Author: Caracal

  • Myanmar Opposition Forces Launch Drone Attacks on Junta’s Capital

    Myanmar Opposition Forces Launch Drone Attacks on Junta’s Capital

    Myanmar Civil War reaches a pivotal moment as the Opposition expands its assault on Naypyidaw, the Military Junta’s Capital. According to reports from Al Jazeera, the opposition forces, spearheaded by the National Unity Government (NUG), have intensified their assault on Naypyidaw, in their ongoing struggle against the military regime. Utilizing 30 drones, they claim to have successfully targeted the stronghold of the military regime. And as further hit, Since the junta’s seizure of power in June 2021, public resentment towards the government has reached new heights. The junta is encountering resistance from various pro-democracy factions and ethnic groups, which have seized territory along the Indian and Chinese borders, and the continuous loss for the military is turning to more support for the NUG from people. With a growing number of defections from the military ranks, Myanmar appears to be teetering on the brink of a democratic revolution.

    Reports indicate that the Union government has conducted targeted drone attacks on two military installations in the capital, the headquarters of the military, and Alar airbase and on the residence of junta chief Min Aung Hlaing. According to statements from the National Unity Government (NUG), no casualties have been reported. Now, The opposition has increasingly turned to drone attacks, viewing them as cost-effective weapons against the coup regime. While the military government has labeled the opposition forces as terrorists, it has confirmed the attacks and claimed to have shot down seven drones. However, verifying information from both the military government and the NUG remains challenging.

    The military finds itself in a defensive position as the Union government advances southward. With numerous adversaries across the country, the military is weakened and disoriented, suffering significant battlefield defeats in recent months. Reports suggest that soldiers are surrendering and defecting to the Union government, indicating a shift in allegiances. Even pro-military figures are expressing uncertainty and dissatisfaction amidst the prevailing confusion.

    Simultaneously, the National Unity Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Which is abbreviated as NUG, emerges as a cohesive force, established by the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH), comprising elected lawmakers and parliamentarians ousted during the 2021 Myanmar coup d’état. It garners increasing public support and gains recognition as the legitimate government of Myanmar by the European Parliament. And maybe US and more western governments will follow the European Parliament. While powerful neighbors India and China are not participating much here, while some accuse China of having good terms with the Military government.

    Comprising representatives from the Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, ethnic minority insurgent groups, and various minor parties, the NUG operates effectively despite being in exile. Its diplomatic engagements, cooperation with ethnic factions, and governance initiatives reflect commendable efforts towards national unity and stability. And they hope and they are progressing to the removal of the Military Junta in the country and re establish democracy government in the country. It will be the great chapter of democracy in the modern world.

    In Naypyidaw, the capital, the military government faces mounting apprehension over its diminishing strength. With significant losses in soldiers and persistent opposition, the recent announcement of imposing mandatory conscription reflects the military’s desperation in light of recent setbacks, including the surrender of entire battalions. This move for conscription has instilled fear among the younger population, leading many to seek ways to flee the country or seek refuge in resistance (Opposition) controlled areas.

    As of the end of February 2024, the United Nations reports that over 2.4 million people have been internally displaced in Myanmar since the coup, while 59,300 individuals have fled to neighboring countries. The escalating humanitarian crisis underscores the severity of the situation and the urgent need for resolution.

  • At What Cost? Saudi Arabia’s World Cup Journey Puts Human Rights on the Line

    At What Cost? Saudi Arabia’s World Cup Journey Puts Human Rights on the Line

    FIFA, the governing body of football, stands on the verge of selecting Saudi Arabia as the host nation for the 2034 World Cup. Hosting the FIFA World Cup grants unparalleled visibility and prestige to the chosen country, making it a highly coveted achievement for Saudi Arabia to showcase itself to the world stage. However, FIFA’s decision to potentially award hosting rights to Saudi Arabia has sparked controversy, given the organization’s frequent accusations of corruption and Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record. The previous selection of Qatar as a host, despite its lack of significant football history and its issues with labor and human rights, also raised skepticism before. And before Qatar it was Russia. Now, with Saudi Arabia aspiring to host the 2034 tournament. This has prompted concern among human rights advocates, who fear that Saudi Arabia may be attempting to use the World Cup as a means of diverting attention from its human rights violations through a practice known as “Sportswashing”, portraying a positive image to the world while ignoring underlying issues.

    The Guardian, the center-left British media outlet, has already published a series featuring how migrant workers are being used or scammed in the name of the World Cup in Saudi Arabia. Qatar serves as a precedent example; the stadiums built without basic security or regard for the value of people’s lives host the World Cup. Many lives have been lost for the World Cup, and many people have been abused by the peculiar visa scheme Qatar offers for workers. The Saudi Arabian World Cup is expected to be a second version of Qatar.

    Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is dismal. Despite limited efforts to fortify its human rights framework, the nation receives a dismal score of eight out of 100 in the widely recognized Freedom in the World report, issued by Freedom House, which evaluates political rights and civil freedoms. The law mandates that wives must submit to their husbands in a manner considered “Reasonable”, and any disrespect toward the government can result in severe punishments. Moreover, human rights organizations are prohibited from operating in Saudi Arabia.

