Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Tuesday, September 29, 2015 democracynow.org
Stories:
Obama & Putin Spar at U.N.: Will Regime Change in Syria Further Destabilize War-Torn Nation?
President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held their first formal meeting in two years on Monday in New York to discuss Syria and Ukraine. During the 90-minute meeting, Obama and Putin agreed that their armed forces should hold talks to avoid coming into conflict in Syria, where fighting has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced millions. Both leaders addressed the United Nations Monday, with Putin defending Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Obama expressing willingness to work with Russia to resolve the crisis in Syria. According to reports, however, the United States ignored a Russian offer in 2012 to have Assad step aside at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. And former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari has said Western powers failed to seize on the 2012 proposal because the United States, Britain and France were convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall. Since then, tens of thousands more have been killed, and militants from ISIL have seized swaths of Syria. We talk about the crisis in Syria and the Obama-Putin meeting with Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College and columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline. He also is the author of several books, including "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter."
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held their first formal meeting in two years on Monday in New York to discuss Syria and Ukraine. In recent weeks, Russia has built up forces inside Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad and has reached a new intelligence-sharing agreement with Iraq, Iran and Syria in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. During the 90-minute meeting, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed their armed forces should hold talks to avoid coming into conflict in Syria, where fighting has killed over 200,000 people and displaced millions.
Earlier Monday, both leaders addressed the United Nations. Putin defended Russia’s support for Assad in his first U.N. General Assembly speech since 2005.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.
AMY GOODMAN: During his U.N. speech, President Obama called for a transition away from Assad as Syria’s leader, but conceded the United States is prepared to work with Russia and Iran to end the fighting in Syria.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.
AMY GOODMAN: While President Obama is now expressing willingness to work with Russia to resolve the crisis in Syria, that’s not always been the case. The Guardian recently reported the United States ignored a Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria’s Assad step aside at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. According to former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, Western powers failed to seize on the 2012 proposal because the United States, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall. Since then, tens of thousands of more people have been killed, and militants from ISIL have seized swaths of Syria.
To talk more about the crisis in Syria and the Obama-Putin meeting, we’re joined by Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Connecticut and columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline. He’s the author of a number of books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter.
Professor Prashad, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what’s been happening at the United Nations this week, and particularly about what the Russian and U.S. presidents are saying to the world and to each other?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, it’s an interesting day at the U.N. yesterday. Mr. Obama began—he spoke for twice the designated length. He spoke about the American narrative of, you know, how the world looks. Principally, he spent a great deal of time on Russia and on Iran. He made, you know, critical comments about both countries. And then he said, quite surprisingly or strikingly, that the United States is prepared to coordinate with Iran and Russia over a Syrian strategy. That was the most interesting line in his almost half-an-hour speech at the U.N., the fact that now, after so many years of distrust, in Syria, in particular, that the United States is willing to coordinate with Russia and Iran.
A few speakers later was Vladimir Putin, who laid out a different narrative of events in Syria. He concentrated a great deal on the rise of terrorism, on the phenomena of regime change, particularly by the West, creating failed states, which create the conditions for the rise of extremism. So Putin had a different narrative, and he came at it saying that he would like to coordinate with everybody in a joint fight against ISIS.
Neither Mr. Obama nor Putin laid out any specifics. They just indicated that cooperation was, you know, to be considered. This cooperation, of course, is now a fait accompli, because not only is the United States bombing in northern Syria, but the Russians have moved attack aircraft into western Syria, and they are preparing to bomb, as well, in the same region in northern Syria. So, you know, this is now the situation. Both countries will be, I guess, in parallel, fighting against the Islamic State. Now the question is: What is the politics of this new military, you know, intensification?
