Alternatives International

The Consecration of a Hindu Vote Bank

Harish Khare — 2017-04-03T14:28:52Z

Here's a simple question: why did the Modi magic work in Uttar Pradesh so gloriously but fail so conspicuously to cast its charm in Punjab, Goa and Manipur? If the Bharatiya Janata Party is the new pan-India party and if Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only pan-Indian leader, as was loudly claimed after the civic polls in Maharashtra, then why have the party and the leader failed to click beyond good old UP?

The answer is simple: a Hindu vote bank has been cobbled together and sustained there because UP has a sizeable Muslim population, against whom ancient prejudices and new resentments could be stimulated. This is the bottom line of an otherwise complicated electoral contest.

The Modi crowd can be expected to reject any suggestion of a Hindu vote-bank and the secular parties and leaders may also refuse to acknowledge it, but there is only one way to read the UP vote: the Hindu vote stands consecrated.

The process that was initiated prior to the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign was never allowed to fade away. The Muzaffarnagar violence of 2013 and its memory were assiduously kept alive. Even Kabir's famous verse ‘Rahiman dhaga prem ka' had to be cited to remind one and all of the knotted connection that had come to define Hindu-Muslim ties in village after village.

It may be instructive to remind ourselves that the BJP and its allies did not field a single Muslim candidate in Uttar Pradesh. The party contested 380 seats and left 23 for its allies. This exclusion was a matter of conscious choice, a part of an unsentimental, unconfused strategy. It had worked so well in 2014 when for the first time since 1952 Uttar Pradesh did not elect a single Muslim to the Lok Sabha. In 2014, a message was successfully transmitted that the majority community was under siege and that the BJP, under Modi's leadership, was the only party that could see to it that the community's interests were defended and its values preserved.

It has been suggested that the UP verdict is a vote on demonetisation, as well as an endorsement of the ‘surgical strikes'. The suggestion is that voters were happy to put up with all the notebandi-centric dislocations and disruptions because it had put the terrorists out of business and that Pakistan's dirty designs had come to naught. But then why should this nationalistic messaging be confined to UP? No one can argue that voters in Punjab, Goa and Manipur lack in patriotism; Punjab being a border state has every reason to be receptive to any anti-Pakistan sales-pitch. Yet, the BJP lost even the Pathankot, Dinanagar and Gurdaspur assembly seats, where terror-attacks took place under Modi's watch. In fact, the BJP contested 23 seats in Punjab and managed to win only three. Similarly, Goa has the honour of being the home state of our hon'ble defence minister – who single-handedly instigated the government's muscular anti-Pakistani narrative. Modi campaigned in all the other three states, though not in every galli as he did in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Yet the electorate remained immune to the Modi charm, as also to the presumed curative power of his leadership.

Three steps to a vote-bank

The Modi magic worked in Uttar Pradesh because of a very sizeable Muslim presence. That made it easy to effortlessly inject zero-sum sentimentality into the election-time discourse. This is not the first time a Hindu consolidation has been attempted. It has been working rather well in Gujarat since 2002. It worked in UP in 2017 perfectly because of three convergences. First, the Hindus could be made to feel aggrieved. The BJP's two principal rivals – the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party – could be portrayed as being too solicitous and too eager to court the Muslim voter. A certain kind of moral authority was grafted around the Hindus' perceived sense of grievances. In particular, the upper castes and the non-Yadav OBCs could be made to feel the threat of being deprived of their legitimate share in the power arrangements because both the BSP and the SP (along with the old culprit, the Congress) were pandering to the Muslims. With behan Mayawati's BSP openly basing its electoral pitch on a Dalit-Muslim axis, the BJP rhetoric and tactics seemed morally justified to the upper castes. A kind of moral equivalence was manufactured about speaking up for the Hindus.

Second, the Hindus in UP could be summoned to a kind of solidarity because the anti-Muslim sentiment was served up with an anti-Pakistani dressing. The prime minister's reference to the Kanpur rail accident and to the “conspirators” sitting across the borders was not at all an innocent invocation. The trick has always been to make the Hindus see a connection between India's Muslims and Pakistan. The BJP president used the acronym ‘KASAB' to make the point — and the connection.

Third, Modi is an authentic salesman for the “Hindu cause.” At the core of his appeal, since 2002, is a political persona that is unapologetically committed to securing the majority community's interests. He does not suffer from any secular squeamishness. His Fatehpur speech, on February 23, was a classic: “If you create a kabristan in a village, then a shamshaan should also be created … Bhedbhaav nahin hona chahiye [there should be no discrimination].”

Pitch perfect. Modi's BJP has won a famous victory in Uttar Pradesh on a stupendous scale that eluded the party during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's heyday. The ‘Modi wave' has eclipsed the ‘Ram wave' of the 1990s. For now, Corporate India will be expected to shed its reluctance to invest, just as the foreign investor would also feel emboldened to take a few risks. The Indian polity stands re-jigged. First after 2014, and now after 2017, the message is clear: Muslim votes are not needed to capture power in India because a Hindu vote-bank has come into existence and it will not be allowed to disintegrate. A kind of politics of exclusion would inevitably assert itself.

The votes have been counted, a mandate procured, and Narendra Modi's unchallenged leadership established. What next? Will a renewed Modi do a better job of protecting and securing our best national interest? The primary responsibility of a leader, anywhere and at any time in any society, is to establish and deepen social harmony and trust among communities and citizens. That task has just become a little complicated. At the moment of his resounding success, Modi has also deepened a fault-line for the Indian state.

Harish Khare is Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, where this article first appeared.

Source: https://thewire.in/116195/consecration-of-a-hindu-vote-bank-uttar-pradesh-election-2017/

This is How it Happens

Ujjal Dosanjh — 2017-04-03T14:25:51Z

It is now considered harsh to call a spade a spade. One has less and less and sometimes no right to one's truth. Ascendant is the truth of the strong, particularly the strong man

This is how it happens. It happened in Europe in the last century. Democracy succumbs to the strong man, then to authoritarianism and then possibly to totalitarianism. No, not necessarily the totalitarianism of a government; in fact sometimes of the mob – under a government that may have a disciplined and deadly mob at its disposal.

