst them.

Also read: Mythily Sivaraman: Quintessential Marxist

The Seeralan casehe was murdered in broad daylight by three police constables in January 11, 1977 at Athiyoor villagestands out amongst our early interventions. His mothers condition was miserable. We took up the case as a human rights issue to focus on the atrocities committed during the Emergency. Custodial violence was also a major issue then. The torture of Nagammal, a poor peasant woman, in police custody was another instance of the excesses of the Emergency period.

The 1980s saw the dowry issue come into prominence all across the State, especially with the killing of Nagammal in Coimbatore by her husband, Prof. Nagappan, who tried to pass it off as a suicide case. The case went to the Supreme Court and ended with a conviction.

Our interventions fed into the national-level campaign for criminal law amendments. The campaign against dowry/deaths drew in many young activists. After this, activists were called upon as representatives on advisory committees and to sensitize the police. The 1980s-1990s saw incidents of custodial rape by policemen. The Padmini case in Chidambaram was one such. After such incidents, all-women police stations were set up and the Supreme Court issued directives against women being detained in police stations after 6 p.m. The Vachathi case, where tribal women in Dharmapuri were raped by forest officials and the police under the pretext of combing operations to search for Veerappan, was another such intervention. The public exposure of the sexual exploitation of young women by the godman Premananda in Pudukkottai and Tiruchi, was important. This case was a landmark victory.

The intervention on behalf of women quarry workers in Pudukkottai was another significant effort. These incidents brought us face-to-face with the distortions in sociocultural life and patriarchal prejudices in our society, which are responsible for the high level of womens vulnerability to violence.

In 1983 Madras saw a massive State-level rally on water and rations. Women surrounded the Assembly for several hours. M.G. Ramachandran, the then Chief Minister, was compelled to meet the women and the discussion lasted 80 minutes. This resulted in a great improvement in the State-level implementation of the public distribution system (PDS). MGR promised that a ration shop would be set up for every 1,000 households. Although this did not materialise in full, still, Tamil Nadu has a ration shop per 1,500 population. Water began to be supplied in carts. Since then, the PDS and water have remained key issues in our campaigns, as well as for the political leaders, who can ill-afford to ignore these demands. This major intervention led by women from the Left has had a lasting impact on the politics of the State. Following this, women were put on ration monitoring committees at the district level. The government developed a kit to check pilferages, which was distributed to activists to facilitate monitoring, since the shop owners usually mixed sugar with rava (semolina).

This intervention set out different priorities in terms of the political agenda in the State. Today, our State is known for its policies on some of these counts, but it is not always recorded that they came in response to movement-led initiatives. The cradle scheme for baby girls outside primary health centres (PHCs) and other government-run centres also came in the wake of activists and scholars like Vasanthi Devi drawing attention to female infanticide in Madurai, Usilampatti and Salem. Of course, there were gaps in follow-up in all these areas.

After 1991, several organisations in Madras came together for setting up the Womens Action Forum for Communal Harmony. The focus on violence against women remained, while other interventions led to the setting up of family courts. Today all the districts have women police stations started in response to our campaigns. Hostels for nurses came after the murder of a trainee nurse in Salem in June 1993, along with a demand for women members on advisory committees to monitor the functioning of welfare institutions. These campaigns gave womens organisations like AIDWA unprecedented visibility, for we stood up for women in the remote areas in the State. G. Thilakavathi, the first woman Inspector General of Police in Tamil Nadu, understood their significance and responded favourably.

The problem of children working in hazardous industries such as Sivakasi was a major one. We tried to help take forward the education of girl children through the K.P. Janakiammal Trust, set up in memory of one of the founders of AIDWA. To counter the adverse media reporting and portrayal of women, we set up a Media Monitoring Group. Mangai, the well-known theatre activist, was associated with this group for many years. During these years I continued to write for Tamil publications such as Dinamani and Ananda Vikatan, along with The Hindu and the Indian Express. Such writing helped to set the tone for public discussions. In 1980, I became the editor of the popular Magalir Sindhanai, which has a circulation of 13,000.