    There is widespread skepticism regarding FIFA’s ability to fulfill its human rights obligations, even if they are strictly limited to World Cup-related projects. Nonetheless, there is still an opportunity for potential action. As part of its bid, Saudi Arabia for the 2034 World Cup must provide an impartial evaluation of human rights conditions in the nation to FIFA by this summer. “Sustainability and Human Rights” constitute one of the six selection criteria, and FIFA is obligated to assess human rights risks as part of the selection process.

    FIFA has committed to ensuring the protection of worker’s rights and their safety as part of its efforts to uphold human rights. Saudi Arabia stands out for having the poorest labor conditions among Gulf nations. There is Similar conditions in Qatar too. However, Saudi Arabia presents its own unique challenges. Recent advancements in labor rights are highlighted by Saudi authorities, including the abolition of the kafala system, which previously tied migrant workers to their employers, and the implementation of regulations governing recruitment. Workers are now permitted to join legitimate independent trade unions, allowing them to file complaints without fear of prosecution. Additionally, the absconding law has been eliminated, ensuring that it is no longer considered a crime for workers to leave their employment.

    Perhaps these fears are only held by certain left-wing groups, human rights organizations, and newspapers. Maybe these reports come from individuals who seek to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s reputation. Perhaps they come from people in Bangladesh and Pakistan who are willing to sacrifice their lives to obtain significant financial gain that can support their large families. However, we all know that FIFA is playing a double game by selecting these hosts. While they promote progressive values, they prioritize countries’ financial interests over these values. Or we can believe that FIFA is on a mission to slightly improve human rights in the countries where it completely lacks.

  • Turkey’s Local Elections: Opposition Stuns with Victory Over Erdogan’s Party

    Turkey’s Local Elections: Opposition Stuns with Victory Over Erdogan’s Party

    Last year, Erdogan comfortably won another presidential term amidst severe economic crises, mishandling of natural disasters, and a steep decline in living standards. This underscored his enduring influence and highlighted the weakness of the opposition. Erdogan, Turkey’s leader for the past two decades as both Prime Minister and President, adeptly navigated challenges to his rule. He successfully thwarted a potential military coup, triggered by constitutional provisions aimed at safeguarding secularism in the country. Moreover, Erdogan orchestrated a referendum to transition Turkey’s governance from parliamentary to presidential, driven by his desire to retain power. He effectively advanced Islamic and Ottoman sentiments, sacrificing the progress Turkey had achieved since the World War. The reopening of Hagia Sophia after years of closure symbolizes this transition from modern secular principles to embracing Turkey’s Ottoman aspirations

    In Turkey, elections encompass six levels of government: Presidential (National), Parliamentary (National), Municipality Mayoral (Local), District Mayoral (Local), Provincial or Municipal Council Member (Local), and Muhtar (Local). Less than a year ago, both presidential and parliamentary levels were conducted, and Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) emerged stronger, leaving Turkey’s main opposition parties disheartened. However, after a year in the local elections, we are witnessing a surge in support for opposition parties in the local level elections.

    It’s no surprise that the recent local elections brought about a remarkable shift, leading to exuberant celebrations well into the early hours. With inflation soaring close to 70% and voter dissatisfaction amplified by a significant increase in interest rates. Erdogan’s strategy of leveraging Islamic identity politics has faced challenges. The austerity measures endorsed by Erdogan since his reelection have placated Western markets but have alienated key AKP supporters. In contrast, the charismatic and influential opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu’s ability to appeal to conservative voters has bolstered the CHP, making him a formidable adversary compared to the lackluster opposition candidate fielded last May.

    In Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city, the incumbent mayor, Ekrem Imamoğlu, convincingly defeated Mr. Erdogan’s candidate. Imamoğlu’s Republican People’s Party (CHP) also achieved sweeping victories in other major cities, securing landslide wins in the capital, Ankara, and easily in Izmir. Local elections in Turkey’s key cities, notably Istanbul and Ankara, hold significant importance in the country’s political and economic landscape. The mayors of these cities play prominent roles in national politics. In a surprising turn of events, the CHP managed to secure victories in conservative towns and villages that constitute Erdogan’s electoral stronghold in Anatolia and near the Black Sea. The gains made by the Islamic far-right New Welfare Party (YRP) in those regions, at the expense of the AKP, further compounded the president’s woes.

    The recent election has injected enthusiasm into Turkish politics. As a fresh challenger heralding a new era for Turkish democracy, Ekrem İmamoğlu’s securing of a second term as Istanbul’s mayor sparked jubilant celebrations among his supporters. The victory of Turkey’s main opposition party in the local elections exceeded expectations, offering the Republican People’s Party (CHP) a glimpse of a promising future. Social media platforms overflowed with celebratory memes, and Istanbul residents took to the streets, blaring music and, in some cases, removing posters of Erdogan’s mayoral candidate. Addressing his supporters after a night of historic wins, Ekrem İmamoğlu declared it “The Dawn of a New Era”.

    The opposition’s strongest showing in decades is also a success for another leader called Ozgur Ozel. Following its defeat in the general election last year, the CHP appointed a new, younger leader, the former pharmacist and trusted candidate Özgür Özel, who is perceived as a longtime ally of İmamoğlu. Both represent a shift within the opposition, with the ability to appeal to conservative and Kurdish factions of Turkish politics beyond the party’s traditional stronghold. Together, they successfully united all anti-Erdogan votes.