A strong man emerges. He gathers people with money around him. He mines the majority's minority complex – the majority feeling oppressed by the minority or minorities. The vast majority is still in control but is told to feel persecuted like a minority. Circumstances and stars all align for him. He builds a base in one part of the country. Once a pariah, ignored and written off, he gains popularity and strength. He rises like a sun on the darkening national stage. He emerges as the strongest man on the scene. Ordinary people beaten, their dreams destroyed, defeated by the corrupt elites, place their faith in him. He becomes the bundle of their hopes, spinner of their dreams and the weaver of their heavens to come.

The heavens are not there, at least not yet. But they are promised. The promise can now be believed because the man himself represents it, makes it and repeats it in its varied and mesmerising oratorical iterations. Truth and lies don't matter.

Hannah Arendt described the phenomenon well:

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. …

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

This is how it happens. He wins election after election. He rides that sense of perceived oppression and persecution of the majority by the minorities. He plays the nationalist card; the new nationalism never seen or experienced before in the land; the nationalism that could exclude and include at the same time; like now you have it and now you don't. He holds his audiences in the palm of his hand, can make them dance to any tune, put them to sleep, reawaken them – never losing his hold over them even when he shuts down their banks and prohibits them from using their own money. He argues he was dishing out pain but it was all for their good. Proof or no proof of what if any good all of it was doing, people believed in him, even worshipped him – in large enough numbers for him to win the elections again.

He keeps winning elections, democratically. And he has a readymade army of volunteers. No, this army is not new. It has existed for a long time. It has never worked for a broader and inclusive nationalism. Its aim always has been the narrow nationalism of the majority. In another country, at another frightening time it was the nationalism of the race. In this case, it is the nationalism of the religion. Even against the alien rule of the white man this army didn't rise because it perceived no threat to its religion at the time. It only existed for defending what it considered was an oppressed majority. The army is fully regimented. It now rules the streets, subdues the universities, suppresses dissent as sedition, and pursues to the end of the earth anyone that criticises their ‘God' – the strong man and his word.

He is hailed as the new saviour. The army of volunteers, the RSS, was his alma mater. He was once a part of it. Some media in the free country now self-censor ‘for the good of the country', ‘for peace' and ‘harmony' – I suppose the peace of the dead. Otherwise the Rashtriya SS is there to ‘restore peace and order'. The new India being built under the new redeemer needs the silence of consent; the dissonance of dissent ‘threatens' the ‘peace' and ‘integrity' of the country. The once strong country with a deep democratic ethos is suddenly proclaimed by the Sangh to be fragile – unable to withstand any harsh criticism.

It is now considered harsh to call a spade a spade, to speak the truth as one sees it – in Mahatma Gandhi's country. One has less and less and sometimes no right to one's truth. Ascendant is the truth of the strong, particularly the strong man. His truth dominates all others, threatening many. Of course he has the Army of Truth working for him. That was how it once was in another country, in another era, not too long ago. It came to no good end.

Some say the fear of a bad end is at best unreal and at worst exaggerated. Hope wrestles fear. Here is hoping that hope wins. And India wins.

Ujjal Dosanjh is a former Canadian minister of health and a former premier of the Canadian province of British Columbia. He tweets at @ujjaldosanjh

Source: https://thewire.in/116740/this-is-how-it-happens/

“To Present an Alternative Opinion is a Serious Crime”

Ravish Kumar — 2017-04-03T14:23:49Z

NDTV anchor Ravish Kumar was on Sunday, March 19, awarded the inaugural Kuldip Nayyar Award for Journalism in recognition of his “outstanding journalism”. His speech at the ceremony has been reproduced here, translated from the Hindi.

It is somewhat amusing to be felicitated in times that are being seen as contemptuous across the world. It is like watching a wall-clock which is still ticking even though clocks that made ticking sounds fell silent decades ago. And so we lost the ability to sense time through mild sounds. Therefore, we are failing to judge the times we are currently living in. The current times feel like sitting in an examination hall that is constantly being raided by vigilante groups or flying squads – invoking and reinforcing the feeling that there is a culprit inside us that will certainly be caught redhanded in time. We are being searched repeatedly. Those who speak their minds freely have trolls set on them.

A chill runs down the spines of those present in this ‘examination hall' whenever a new raiding party visits. And a fear of being implicated falsely – without having committed any crime – takes over. These groups have frightened more innocent people than they have caught wrongdoers. In this era of debates about fake degrees versus genuine degrees, it is the third degree which has made a comeback in various forms. The news anchor is the new centre of power in our times. He freely lashes out at those who speak differently from him. It is a crime to hold an opposing view. To present an alternative opinion is a serious crime, to present facts is scurrilous and to be truthful is sinful. First television only held our evenings captive and now these ‘police-stations' continue their operation throughout the day. You have selected a news-anchor for the first award – this is proof enough that those who are ready to take risks still survive. There still are people who are ready to risk another defeat. Although their survival may be an illusion, I am still grateful.

Thank you Gandhi Peace Foundation. I am conscious of the fact that this award has been created by the sweat of journalists. Receiving anything from my seniors in the profession is like bakshish to me. Its like having my prayers answered. We all revere Kuldip Nayyar sahab. Millions of people have read you. You have lit candles at those borders in whose name hatred and venom is spread every day. In fact, how many of us are even talking of love? I doubt whether people still think of love. We no longer start our mornings with the rising sun – instead, we begin our day by checking good morning messages on WhatsApp. It seems like soon the world will start believing that the sun rises on WhatsApp. Soon, we are going to prosecute Galileo once again and this time we will get to watch it via live telecast.

Anupam Mishra is not amongst us anymore. We have accepted this truth just like society seemed to have accepted his non-existence even during his lifetime. I wish I had received this award when he was around, perhaps even from him. Whenever I feel a fresh breeze or see a wave of fresh water, I remember Anupam Mishra. He has left us a language that can help save us a lot of things. For that, however, it is important that we clear our souls. The purity within us has been blotted by filth. We must attempt to refine our thoughts and our language, just like Anupam Mishra. We will not be able to stand up without brushing off the layers of dust that are covering us.

