Author: Caracal

  • Is Nepal Finally Delivering Justice for Civil War Crimes?

    Is Nepal Finally Delivering Justice for Civil War Crimes?

    Nepal, a country cradled in the Himalayas, holds strategic importance due to its geographical location between India and China. This positioning has made Nepal an arena of power politics between the two nations. The ousted Hindu monarchy and several Hindu organizations were aligned with India, while the communist parties opposed this alignment and sought closer ties with China, leading to a decade-long civil war that culminated in the assassination of the royal family and the rise of the Maoist government. However, thousands of people in Nepal are still waiting for justice 20 years after tens of thousands were tortured, raped, killed, and forcibly disappeared during the conflict between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and government forces. The country now functions as a federal democratic republic with a multi-party system, including the Communist Party of Nepal, and is marked by instability, with frequent and rapid changes of government that have delayed justice for the civil war’s victims. Recent developments, however, offer a glimmer of hope: long-overdue amendments to the legislation are poised to address these historical injustices and finally deliver justice for the atrocities committed during the 1996-2006 civil war.

    The brutal Maoist insurgency, led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to overthrow the monarchy, ended in 2006, leaving over 13,000 people dead and around 1,300 missing. Many still do not know the fate of those who disappeared and continue to seek answers to perform death rituals. Justice for those who suffered, went missing, or were killed has been delayed by political and legal complications. On November 21, 2006, almost 17 years ago, the government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA). This agreement established two transitional justice mechanisms: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). These bodies were intended to address human rights violations and crimes against humanity from the conflict. However, they have encountered legal challenges. In 2015, Nepal’s Supreme Court struck down parts of the legislation that created the TRC and CIEDP, particularly because these bodies were empowered to grant amnesty to perpetrators of serious international crimes.

    The weakness of the law made it difficult for victims, human rights activists, and civil society to effectively collaborate with the commissions. The government further delayed the appointment of commission members, risking the destruction of crucial criminal evidence. Lawmakers, including former government officials and Maoists, blocked international intervention to ensure impunity for actions taken during the conflict. This led to widespread discontent among victims, who accused political parties of betraying the people through political deals with one another. Calls for revisions came from all sides, and even Supreme Court instructed the government to revise specific sections of the act. Finally, after significant public outcry, the three major parties – the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) – formed a mechanism in July to find common ground on the disputed provisions in the bill. They reached a written agreement earlier this month, and on August 14, Nepal’s lower house of parliament approved the long-delayed amendments to the transitional justice act.

    There’s no doubt that this is a significant step for Nepal’s democracy. A joint statement from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists pointed out that, while the law includes several positive provisions, it also contains elements that could undermine its effectiveness. They emphasized that transitional justice should not become merely an exercise where victims are encouraged to accept compensation without receiving truth and justice. The decision to bring together various political parties to address the issue is part of an effort to build Nepali politics beyond the influence of India and China. This comes at a time when public sentiment is drifting away from both democracy and communism, with pro-monarchy protests calling for the return of the monarchy gaining momentum. Thus, it is also seen as an attempt to safeguard democracy in the face of these challenges.

  • Why Mongolia Ignored the ICC Verdict and Welcomed Putin

    Why Mongolia Ignored the ICC Verdict and Welcomed Putin

    Mongolia, located between Russia and China – two major adversaries of the West – maintains good relations with Western nations and Japan and is a member of several international organizations that Russia and China oppose. Although often overlooked by global media, Mongolia attracted significant attention when Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to visit. Such a visit might normally be overlooked due to their extensive cooperation and Mongolia’s high reliance on Russia. However, the visit gained prominence because Mongolia is one of the few Asian members of the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin and calls for his detention.

    Vladimir Putin received a warm reception on Tuesday during his state visit to Mongolia. He engaged in discussions with President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, a influential political figure who has previously served as Prime Minister and chairman of the ruling Mongolian People’s Party. Upon his arrival in Ulaanbaatar, Putin was greeted by an honor guard, including some on horseback, wearing traditional uniforms reminiscent of those worn by Genghis Khan, the legendary 13th-century Mongol ruler. President Khürelsükh praised the visit, and Putin noted that the relationship between the two countries is progressing across all areas. The visit was expected to focus on energy cooperation, as Mongolia lies along the planned route of a Russian pipeline designed to transport 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Russia’s Yamal region to China.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) – the sole permanent tribunal entrusted with prosecuting individuals for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression – issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin last year, holding him accountable for his actions in Ukraine. This warrant, a formal directive to the ICC’s 124 member states, including Mongolia, mandates that they apprehend Putin and transport him to The Hague should he set foot within their borders. As Putin prepared for his visit to Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, Ukraine, alongside leading human rights organizations, urged the Mongolian authorities to detain him upon arrival. Yet, Mongolia’s deep-seated dependence on Russia for nearly all of its petroleum and its hesitance to criticize Moscow’s invasion into Ukraine cast doubt on the likelihood of any such action. 

