Alternatives International

Can a Moderate President Entail a Moderate Future for Iran?

Bipasha Sultana — 2013-08-02T01:28:15Z

Following the end of the presidential legacy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during June 2013 elections, the Islamic Republic of Iran will welcome the moderate cleric Hassan Rowhani as its new president.

Gathering 50.71 percent of votes, Rowhani beat his contenders in a landslide victory. His support from various centrist and left-leaning groups, including the Moderation and Development Party and the Iranian Reform Movement, set him apart from his rivals.

Considering Ahmadinejad's hard-lined conservative handling of matters on both national and international levels, Rowhani's moderate stance is largely being received like a breath of fresh air by the Iranian public.

During his victory speech, he declared that “[his] victory is a victory of wisdom, a victory of moderation, a victory of growth and awareness and a victory of commitment over extremism and ill-temper”. Rowhani's promise of moderation, growth and awareness implies a countering of the extremism that has seemingly stifled Iranians during Ahmadinejad's presidential terms in the past four years.

Since the 2009 national elections that culminated in Ahmadinejad's re-election, an ardent plea for reform on the part of the Iranian people has re-surfaced in the months leading up to the 2013 elections. This shunning of the conservative status quo is reflected in the comparatively low voting scores of Rowhani's conservative rivals, which included previous Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Iran's current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, both of whom scored less than 20 percent of votes each.

As an Islamic republic, Iran's parliament is disproportionately conservative seeing as it is dominated by the authority of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, the latter of which is composed of members chosen by the Supreme Leader. The Guardian Council, moreover, is granted the authority of selecting the presidential candidates during election period, as well as having the power to veto the elected president's decisions.

The new president's landslide win was both unprecedented and unexpected by the international community. Taking into account Iran's uniquely complex theocratic republic that is firmly grounded in the pillars of Sharia law, the possibility for reform and religious moderateness is bound to be met with resistance.

The conservative grounding of the laws and policies that govern the nation are echoed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as he reassuringly stated that “a vote for any of these candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic and a vote of confidence in the system”.

Khamenei's confidence in the system begs the question that many skeptics have raised in light of post-elections optimism: how much reform can Iran's president bring forth when so many of the strings are pulled by the hands of the Supreme Leader? In considering this, what is revealed is the puppet-like role inherent to the presidential seat, which is all the more true seeing as the presidential candidates are thoroughly screened and vetted by the Guardian Council, prior to elections.

Thus, perhaps moderate and reformist hopefuls, as well as leaders from the Western world, who are anticipating a tide of change to sweep over Iran may need to check their anticipation. As Rasool Nafsi , an Iranian Affairs Analyst at Strayer University, crucially notes “Rowhani is not an outsider and any gains by him do not mean the system is weak or that there are serious cracks. The ruling system has made sure that no one on the ballot is going to shake things up”. In other words, the ruling system has final executive say on matters that concern the military, foreign policy and nuclear energy – the latter two being issues that are of current relevance, and of which the Leader is notoriously obstinate about.

If shaking things up, however, imply addressing issues such as inflation, unemployment, excessive moral policing and the still unresolved conflict with Iran's nuclear enrichment project – then Rowhani may very well need to analyze things from an outsider's perspective for the benefit of his country.

Following economic sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union against the energy and banking sectors, the inflation rate has risen to 34 percent – the highest in 18 years. Imports have severely slowed, businesses have become sluggish, investors are pulling out and a growing number of youth are searching abroad for job opportunities.

While the prospect for peaceful negotiations with the West continues to be dismissed by the upholders of the Islamic republic – namely the Supreme Leader and his cohort of clerics – it has been addressed by Rowhani at the behest of his citizens. For it can hardly be denied that such international negotiations are vital to solving the nation's internal problems.

Part of Rowhani's appeal as a presidential candidate can be said to lie in his experience as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005, a time when negotiations with the West were civil. Drawing on this, Iranians appear to recognize the urgency of dealing with conflicts surrounding their nuclear energy program, seeing how it is responsible for hindering their economic growth. In response, Rowhani has vowed to render the measures and activities of Iran's nuclear program more transparent to the international community.

We may be prompted to wonder what overarching impact the new president's ambitions could have on the ideological hold of his society .The State's maintaining of a conservative choke-hold on its citizens has not only put their well-being at stake, but – as mounting protests have demonstrated – it has wavered their faith in the system.