This is a phase of discovering possibilities. We are continuously on the lookout for new and remaining possibilities, and the people who continue to cherish and safeguard these new hopes and possibilities. However, these hopes and possibilities are now fading away. In the midst of this, our hopes seem to be growing lonely. How long can we survive – this question is bothering us all. But we have forgotten how to live meaningfully even for the time that we are around. In such a scenario, there is a need to rekindle our energies and passions. Hone your questions. Question the political groups you relied on. Those groups have broken our trust. Also question those in whom you do not have any faith. Our communication with other people in our society has completely broken down. Today's society pins all its hopes on political parties to bring about change. The society now knows that it is only the politically powerful who can bring about pleasant or dangerous transformation. It is because of this that people do not step back from pinning hopes in political parties. People continue to take this risk. Political parties fail them every time, but the people still place their bets on them the next time.

Political parties have witnessed a constant decline as various members have left them to pursue other directions. These are people who no longer see politics as an instrument for bringing about social change. The absence of such people in political parties has led to a decline in the parties' morality. There is a need to restructure and reshape political parties. Please set aside your inner contradictions. We've seen them enough for the past thirty-forty years. Leftists, Gandhians, Ambedkarites and Socialists – they have all left their mainstream political formations. With their departure, mainstream politics has lost its sense of alternative politics. Return to those parties and take over these organisations. Forget the past. Work hard for a new politics. It is a good time to recognise our helplessness and cowardice. These dark times are the right occasion for us to assess ourselves by being brutally honest.

I am being awarded for my journalism. It gives me immense pleasure to tell you that there is no crisis in journalism today, if you thought there was one. All the editors – from the capital city to those in small districts are very happy to be swept away by the ideological storm of a particular party. However much we criticise them, we also need to accept that they are extremely happy. It is only now that they feel accomplished as journalists. The media had made incessant efforts for the past fifty-sixty years to merge with political entities. Hotels, malls, mining leases and the different licenses they procured could not satiate their hunger. Their souls remained unfulfilled. Now, they have attained peace. Finally, the media's dream of being a part of power politics has been fulfilled.

Indian media is currently in a state of ecstasy. There was a time when people spoke of finding a stairway to heaven; today they have found heaven on earth. The stairway is no longer needed. If you do not believe me, please go ahead and have a look at any newspaper or watch any news channel. You will be overwhelmed by the media's love for and loyalty to one particular political agenda. Only when you appreciate the bliss they have attained after decades of desperation, will you take your pain less seriously. Never before have these decked-up anchors looked so handsome. Nor have the female anchors praising the government looked as beautiful, ever before. Journalists are also the government now.

If you intend to fight, fight the newspaper and television. Let go of your stubbornness to salvage journalism. Journalists themselves do not want to be saved! The few who are left can be evicted easily. How would the survival of any individual journalist help the situation? Organisations as a whole have been communalised. Journalism is spreading communalism in India. It is thirsty for blood. It will make the nation bleed one day. It may not appear to be very successful in promoting its agenda today, but we cannot ignore its efforts. Thus arises the need for us to deliberate upon this with anyone and everyone we come across. Newspapers and television channels have become branches of political parties. Anchors now wield more power in political parties than the general secretaries of these parties. Until one fights these new political formations, alternative political ideas cannot take shape. They have also managed to hegemonise the minds of people in such a manner that many now ask me why I question things. Those who throw ink are being appointed spokespersons and those who write with ink are only indulging in propaganda. Contemporary journalism is the contemporary propaganda.

But how can we overlook journalists who are making efforts to safeguard possibilities? While these possibilities will eventually fade, their legacy will empower us in the future. Whenever these journalists – tired of sycophancy or humbled by betrayal – wake up from their slumber, it is these cherished hopes and possibilities that will save them. That is why I insist that we cherish our hopes and possibilities. Refrain from seeing these times through a prism of hope or failure. We are on a railway-track where the giant engine is just before us and there is no way to run away or save ourselves. Neither hope nor failure is an option. It is time to throw yourself into work. We are running short of time and its pace is very fast.

Translated from the Hindi by Ikshula Arora.

Source: https://thewire.in/117630/ravish-kumar-speech-journalism-kuldip-nayyar-award/

Teesta Setalvad Raises Rights Situation in India at UN Human Rights Council in Geneva

Caravan Desk — 2017-04-03T14:21:57Z

Renowned Indian activist spoke on behalf of the Advocates for Human Rights, Indian American Muslim Council, Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association and the Quill Foundation

NEW DELHI – Eminent rights activist and journalist Teesta Setalvad raised the issue of worsening human rights situation in India at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. One of India's most recognized activists and a strident voice against hate and sectarianism, Setalvad's speech was part of a larger effort by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and its partner organizations that includes a joint submission to the UN Human Rights Council for India's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) scheduled for May 4, 2017. IAMC has also made a separate joint submission with Ms.Setalvad's organization “Citizens for Justice and Peace,” for the same UPR.

Her brief testimony was before a full session of the UN Human Rights Council, with all the UN member countries in attendance, convened to review the report of the UN Rapporteur on Minority Rights.

Ms. Setalvad noted that since the UN Special Rapporteur's 2013 General Assembly report, the following developments have taken place in India:

1. Speeches by political leaders and members of Parliament had exacerbated the violence in Muzaffarnagar that claimed over 60 lives and left thousands homeless
2. The targeting of religious minorities accused of “improper” conversions from Hinduism
3. In the wake of state laws banning the sale of beef, mob attacks on people alleged to have beef in their possession have becoming a recurring event
4. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial or arbitrary executions noted that encounter killings “have become virtually a part of unofficial State policy” in India
5. The above acts are often committed with impunity stemming in part from close alignment between the government and non-state actors
6. Law enforcement agencies fabricate terrorism cases where Muslims are often targets

Ms. Setalvad went on to point that “progress in minority rights protection is under threat, including by hate speech, xenophobic rhetoric and incitement to hatred against minorities.”

She voiced the partner organizations' position, joining the Special Rapporteur “in calling on UN Member States and the Human Rights Council to recognize that States bear the primary duty to protect the security of religious minorities with positive and preventive actions, through active engagement with religious minorities.”

“Ms. Teesta Setalvad's testimony and the joint submissions of the partner organizations mark a turning point in international spotlight on the human rights situation in India”, said Ajit Sahi, noted journalist and Advocacy Director for the Indian American Muslim Council. Sahi, along with Jawad Khan, President of IAMC and Jennifer Presthold Vice President of AHR were also present at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Source: http://caravandaily.com/portal/teesta-setalvad-speaks-at-the-un-human-rights-council-in-geneva-on-the-human-rights-situation-in-india/

On Women's International Day: Equality, You Said?