We knew that apart from building mass campaigns, we needed to widen the influence as well as the support base of the womens movement. All through, our effort was to bring together different womens groups on a platform and develop a common understanding. These included the Penurimmai Iyyakam, the Young Womens Christian Association, National Federation of Indian Women, Womens Collective, Initiatives; Women in Development (IWID) and others. I was also keen to bring together a group of writers, intellectuals, and professional women, often holding different ideological positions, who acted as a support group. These included Vasanthi Devi, Bader Sayeed, Salma, Sharifa Khanam, V. Geetha and others, and some bureaucrats such as Anuradha, Sheela Rani Chunkath, and Qudsia Gandhi. Many of them became close friends.

I visited China in 1980 and wrote about the experience of socialist China. This was long before the CPI(M) established its relations with the CPC [Communist Party of China]. I went alone, having arranged it with the All-China Womens Federation, and spent more than three weeks visiting different parts of the country. N. Ram helped arrange the trip. But there were issues. I had gone without the CPI(M)s permission, and on my return, reading my account of what I had seen there, E.M.S. Namboodiripad [the then CPI(M) general secretary] called me and said: I hope you will not do this again. After this, I also visited the USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] and some East European countries.

The collapse of the USSR and the changes thereafter have weakened the forces against imperialism, giving it an opportunity to directly intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Iraq is calling the US bluff, the Latin Americans are still trying to assert and we need to learn from them. Just when there is a need to advance the politics of peace, the ruling party in India is reading all the signs wrong, getting cosy and closer to the imperialist power.

In the womens movement globally, especially the Beijing Plus Five Conference (2000), activists had taken note of the impact of globalisation on women worldwide. Women have been the worst sufferers of war, internationally; womens movements see war as a concern since it directly impacts gender justice. More interventions on behalf of women are needed from an internationalist, anti- imperialist perspective.

My involvement with the CPI(M) and Left politics gave me a mass orientation which formed the basis of my activism. We engaged with issues on a practical day- to-day basis, even as we reflected on the theoretical aspects, taking note of the historical experience of socialism. Understanding what socialism promises to women in their fight against patriarchy, oppression and exploitation remained a continuous challenge.

I worked with vastly different sectionslandless agricultural workers, mostly Dalits and women, those working in the docks, in corporate industries, quarries, transport and mills across the State, as well as the huge slum-dwelling population in this ever-growing city of Chennai. Our ideas were continuously evolving, as we planned our strategies and interventions. Our debates reflected the experiences gathered elsewhere.

The World March for the Eradication of Poverty and Violence against Women in New York in 2000 brought together women from all over the world. They spoke up against the growing onslaught of imperialism and neoliberal capitalism, which generates affluence for the few and deprivation for the rest. The message of the World March, in which I participated, was that growing poverty and inequality have to be opposed by confronting the consensus that is sought to be built around contemporary capitalism. That is the historical truth.

As we end this, I would add that in the early years, during our college days, my friends and I would discuss how unhappy we were with the teaching, it being so abstract and distant from the social reality. We were very shy then and would not confront our teachers, but we were unhappy with what we got from our formal education. It is for this reason that we always took a special interest in drawing students into our movement. Students today are more critical, more demanding, more aware of their rights. That still gives me hope for the future.

Continued here:

Womens oppression is integrally linked to capitalism: Mythily Sivaraman - Frontline

On the Fourth of July we celebrate our nations birthday, proclaimed by the Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 when we dissolved our submission and all ties to the British Crown. Personally, I make a point of referring to this national holiday by its official name, Independence Day, to emphasize its extraordinary significance rather than as just another day off from work, replete with BBQs and fireworks displays not that I dont enjoy that part of it, too.

On the evening of July 3, Barb (my best friend, soul mate, and love of my life) and I celebrated Independence Day at Coors Field for a Rockies game featuring the return of Nolan Arenado and a fireworks display. To be accurate, in these bitter, divisive and ungrateful times, we dont all celebrate our nations birth but the vast majority of us do, including the nearly 50,000 people at Coors Field that night.