Khamenei and his aides may be quick to publically display an unfaltering faith in the structure of the Islamic Republic, but the very need to assert confidence in the system belies the reality that a growing desire for large-scale reform in Iran can incur potentially seismic changes – ones that would shake the nation's political foundation to its core.

Egypt and Democracy

Bradley Castelli — 2013-08-02T01:28:11Z

Democracy is a fully loaded word, open to a broad spectrum of interpretations and used to justify what sometimes amounts to contradictory political realities. Indexes that rank countries by the extent to which they are democratic or not reflect the fact that there is very little in the way of consensus when it comes to defining democracy. Nevertheless, democracy somehow serves as a standard that citizens of supposed undemocratic states often strive for, and is ultimately perceived to be the most functional and inclusive of political ideologies.

When the 2011 Arab Spring took the world by surprise with its revolutionary calls for a shift toward more representative and accountable governance, I couldn't help but think, “Why stop at democracy?” My experience of Western democracy has been tainted by the elite pandering to the elite; trying to turn political power into personal wealth while doing as little as possible in terms of citizen's interests. If the corruption and human rights violations were to be chased out for good along with the autocratic leaders that perpetrated them, then surely democracy wasn't the final destination. It seemed like democracy was the lesser of two evils, and that revolutions should strive for much better situations, not ones that are just less bad.

The desire among Egyptians for real change was stronger than any opposition they met, and their revolutionary spirit seemed to have been rewarded with Egypt's June 2012 presidential elections. While these elections were a landmark achievement for the Egyptian movement, they also served as Egypt's first lesson in the tough love relationship of democracy. A candidate that doesn't keep their promises when elected is business as usual for democracies in the West, but it didn't sit well with the voters of the democratically newborn Egyptian state, who have since refused to accept the gap between the theoretical and practical realities of democracy.

Whether or not Dr. Mohamed Morsi's ousting was a coup, and whether the coup was democratic or not, is of little consequence to a people who have more theoretical knowledge of democracy than they do practical experience. The West can question the extent of Democracy in Egypt all it wants, but recent events in Egypt suggest that there are questions worth exploring about democracy in general. Elections are not enough, and it is hard to expect a people to revolt just so they can compromise the spirit of their revolution later on. Also, the risk of putting power into the Egyptian military's hands is one that has been there since Egyptians first took over Tahrir Square in 2011, and may just be another choice between the lesser of two evils that will serve as stepping stones toward the real democracy they strive for.

The international media's coining of the term, Arab Spring has since proven to be somewhat misleading. Spring implies a quick and natural transition from rebirth toward maturity, while revolutions need time to succeed and become settled. Egypt's situation probably benefits from the fact that it hasn't been guided by outside intervention, and should probably remain that way for the revolution to be considered a success. Thinking that elections equate democracy, and that democracy risks being sabotaged by the unsatisfied population that demanded it in the first place, is a little premature.

Egyptians have had their first taste of democracy (albeit, a small one) and it has left a bitter taste in their mouths. Their experience reflects the multitude of ways in which different countries and cultures characterize democracy, and whether or not they accept it for what it may be or demand of it what they believe it to be. The situation in Egypt should serve as a lesson for other emerging democracies and more developed democracies alike. A state isn't democratic just because it claims to be, and a supposed system of democracy cannot be sustained by implementing certain democratic ideals while disregarding others.

In hindsight, maybe I was wrong to assume that the Arab Spring revolutions were movements toward a Western style of democracy, at least in the case of Egypt. What we are seeing there is a population intent on self-determination, and their relentlessness should inspire the rest of us to reflect critically on our own democracies rather than question the Egyptian path. It would be truly revolutionary if they succeed in achieving the real democracy they yearn for, and it would set a strong precedent for the Arab world and beyond.

Oil in Canada

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-08-02T01:28:08Z

The construction of the Keystone pipeline and the exploitation of the Alberta oil sands mark a drastic change in Canadian environmental policy. Once an example of moral leadership on ozone, clean energy and sustainability matters, Canada is on it's way to becoming a petro state.