    At the same time, the setbacks for Erdogan’s AKP reflect years of internal turmoil. While the president has maintained popularity, the party’s overreliance on his charisma has intertwined their fates. Despite Erdogan’s prominent role in the campaign to reclaim Istanbul from İmamoğlu, the party fielded a mayoral candidate unlikely to emerge as a potential successor – a figure Erdogan sorely needs but seems hesitant to endorse. Additionally, the AKP faces challenges from far-right parties, which have split their voter base. The emergence of Islamic parties like the New Welfare Party (YRP) will definitely challenge AKP’s support

    Considering Erdogan’s firm control over institutional patronage and influence networks, honed over his more than two decades in power, it would be premature to interpret these results as a definitive turning point. However, they provide ample reasons for optimism among secular and liberal voters. Most notably, Sunday’s significant rebuke may deter Mr. Erdogan from pursuing additional constitutional amendments to enable him to seek yet another presidential term.

  • Potential Third Term Victory Looms for Modi and BJP

    Potential Third Term Victory Looms for Modi and BJP

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi is confident in his assertions. He has reiterated in the previous assembly meetings in parliament, the Republic Day ceremony, and numerous rallies that he will undoubtedly win the upcoming election. He has also stated his aim to secure over 400 seats in the House of Commons. This isn’t mere boasting; Modi is acutely aware of the ground realities. Having started his career as a tea seller and grassroots worker, he understands the pulse of the nation.

    A potential third term would pave the way for the BJP to implement its ideology, such as Hindu nationalism, with greater authority. While many express concerns about the potential authoritarianism and one-party state that a third term for Modi could entail, the opposition seems ill-prepared to counter the BJP’s groundwork and ambitions. 

    The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already completed seat distribution among its allies and commenced a significant number of candidate selections for the upcoming election marathon. They are confident in their prospects, buoyed by the BJP’s favorable standing in opinion polls. Even though the aspiration of securing over 400 seats out of the total 545 seems ambitious according to current opinion polls, the BJP has a history of surpassing such predictions. In the last Lok Sabha election in 2019, opinion polls underestimated the BJP’s performance, predicting that only alliances could surpass the 272-mark, yet the BJP single-handedly crossed the 300-seat threshold.

    Expanding into regions where the party traditionally had limited presence, such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, and West Bengal, while maintaining dominance in Hindi-speaking states and western India, suggests that the BJP could easily exceed expectations. By positioning strong candidates and allocating seats based on ground surveys and reports, the party is laying extensive groundwork. Indian media’s overwhelming support for Modi and the government is evident, with a focus on celebrating the BJP rather than reporting on common people’s issues. News channels have taken on a quasi-spiritual role, projecting Modi as a spiritual leader and guru, particularly during events like the Ayodhya temple opening ceremony.

    Given the importance of social media in a country with the highest number of smartphone users and mobile connectivity in the world, the BJP’s successful utilization of social media is noteworthy. Their campaigns are saturating Indian cyberspace, further bolstering their electoral strategy.

    The BJP benefits greatly from the weakness of the opposition, particularly the Indian National Congress (INC). While analysts warn of increasing authoritarian tendencies within the BJP, the Indian opposition struggles to compete with Modi, even in media representation. Narendra Modi has openly expressed his goal of achieving a “Congress Mukt Bharat”, aiming to eliminate the main opposition party, the INC, from Indian politics. The INC’s presence in the media and social media platforms has significantly diminished, with their funds frozen due to actions by the tax department. Moreover, notable leaders, including former chief ministers, are defecting to the BJP amidst targeted investigations by the Enforcement Directorate into financial irregularities. This move not only weakens the opposition but also potentially shields those joining the BJP from further scrutiny by the Enforcement Directorate. Alongside these stringent measures against the opposition and the acquisition of media outlets, as well as the expansion of influence over the executive and judiciary, some analysts argue that this trend is leading to the increasing dominance of Modi and the BJP across all spheres of governance.

    Simultaneously, some experts highlight the unpredictability of Indian voters and they argue that opinion polls are pointless. Indian elections are inherently uncertain due to the vast diversity of the electorate, comprising 970 million individuals from various ethnicities, languages, and cultures. With an expected voter turnout of over 60%, the electorate’s highly emotive nature can lead to abrupt shifts in political preferences. Historical events, such as the 1991 general election, where the unforeseen assassination of Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi reshaped the electoral landscape, serve as poignant reminders of this unpredictability. Similarly, the decision by the Vajpayee-led BJP government to call for early elections, despite favorable opinion polls, led to an unexpected mandate for the INC.

    This unpredictability remains a significant factor, offering hope to the opposition until the final polls are concluded. Opposition parties anticipate potential seat losses for the BJP over the course of its ten-year tenure. Additionally, internal conflicts between new BJP leaders who come from other parties  and traditional party figures add an intriguing dimension to the political landscape. The formation of alliances between regional parties and the Congress presents an opportunity to garner diverse support, particularly amidst ongoing issues such as farmer protests, unemployment, and price hikes.

    However, the current dominance of the Indian media, largely funded by BJP-linked business interests, poses a challenge for the opposition. Despite aspirations for a 400-seat victory, the reality remains that the Congress lacks the capacity to diminish the BJP’s majority, touching the crucial 272-mark.