    Mongolia’s choices are limited by its geographic constraints and its borders with only China and Russia, making its economy, military, security, and political landscape heavily reliant on these two giants. Lacking seaports, Mongolia depends on road and rail connections to Russia and China, and any disruption in these links could precipitate economic turmoil and severe daily hardships. Historically shaped by Sino-Russian tensions, the sparsely populated nation has long acted as a buffer zone between these two powers. Should Mongolia choose to comply with international rulings and attempt to detain or arrest Putin, it risks retaliation from Russia and intensified pressure from China. Furthermore, aligning with other international actors, such as Japan, might provoke a significant backlash from both Russia and China, potentially leading to grave consequences for Mongolia. Thus, in navigating these treacherous waters, Mongolia may well opt to align with Russia, particularly in light of the already diminished authority of the International Criminal Court.

    Mongolia, endowed with mineral wealth and cultivating stronger ties with global powers, risks losing momentum through its current actions. Yet, aside from Ukraine, global attention on the conflict and associated sanctions remains relatively muted. Nations such as India, Kazakhstan, and the UAE – each maintaining cordial relations with Russia and Putin while pursuing substantial business engagements with the West – exemplify this broader trend. Mongolia can follow this precedent. Despite significant criticism from both the West and Ukraine, it remains impractical for this landlocked country, nestled between Russia and China and heavily dependent on Russia, to oppose Moscow or obstruct Putin.

  • Why Did Outrage Erupt Over the Gaza War in Israel?

    Why Did Outrage Erupt Over the Gaza War in Israel?

    As Netanyahu’s government tightens its siege on Gaza and inflames tensions in the West Bank, a profound wave of protests has swept through Israel. On Sunday night, the streets were thronged with thousands of demonstrators, and a general strike was called in a dramatic response to escalating public outrage, particularly following the deaths of six hostages held underground by Hamas. What initially seemed to reinforce Netanyahu’s position – despite a fractured coalition and persistent corruption allegations – has now emerged as a considerable liability, fueling a growing tide of opposition against him.

    The discovery of the hostages’ bodies in Gaza over the weekend has intensified the divisions over the war, pushing tensions to their breaking point. In Tel Aviv, Israel’s bustling commercial center, around 100,000 people rallied, while demonstrations also unfolded in Jerusalem, amplifying pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to secure a ceasefire and bring the remaining hostages home. That night, protesters blocked the Ayalon highway in Tel Aviv, igniting a bonfire in the road near Hashalom and filling the streets with drumming and chanting. Despite the efforts of a few dozen police officers, the protest continued unabated. The nationwide general strike, the first since the Hamas attacks on October 7, was organized to advocate for a deal to free the hostages. It ended after eight hours with a court order mandating that workers return to their jobs.

    The findings indicating that Hamas executed the hostages did little to shift the widespread anger directed at Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition for failing to secure a US-backed hostages-for-peace deal with Hamas, which has been under negotiation since late May. Hamas believed that holding the hostages would leverage Israel into conducting talks and releasing their members from Israeli prisons. However, Netanyahu chose to use the situation as a bargaining tool, despite warnings that Hamas might kill the hostages. In a statement mourning the six hostages, Netanyahu blames Hamas for rejecting the deal. Hamas official Izzat al-Rishq, however, blamed the deaths on Israel and the US, citing Israel’s failure to agree to a ceasefire deal that he claimed Hamas had accepted. Rishq did not address how the hostages died or comment on IDF claims of executions.

    It seems that the country’s left-wing and center-left factions are increasingly opposed to the war, advocating for a hostage deal that could potentially lead to at least a temporary peace. Announcing the general strike, Histadrut trade union federation leader Arnon Bar-David stated that it was impossible to continue standing by as children are murdered in the tunnels of Gaza. He added that the nation is no longer united and that this situation must be stopped. According to Bar-David, Israel needs to return to normal, as the country is receiving body bags instead of a deal. He concluded that only their intervention might compel those who need to act.