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to comments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his address to the U.N. General Assembly Monday. He said it was a mistake not to work with Assad’s forces in the fight against Islamic State militants.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] We support the legitimate government of Syria. And it’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary, in order to destroy the legitimate government, will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions—for instance, in Libya, where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. And there’s no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism, but at the same time urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vladimir Putin on 60 Minutes being interviewed by Charlie Rose. Your comments on this, Vijay Prashad?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Amy, I think this is a very important point that Putin is making. If you do look at the history of regime change, take the case not only of Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan, as well, when you destroy the state, it’s very hard to, you know, re-create it just in a few years, maybe even in a decade, as far as Iraq is concerned. So, what Putin is saying is, given this recent history of regime change and the destruction of states, perhaps one has to be cautious in Syria that, yes, there will be some kind of transition, but the absolute destruction of the current Syrian state is going to create chaos-like conditions, as one saw in Iraq and as one saw in Libya. It’s very important to see here that Putin is saying that there is something that needs to be considered in terms of a political transition. You know, he is not actually saying fully that Assad must be defended to the end. That’s not what I hear in his comments. What I hear in his comments is that it would be a great error to destroy the Syrian state; instead, there needs to be a political opening.
I mean, I would just like to say something about that slogan, "Assad must go." You know, in 2011 and 2012, the slogan meant one thing, because at that time Mr. Assad was fairly powerful, controlled most of Syria and was able to operate with an almost open hand against his population. But today, Mr. Assad is deeply weakened. He is a different Assad entirely. The statement now that "Assad must go" is anachronistic, because in very many ways he’s already gone. He is much weaker than he was in 2012, therefore a political opening has been available since at least last year, when the Iranians came to the Americans and said that they would like to push beyond the Geneva talks for a serious regional discussion about settling matters, at least in the western part of Syria. And I think that’s what Mr. Putin is repeating, this idea that the state structure in Syria must not be destroyed, and at the same time a reasonable process of transition has to be worked out by all the powers in the area.
AMY GOODMAN: During his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama said the coalition could have done more following the 2011 invasion of Libya. Let’s go to that clip.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Where order has completely broken down, we must act. But we will be stronger when we act together. In such efforts, the United States will always do our part. We will do so mindful of the lessons of the past, not just the lessons of Iraq, but also the example of Libya, where we joined an international coalition, under a U.N. mandate, to prevent a slaughter. Even as we helped the Libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to President Obama, Professor Prashad?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, Amy, I don’t want to argue with him about following the U.N. mandate, because one of the problems here was that the French and the Americans exceeded the U.N. mandate and went for regime change rather than merely responsibility to protect civilians. But let’s set that aside.
This is the first public acknowledgment by the United States—or, indeed, by any Western power—that the bombing in Libya in 2011 was not followed up by any mechanism to shore up the state. This is a test example of the error of regime change, because there was heavy aerial bombardment, the Libyan state was utterly demolished, the military was destroyed, and then the country was essentially given over to the different militia groups, who continued to run riot in Libya. And I think this is an important example. This is the same example that Putin raised. Putin also mentioned Iraq, which, again, Obama mentioned. You know, this history of regime change over the last decade has to have people in the West reconsider this very simple policy of aerial bombardment in order to effect some kind of change on the ground. It produces chaos, which has led to much worse outcomes than the issue that provoked the aerial bombardment in the first instance.