Messaoud Romdhani — 2017-04-03T14:19:33Z

The celebration of Women's Day in Tunisia this year has shown that pride and self-satisfaction that have portrayed Tunisia as the pioneer in women's emancipation, from the Code of Personal Status (CPS) to subsequent legislations, haven't concealed a bleaker reality: we are still a long way from gender equality. And there are causes of alarm.

Last February, The Ministry of Women and Family Affairs published a survey about violence against women. It showed that about half of the Tunisian females, aged between 18 and 64 have been victims of violence, whether physical, psychological or sexual, at least once in their life time.

The survey added that most of this violence occurs within the household where, generally, the spouse or the partner is the perpetrator.

So far, the measures to prevent such violence remain inadequate, with flawed protective laws, total absence of awareness-raising campaigns and no protection for the victims.

As for child sexual abuse, it has known a sharp increase in the aftermath of the revolution: 262 cases in 2013, 313 in 2014 to 601 in 2015. (Highlights .com, February 4th, 2017)

The other major issue is the economic marginalization of women. A study carried out by the Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) on rural women found that the agricultural activities are more and more feminized and that rural women represent 92% of the productive capacity in agriculture, working with no social security at all. Worse still, the study showed that they work with no legal contract. (Essabeh Newspaper, 26 December 2015)

But there remains a glimmer of hope with the new draft law on the Elimination of Violence against Women, submitted to the Assembly of People's Representatives (APR) last year, a draft law that predicts severe sanctions against “all forms of gender based violence directed by any perpetrator , whatever form it takes.” (Article 2)

Besides, the bill introduces legal protection for victims, with a widened definition of sexual harassment, including street harassment. Another major improvement: it aims to raise awareness among children and young people through programs to “show the magnitude of the issue (of violence).”

In fact, the bill is expected to avoid all the loopholes in the current laws including those that grant perpetrators of rape and sexual assault a way out: with the current flawed law, for instance, the rapist can get off scot-free if he marries his victim.

But the pending law is criticized by civil society actors as there‘s no reference to their vital role in raising awareness about the issue. In fact, Tunisian civil society organizations have carried out, through decades, huge and sustained advocacy campaigns to end both violence and discrimination against women.

Furthermore, the project law doesn't refer to international conventions, mainly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Idem for national texts: no reference to the constitution (2014) , and to article 46 that charges the state with ensuring the eradication of violence against women.

Equal Inheritance: Not a priority?

Although Tunisia has one of the most progressive personal statuses in the region, some discriminatory provisions still exist. Take for example, inheritance: women are entitled to only the half of any inheritance received by the male counterparts. For those who stick to this legislation, they think they could not change what Sharia law commends.

Last year, an independent MP proposed a law designed “to facilitate” equality in inheritance between men and women. The proposed law tried to be in line with the CEDAW convention that urges signatory governments to “incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women” and consistent with the Tunisian constitution that stipulates that "male and female citizens are equal before the law, without discrimination."

However, not only did the proposed law of "optional "equal share of inheritance meet resistance from religious groups and imams who consider that any equality there would "contravene explicit textual directives "of the Quran, but also from progressive elites in the parliament, who after signing with the bill withdrew their support, using the excuse of "more pressing matters and priorities".

"This is not the time to open the debate on equality in inheritance, we have other priorities," said Hamma Hamami, Spokesman of the Progressive Popular Front, to Radio Mosaique Fm (Inheritance Equality Deferred in Favor of "More Pressing Matters" May 6, 2016.)

In Morocco, when the National Human Rights Council published its report, equality in inheritance received significant attention and some religious scholars gave their support, believing that Islam is not only texts but "ijtihad, ("reasoning”). Islamic views should adapt to new challenges, evolutions and complexities of life, and " Quran is the book of guidance , not the book of law," says one enlightened scholar.

As for our progressive leftist elites in Tunisia, who are frightened of the social backlash if they stand with equal inheritance, we could only ask them to practice what they've been preaching: gender equality, women empowerment, respect of the constitution, international law…

Besides pioneers of women's liberation from the Egyptian Kacem Amine, to the Tunisians Tahar Hadded and Habib Bourguiba did not just comply with existing norms, they had the courage to move the public opinion forward with new ideas; otherwise no change would have happened. “Man cannot discover new oceans if he has not the courage to lose sight of the shore,” said the French writer, André Gide. And I think he's right.

In spite of advances in legislations, whether through the code of personal status or in the constitution, we are still far from gender equality: women still face discrimination mainly in two areas: their ability to get equal inheritance and to receive protection against all types of violence. There's a keynote to remember, though: there's no democratic progress, social justice or sustainable development in Tunisia without women's empowerment.

Palestine Says Popular Struggle is the Path to Liberation

Sergio Yahni — 2017-04-03T14:17:30Z

As support for the two state solution declines, Palestinians in occupied territory identify popular resistance as the antidote to Israeli occupation and settlement expansion.

A study published by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) on Tuesday provides clues as to the current overriding hopes and fears of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

The PSR report attests that the Palestinian public identifies the primarily challenges facing them as poverty (27%), occupation and colonization (27%) and corruption (24%).

Daily life for Palestinians is also marked by fear of being wounded, killed, or losing property to Israeli agents, said 70% of the Palestinians surveyed.

Palestinian society also overall approves of popular resistance measures in regards to both establishing a Palestinian state and ending the settlement enterprise.

PSR asked Palestinians what is the most effective way to build a Palestinian state alongside Israel: 37% think armed resistance is the most effective, 24% think non-violent resistance is the most effective, and 34% believe that negotiation is the most effective.

When asked about the most effective means of responding to Israeli settlement expansion, 25% said the suspension of security coordination with Israel; 24% said the submission of a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court; 19% said the resumption of armed resistance; 19% said a strong international condemnation of Israel; 14% said the organization of popular non-violent resistance protests.

More than half – 52% – of Palestinians believe that Israel's goal is to annex the territories occupied in 1967.

The Peace Index survey published in January 2017 by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSCPR) indicates that among the Israeli public, nearly 40% of people believe that Israel should annex the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Moreover, only 24% of Israelis believe that Palestinians should receive equal rights. The remainder believes that Palestinians should not have the right to vote or enjoy civil rights.