    During Sunday night’s demonstration, many protesters felt that the country might have reached a critical juncture. The strike was supported by the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, a group of relatives of the abductees who have been leading the protest movement and calling for a ceasefire deal. However, the right-wing faction views these leftist efforts as making the country vulnerable to Hamas’s demands and future risks.

    In October of last year, Hamas executed a brutal terrorist attack on Israel, leading to 1,200 fatalities. Of the 250 hostages captured, eight have been rescued, and over 100 were released as part of a temporary ceasefire deal in November. The recent discovery of six more bodies leaves 101 hostages still missing in Gaza. The IDF has confirmed that 35 of these hostages have died after more than ten months in captivity.  The lives of those still presumed alive are highly valuable to Israel, and as protests escalate, political pressure on Netanyahu is expected to mount. If Netanyahu continues to disregard these protests, opposition and anti-Netanyahu sentiment are likely to intensify. The ongoing war, which supports Netanyahu’s coalition government formed with various interest groups, also serves to bolster his position despite the growing unrest.

  • Why Is the Bangladesh Interim Government Delaying Elections?

    Why Is the Bangladesh Interim Government Delaying Elections?

    Bangladesh was spared from further anarchy by the formation of an interim government under the leadership of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. This is not the first time the country, with its relatively short history, has experienced mass protests, government cancellations, and temporary administrations. However, the current interim government, which includes a chief adviser, 19 advisers, and two special assistants to the chief adviser, faces the critical task of conducting a snap election while the country remains volatile.

    The task assigned to Yunus is far from straightforward. Organizing an election in an overpopulated and economically strained country involves numerous challenges. The political landscape is turbulent, with a substantial number of Awami League supporters still present. Sheikh Hasina’s party, which upholds the legacy of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh, remains influential and is likely to regain support due to its strong foundation. Meanwhile, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is reasserting its presence, and the release of Islamist leaders has bolstered Jamaat-e-Islami – a party dedicated to Islamizing Bangladesh. Jamaat-e-Islami has emerged as a key player in the protests, with its student wing being particularly active, and is anticipated to benefit significantly from the unrest that led to Hasina’s removal.

    Additionally, it is unclear whether India, Bangladesh’s largest supporter and contributor, will cooperate, especially given the strained relations following attacks on the Hindu population in Bangladesh. The prospect of an election is further complicated by ongoing flood conditions, which continue to afflict the population.

    Chief Advisor Yunus office has stated that a free and fair election will be held once reforms are implemented in the election commission, judiciary, civil administration, and security forces. In a televised address on August 25, Yunus announced that the interim government has begun taking corrective measures  to restore public trust in state institutions. However, reforming Bangladesh’s institutions is a massive task for the interim government, which must first address the deep entrenchment of Awami League influence after over 15 years of uninterrupted rule. And the interim government has yet to present a clear outline of its proposed reforms, according to the chief advisor’s office.

    Certainly, there is pressure on the interim government, but it’s still too early to assess the specific reforms it will pursue. Since its members are unaffiliated with any political party or group, internal conflicts are likely.  If it fails to establish itself, especially through concrete reform initiatives, it could soon face a crisis of legitimacy. Although its primary mandate is to hold elections, if the interim government views itself as a revolutionary force, delaying the polls might not be a major concern.

    This interim government differs significantly from previous caretaker governments. In the past, actions taken by interim administrations were often reversed by the subsequent democratically elected government. However, this interim government has come to power as a result of a revolution. Despite not being elected and therefore unable to directly reflect public demand, it has already introduced considerable chaos. To successfully implement reforms, gaining the consensus of all political parties is essential, and the interim government may need to be given reasonable time to hold the election.

    Rushing toward polls could empower existing, entrenched political actors who have little motivation to pursue structural reforms. In discussions about forming the interim government after Hasina’s departure, Bangladesh’s army chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, met with the BNP, Jatiya Party, and the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami, but the Bangladesh Awami League was notably absent from the meeting.
    So, There are valid reasons for the government to delay the election, such as cooling political tensions, stabilizing political institutions, addressing the political party dynamics, and improving relations with India. However, some believe that delaying the election is part of Yunus and his sponsors’ agenda. The interim government has expressed plans to rewrite the constitution and pursue other reforms, which may lead to further agenda-pushing by interested parties and potentially another wave of mass protests.

  • Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Israel’s retaliatory actions against Hamas are now expanding to cover the entire Palestinian territory, including the West Bank – a region governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, and recognized by many countries worldwide. While the global Islamic community and anti-war supporters express solidarity with Palestine and condemn the civilian casualties, Israel continues to cite the October 7th attack, a clear act of terrorism by Hamas, as justification for its actions. Interestingly, this stance has effectively silenced much of the international community.

    However, with rising tensions in the West Bank – a region crucial for establishing an independent Palestine – it is worth considering that Israel may be pursuing a broader strategy aimed at eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state, rather than solely targeting Hamas. While Israel claims to be focusing on militants, including senior Hamas officials, its actions suggest a more extensive plan.

    The death toll among Palestinians in the West Bank is rising rapidly following two days of Israeli attacks involving helicopters, drones, and ground forces. Between 2020 and October 2023, only six Palestinians in the West Bank were killed in airstrikes. However, this week, the UN reported that since October 2023, 136 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed in Israeli airstrikes – a sharp and alarming increase. Israel justifies its actions as necessary for self-defense, claiming it is responding to attacks allegedly carried out with Iranian-supplied weapons. However, the bombing of civilians from the skies increasingly appears to be an attempt to terrorize the population into submission – a strategy that is intensifying.

    Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank is rapidly increasing as the state seeks to consolidate control over more land. Much of this territory, initially arid and inhospitable, has been transformed into livable space by settlers, yet it remains designated under international agreements, including the Oslo Accords, as part of a future Palestinian state. Fueled by substantial investments and growing political pressures, Israel’s commitment to advancing these projects is unwavering, rendering any withdrawal from them highly improbable and impractical. The challenge of evacuating 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005, which faced intense opposition, stands in stark contrast to the nearly 90 times as many settlers now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jewish dominance is increasingly apparent in many areas of the eastern territory, and Israel perceives it as both a duty and a moral obligation to protect its citizens. In this context, the current conflict may serve Israel’s strategic interests by diminishing remaining opposition and facilitating further territorial expansion under the guise of wartime necessity.

    Despite facing a severe blockade, Gaza remains a separate territory with its own government. Israel argues that a similar situation in the West Bank, should it withdraw, would pose a significant security risk, a concern heightened by Hamas’s actions. Although there is still hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly just one day before the historic ICJ opinion to pass a resolution—co-sponsored by parties within Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition and supported by both right-wing and centrist opponents – rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. This context clarifies that the ongoing attacks in the West Bank is not simply about targeted attacks akin to those in Lebanon or Iran. 

    The world’s major powers, including the United States, and Islamic countries that have long used the issue of Palestine to evoke Islamic solidarity, have struggled to reach an agreement to end the ongoing bloodshed. Without a resolution, confidence in global institutions, which have so far proven ineffective, risks fading. Hamas has demonstrated that a long-term resolution can only be achieved through diplomacy, allowing both peoples to coexist peacefully. However, it must be noted that either Israel has seized the opportunity, or Hamas has made Israel’s objectives achievable.

  • South Korea’s Top Court Rules for Stronger Climate Action

    South Korea’s Top Court Rules for Stronger Climate Action

    Climate laws aimed at curbing global warming, ensuring carbon neutrality, and accelerating the transition to green energy are facing significant backlash from various groups. There are calls from right-wing politicians, activists, and conspiracy theorists on social media to scrap these laws, arguing that they negatively impact businesses and burden taxpayers. Meanwhile, another group is pushing for even stricter climate regulations, despite potential consequences for businesses and daily life. These opposing views have led to clashes online, spilled into the streets, influenced political debates, and are now being contested in the courts.

    South Korea’s Constitutional Court has sided with those advocating for stronger climate measures, ruling that parts of the nation’s climate law do not adequately protect the constitutional rights of future generations. This decision, described by local activists as groundbreaking, reflects a similar verdict in Germany and concludes four years of legal disputes, establishing an important precedent for climate litigation in the region. The court found that the lack of legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 violates the constitutional rights of future generations and fails to fulfill the government’s obligation to protect these rights. The court stressed that the absence of long-term targets places an unfair burden on future generations and has ordered the National Assembly and government to revise the law to include these targets by February 28, 2026. As a result, the government is now under pressure to act.