Once a strong proponent of the Kyoto agreement, Canada shocked the world when it withdrew in 2012 under Stephen Harper, who described the agreement as “a socialist scheme”, and a “job-killing economy-destroying” accord. Canada's growing dependence on petroleum has resulted in numerous environmental bills being killed, and existing environmental laws being dismantled. Anyone opposing the movement such as indigenous peoples and conservationists have been undermined and ignored.

In a controversial leaked document, the Harper administration wrote "To succeed we will need to pursue political relationships in tandem with economic interests even where political interests or values may not align." It would appear this new strategy is in full swing in regard to Canada's oil deals with China.

Presently oil and gas count for a quarter of Canada's export revenue, which is why the administration is so keen to silence any opponents. The government has stopped funding the Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, dissolved the Environment Canada's Adaptation to Climate Change Research Group, and fired the chief science advisor. Since 2008 the administration have blocked all media requests for the 23, 000 federal scientists.

When a government feels as though it must ignore and suppress scientific evidence opposing reliance on a notoriously volatile and unstable resource, citizens have reason to be concerned. Yet three quarters of Canadians support oil sand development. According to Foreign Policy's Andrew Nikiforuk, this is because the Canadian government has spent $100 million on pro-oil ad campaigns convincing the public that exporting oil will lead to resource development. Furthermore the incentive of cheaper oil is a factor, as oil prices have increased five-fold over the past decade.

Presently Canada produces 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, which will have generated revenue of $120 billion by the year 2020. The Canadian government has gained 40% of the revenue in corporate taxes, and the Harper administration is hoping to produce 5 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.

The Keystone XL pipeline is essential in achieving this goal. It will provide easy delivery to the United States, which is desperate for an oil-providing ally. However, the project, costing $5.5 billion, is estimated to increase carbon emissions by 935 million metric tons over a 50-year period.

On March 29 2013, Keystone XL faced one of what will certainly be many mishaps with an oil spill in Mayflower Arkansas. In this scenario access to the site was forbidden to journalist, and both the US and Canadian government have made efforts to hush up the incident.

While the oil revenue will undoubtedly boost Canada's economy, it is time for the public to reflect on what they are willing to risk, and what kind of state they want to become.

Academic Democracy and the Boycott of Israel: A Question of Ethics

Bipasha Sultana — 2013-08-02T01:28:04Z

Among the series of calls for academic boycott that have taken place in the past few years as a consequence to one of the most volatile geopolitical conflicts at present – Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories – one of the most recent hits very close to home. Our very own McGill University has announced its intention to award the renowned American scholar and philosopher Judith Butler an honorary doctorate this summer.

For Butler fans and enthusiasts, the impending accolade was welcomed as well deserved by someone who has made groundbreaking contributions to gender and sexuality studies. For others, however, – namely, campus groups such as Hillel McGill and McGill Students for Israel – the announcement was met with outrage and a call to overturn the decision, on the grounds that Butler holds a “pro-terror” stance in defense of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

With the same degree of resentment, there exists a minority camp of Butler opponents who reject the accolade not on the basis of her political affiliations, but rather, the quality (or lack thereof) of her work. As former McGill graduate Lauryn Oates quips on a piece in Huffington Post, “Butler's greatest contribution as an academic is writing so bad, it even made some Foucault devotees cringe, winning first place in The Bad Writing Contest of 1998”.

According to McGill, honorary degrees are afforded to recipients who embody the university's “highest aspirations and ideals” and will thus “serve as an inspiration and role model to [McGill] students, graduates and our community as a whole”.

As the debates surrounding the topic of academic boycotting invariably involve either affirming or contesting the value of a scholar's academic input, it goes without saying that the political views and affiliations of the scholar in question are equally weighed into the equation. As such, the question that is perhaps central upon pondering on the validity of academic boycotts is the following: how relevant are personal, political views when one is being measured according to his/her scholarly input?

In other words, does a renowned and influential scholar's contribution to academia become entirely dismissed and stripped of worthiness because of his/her political views? Granted, as a political philosopher, a bulk of Butler's body of works are founded on (or, we can reasonably argue, have resulted in) her political identifications, of which she has been vocal about, particularly in her criticism of the state of Israel.

For those who express the desire to implement a boycott of an academic figure or institution, political affiliation almost always matters. Those who are most outraged by McGill's decision are not really those who think her scholarship to be mediocre at best. They are, rather, those who believe her political stance to be abhorrent and unethical and are accordingly judging the university's decision as being one that is unethical.