And I think when Obama acknowledges that there is this problem in Libya, I’m sure that there is a serious discussion in the White House, in the State Department, about the consequences of regime change in Syria at this point for further chaos, and whether the United States and the West, in general, has the capacity to pick up the pieces in a chaotic Syria. As it is, there seems to be very little will to pick up the pieces of the chaos that remains in Afghanistan, the chaos in Iraq and the chaos in Libya. I doubt very much that there’s not only the stomach, but the resources, to take charge of a Syria after a regime change of the Bashar al-Assad government.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama said in his U.N. address, "Where order has completely broken down, we must act. But we will be stronger when we act together. In such efforts, the United States will always do our part." And he goes on to say we have to be "mindful" of the efforts of the past. Obama repeatedly says that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s departure is a precondition because Assad drops barrel bombs on innocent children. But he doesn’t raise the same issue, for example, with another president who’s at the U.N. General Assembly, and that’s President el-Sisi. Yesterday we were joined on the show by one of the three Al Jazeera journalists, Peter Greste, who has not been pardoned by the government, held for 400 days for being a reporter in Egypt. You look at Sisi’s record in killings, the U.S. selling millions of dollars, to say the least, actually supporting Egypt to the tune of billions of dollars, and yet you have hundreds of people praying in the street who were gunned down, the Egyptian government just finishing a massive military operation in northern Sinai, saying they killed, quote, "500 terrorists"?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, hypocrisy is not something that’s restricted to one theater of the world or the other. At the same time as all this is going on, the United States has been resupplying Saudi Arabia as it’s bombed Yemen, in very much the same way as the United States resupplies Israel in its bombing of Gaza. You know, there is no question of responsibility to protect civilians either in Yemen or in Gaza or indeed in Egypt. It’s very clear that, you know, morality in foreign policy is selectively applied. In his U.N. speech, Vladimir Putin said that people accuse Russia of having ambitions or interests in Syria, and he said, "Well, everybody has ambitions and interests. You know, there is nobody here with a moral high ground." Unfortunately for Syria, its very powerful social dynamic that has been hijacked by geopolitics. And in a sense, there’s no getting around that. Until the geopolitics are sorted out, I’m afraid, the social dynamic in Syria is not going to be able to breathe effectively enough.
And, you know, when the United States talks about doing its part, let’s just stop for a second and recognize that over the last calendar year, the United States has been operating in Syria, it has been bombing ISIS targets, and yet ISIS took Palmyra. The United States has been bombing ISIS targets in Iraq, and yet there’s been no move to take Mosul back from the Islamic State. Meanwhile, of the $500 million provided by the United States to create a moderate rebel army, General Lloyd Austin, the head of Central Command, was asked, "Well, how many fighters did this $500 million produce?" And he said, quite candidly, "Perhaps four or five." Not 400 or 500, but four or five. Meanwhile, many, many of these fighters have turned themselves over to the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra. There’s something wrong with the American strategy as it’s currently in place in Iraq and Syria, and I think there needs to be a serious rethink.
And perhaps if there is a road to peace of some kind offered by the Iranians, which the Russians are taking forward, I think the Americans need to be at the table for this. There’s no point putting your ego before the suffering of the Syrian people. And by "ego," I mean all of these great powers trying to vie with each other for who should take leadership in the fight against ISIS. I think that’s really an irrelevant issue. The most important issue is how to create some kind of ceasefire in western Syria and how to drain the swamp that is allowing ISIS to remain in northern Syria and in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, you can’t talk about Syria and all of these different places without talking about the refugee crisis, that millions of refugees are fleeing. Relate these two, with Europe, in some cases, closing their borders.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, the Europeans are very strange on this issue. Europe gets upset about something when it becomes a problem for Europe. But let’s consider something. The Middle East is the home of refugees, starting with the Palestinian people ejected from their land in 1948. But more recently, of course, the attack on Iraq in the 1990s, the sanctions regime and then the overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003 created an enormous refugee crisis. Those refugees spilled into Iran, into Syria, into Jordan and further afield. And then, when the war in Syria broke out, the refugees spilled into Turkey, into Lebanon, into Jordan, into Iraq, as well, and certainly inside Syria, which has a huge number of internally displaced people. Perhaps half the population of Syria are currently displaced. So, certainly, these people would eventually find their way to Europe, some through Libya and others through Turkey. You know, Turkey has also been putting pressure on Europe to open up its asylum policy to, in a sense, let Turkey relieve the pressure on its camps. So, these things are precisely related. I think of many of these refugees as regime change refugees, because they have been produced, essentially, by the original sin of regime change in the region, which was Iraq in 2003.