    South Korea’s Carbon Neutral Act, established in 2010, initially aimed to cut carbon emissions by at least 35 percent by 2030 from 2018 levels. The government has since raised this target to a 40 percent reduction. However, critics contend that this revised goal remains inadequate for effectively addressing climate change. Since 2020, the Constitutional Court has been evaluating complaints from over 250 individuals; one-third of whom were children or teenagers at the time of filing – who claim that the government’s greenhouse gas reduction targets and strategies are partially unconstitutional and inadequate to safeguard the rights of citizens, especially future generations.

    South Korea’s climate litigation began in March 2020 when Youth 4 Climate Action, the Korean branch of the global school climate strike movement, filed the first lawsuit. Activists, including Kim Seo-gyeong from Youth 4 Climate Action, see the court’s decision as the beginning of a renewed push for more ambitious climate action. Kim emphasized that addressing the climate crisis requires reducing its risks, managing factors that could worsen the situation, and establishing safety nets to support life and society. 

    However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the government’s 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2018 levels, as set out in the country’s carbon neutrality act, violated constitutional rights. The court considered this near-term goal sufficient but found that the law’s lack of specific emission reduction targets for the years between 2031 and 2050 – when the country aims to achieve carbon neutrality – violated the constitutional rights of future generations.

    On Thursday, South Korea’s Ministry of Environment announced that it respects the court’s ruling and will take appropriate follow-up actions. Sejong Youn, a solicitor representing all four litigation cases, emphasized that the core issue of unconstitutionality stemmed from reduction targets that imposed an excessive burden without adequately considering the rights of future generations. He stressed that a revised greenhouse gas reduction plan addressing these concerns must be presented within the timeframe set by the court.

    This landmark ruling is poised to reverberate far beyond South Korea’s borders, potentially shaping climate litigation and policy across Asia, with countries like Japan and Taiwan already grappling with similar legal battles. One might observe that, for now at least, climate activists appear to be gaining the upper hand in the courtroom, outmaneuvering their climate change-denying counterparts.

  • China and Japan delegate efforts to ease tensions

    China and Japan delegate efforts to ease tensions

    China and Japan, two powerhouses in Asia, share a long history of conflicts and conquests, a dynamic that continues into the modern era. Currently, their relationship is considered to be in one of its worst phases. As the world’s second and third largest economies, both countries are positioning themselves for potential conflict, seeking triggers that could escalate tensions. Their actions significantly influence the political landscape of the Asia-Pacific region and could potentially lead to a global conflict, with the United States likely to support Japan and Russia aligning with China. Numerous other countries could also join either side.

    Both China and Japan have their own reasons for accusing each other. The Chinese government claims that relations with Japan have been strained by Japan’s failure to fully acknowledge its wartime crimes to China’s satisfaction. On the other hand, the Japanese government attributes the tension to the expansion and assertive actions of the People’s Liberation Army, as well as China’s revisionist statements. The two countries also face serious territorial disputes and frequently provoke each other, as evidenced by a recent incident where China allegedly attempted to breach Japanese airspace.

    Despite the tense situation over the South China Sea, efforts are being made at diplomatic level. Recently, veteran Chinese diplomat Liu Jianchao urged visiting Japanese lawmakers to adopt a long-term perspective on bilateral relations and manage their differences constructively. During a meeting with a cross-party delegation from the Japan-China Friendship Parliamentarians Union – a platform that fosters dialogue and collaboration between lawmakers from both countries – Liu highlighted that relations were at a critical juncture. He expressed hope that both sides would approach Sino-Japanese relations with a broader and long-term view, enhance strategic communication, collaborate across various fields, and handle their differences constructively. Liu also called for increased dialogue and exchange visits from all Japanese political factions to China to strengthen strategic communication and mutual understanding.

    Nikai, a prominent figure in the Japanese parliament, stated that the visit aimed to improve communication between the two countries. He emphasized the goal of fostering deeper dialogue with China, strengthening communication between relevant departments of both nations, and creating favorable conditions for resolving differences and enhancing cooperation in politics, economics, culture, and tourism.