Unfortunately, the fireworks started prematurely with the Cardinals scoring 6 in the top of the 10th to win the game. After that, the music leading up to the celebratory fireworks included rock numbers for the dancing pleasure of the crowd and then built to a crescendo of patriotic favorites (Id have liked a little more John Phillips Sousa) while the bombs were bursting in air. The crowds favorite was Lee Greenwoods God Bless the USA, with lyrics like this:

If tomorrow all the things were gone I worked for all my life and I had to start again with just my children and my wife, Id thank my lucky stars to be livin here today cause the flag still stands for freedom and they cant take that away. From the lakes of Minnesota to the hills of Tennessee, across the plains of Texas from sea to shining sea, from Detroit down to Houston and New York to L.A., well theres pride in every American heart and its time we stand up and say that Im proud to be an American where at least I know Im free. And I wont forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And Id gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today cause there aint no doubt I love this land. God Bless the USA.

Hearing that I was filled with a patriotic rush, reinforced by the reaction of the rest of the crowd. No one desecrated the moment by burning an American flag, chanting political slogans, looting the refreshment booths or attacking the police. Maybe that ilk was out demonstrating somewhere, which is what they do for sport and self-indulgence.

Patriotism is love and loyalty to ones country above all others. I can relate to that. And our country isnt solely defined by its government which is just a subset of our society and culture. In fact, from its inception as an independent nation, our founders were committed to limited government and individual liberty. Patriotism doesnt require blind approval of everything our government has ever done or agreement with of all of its elected officials or political parties. Thats why we have elections. But all things considered, compared to the rest of the worlds overall past and present, I prefer ours, which makes me a patriot.

Patriotic Canadians no doubt feel the same about their country, as do the French , the Brits, Canadians, Germans, Swiss, Swedes, Aussies, Kiwis, etc. Apparently, the hordes of Latinos from South America, Central America and Mexico flocking to our southern border, desperate to come to the United States legally or illegally are less satisfied with about theirs. When minority activists in this country claim their people are oppressed here, they ought to compare notes with the truly oppressed multitudes in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea, Communist China and Cuba.

The most objective, worldwide market test of oppression and deprivation versus freedom and abundance is to simply observe which way the guns are pointed. In totalitarian nations like the former Soviet Union, theyre pointed inward, keeping their people from escaping (recall the Berlin Wall). In America, the guns (for the most part metaphorically) are pointed outward, attempting to keep foreigners from coming in illegally with limited success lately due to the malfeasance of the Joe Biden administration and its political goal of open borders.

I reject Critical Race Theory and other trendy ravings of leftist would-be revolutionaries as bunk that, sadly, has poisoned higher education and our society.

But their America-hating derangement hasnt weakened my love for our country, and I hope yours, one bit.

As Lee Greenwood would say, God Bless the USA.

Michael Rosen is an American radio personality and political commentator.

Read the rest here:

COLUMN: Patriotism and the 4th of July | Mike Rosen - Colorado Springs Gazette

After the death of Stan Swamy yesterday, we are republishing this piece that originally appeared in Newslaundry Hindi on June 17, 2019.

Lalit Manjhi, 44, was arrested for a murder he did not commit in 2001. The police claimed he was a Maoist and he spent 10 months in Tenughat jail in Jharkhand before he was released. He was arrested twice again on separate charges but was exonerated of the murder charge when a family member of the murder victim testified in court that he was innocent. Yet the police refused to leave him alone; they presumed he was a Maoist and haunted his footsteps.

Jiten Marandi, 38, was first arrested in Jharkhands Hazaribagh in 1999 because he shared a name with a Maoist. He was tortured during his two days in police custody and was then jailed for seven and a half months. He was arrested again in 2003, 2005 and 2008. His last arrest was in connection with murders in Chilkhari; however the actual person involved was a Maoist with the same name. It took the police five months to figure this out, during which time six more cases were slapped against Jiten. He was even sentenced to death but was finally released after protests. But there was no happy ending for Jiten; he was arrested yet again and, as of 2019, was in jail.

Bhuvneshwar Singh, 79, was falsely arrested in connection with a murder. He protested that he had nothing to do with it but was sent to jail. Later, the murder victims family told the police he was innocent and he was released.