    When Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s inaugural Prime Minister, along with the freedom fighters, embraced democracy in a largely illiterate state, it signified a courageous step forward. Despite facing skepticism and ridicule initially, Nehru diligently fostered a democratic ethos in India. Even amidst criticism, he acknowledged and rewarded journalists and cartoonists for their critiques, showcasing his dedication to democratic principles. However, following Nehru’s era, India experienced a gradual decline in these values, with corruption, dynastic politics, horse-trading, and moral bankruptcy becoming prevalent.

    The BJP, under the leadership of Modi, emerged as a response to the scams and corruption of the previous Congress-led government. Failing to address these issues, Congress paved the way for the BJP’s rise, which now faces an election without many negative factors weighing it down. With its roots in the Hindu nationalist organization RSS, it’s evident that a third term for the BJP would align closely with the RSS’s directives. This third term could potentially redefine India, moving it further away from the principles established by Nehru’s government in 1947.

  • Any Ray of Hope for the Indian National Congress?

    Any Ray of Hope for the Indian National Congress?

    The Indian National Congress, renowned as the architect of modern India and often referred to as the grand old party, still holds significant sway nationwide. However, as India approaches its 18th Lok Sabha election, even the Congress party itself doesn’t foresee surpassing the 272 – mark threshold independently. Despite its pivotal role in the Indian independence movement and subsequent politics, the party now grapples with mounting a substantial challenge against Modi’s potential third term in the upcoming general election. Despite being the second-largest party in parliament, it falls short of the necessary strength to secure the official opposition leader post, lacking a mere 10% of total Lok Sabha seats. This situation highlights issues of faltering leadership, nepotism, and dynastic politics, demonstrating how these factors can erode a political organization over time. With its participation in the newly formed INDIA alliance for the impending election, the prospects of forming a government seem dim. The lingering question persists: Can the Indian National Congress reclaim its former influence and prestige?

    The prevailing uncertainty stems from a noticeable lack of leadership within the party. The absence of strong leaders often undermines political entities. Through its preference for the Nehru dynasty, the Congress party marginalized other noteworthy leaders, resulting in the formation of splinter factions that have significantly diminished the INC’s national standing. Additionally, the neglect to cultivate leaders at the state level has led to the loss of several states. Increasingly, remaining leaders are defecting to the BJP, encouraged by governmental restrictions on Congress funding and the BJP’s use of investigative agencies against Congress figures. Despite Rahul Gandhi’s prominence within the party as the current leader from the Nehru Family, both he and his sister Priyanka Gandhi remain hesitant to directly confront Modi, potentially contributing to a lack of confidence in the current leadership.

    However, the INC is currently in the process of announcing its candidates, though it is contesting fewer seats than in previous elections. The final allocation of seats will be determined by a formula established after deliberations within the INDIA alliance. Despite some dissatisfaction with Modi’s prolonged tenure and his emphasis on Hindutva and Hindu unity to consolidate votes, Congress aims to bring attention to issues such as unemployment and socio-economic challenges. However, financial constraints, fund freezes, and media outlets aligned with the BJP have hindered the dissemination of Congress’s manifesto. Media coverage has largely focused on narratives of Hindu unity and the construction of the Ayodhya temple, overshadowing Congress’s campaign efforts. Despite attempts to revive caste politics to divide Hindu vote banks, these efforts have yet to yield significant results. Furthermore, the BJP has successfully fragmented the Muslim vote bank by supporting regional and Islamic parties like AIMIM in the previous election.

    Although some undemocratic tendencies from the BJP contribute to the current dilemma of INC, political analysts also hold INC accountable. Some INC leaders still anticipate replicating the election results of 2004, when all opinion polls projected INC’s loss but it formed the government. However, analysts argue that the party is in a weaker state than in 2004. INC’s prospects rely on strengthening their party’s foundation, which entails identifying and promoting new national-level figures, given Rahul Gandhi’s declining appeal; he has already failed to effectively challenge Modi. If Congress can present a strong contender against Modi, it could potentially attract all the anti-Modi votes. Yet, there is potential for Congress to address this gap. Moreover, investing in the development of state and local leaders is vital for building a robust foundation. In crucial states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Bihar, once strongholds of the INC and where numerous Lok Sabha seats are at stake, Congress faces significant challenges. Without winning more seats from these states, INC cannot form a government in New Delhi. While Congress is weak in these areas, BJP is increasingly successful, and these states contribute significantly to Modi’s successful tenure. Restoring the party’s former prominence in these states is crucial for achieving its aspirations in Delhi. Without addressing these core issues, merely forming random alliances, Congress’s return to power remains a mere aspiration.

    The BJP’s significant strength has raised concerns about potential authoritarian tendencies, emphasizing the urgent need for Congress to stage a comeback. A robust opposition nationwide is crucial for safeguarding democracy, serving as a vital check against unchecked authority. However, Congress appears hesitant to pursue bold initiatives or launch vigorous campaigns, compounded by the Nehru family’s reluctance to cede control. This reluctance impedes the party’s ability to form alliances with local parties, some of which have distanced themselves due to concerns about dynastic politics. Additionally, the BJP’s tactics, such as imprisoning opposition leaders and enticing defections through financial incentives and threats, present formidable obstacles. Moreover, the freezing of the main party’s funds hampers Congress’s ability to engage effectively in elections. It is imperative for Congress to acknowledge its shortcomings, assert itself as a legitimate opposition entity, and adopt proactive measures to uphold Indian democracy. Failing to do so risks undermining India’s democratic principles, potentially leading to a de facto single-party system.