    Liu, head of the International Department for China’s ruling Communist Party, is leading the discussions with a group from Japan headed by Toshihiro Nikai, a prominent member of the House of Representatives and a key figure in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The group is on a three-day visit and met Zhao Leji, the head of China’s top legislative body, on Wednesday morning. During the meeting, Nikai expressed regret over the recent intrusion of Chinese military aircraft into Japanese airspace, as reported by Jiji Press. Key topics of discussion are expected to include China’s ban on Japanese seafood imports, the reinstatement of pre-pandemic visa-free entry for short-term visits by Japanese nationals, and the detention of Japanese nationals in China on espionage charges. Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japan’s chief government spokesman, expressed hope that this visit—the first by the union in five years – would further strengthen multifaceted exchanges and communication between Beijing and Tokyo. 

    In May, Liu led a delegation to Japan and consented to reinitiate regular discussions between the ruling parties, marking the first such meetings in six years. In July, Hiroshi Moriyama, chairman of the LDP’s decision-making general council, visited China and met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who called for enhanced communication and cooperation. Additionally, Chinese Foreign Vice Minister Ma Zhaoxu resumed the China-Japan strategic dialogue with his Japanese counterpart in Tokyo after a four-year hiatus and held a candid and in-depth discussion with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa. Despite these efforts, the situation does not seem to have significantly improved, and the results are still pending.

  • Malaysian Opposition Leader Faces Charges for Insulting Royalty

    Malaysian Opposition Leader Faces Charges for Insulting Royalty

    Southeast Asian nations are known for rigorously enforcing lese majeste or royal insult laws to suppress dissenting voices, whether they are republics or constitutional monarchies. Thailand frequently makes headlines for its enforcement of these laws, while Malaysia, another constitutional monarchy in the region, has generally been viewed as more democratic and less prominent in this regard. However, a notable development has emerged from Malaysia: former prime minister and current opposition leader Muhyiddin Yassin was charged with sedition on Tuesday over alleged comments about the previous king’s decision to appoint Anwar Ibrahim instead of him following a closely contested 2022 general election.

    Malaysia has filed sedition charges against Muhyiddin Yassin for allegedly insulting the country’s former king during a political speech on August 15. Muhyiddin, who served as prime minister from 2020 to 2021 and currently leads Malaysia’s conservative, Malay-centric opposition bloc, has pleaded not guilty. Though Under Malaysia’s Sedition Act, which dates back to the colonial era, remarks deemed disrespectful to the country’s largely ceremonial and highly revered royalty can lead to prosecution. Muhyiddin is the first former leader in Malaysia to face charges under this law and could face a fine of up to 5,000 ringgit, a prison sentence of up to three years, or both if convicted. He is also dealing with separate corruption and money laundering charges, which he argues are politically motivated.

    Prosecutors allege that Muhyiddin questioned why the former king did not summon him to be sworn in as prime minister following the 2022 general election, which produced a hung parliament. Despite his claims of having ample support from lawmakers, it was Al-Sultan Abdullah, who concluded his five-year reign in January, who ultimately appointed Anwar Ibrahim as prime minister. Anwar secured the necessary backing from rival factions to forge a unity government. Muhyiddin’s remarks, made during a by-election campaign in Kelantan, are viewed by prosecutors as a challenge to the former king’s credibility. Although Al-Sultan Abdullah has not publicly commented, his son has criticized Muhyiddin’s remarks as dangerous and undermining the monarchy. 

    Muhyiddin expressed frustration at not being invited to the palace for his swearing-in, despite claiming support from 115 of the 222 parliamentarians. In the 2022 election, Muhyiddin’s Perikatan Nasional (PN) coalition, which includes the Malaysian United Indigenous Party and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, won 74 seats, while Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan bloc secured 82 seats. The third-place alliance, Barisan Nasional (BN), chose to support Pakatan Harapan and received cabinet posts in the new government. Muhyiddin believes that Sultan Abdullah’s decision to appoint Anwar Ibrahim strengthened Anwar’s position in negotiations with other parties, resulting in support that excluded his coalition from power. Last week, Muhyiddin provided the police with evidence to support his part, asserting that his loyalty to the constitutional monarchy should not be questioned. Nevertheless, Malaysia’s police chief, Razarudin Husain, has confirmed that Muhyiddin will be charged under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for allegedly acting with seditious intent.