The question of ethicality concerning academic boycotting, moreover, becomes twofold. While student-body groups such as Hillel McGill and McGill Students for Israel challenge the ethicality of their university's harboring of an individual with ostensibly offensive views, how might they respond to a situation in which the roles were reversed? One in which an academic figure willfully boycotted an institution or event on the basis of the latter's questionable ethical affiliations? The most recent instance of this consists of Stephen Hawking's contentious decision to back away from a conference hosted by president Shimon Peres in Jerusalem this June.

Make Tomorrow Happen is an annual conference event that gathers a number of famous world figures, including celebrities, politicians and thinkers such as Hawking. It is premised on a three-day discussion panel that addresses issues concerning the future of a global, geopolitical scale, by “[engaging] the central issues that will influence the face of our future: geopolitics, economics, society, environment, culture, identity, education, new media and more.”

This year's conference was the fifth and celebrated Peres' 90th birthday and gathered a number of famous world figures, including celebrities, politicians and thinkers such as Hawking.

It is worth noting that what could have likely motivated Hawing's decision is the conference's partnership with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which effectively makes his boycott an academic one but also one that is an affront to the State of Israel.

Hawking's boycott of the conference, moreover, is part of a wave of boycotts from various pedagogical groups. This movement is primarily fuelled by Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), an organization that is increasingly gaining worldwide support as it aims to overturn Israel's policies and treatment of Palestinians, by encouraging academic, consumer and cultural boycotts against the State.

Judith Butler is a vocal and prominent supporter of the BDS movement.

In response to Hawking's announcement, Israel Maimon, chairman of the presidential conference, echoed the sentiment of many who oppose the ambitions of the BDS and the general notion of academic boycott: “The use of an academic boycott against Israel is outrageous and improper, particularly for those to whom the spirit of liberty is the basis of the human and academic mission. Israel is a democracy in which everyone can express their opinion, whatever it may be. A boycott decision is incompatible with open democratic discourse."

In his statement, Maimon addresses the murky question of ethicality that is at the crux of such politically-motivated boycotts. Those who wish to implement boycotts against prominent institutions do so with the aim of exposing the institutions' involvement in questionable decisions. The very notion of boycotting involves the systematic exclusion and isolation of the boycotted object/service/individual etc. for the purpose of maiming it of its power by simultaneously recognizing this very power.

The support for academic boycotting doesn't come without its caveats, as many neglect the simple truth that academic institutions can exist independently of their respective governments. It is this independence and liberty of thought that defines the spirit of academia. To state the obvious, scholarship and academic research has always been driven by the need to criticize and improve the status quo and if the platform to encourage this is compromised – especially in a state that is as fraught with civil and global tension as Israel is – the effects can be problematic.

Ultimately, for BDS and its supporters, Israel is a force that must be reckoned with and its academic realm is a crucial lifeline to its strength as a state.

Israel will not cease to exist as an independent state. Cutting intellectual, commercial and cultural support with the aim of isolating the nation not only undermines this fact, but can prove to be unfair to a segment of the Israeli population that is open to listen and negotiate with their nation's contrarians. The justice for and well-being of the Palestinian people should not be achieved at the stake of the well-being of the Israeli people and academic growth is integral to any people's well-being.

The necessity for open dialogue is perhaps most saliently expressed by British fiction author Ian McEwan who was awarded the Jerusalem Prize for Literature in 2011 and who responded to his critics by claiming the following: “If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed…It's not great if everyone stops talking.”

Beyond Land Grabs: The Need for a New Approach

Geneviève Lavoie-Mathieu — 2013-08-02T01:28:00Z

The controversy surrounding land grabbing in Africa has sparked debates worldwide, but according to Dr. Lorenzo Cotula, who is a researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London and an expert on the topic, it is now time to adopt a new approach.

A Polarized Debate

Numerous human rights defense organization, such as Oxfam have denounced the devastating impact of the worldwide wave of large scale land acquisitions. According to the international organization, populations are invariably losing in front of local elites and national or foreign investors, because they lack the necessary power to assert their rights and promote their interests. But, according to Cotula, it doesn't have to be that way.