  • Israel’s Attack on Syrian Consulate: Further Escalation of Tensions?

    Israel’s Attack on Syrian Consulate: Further Escalation of Tensions?

    The recent phase of the Israel-Hamas conflict began with Hamas’s attack on Israeli civilians, sparking an ongoing cycle of violence. With the death toll now exceeding 30,000, tensions between Israel and Hamas, essentially a proxy conflict involving Iran, have reached a critical point. Targeting Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, two major supporters of Hamas, Israel has escalated its military activities in Syria. The reported Israeli airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, which claimed the lives of senior commanders among its casualties, is a noteworthy show.  On this occasion, There is concern that if Iran bypasses intermediaries like Hezbollah and Hamas, it may resort to direct warfare, potentially involving Syria and Lebanon in a wider conflict.

    Israel has a history of targeting Iran’s military installations and its proxies in Syria, but the recent attack on the consulate marked the first direct strike on Iran’s expansive embassy compound. Since Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel, Iran has emerged as a leading voice among Islamic communities seeking retribution against Israel. Many Muslims worldwide perceive Iran as the foremost advocate for Muslim solidarity and retaliation against Israel. While tensions have been high, direct warfare between the two nations has been avoided in recent years. However, the latest incident has raised concerns about the potential for Iran to enter the conflict directly.

    Observers note that the Israel-Hamas conflict is transcending local boundaries, with Israel conducting operations into Lebanon and Syria to target Hezbollah, an organization linked to Hamas. Additionally, there have been renewed attacks by Iranian-backed militias on U.S. and Israeli targets in Iraq. Recent Israeli strikes in Syria have resulted in significant casualties among Syrian forces and Hezbollah, marking the highest death toll since the Israel-Hamas conflict began in October.

    Tehran has vowed a strong response to the consulate attack. Earlier reports from Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, indicated that five to seven individuals, including diplomats, tragically lost their lives. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps confirmed the deaths of seven Iranian military advisors, including senior commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi, from its elite Quds Force. Israel typically refrains from commenting on its military actions in Syria, but The New York Times reported that four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged Israel’s responsibility for the attack.

    Iran’s U.N. mission swiftly condemned the strike on their embassy, denouncing it as a “Flagrant Violation” of international law and the U.N. Charter. They stressed the threat it poses to regional peace and called for condemnation from the U.N. Security Council, asserting Iran’s right to respond decisively. Hezbollah echoed this sentiment, promising retaliation against the perpetrators.

    A number of Muslim countries denounced the incident, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, and even Russia. Though it raised concerns about rising tensions, the U.S. state Department did not expect this to have an impact on negotiations to release Israeli captives held by Hamas. 

    The UN expressed deep concern but deferred comprehensive remarks for later. Ali Vaez, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, noted the significance of the strike in targeting both individuals and the location.

    Israel typically refrains from commenting on its targeted assassination strikes, although Iranian media openly acknowledged the loss of high-ranking figures. Last year, Israel targeted Sayed Reza Musawi, the IGRC head of logistics in the Levant, among others. In the recent strike, Brig Gen Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy, Gen Haji Rahimi, were killed, along with Brig Gen Hossein Amirollah, the chief of general staff for the al-Quds force in Syria and Lebanon.

    Iran has pledged retaliation following Israeli airstrikes that demolished the Iranian consulate in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of at least 11 people. However, the likelihood of a full-scale war between Iran and Israel remains low at present. While both nations have been involved in numerous conflicts in the past, they currently appear to prefer targeted strikes over outright warfare. Some experts speculate that Israel may expand its operations to Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Yemen, but a direct conflict with Iran appears improbable. Iran is unlikely to deploy troops to Lebanon or Syria, as both countries are suffering by Israel. Consequently, the conflict is expected to persist as a proxy war characterized by targeted killings.

  • Indian Election 2024: Can Trinamool Congress Save their Fortress?

    Indian Election 2024: Can Trinamool Congress Save their Fortress?

    The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), ranked as the third-largest party in the Indian Parliament, is bracing for a crucial moment. In their bastion of Bengal, they confront a formidable challenge from the BJP, with exit polls hinting at potential setbacks in a state pivotal to the Lok Sabha. A stumble in the impending general election could spell the loss of power for Trinamool Congress in the Bengal state assembly. Despite recent setbacks and a narrowed focus on Bengal, Tripura, and Meghalaya, the party is mustering all its resources for the upcoming polls. Led by the steadfast Mamata Banerjee, they are contesting all assembly seats independently, aiming for maximum representation. Their goal is unequivocal: to emerge as the leading opposition force against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and reclaim their national standing, irrespective of the prevailing sentiment in opinion polls.

    Ahead of the election announcement, the Trinamool Congress has introduced its full roster of 42 candidates in Bengal. Spearheading the election campaigns is the formidable Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of Bengal. Among the candidates are ousted MP and charismatic female leader Mahua Moitra, alongside former cricketer Yousuf Pathan.