Yet, for both Palestinians and Israelis the two-state proposal as a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains popular, another survey published in February 2017 by TSCPR and PSR reveals. The proposal has the support of 50% of Jewish citizens of Israel, 82% of Palestinian citizens and 44% of Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, support for two-states has noticeably declined in recent months. Six months ago in a similar survey, 59% of Israeli citizens and 51% of Palestinians living under occupation indicated that they believe the conflict would be resolved by establishing a Palestinian state. Either way, the majority of both citizens of Israel and Palestinians living under occupation said in the February study that they do not believe that a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years.

Source: http://alternativenews.org/index.php/headlines/375-palestine-says-popular-struggle-is-the-path-to-liberation

The Celebration of International Women's Day in Iraq at Shahrazad Festival

Editor — 2017-04-03T14:15:44Z

Several activities have been organized in March 2017 in Baghdad by the Iraqi Social Forum celebrating the International Women's Day and aimed at supporting Iraqi women and strengthening their position in society.

Worker Women's Rights in The New Iraqi Labor Law

In cooperation with the Solidarity Center the Iraqi Social Forum organized a workshop on women rights in the new Iraqi labor law. Number of working women, unionists in the Iraqi trade unions and activists of the civil society organizations participated in this workshop, which lasted for two days (8th, 9th) of March.

The workshop discussed topics related to the status of women in the work place, including the challenges they're encountering such as harassment at work, arbitrary termination of employment, low wages and restrictions on trade union freedoms in the public sector.

Shahrazad Race

The Sport Against Violence in cooperation with the Municipality of Baghdad also organized a race for women. This race comes within a series of preparatory races targeting specific groups of the society. The race was organized on Saturday, March 11, 2017, in Zawraa Park in Baghdad, with the participation of 40 contestants from different age groups. The contestants raced on the first three places after running more than one kilometer, and they also participated in organizing Shahrazad bazaar which took place at the same time and place.

Shahrazad Bazaar for Working Women

The celebration of International Women's Day continued with Shahrazad bazaar which was organized by the Iraqi Social Forum, and devoted for women as well. The bazaar included 19 booths of handcrafts, accessories, art crafts and homemade food. Moreover, one of the booths was dedicated to advocate for women's issues and women public rights.

This bazaar aimed at providing an opportunity for worker women to display their work and their activities and to promote for the influential role that women can play in the different fields of work.

Another booth was dedicated for a campaign “to stop gender-based violence in workplaces”, this space was managed by the Iraqi Social Forum and Solidarity Center teams. Copies of the new Iraqi Labor Law and brochures that defined worker women rights were provided in the booth, in addition to that, there was a booth that provided brochures on the activities of the Iraqi Social Forum and its Masarat (paths).

The bazaar also included exhibitions of paintings that were drawn by a group of young women, and some musical performance. The bazar concluded with a stand-up comedy show that was presented by a young Iraqi man about Iraqi mothers.

Source: http://www.iraqicivilsociety.org/archives/6808

Israel's Ongoing Campaign to Silence Omar Barghouti and Repress BDS

BDS National Committee — 2017-04-03T14:13:35Z

On the morning of Sunday, March 19, Israeli tax authorities barged into the home of Omar Barghouti, the prominent Palestinian human rights defender and co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for the freedom, justice and equality of the Palestinian people. They detained and interrogated Omar and his wife Safa for 16 hours that first day. Omar is currently enduring a fourth day of interrogation.

Below is the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee's (BNC) response to these developments and the Israeli government's systematic efforts to criminalize the BDS movement, intimidate activists and stop free speech:

A prominent Palestinian human rights defender and co-founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, has for years been subjected to intense threats, intimidation and repression by various arms of the far-right Israeli government, particularly after it considered the movement a “strategic threat” to its entire system of injustice against Palestinians.

At a March 2016 conference in occupied Jerusalem, several Israeli government ministers threatened Omar and key BDS human rights defenders with severe measures, including “targeted civil elimination” – a euphemism for civil assassination. The Ministry of Strategic Affairs last year established a “tarnishing unit,” as exposed in the Israeli daily Haaretz. This unit's job is to tarnish the reputation of BDS human rights defenders and networks.

It is in this context that the Israeli tax department's investigation of Omar and his wife, Safa, must be understood. After failing to intimidate them through the threat of revoking Omar's permanent residence in Israel, and after the effective travel ban imposed on him proved futile in stopping his human rights work, the Israeli government has resorted to fabricating a case related to Omar's alleged income outside of Israel to tarnish his image and intimidate him.

The fact that this investigation includes a travel ban and that it comes a few weeks before Omar Barghouti is scheduled to travel to the U.S. to receive the Gandhi Peace Award jointly with Ralph Nader in a ceremony at Yale University proves its true motive – repression.

The fact that the Israeli government publicized the inflammatory fabrications against Omar just 24 hours after he was taken in for investigation shows beyond doubt that the investigation's real goal is to tarnish his reputation.

No matter what extreme measures of repression Israel wields against the BDS movement or its human rights defenders and vast network of supporters, it cannot stop this movement for human rights. Bullying and repression can hardly affect a grassroots movement that grows in people's hearts and minds, empowering them to do the right thing – to stand on the right side of history, against Israel's fanatic regime of apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing, and for freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

This latest desperate chapter of repression and intimidation by the Israeli government against Omar Barghouti is the strongest indicator yet of the failure of the Israeli regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid to slow down the impressive growth of the BDS movement for Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is the largest coalition in Palestinian civil society. It leads and supports the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Visit www.bdsmovement.net and follow @BDSmovement.

Source: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1388.php#continue

In Conversation With Baburam Bhattarai, Former Prime Minister of Nepal

Siddharth Varadarajan — 2017-04-03T14:11:48Z

Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire, and Baburam Bhattarai, former prime minister of Nepal, discuss the recent political developments in Nepal and India-Nepal relations.

Siddharth Varadarajan: Baburam Bhattarai, thank you very much for talking to The Wire. We want to discuss Nepal's recent political developments as well as India-Nepal relations, and I want to start with going back two years – September 2015 when the constitution was finalised. You were chairperson of the Constitution Committee that settled the final draft. That should have been a moment, when the document was finalised, that should have been a moment of great celebration but we saw very quickly that there were protests, divisiveness and an entire period of instability also ensued. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, do you think things ought to have been done differently? What went wrong and how would you have handled things if you had a second chance?

