Skip to main content

Critical of BRICS nations' authoritarian tendencies, India's civil rights groups soft on China at Delhi panel discussion

By Our Representative
A panel discussion in New Delhi by a network of people’s movements, trade unions and NGOs under the banner of Peoples' Forum on BRICS (acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), appeared to have gone soft on China, even as opposing “authoritarian” tendencies in three other countries – Brazil, Russia and India.
The discussion was organized by the Peoples' Forum on BRICS, a collective effort of several people’s movements, networks and civil society organisations from across India and BRICS countries (click HERE), to raise “critical voices from below on social, ecological, political and economic concerns that are often ignored at big summits such as BRICS.”
BRICS summit is proposed to be held in Goa on October 15-16.
While it was also critical of South Africa for what some panelists described “neo-liberal policies” and “land grab”, one of the top participants, Prabir Purkayastha, editor, newsclick.in, emphasised what he called “the importance of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative to create an alternative to the current control of maritime trade by the West.”
The discussion took place a week ahead of the Government of India-sponsored Civil BRICS meet, where civil society groups are said to have been asked to participate. To be held next from October 3-4 in New Delhi, panelists said, Civil BRICS is “unlikely” to discuss critical issues such as the attack on human rights in India or implications of the coup in Brazil, and raise of “corporate land grabs” in various BRICS countries.
Called to discuss foreign policy issues to be discussed at the BRICS summit,  panelists did not once recalling human rights violations in China, even as expressing “lack of coherence in BRICS” countries, pointing out they were working “at cross purposes.”
Critical of India's record, senior journalist Seema Mustafa, editor, thecitizen.in, said that the Modi government's “domestic posturing around nationalism, attacking Pakistan for terrorism and increased collaboration with the US through initiatives such as the Logistics Exchange Memorandum Agreement (LEMOA)” would isolate India from “groups such as Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Group of 77 countries.”
Achin Vanaik from the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) said that foreign policy is “an extension of national policies and priorities”, adding, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy is mostly about self-projection and masculinity. He warned against what he considered “a reductive policy, caught in the discourse of nationalism and terrorism.”
Prof Ajay Patnaik from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) argued that that Russia has a keen interest in a multi-polar world and, therefore, is intent on preserving BRICS.
Speaking on Brazil, Prof Sonya Gupta from Jamia Millia Islamia said that the progressive role of Brazil in establishing a post-hegemonic regional order in Latin America is being “undermined by interim President Temer who has already initiated measures to further privatize key sectors of the Brazilian economy.”
A day before the panel discussion took place on September 27, all central trade unions, except the BJP-affiliated Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), boycotted the high profile BRICS Labour Ministers' Meeting, held in New Delhi, citing “lack of due process and attempts to restrict meaningful participation.”

Comments

TRENDING

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Would those charged for illegally demolishing Babri now manage a new Ram temple?

By Fr Cedric Prakash sj*
The long-awaited verdict on the contentious issue of the disputed land in Ayodhya was finally delivered by the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019. The judgement has come after a 70-year-old conflict filled with acrimony, divisiveness, hate and violence between sections of the Hindus and Muslims of the country. At the core of the issue was the Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute: was there a temple on the place where the Masjid was built? To whom should the land be given to?