    In order to challenge the BJP on the national level, Mamata Banerjee and the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) have taken the lead in building the opposition alliance I.N.D.I.A. But because of disputes over seat sharing, AITC is running unaffiliated with I.N.D.I.A parties like the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India in West Bengal. The opposition has expressed shock and dissatisfaction at this move, although Trinamool has defended its position by emphasizing the state’s real circumstances.  The difficult relationship between the Indian National Congress  has been exacerbated by AITC’s refusal to give up more seats, particularly outside Bengal. Furthermore, even if AITC and Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) oppose the BJP together, their long-standing animosity that dates back to decades makes any potential partnership difficult to achieve. As a result, Mamata Banerjee has decided to run the election alone.

    The party gains its strength from robust support from the Muslim community and secular voters. Within the state, there exists a significant Muslim demographic, with many constituencies having a Muslim majority. There’s apprehension among the Muslim populace regarding the potential third term of Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi. A sizable portion of the Muslim population hails from neighboring Bangladesh and may have migrated illegally. BJP’s stance advocating for their exclusion from the country has instilled fear within this community, prompting them to rally strongly behind Mamata, who is vocally critical of the BJP despite having allied with them in the 1990s. The consolidation of Muslim votes is poised to grant AITC approximately 30 seats, maintaining the state government under their control, with all administrative machinery functioning in their favor. AITC also benefits from the support of certain criminal elements involved in politics, further bolstering their position. Instances of intimidation by these elements against BJP and other opposition party workers, as well as the general populace, contribute to a climate of fear that could translate into votes for AITC. 

    Negative factors are increasingly stacking up against the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). There’s growing discontent surrounding Mamata Banerjee’s third term as Bengal’s Chief Minister, exacerbated by concerted efforts from the BJP. Anti-Muslim rhetoric is gaining traction, coupled with narratives depicting the plight of Hindus and the comparative progress of BJP-led states. Additionally, historical notions of Bengal’s former glory are being invoked. The Sandeshkhali incident, a widely publicized event implicating Trinamool leaders in serious crimes including rape, has tarnished the government’s image. Internally, AITC faces dissatisfaction over allegations of corruption, criminal activities, and the perceived nepotism in grooming Mamata’s nephew as her successor. The Hindu vote is consolidating, while the Muslim vote risks fragmentation due to disunity among AITC, INC, and CPI(M), further undermining AITC’s position.

    If the upcoming election deals a blow to AITC, the party’s future hangs in uncertainty. Considering the electoral patterns in the state, a setback could potentially entrench a prolonged period of struggle for the party in subsequent elections. BJP’s steady ascent, evidenced by their increase in seats from 2 to 18 within just five years, instills hope and garners support in the state, as indicated by opinion polls. Thus, AITC must carefully assess its standing and adapt accordingly. Despite receiving backing from the government in Bengal and maintaining relevance in national politics, AITC lacks clear ideologies and positions, which may alienate Muslim voters, leading to the party’s collapse. However, if Mamata Banerjee defies opinion polls and electoral analyses, staging a comeback as the savior of the opposition and Muslims, it could mark a resurgence for AITC, potentially expanding its influence nationally. The stakes are undeniably high for AITC in the upcoming crucial game of politics.

  • UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    It is indeed true that under the leadership of Mohammed bin Salman, there have been some advancements in women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Women are now allowed to drive vehicles independently, and they can enter public spaces without wearing head coverings. However, despite these seemingly progressive decisions, the irony remains glaring. Saudi Arabia, notorious for its oppressive anti-women laws, has been chosen to lead the UN Commission on the Status of Women uncontested. This decision has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations due to the kingdom’s abysmal track record on women’s rights.

    Abdulaziz Alwasil, the Saudi ambassador to the UN, was unanimously elected as the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) during its annual meeting in New York. With no opposing candidates and no dissent among the attendees, Alwasil’s appointment was met with approval from the group of Asia-Pacific states on the commission. When Antonio Manuel Lagdameo, the outgoing chair and Filipino envoy to the UN, sought objections from the 45 members present, the chamber remained silent, prompting Lagdameo to declare, “I hear no objection. It is so decided”.

    Traditionally, a country holds the chairmanship for two years; however, pressure from other members of the Asia group led the Philippines to split its tenure and pass the position to another country after just one year. While Bangladesh was initially expected to assume the role, Saudi Arabia intervened late in the process and lobbied for the chairmanship, widely interpreted as an effort to enhance the kingdom’s reputation.

    However, human rights advocates, who do not receive funding from Arab sources, were quick to highlight the irony of the Commission on the Status of Women being led by a country where the disparity between men’s and women’s rights, even on paper, is so pronounced.

    In Saudi Arabia, women are still obligated to seek approval from a male guardian before marrying, and wives are anticipated to adhere to their husbands’ directives in a “Reasonable Manner”. The provision of financial assistance from husbands is conditional upon the wife’s adherence, and neglecting certain obligations, such as declining sexual relations or not residing in the marital home without a “Legitimate Excuse”, may lead to the cessation of support.

    These laws provide insight into the restrictive nature of Saudi Arabia’s legal system, which is grounded in Sharia law and often viewed as detrimental to women’s rights in more progressive societies. While some Muslim women may assert that Sharia law ensures their safety and satisfaction, those who challenge its tenets may face severe consequences from authorities. Indeed, there have been numerous cases of women seeking asylum simply for expressing dissenting views on social media platforms.