    Under Malaysia’s unique monarchy, nine sultans alternate on the royal throne every five years, a role traditionally seen as ceremonial. However, the constitutional monarchy is increasingly worried that rising criticism and rising political Islam could jeopardize their position. Analysts suggest that Muhyiddin’s alleged criticism of the king’s choice of prime minister may have been a key factor in the recent by-election, damaging Perikatan Nasional’s (PN) image as a defender of ethnic Malay supremacy and Islam, where respect for the king is crucial. PN, the incumbent, lost the seat to Barisan Nasional, a key ally in Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration. Last Monday, Pahang Crown Prince Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah accused Muhyiddin of implying that his father had unfairly appointed Anwar as prime minister and of inciting distrust in the Malay royal institution. The tense political climate in Thailand might also affect sentiments in Malaysia, leading authorities to likely take stringent measures to safeguard the constitutional monarchy.

  • Is India Responsible for Bangladesh Floods?

    Is India Responsible for Bangladesh Floods?

    Bangladesh, a densely populated country grappling with political uncertainties, was severely impacted by a massive flood that worsened over the weekend, affecting more than five million people. Flooding is common during the monsoon season in Bangladesh, which is situated at the delta of two major rivers, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, along with numerous smaller rivers that flow into them or directly into the Bay of Bengal. However, this flood has garnered special attention due to accusations from netizens, the media, and some Bangladeshi politicians who blame India, claiming that the opening of large dams on rivers flowing into Bangladesh caused the disaster. This situation has strained relations between Bangladesh and India, despite both governments’ reluctance to escalate the issue, and it is clear that it has already harmed public perception in both countries.

    Photo Credit: Banglapedia

    Many districts in eastern Bangladesh have experienced severe flooding, one of the worst in the country’s history. Images and videos show widespread suffering in submerged areas, with all low-lying regions underwater. Public outrage has been directed at India after a viral video on social media purportedly showed water being released from the Dumbur Dam in Tripura, blaming it for the floods. However, the video actually shows the Srisailam Dam in Telangana, a southern Indian state. The Dumbur Dam, which has been accused by Bangladeshi media as the cause of the flooding, is situated on the transboundary Gomati River and is approximately 120 kilometers from the Bangladesh border. This river flows from Tripura in northeastern India into eastern Bangladesh, eventually merging with the Meghna River. Although the flow of water in the river has increased, India has stated that no floodgates were deliberately opened; rather, excess water from the Gomti reservoir was automatically released once it reached full capacity. India later clarified that while the water from the Gomti contributes to the flooding, the seasonal floods are primarily attributed to climate-related factors.

    The impact is severe because Bangladesh’s low-lying, densely populated areas are highly vulnerable to flooding. As the Dumbur Dam video went viral, Bangladeshis became concerned about other Indian dams that block rivers flowing into Bangladesh, fearing they might be used by India to cause flooding. While India argues that these dams actually protect low-lying Bangladesh from floods – common during the heavy monsoon rains when rivers swell – severe flooding in Bangladesh results when these swollen rivers meet India’s major rivers, which carry water from up to 2,000 kilometers away, including regions in India and Tibet. Interestingly, the longstanding dispute between Bangladesh and India over the Farakka Barrage focuses not on flooding but on the reduced water flow to Bangladesh.

    Since Wednesday night, the flooding has significantly worsened, submerging 11 districts and large areas of a city with nearly 1.5 million residents. Various groups are exploiting the crisis for their own agendas. Islamic factions opposed to India are spreading misinformation, blaming India for the suffering and loss of life, and inciting protests that have contributed to the fall of the Hasina government. Political parties, driven by anti-India sentiment, have joined the protests, and students, mostly millennials who are not influenced by the emotional legacy of the 1971 war and the nation’s founder, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, are also expressing their frustration against India. Meanwhile, the Indian media is using the situation to advance anti-Bangladesh agendas, highlighting anti-Hindu and anti-India protests in Bangladesh to foster Hindu unity and increase animosity towards Islam in India.

    While India is being blamed for the crisis, Bangladesh, a climate-vulnerable country, is struggling to address the real causes. Under an interim government, it is challenging to implement effective climate policies or manage the situation, especially with elections delayed and an uncertain future ahead. If Bangladesh fails to confront its vulnerabilities and address the realities of its situation, it will face one of the most significant humanitarian crises.

  • Will Balochistan Secede from Pakistan?

    Will Balochistan Secede from Pakistan?