Some, like the World Bank, "emphasize the need for investment in agriculture to feed the world's growing population. They point to the capital, know-how, infrastructure and market links that corporations can contribute" according to Cotula. For others, like Oxfam and FIAN International, large-scale land investments represent a risk for populations as the phenomenon, they argue, is driven by speculation and not agricultural production, which poses a threat to local food security.

Beyond a highly polarized debate, the opposition of confronting parties is not helping in any way, says Cotula. In fact, whether in favor of large-scale or smaller-scale agriculture, all parties ignore the need for further analysis of the various models that involve small and large enterprises.

Investing in Farmers not in Land

In a book launched on July 15 in London and titled 'The Great African Land Grab?', Cotula demonstrates how governments, investors, civil society organizations and farmers can ensure that land investments not only generate profits but also respond to local communities' needs.

In fact, Cotula claims that well structured investments could create new opportunities for local producers. For example, “where a company invests in a processing plant and sources from local farmers".

“Small-scale farmers remain the main source of investment in African agriculture, and it is through promoting investment in these farmers, not in their land, that African governments are most likely to increase food security,” says Cotula.

The case of KASCOL

The case of KASCOL in Zambia is, according to the researcher, an example in which investments have benefited local communities. Land was leased by KASCOL to 160 out-growers, on the basis of 14-year long contracts.

Out-grower schemes, according to the FAO, are defined as ‘a contractual partnership between growers or landholders and a company for the production of commercial forest products'. This out-grower scheme resulted in greater revenues and standards of living for those who participated than it did for other people who worked for the same company. According to the report "joint ownership of the company, whereby local groups have an equity stake in the business, provides the poor with additional income opportunities and with avenues to oversee the management of the business."

Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, this model is one that is rare in Zambia even if investment agricultural policies should support more inclusive business models.

"No experience is perfect, of course, and the report shows this, but there are plenty of lessons that can be learned from the more imaginative models" Cotula said.

Most farmland sold for industrial agriculture in this wave of large-scale land acquisitions is under customary systems of tenure and converted to lease with the consent of local chiefs.

The difficulty stems from the fact that historical legacies, powerful forces in markets, and biased legal frameworks make local landholders vulnerable to dispossession.

Ultimately, he says, it is not just about defending rights, it is also about increasing choice. A good example is the case in Tanzania or Mozambique, where "villagers can use land, but they cannot rent out land that they claim but do not currently use; governments simply treat this land as 'empty' and allocate it to investors over the heads of local people".

Taking Responsibility

Ultimately, this controversy is also a reminder of our responsibility as consumers and citizens. While"[s]ome of the world's richest people are hoping to pocket handsome profits from the deals. [...] ultimately, the root driver of the land rush is not 'them', the Chinese or the 'greedy capitalists', but 'us' - our collective expectation of ever rising living standards, coupled with the aspiration of the rising middle class in emerging economies to enjoy similar levels of material consumption. A solid understanding of these fundamental drivers is necessary to identify levers and pressure points for effective policy responses".

"The administration is getting ever more...

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-08-02T01:27:45Z

"The administration is getting ever more angry and doing everything they can to break our hunger strike. Honestly, I wish I was dead."

Judging from the harrowing Guardian interview with Guantanamo detention camp inmate Shaker Aamer, the Obama administration is stooping to new human rights lows in an attempt to break the hunger strike, and then men participating in it. The strike that began with six inmates on March 4 has grown to 105 out of the 166 prisoners. These 105 men have been driven to such despair that they are willing to endure starvation, and the brutality of the guards that accompanies it.

The despair of these men is understandable. Out of the 166 detainees, 152 are non-high value. Only six prisoners are facing military commission, 80 are being held with insufficient evidence for conviction, and 86 have actually been cleared for release but still remain in confinement with no end in sight. Therefore, as a reporter asked president Obama at a press conference last week, “Is it any surprise, really, that they would prefer death rather than have no end in sight to their confinement?”

The strike has put Obama under more pressure, as six years have passed since her promised to close the detention center, and no progress or inmate transfers have been made. Gitmo presents a difficult situation for Obama and congress. Both want to keep the inmates in a safe hold, and are reluctant to house dangerous enemy combatants on the American mainland. Furthermore, the United States have instituted an embargo on transfers to Yemen, where 90 of the inmates are from. These prisoners remain stuck in limbo until the US government can think of somewhere else to store them.