Baburam Bhattarai: I fully agree with you. It would have been a great moment of triumph and happiness for me to promulgate the constitution through the constituent assembly because within the Maoist movement, I was the one who pushed forward the tactical line of making the constitution through the constituent assembly to achieve the objective of republicism, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy. But unfortunately, in the first constituent assembly, we failed to make the constitution. And in the second assembly the power equation was changed. The old forces were in favour of all this progressive agenda, they were in the two-third majority. So I as a chairman of the Constitutional Committee, I had the privilege of trying to reach out a consensus among top party leaders. But unfortunately, because of the number game I couldn't succeed to achieve consensus on all the issues. On certain issues, we reached an agreement, but on the major issues of federalism we couldn't reach an agreement because federalism was an issue basically raised by the Madhesis and Janajatis, the two groups who were basically excluded from the state system for about 250 years. So these people wanted real federalism with identity and autonomous states. For this I tried my best, but ultimately, I would say, I failed to create any consensus, so on this issue I kept my reservations and immediately after the promulgation of the constitution I resigned from the assembly and I am championing this cause and other issues especially the directly elected presidential system. I still believe given the electoral system we have adopted in Nepal, parliamentary system plus the proportional representative system, this hodge-podge won't give any political stability. That's why I wanted directly elected presidential system. On this issue also I had my reservations.

SV: There are lots of positive aspects in the constitution that was finalised. Without a doubt, in many ways, a very advanced document. But the question of federalism remains unresolved, even a year and a half later. If I come to the present, the government of Prachanda, your erstwhile comrade, your erstwhile party leader as it were. He is now in power and he formed the government with the promise of resolving the federalism issue, passing the amendments that the Madhesi people want to be passed – that hasn't happened yet. Now we have local elections announced for the middle of May. Do you think that in the face of the boycott that many of the Terai political players have said they will enforce these elections will go ahead? Or do you think it's wise to go for elections before the amendments, or should some effort be made to pass the amendments first?

BB: In fact, the federal restructuring of the state is one of the core issues raised during the Maoist insurgency. In Nepal there are three major clusters of nationalities. One is the Madhesi Tharus, the other one is called the Janajatis and the Khasariya groups. These three are almost one-third in population. But in the power sharing arrangement, more than 80% of power is dominated by the Khasariya groups. That's why the Madhesis, Tharus and Janajatis want real restructuring of the state, which is justifiable. So Maoist insurgency raised this issue, later on the Madhesi movement supplemented it. But it is very unfortunate that comrade Prachanda, who was my erstwhile comrade, at the last phase of the constituent assembly he virtually changed his stand and sided with the Nepali Congress and the UML [Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist)], and on this issue I differed with him. I still believe without taking the Madhesi, Janajatis and the Tharus on board, which constitute about two-third of Nepal's population, we can't have stability and peace in the country. So in that sense, without bringing these people on board by amending the constitution to cater to their demands, I don't think it will be possible to hold the election and it isn't desirable also.

SV: Many Nepali political analysts say that as a result of a political backlash to the demands of the Terai-Madhesi people, leaders like K.P. Oli of UML have become very popular and that in some ways they are pandering to the idea that federalism will weaken Nepal's unity and integrity and is somehow an anti-Nepali demand. How do you see Oli's rise in the political firmament? What do you think are the key sources of his political strength today?

BB: You see there is disturbing phenomena all over the world. Anti-inclusion agenda has been monopolised by certain section of the ruling elite in many of the countries, including the USA, and Mr. K.P. Oli, under a left banner, is pursuing the most rightist, regressive agenda in Nepal. See, he's just pandering to the passion, or the so-called insecurity of the ruling elite who refuse to share power with the excluded sections, the Madhesis and Janajatis. He's trying to consolidate the Nepalese elite who feel leaderless after the abolition of the monarchy. So that way he may gain. But ultimately, it will prepare a ground for continued instability in the country which will be very harmful and dangerous, so that's why people like K.P. Oli need to be discouraged and politically confronted.

SV: In a very crowded political landscape in Nepal, you took the bold step of pushing for a new party, Naya Shakti. You say this represents a new kind of politics, a new kind of initiative in Nepal. What made you choose this path as opposed to fighting for your line within the Maoist party, or seeking to influence existing parties? Why did you feel that the creation of a new party was necessary?

BB: There are two or three things that led to this conclusion. Firstly, all over the world, the old ideology of the left and right is not working. Both neoliberalism and the state socialism are under tremendous crisis, and there is a search for alternative ideology and political thought all over the world. Although in Nepal also the old binary of left and right is not working, so we want to find a new political thought or ideology which is suited to the 21st century and the current condition of Nepal. That was one of the points I thought was important. And the second point was that Nepal being a country basically divided into three clusters of nationalities, we need to unify all the three nationalities to maintain the integrity of the country and have peace. For this also the old political parties have virtually degenerated into a chauvinistic group pandering to the passion of the ruling Khasariya groups. And the two groups, Madhesis and Janajatis, have been marginalised.

So I thought… I myself coming from the Khasariya background, I should take the initiative to take all the sections together and maintain the integrity of the country. And thirdly, after the political change in the country, now people are aspiring for economic development. Nepal's contradiction right now is the advanced form of democratic rights and the retarded form of economic development. That is the major contradiction. Until and unless we embark on a path of rapid economic development in the country, we cannot fulfill the aspirations of the people. Rampant poverty and unemployment is the biggest problem in the country. So to do away with the economic development and prosperity needs to be raised and put in the focus by the political party. And fourthly, the politics and politicians have been degenerated into a quagmire of corruption and misgovernance all over the world, particularly in the South Asian region. So in Nepal also, corruption and misdeeds are rampant in political parties. That's why we wanted to provide a clean government which will fight corruption. So keeping that in mind, we floated this Naya Shakti party.

SV: Now though the development of the Maoist movement and struggle, including the arms struggle, are obviously an integral part of Nepal's recent history, and one could argue that the constituent assembly and constitution, and all the progress that has happened in the past seven to eight years wouldn't have happened without that struggle. There are many people who say that they are attracted by Naya Shakti, and by your leadership, but they want you to in some ways repudiate your past, repudiate your People's War. One has even heard some liberals say, “Baburam must apologise for People's War”. What's your comment or response to these kind of demands?