    Last year, UN Women, the UN’s agency for gender equality, reported a worsening of gender disparities worldwide, citing examples from Afghanistan, China, Poland, the United States, and beyond. The organization projected that it could require 286 years to eliminate the global gender gaps in legal protections for women and girls. Moreover, many are concerned about the increasing trend of rolling back women’s rights, even in developing countries, which adds to the discomfort surrounding the decision to appoint Saudi Arabia.

    Sherine Tadros, the head of Amnesty International’s New York office, emphasized that Saudi Arabia will assume the chair next year, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration, a significant framework for advancing women’s rights globally. “Whoever holds the chair, which is currently Saudi Arabia, holds a pivotal position to shape the planning, decisions, assessments, and forward-looking initiatives in a crucial year for the commission”, Tadros stated. “While Saudi Arabia is now leading, its own track record on women’s rights falls far short of the commission’s mandate”.

    Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) UN director, Louis Charbonneau, criticized the choice as well, saying, “A nation that jails its women for standing up for their rights has no business heading the UN’s main platform for gender equality and women’s rights. The Saudi authorities ought to show that this classification was not wholly unjustified by freeing all incarcerated advocates for women’s rights, doing away with male guardianship, and guaranteeing women’s total equality with men”. 

    Despite the ineffectiveness of these UN-based organizations and forums, it is alarming that nations have not expressed concern or opposition to Saudi Arabia’s bid. This lack of action is not limited to the UN; even in highly prominent events such as the bidding for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, there has been no challenge to Saudi Arabia’s bid, despite criticism of the country’s mistreatment of labor rights. Logic of some selections is very illogical, and will lead to many doubts, like Qatar’s selection for running the World cup football. Money decides the winner, as always. And that brings the Hope Taliban Ruling Afghanistan will not be assigned in the future.

  • Politics in Theaters: How the Change in Indian Politics Changed Indian Cinema

    Politics in Theaters: How the Change in Indian Politics Changed Indian Cinema

    India’s film industry stands as the world’s largest, annually producing an astonishing 1,500–2,000 films in over 20 languages, firmly establishing cinema as the nation’s primary form of entertainment. This pervasive medium consistently draws attention from critics, who scrutinize the complex interplay between politics and cinema in India. Particularly noteworthy is the trend of movie stars ascending to chief ministerial positions in several states, with many of them wielding considerable influence over voters.

    While this tie up between cinema and politics isn’t uncommon in India, recent years have witnessed two notable trends. Firstly, regional language industries have stepped into the limelight, challenging Bollywood’s hegemony. Secondly, a surge in propaganda promoting Hindutva ideology has inundated Indian cinema, championing Modi’s leadership as the sole savior of India and portraying Hindus favorably while casting Muslims in a negative light, inundating theaters with such narratives.

    “Swatantrya Veer Savarkar” is currently screening in Indian cinemas. Directed, co-written, and co-produced by Randeep Hooda, who also stars in the lead role, this Hindi-language biographical film sheds light on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a divisive Hindu nationalist leader and anti-colonial activist. Modi has lauded Savarkar for his resistance against British rule and promotion of Hindutva ideologies. However, Savarkar’s writings have courted controversy due to their advocacy of violence against Muslims.

    Initially, Savarkar was perceived as an outsider to India’s independence movement and was met with disapproval by the Indian National Congress (INC), which considered him a betrayer of the cause and critical of Islam. However, with the announcement of the upcoming Indian elections, the film has attracted increased attention, resonating with audiences. Additionally, more films are emerging, shedding light on figures like Godse, Gandhi’s assassin, and other prominent Hindutva figures who were marginalized by the previous Indian government, all purportedly for preserving religious harmony in India.

    Since Modi assumed power, Bollywood has encountered significant challenges. Following a period of romanticism and global expansion, Bollywood has experienced a decline in talent and an overreliance on star-driven movies, diminishing the quality of its output. The supporters of Nationalism and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) criticized Bollywood for this perceived decline and called for boycotts, prompting the industry to reassess its strategies. The iconic Khans—Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, and Salman Khan—renowned for their romantic roles, faced social media backlash for their films’ perceived sympathies towards Islam and Pakistan. Consequently, there has been a shift towards actors like Akshay Kumar, known for their portrayal of Hindu-centric patriotism. Additionally, stars from regional industries, such as Telugu actors Prabhas, Allu Arjun, Ram Charan, and Kannada star Yash, have risen to prominence in Hindi cinema, contributing to a transformation in Bollywood’s identity and a decline in the dominance of the Khans.

    Recognizing the emerging trend, stars and filmmakers began producing patriotic and Hindutva-themed movies, garnering prestigious awards and support from Hindutva politicians and followers. This trend culminated in the production of films aiming to rewrite history, with releases like “The Kashmir Files” and “The Kerala Story” fueling anti-Muslim sentiment through propaganda-driven narratives. “Article 370,” released recently, celebrates Modi’s decision to revoke Kashmir’s statehood, presenting him as a decisive leader saving India from turmoil, despite criticisms

    The most recent release, “Razakar: Silent Genocide of Hyderabad,” faced accusations of Islamophobia for its distorted portrayal of a Muslim leader. Similarly, “Jahangir National University”, set for release in April, portrays leftist activists as instigators of division through debunked conspiracy theories like “love jihad” and “Urban Naxalism.”