In all three cases, one person fought for the rights of Lalit, Jiten and Bhuvneshwar. That man was Stanislaus Lourduswamy, better known as Father Stan Swamy. A voice for Adivasis in Jharkhand, Swamys name became famous when his home was raided by the police in 2018 in the Bhima Koregaon case. His house was raided yet again on June 12, 2019.

Several activists have been arrested and imprisoned under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The charges against them are flimsy and rooted in controversy. Since the publishing of this story two years ago, Swamy died in police custody, waiting for a court to grant him bail.

I write and fight for these issues

At 7.15 am on June 12, 2019, the Pune police arrived at Swamys home in the Bagaicha compound of Ranchis Namkum. They rummaged through his house for over three hours and confiscated his hard drive, internet modem, and stacks of documents. They took control of his Facebook and email accounts and changed the passwords. The police already had Swamys laptop; it was seized during the first raid in August 2018.

The raid by the Pune police on my house is completely illegal, Swamy told Newslaundry in 2019. I also informed their investigating officer Shivaji Panwar about their illegal conduct. Last year when they raided my house, they brought two witnesses from Pune with them. This time too, one of the witnesses was from Pune. This is against the law, which says both witnesses must be locals.

Investigating officer Panwar, however, said an officer equal to his rank is permitted to change this procedure.

Swamy said the police conducted the raids on purpose because they knew their accusations would be disproven in court and everyone would be cleared.

The police do not want people who were arrested to be released, he said, so they are adopting these tactics to slow down the legal process.

Swamy said his life is dedicated to the Adivasi people of central India.

Jharkhand is a mineral-rich state and all of it is being taken away from here, he said. Adivasis, who are the owners of this land, are not getting any share of the natural resources. Corporates and industrialists are getting rich by mining the minerals from here when the Adivasis are dying of hunger. Despite being the owners of a mineral-rich land, 20 people have died from hunger in Jharkhand in the past two years. Young Adivasis are kept in jail on false accusations of being Naxalites. I write and fight for these issues which is the reason behind the attempt to implicate me in the Bhima Koregaon case.

He has nothing to do with the violence

Swamy was originally from Tamil Nadu but lived and worked in Jharkhand for a long time. He sharpened the peoples voice against government oppression, said Aloka Kujur, a social worker from Jharkhand.

Father Stan researches and writes about peoples movements, Kujur told Newslaundry in 2019. He raises the matter of government oppression of people. He constantly works on matters concerning Adivasis, Dalits and women. He writes about the governments role in matters of water, jungle and land, and supports the movements related to these matters.

Kujur added that Swamy heard about the Bhima Koregaon violence for the first time through the media.

He doesnt go out of Ranchi and doesnt take part in any activity, she said. He reads and writes, and researchers and writers are the types of people who come to his centre in Bagaicha...But still, this is the second time the police have raided his house. Last year, the court instructed the police not to arrest him. Now, after a year, the police came and raided his house again. This is beyond comprehension.

She emphasised Swamys work for those imprisoned on false charges.

About 500 innocent Adivasi youth from Jharkhand were put in jail by the police who claimed they were Naxals, Kujur said. Stan filed a petition in the high court for such young people and has been fighting for them for a long time. He always raised his voice against oppression. The raid on his house by the Pune police is part of a political conspiracy.

Ranchi-based social worker BB Choudhary echoed Kujurs words.

He has been working in Jharkhand for over three decades, he said. He used to be in Chaibasa earlier, then he came to Ranchi...His work is centred around the rights of Adivasis. His name is deliberately being linked to the Bhima Koregaon violence. He has nothing to do with it; he doesnt even know the organisers. He only works for the rights of Adivasis in Jharkhand.

When Newslaundry asked Pune polices investigating officer Shivaji Panwar why Swamys house had been raided, he said, We have raided but I cannot tell you the reason.

This piece was translated from Hindi to English by Shardool Katyayan.

Read more:

My life is dedicated to the Adivasi people: Stan Swamy after the 2019 raids on his house - Newslaundry