BB: In the context of Nepal, the Maoist movement in Nepal needs to be judged separately. It was not just a class-based movement. In the condition of Nepal, democratic revolution was not complete even by the end of the 20th century. So to do away with the feudal order led by the monarchy, we had to organise an insurgency, and Maoist tools, at least for me, was more desirable and useful to do away with the monarchy and complete the democratic revolution.

To that extent, the Maoist insurgency or Maoist People's War was the need of the hour to fight against the autocratic system. People, at times, have to take to arms. That has happened elsewhere also, in Nepalese history also. Nepali Congress raised arms against the Ranas. And the UML raised arms against the panchayati autocratic system led by the monarchy. So Maoists had every reason to raise arms against the monarchy. That is one different phase of the movement. That is now over. So instead of repenting on that, or repudiating that, we should preserve the democratic gains of that movement. Because of that we have got this republicanism, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy. We should move ahead. That's why.. but the new agenda I just told you of good governance, development and inclusiveness, for this Maoist ideology I don't think will be useful anymore. That's why this needs to be developed further. I would say not abandoning it but developed further to suit the conditions of the 21st century and the conditions in Nepal.

SV: Turning now to India-Nepal relations, we noticed around the time the constitution was finalised, fairly negative reaction from the Indian government side. Was this largely driven by the fact that the Madhesi demands for federal structure that included them fully was not recognised or do you think India was responding to the enshrining of secularism as a principle in the constitution? Explain to us what your understanding is of the Indian policy in the months after the constitution was adopted in Nepal. Why was there such a negative reaction?

BB: During my current visit to New Delhi, I had tried to make a point strongly with my friends I had met in New Delhi. Times have changed. But the political thinking both in New Delhi and Kathmandu has not changed. It is the time to review the overall gamut of relations between India and Nepal, and to restructure our relationship to suit the demands of the 21st century. So Nepal should know the core aspiration or need of India. And India should also realise the core aspiration of the Nepalese people. So in my understanding, India's core concern is security and strategic issues and Nepal's core concern doesn't fully accept or respect the sovereignty of Nepal and doesn't contribute towards the economic development of the country. So if that is so, which I believe is true, then both sides should sit down and resolve this issue.

SV: Which is why you have this formula. Recently you said that Nepal should look after India's security interest and India should look after Nepal's economic interests. Concretely what does that mean though? We know for example that the Indians will say Nepal should be more receptive to hydro-electric projects which will benefit Nepal and will benefit India, which Nepal has traditionally resisted. So concretely what is this formula you are proposing? How would it operate?

BB: So one point I was trying to make was because of this trust deficit between these two countries, minor issues like the timing of the promulgation of the constitution or particular person heading the government in Nepal, have been raised by India and has been rightly seen as an interference in Nepal's internal matters. Instead of doing that, New Delhi should focus on the broader strategic issues, policy issues rather than the minor macro-management issues. And Nepal should also be sensitive to the genuine security and other concerns of India. So that's why I suggested India being an aspiring regional power and a future global power would have a certain strategic and security aspirations from Nepal.

So Nepal shouldn't hesitate to give a clear-cut commitment on that because we have to deal more with India though we are a sovereign and independent country. We should have good relations with both our neighbours India and China, but everybody knows we have to deal with India more. So if that is so, without antagonising China or taking due care of the genuine security interest of China, we should be more sensitive towards the genuine security interest of India. So from Nepal's part, we should be able to do that. And from India's part, Nepal being an independent, sovereign country for so long, India shouldn't be seen as hesitating to respect and honour it. They should do it. And then mainly the current aspiration of the Nepalese are rapid economic development, for that India's cooperation in the development of hydropower and other resources, and investment needs to be duly taken care of by India.

SV: The allegation that some Nepal political leaders make pretty much from all the mainstream UML, Maoists, maybe even Congress that the Madhesi movement is instigated by the Indian government; that India is trying to use the Madhesi card to weaken Nepal's sovereignty. How much credence would you give to these kinds of accusations, or do you think it is just part of the right-wing nationalist narrative within Nepal?

BB: The federalism issue was raised firstly by the Maoists and then the Madhesi political parties, later on supported by the NC and the UML. So it has occurred from within Nepal. It has been the agenda of the political parties within the country. But when they failed to resolve it, then India was seen as supporting this cause. So this was used by a section of the political parties in Nepal to brand all these progressive agendas as ‘India-driven'. So in my opinion, I think this is not true. This agenda of republicanism, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy are the Nepalese people's agenda raised by the political parties, and India should not be seen as instigating it, and India should not instigate it as well. Because if India's core concerns are security and other concerns, they should come out frankly with its interests. Instead of doing that, India should not been seen backing one group against the other. So I think that needs to be corrected by India. And from the Nepalese side, our internal issues should not be sidelined and accused as if they were raised by outside forces. I see this tendency of branding all the progressive agenda as ‘anti-national' and ‘foreign-inspired' is very harmful to the country.

SV: My final question Mr Bhattarai, we've seen in the last week the victory of the Bhartiya Janata Party in Uttar Pradesh and the election of Yogi Adityanath as the chief minister of UP. Obviously this is an internal matter of Uttar Pradesh and India, but to the extent to which Yogi Adityanath has been quite active in raising certain Nepal issues, he's been a backer of restoration of the monarchy, he's been a backer of the idea that Nepal should be declared a Hindu rashtra. Do you feel that the influence of Adityanath may be felt across the border in Nepal now that he's chief minister?

BB: I don't think it will be proper for me to comment on the internal political electoral issues of India. Even if chief minister Adityanath had some otherwise thoughts about Nepal, that won't prevail because on foreign policy matter, the Centre takes the lead. And I think the state government will have to follow that. So I don't think it will have any major impact. Personally, people can have different opinions. In a democracy that happens. But I don't think that will have any serious fallout or ramifications in Nepal.

Source : https://thewire.in/118791/watch-interview-baburam-bhattarai-former-pm-nepal/

The Challenge to Rebuild a People's Internet

Sally Burch — 2017-04-03T14:09:32Z

It is already hard to imagine daily life without the innovations of the so-called digital technological “revolution” in spite of the fact that most of these innovations have proliferated over just one or two decades. How could we get along without mobile phones, without digital social networks or e-mail, without being able to search for information or do official or business procedures over the internet? Nevertheless, these are only the first steps of this transformation.