    With Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) vying for a third term in the upcoming election, Bollywood finds itself swept up in a fervent pro-government wave, blurring the boundaries between entertainment and political advocacy. Nearly a dozen new films championing the prime minister and his government’s Hindu nationalist agenda are either already released or scheduled to hit theaters in the coming days and weeks. This surge of pro-government films echoes the atmosphere preceding the 2019 election, when a Modi biopic was halted by the election commission due to its overtly favorable portrayal of the prime minister. 

    Critics and analysts have denounced these films for Popagating Islamophobic Narratives and targeting leftist activists, sparking concerns within the industry about the potential exacerbation of religious divisions in India. Which will help Bharatiya Janata Party in elections.

  • Rise of Political Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia: An Analysis

    Rise of Political Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia: An Analysis

    Malaysia and Indonesia, both predominantly Muslim nations with secular governance, have charted unique paths in history, differing from many other Islamic countries. Their divergence traces back to colonial eras, with British and Dutch rule shaping them differently from Ottoman-controlled territories. Even after achieving independence, while they instituted specific Islamic frameworks – Indonesia even embracing Islamic Sharia in certain areas – they generally maintained a more liberal outlook compared to Arab nations. However, in recent years, there has been a noticeable rise in the influence of Islamic parties in both countries, signaling a shift from the waning of anti-colonial nationalist movements. This trend emerged prominently in Indonesia from the early 2000s and has more recently gained traction in Malaysia. Although these parties may not hold unilateral authority, they wield significant sway over the public.

    The intertwining of religion and politics is becoming more pronounced in the region. Islamist politics is gaining significant traction in Malaysia, with PAS’s influence transcending its traditional support base. Especially in rural Malay areas, PAS has emerged as the favored choice for many Muslims. Strengthening its hold in the northern states and the east coast, PAS is also gaining ground in other parts of Peninsular Malaysia. This shift towards Islamist parties like PAS can be attributed, in part, to internal turmoil within UMNO, Malaysia’s oldest political party, including scandals such as the 1MDB controversy involving former Prime Minister Najib Razak. For the Malay Bumiputera community, race and religion stand as core values that have long guided PAS since its inception. There is a growing sense of concern that Malay voters are increasingly leaning towards conservatism, embracing PAS’s agenda of Islamization and advocacy for Shariah laws.

    After Malaysia’s 2022 General Election, PAS emerged as arguably the most potent individual party at the federal level. It now commands 43 out of 222 seats in parliament, surpassing the influence of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the multiracial-centric Democratic Action Party (DAP), and even UMNO. Historically, UMNO, a Malay nationalist party, held sway over Malaysian politics from 1957 to 2018. On the federal stage, PAS spearheads the opposition coalition PN alongside the Malay nationalist party Bersatu. In the six state elections of 2023, PAS achieved significant victories, securing 105 out of 127 contested seats. It orchestrated a clean sweep of all 32 state seats in Terengganu under the PN banner, clinching 27, while the remaining five went to Bersatu. Presently, PAS governs four states—Terengganu, Kelantan, Kedah, and Perlis – in the north, known as the Malay heartland.

    Fueled by its recent political successes, the conservative party is setting its sights on forming the government in the upcoming General Election. Divisive Malaysian politics have exacerbated societal fractures. In the Malaysian context, the majority comprises the Malay Bumiputera, who are predominantly Muslim. This reality underscores PAS’s unwavering stance that leaders in Malaysian politics must be Malay-Muslims, as they represent the dominant demographic in the country. PAS remains resolute in this position.

    In Indonesia, a nation more diverse than Malaysia, the mission of Islamic parties focuses heavily on fostering Islamic identity within the state. The National Awakening Party and the Progressive National Mandate Party are prominent Islamic parties in Indonesia, advocating for political Islam. And there are many small parties, They have a limited regional presence, particularly in Aceh, where Sharia law is implemented. These parties have achieved varying levels of success in terms of seats won and membership.

    The prominent party, The National Awakening Party (PKB) was established in 1999 by the traditionalist Muslim community in Indonesia, with significant overlap with the membership of Nahdlatul Ulama. Described as a nationalist Muslim party, PKB promotes inclusive and nationalist principles while upholding the Pancasila doctrine. In the legislative assembly, the party holds 68 out of 580 seats, with a vote percentage of 10%.

    Indonesia boasts larger Islamic territories and population, dissenting voices foresee an impending demand for Sharia law in additional regions. They perceive the recent electoral defeat of figures like Anies and Muhaimin Isakander in the presidential election as part of the ongoing Jokowi wave. These proponents argue that the current 10% representation could burgeon in the future, leading to the proliferation of Islamic politics across more regions.

    In the region, Muslims are devout yet also seek prosperity. Political Islam has often relied on instilling fear, anxiety, and the perception of Islam being threatened. While fear may resonate with some of the younger generation, hope tends to be more appealing. Malaysia and Indonesia, with their unique identities among Islamic nations, have pursued more modern and secular political approaches. In contrast, Islamic Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are gradually relaxing strict Islamic rules. Meanwhile, Islamic factions are gaining influence in the democracies of Malaysia and Indonesia. It’s clear that if these factions were to govern independently, it would likely result in a significant loss or alteration of the national identity of these states.