Not only has the strike successfully brought attention to the neglected political issue, it has also brought attention to the ethics of the appropriate response to a hunger strike. Is it better to let them die or to force-feed the inmates on strike?

“Well, I don't—I don't want these individuals to die,” President Obama said at a press conference. Despite Obama's apparent sympathy for the plight of the prisoners, his administration has ordered increasingly brutal tactics to attempt to break the strike. The process of force-feeding seems brutal enough, having a tube forcefully inserted up one's nose, yet the guards have been instructed to do whatever they can to make the experience even more unpleasant.

According to Shaker Aamer, prison guards have been instructed to introduce metal tipped feeding tubes which are to be forced into inmates stomachs twice a day, causing inmates to vomit all over themselves, and physicians have stopped wearing nametags so that they cannot be held accountable for their unethical treatment of patients.

Both the American Medical Association and the American Constitution view force feeding as a violation of medical ethics. Medical intervention must always be the patients' choice. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have called upon Guantanamo medical staff to refuse force-feeding the inmates and consider it a human rights violation.

Amnesty international also released statement saying, “These gruesome new details show just how bad things are in Guantanamo. The whole thing is at breaking point. Clearly the US military is under enormous pressure and doing everything it can to hurt the men and break the hunger strike.”

As observers and human rights supporters, we can only hope that the hunger strike inspires speedy action resulting in the closing of the controversial camp. This will close a decade long dark chapter in United States political history.

Violence Begets Violence: Finding An Alternative Solution to the Maoist Insurgency

Olivia Zeydler — 2013-08-02T01:27:41Z

Agreements made between corporations and governments on natural resource extraction go further than economic ties, as they fundamentally affect the lives of the local people that live on the land. Corporate land grabs undermine the livelihood of farmers across the developing world, as the corporations take the land they live off of for the resources that lie beneath it. While this problem sheds light on the significant challenges of a fossil-fuel dependent global system, no community has responded quite like the Maoists of India.

The Maoists are currently considered the greatest current internal security threat to India. Also known as the Naxalites, the Maoists are some of the poorest members of society and have consistently been displaced from their land due to the Indian government's quest for natural resources. Consisting of roughly 40,000 members and representing 21 out of the 28 states of India, they have created a guerilla army to fight for the rights of the poor people in India.

Their aim is to empower the landless peasants of India through a violent overthrow of the State. They employ child soldiers to gather intelligence, plant bombs, landmines, and fight with government security forces. They demand food and shelter at gunpoint, and force people to join their army. They bomb schools, highjack trains, and behead police officers, all to undermine government hegemony.

On May 25 the Maoists attacked the Congress Party leaders of Chhattisgard, killing at least 27 members, including 3 members of the Indian National Congress Party.

While the Maoists are trying to draw attention to the desperation of the matter, their violence is unfounded. The violence is unconstructive and only abusing the rights of more innocent civilians. Are acts of violence the only way that Maoists feel their movement will be heard?

The Indian government has consistently responded to Maoists with an aggressive counter-insurgency plan, known as the Operation Green Hunt (OGH). The campaign pursued by the Indian government imposes strict draconian laws that contradict the freedoms of a democratic society. Any activist that speaks out on the inequities existing in India is presumed to be associated with the Maoists. According to Human Rights Watch, government forces will arrest villagers if there is any suspicion that they are Maoist supporters.

As a result, the battle between the government and the Maoists is even further exacerbated. If the Maoists suspect anyone to be a government informer, they send the suspect to the Maoist court system, known as the jan adalats. These jan adalats do not meet any international standards of impartiality or access to defense, and often those prosecuted are beheaded or shot. Activists are caught between these two enemies and their democratic values are repressed.

The Maoists must find other ways to communicate because terrorism and instilling fear in a population is not a viable solution as it only paralyzes a nation. The Maoists have no justification for their violence, as there are other more peaceful ways to communicate.

It is unfortunate that attention must be drawn to this problem through violence, however without further antagonizing the Maoist community, the Indian government must address the problem at hand. Taking land away from the farmers strips them of their identity and livelihood and the landowners deserve justice for their land. The government must begin to prioritize the needs of these communities over the economic incentives.