According to the technological utopia that big business promises us, very soon we will be able to make purchases with our mobile so a drone can deliver them to our home; we could have a self-parking car, or a robot that cleans the house and warns us if thieves break in. This supposed utopia comes hand-in-hand with a darker side: that of unlimited surveillance, vulnerable security, indiscriminate collection of personal data that further enriches mega-enterprises, massive loss of jobs through robots and automation, or the non-transparent algorithms — not always efficient or equitable —, that are ruling ever more aspects of our societies.

The fact is that in recent years, as more aspects of social and personal activity are digitalized, a good part of these innovations have been taken over by large monopolies (most of them from the United States), leading to an unprecedented concentration of power. Evidence of this is the fact that, according to the Bloomberg agency, in December of 2015, five of the 10 corporations with the highest stock-market value come from the technological sector; moreover, Apple, Alphabet/Google and Microsoft occupy the three first places, displacing the transnational oil companies.

At the same time, this consumerist utopia is very different from the one that characterized the beginnings of the Internet. Once it moved beyond its military origins, the network of networks was to a large extent developed as a collaborative initiative, controlled and designed mainly by civil society actors and academic sectors that conceived it under principals of democratization, horizontality and the free exchange of knowledge. In many areas, this focus has continued to be developed, with initiatives such as free software, open content and public platforms of interchange of knowledge and ideas. But as the Internet has gained in massiveness, it has become a terrain where the formerly public and self-managed spaces are now fenced in by private platforms, such as digital social networks, subject to the rules and algorithms imposed by Facebook, Twitter and the like.

In synthesis, one could say that there exists a central contradiction between two visions in dispute with respect to the Internet and digital technologies: on the one hand, a vision centred on the commons, on technological sovereignty, on the development of decentralized initiatives, with the defence of the public interest and the rights of citizens as key principles; and on the other, a project now underway of monopolistic concentration of technology, of spaces and platforms, of data and systems, oriented towards profit and the centralization of power. In a word, a people's Internet vs. a corporate Internet.

Gaps in legislation and supervision favour the powerful

Last March 12th, Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Web, celebrating the 28th anniversary of the day on which he sent his initial proposal for a worldwide information network, published a message pointing to three present challenges of the Web. He recalls that he originally “imagined the web as an open platform that would allow everyone, everywhere to share information, access opportunities and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries.” He recognizes that “in many ways, the web has lived up to this vision, though it has been a recurring battle to keep it open.” Nevertheless, he indicates that over the past 12 months, “I've become increasingly worried about three new trends, which I believe we must tackle in order for the web to fulfill its true potential as a tool which serves all of humanity.” These are: the loss of control of personal data; the growing ease with which misinformation and ‘fake news' spreads on the web, and the fact that political advertising on line, that demands transparency and understanding, has rapidly become a sophisticated industry.

In our understanding, the problems signalled by Berners-Lee implicitly point to this same concentration of power in the sector. Indeed, among the solutions that he poses is the need to work with the web companies to find a balance that, based on criteria of justice, gives people back a degree of control over their information; and the struggle against legislation that gives governments excessive surveillance powers. He encourages the “gatekeepers”, such as Google and Facebook, to combat the problem of fake news, while avoiding the creation of any central organ that could decide what is “true” or not. He also demands “more algorithmic transparency to understand how important decisions that affect our lives are being made, and perhaps a set of common principles to be followed”; and greater regulation of political campaigns.

Nevertheless, the risks of this model of concentrated digital technologies go way beyond what we now know as the Internet. In numerous sectors of the economy and political-social administration, internal changes are taking place – often barely visible – facilitated by the aggregation and analysis of data (what is known as big data). One problem is that, in general, only the very big entities (transnational corporations, powerful governments) have the capacity to gather and process such large quantities of data and transform them into algorithms, the basis of artificial intelligence.

It is estimated, for example, that the sophisticated algorithms that have been employed in recent years on Wall Street facilitated the mortgage bubble that unleashed the crisis of 2008 [1], since they allow for a speed and volume of transactions that was not possible with traditional methods; since then, their speed has increased exponentially, with the potential that a programming error or a malicious act could provoke a financial meltdown [2]. Another example: with the growth of cities that are constantly becoming more complex, many aspects of management can be resolved with these technologies (traffic flows, electric grid, etc.). But when technology packages are hired from – usually foreign – private companies, that privatize data from the city to feed their patented algorithms under their own criteria, a problem of democratic management arises, with potential human rights implications.

Our legal and regulatory systems have not been able to keep up to speed with these changes. Moreover, in the case international systems, there is no entity with the authority to establish norms for many aspects of data flow, and much less to oversee them. The new digital monopolies are exploiting this regulatory and supervisory gap to consolidate even more power, often putting their own interests above the public interest. Meanwhile, behind closed doors they negotiate the regulations that will decide the future of the net, with little real possibility influence by the citizenry.

The Internet Social Forum

Given the urgency of opening a broad public debate on these issues, a group of social and civic organizations has announced the organization of an Internet Social Forum (ISF), with the character of a thematic forum of the World Social Forum process. The ISF proposes to connect concepts, proposals and alternatives, which people and social organizations can identify with and meet around, with a view to developing the proposal of a people's Internet.

The ISF is being planned to take place in Hyderabad, India, in late 2017 or early 2018. But there is no need to wait for this date to broaden and deepen the debate. Within the Latin American region, an initiative is underway to promote an exchange that helps to identify what is at stake in our region in various fields and for different social sectors, with a view to establishing a common agenda. One moment of this process will be the meeting Dialogues for a People's Internet: “Our America” towards the Internet Social Forum, to take place in Quito on June 28-30 [3], for which a previous process of online interchange has begun.

As the call for the event says: “Internet represents a powerful transforming force for our societies in their multiple spheres. This new technology can be extremely useful for solving many of the problems humanity faces today; but only if its development is oriented by a concerted social and political endeavor in benefit of the broadest public interest.” It is an urgent challenge for our societies to rescue the people's Internet, before it is too late.

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

- Sally Burch is a journalist with ALAI and a member of the coordinating group of the Internet Social Forum.
20/03/2017

[1] http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/high-frequency-trading-dange...
[3] The meeting conveners are: Agencia Latinoamericana de Información – ALAI, Foro de Comunicación para la Integración de NuestrAmérica – FCINA and Medialab – Quito.

Source: http://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/184393