    Independent Balochistan, a demand for ethnic statehood, dates back decades. It is quite similar to the demand for Kurdistan, an ethnic state for Kurds, by seceding Kurdish-majority regions from different countries. In the case of Balochistan, the land of the Baloch tribes, they seek to form a new state by seceding Baloch-dominated territories in Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. Although the demand for statehood is significant across Baloch territories in these countries, the demand from Pakistan is more intense, as they have acted more forcefully against it than others. This has led to full-scale conflicts between the Pakistani army and Baloch militants in 1948, 1958–59, 1962–63, and 1973–1977, with a new ongoing insurgency at varying levels since 2003.

    Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

    Although the Baloch are now Sunni Muslims, they have historically opposed the creation of Pakistan, and some even opposed the partition of India. In response, Pakistan has consistently treated the Baloch harshly. It is clear that Pakistan will never agree to secede its largest province, which is roughly the size of France and one of the largest provinces by area within any country. However, despite Balochistan being rich in natural resources such as gold, diamonds, silver, and copper, it is sparsely populated, economically underdeveloped, and one of the poorest regions in Pakistan.

    Pakistan has attempted several measures to assimilate Balochistan with the rest of the country, such as promoting the national language Urdu while suppressing native languages like Balochi and Brahui, and arresting local leaders by branding statehood advocates as terrorists and Indian supporters. Additionally, Pakistan has encouraged migration to Balochistan to alter the demographics, but the people have resisted, with Baloch organizations resorting to extreme measures like suicide bombings and targeted killings. This has allowed Pakistan to label Baloch organizations as terrorist groups.

    The region has always attracted the interest of Pakistani politicians due to its valuable mineral resources and strategic location. When China initiated the Gwadar port project in Balochistan – a natural deep-sea port at the mouth of a critical trade route – Pakistani politicians tried to use the situation to benefit from the migration of workers from the rest of Pakistan. However, this move was met with significant opposition. As Pakistan’s political and economic situation worsens day by day, the secessionist movement in Balochistan is rising to an unprecedented level.

    The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), an ethno-nationalist militant group operating out of Afghanistan, regularly targets the Pakistan Armed Forces, civilians, and foreign nationals. Recognized as a terrorist organization in multiple countries, the BLA recently launched Operation Herof, striking Pakistani army checkpoints and camps along key highways in Balochistan. This operation reportedly claimed the lives of nearly 102 people, including civilians, and led to the capture of significant parts of the Bela army camp. The BLA has also set up checkpoints across the province to ambush military convoys, indicating a broader effort to achieve secession from Pakistan.

    The BLA claimed that over 40 soldiers were killed in the attack on the main army camp in Bela. According to the group, its Fidayeen unit maintained control over a substantial portion of the camp for six hours as part of Operation Herof, with the Majeed Brigade spearheading the assault on the occupying forces in Bela, resulting in the deaths of more than 40 military personnel.

    Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the violence, asserting that the separatists aim to disrupt China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) development projects, which seek to expand Beijing’s influence in Pakistan and across Central and South Asia. This is viewed as a counter to the influence of the United States and India in the region. Sharif vowed retaliation, noting that the violence coincided with a visit from a top Chinese general to Islamabad.

    Pakistan will definitely retaliate, as it has a history of doing so. According to Amnesty International, over 10,000 Baloch have disappeared in Pakistan since 2011. This challenge presents opportunities for both the Pakistani army and the government. The Pakistani army, which holds control over the state, will likely use the situation to act more aggressively in Balochistan, gaining control over more areas and justifying actions in other problematic regions. The Pakistani government, which is not well-liked due to issues like banning opposition, corruption, nepotism, and poor governance, sees this as an opportunity to strengthen its grip on the state.

    There was opposition to the government over Chinese-run projects that have led to significant debt for Pakistan and offered little benefit to local communities. Now, the government has a reason to suppress this dissent and push its anti-India agenda, which could unify the nation and seek warmer relations with Iran and Afghanistan – both of which are also dealing with secessionist movements from their Baloch populations.

    How Pakistan handles this situation will be crucial in determining the country’s future. Pakistan already faces significant challenges in its northwestern territories, and if it fails in Balochistan, India will most likely intervene, leading to the loss of occupied Kashmir. Furthermore, Pakistan could face mass protests in Sindh and Punjab that could weaken the union’s control, similar to what happened in former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Therefore, the management of the Balochistan issue will play a key role in shaping the future of the world’s first Islamic republic.