AMY GOODMAN: So, just to be clear, Vijay Prashad, on the issue of Syria, what do you think is the solution?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, I think that there needs to be a drawdown of the struggle against the Assad government at this time, principally because I think that the Iranians and the Russians have said that the Assad government is prepared to come to the table with a transition plan. I feel that the Russians have entered into western Syria less as a military posture and far more to put pressure on the regional proxies, like Ahrar al-Sham, like Jaysh al-Islam, proxies of Turkey and proxies of Saudi Arabia. This is going to raise the question in Turkey and in Saudi Arabia whether they want their proxies to directly confront the Russians. I believe that this is a push to bring these powers back into some kind of Syria contact group to have a serious discussion about a transition.
At the same time, I think that the Turkish government is going to come again under renewed pressure to close its border. Over this last year, while the United States has been bombing northern Syria, the ISIS fighters have doubled their number. They’re coming from somewhere, most likely from Turkey. There needs to be redoubled effort regionally to have the Turks close that border down. There needs to be efforts to stop the money entering into ISIS territory, whether it is through oil sales that are going through Turkey or individual donations from Gulf Arab sheikhs that go into jihadi networks that end up in ISIS hands. There is a very clear kind of policy that could be produced to bring peace to Syria, but it’s going to require a great deal of cooperation between the great powers and the regional powers.
AMY GOODMAN: Vijay Prashad, I want to thank you for discussing this, but I’d like to ask you to stay with us as we talk about the Indian prime minister and his, what, five-day tour in the United States. Let’s talk about the significance of Prime Minister Modi’s trip to the U.S. We’ll do that with you, as well as an Indian human rights activist, in a minute.
Thousands Protest Indian PM Narendra Modi in U.S. over Human Rights Record
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Monday before leaving the United States after a seven-day trip that focused primarily on strengthening commercial ties between the U.S. and India. More than 100 academics in the U.S. wrote a letter protesting Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley, warning tech giants of the dangers of doing business with a government that has "demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions." Before his election, Modi had been barred from the United States for many years over his role in anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than 1,000 dead in Gujarat, where he was chief minister. He has never apologized for or explained his actions at the time. We speak with Trinity College professor Vijay Prashad, who signed the protest letter, and Ruth Manorama, a Dalit activist from India who won the Right Livelihood Award in 2006.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also addressed the U.N. General Assembly, before leaving the U.S. after a seven-day trip that focused primarily on strengthening commercial ties between the U.S. and India. Modi met several high-profile leaders from the world’s top tech companies in California over the weekend, including Apple’s Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Modi was the first Indian leader to visit the West Coast in more than 30 years. On Saturday, he addressed more than 350 business leaders, emphasizing the need for Internet literacy in India.
PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI: From creating infrastructure to services, from manufacture of products to human resources development, from support governments to enabling citizens and promoting digital literacy, Digital India is a vast cyberworld of opportunities for you. The task is huge, the challenges are many. But we also know that we will not reach new destination without taking new roads.
AMY GOODMAN: More than 100 academics in the United States have written a letter protesting Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley, warning tech giants of dangers of doing business with a government that has, quote, "demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions," unquote. On Sunday night, Prime Minister Modi spoke before a crowd of 18,500 people in San Jose. Three thousand people reportedly protested outside the venue, drawing attention to Modi’s record on human rights. Before his election, Modi was barred from the United States for many years over his role in anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than a thousand people dead. Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat, where the killings occurred. He has never apologized for or explained his actions at the time.
Still with us, Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College, columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline, author of a number of books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter. We are also joined by Ruth Manorama. She is a Dalit activist from India who also works on women’s rights. In 2006, she was awarded the Right Livelihood Award for her, quote, "commitment over decades to achieving equality for Dalit women, building effective and committed women’s organizations and working for their rights at national and international levels."
Welcome, Ruth Manorama, to Democracy Now!
RUTH MANORAMA: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us.
RUTH MANORAMA: Yes, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Professor Vijay Prashad, thank you for staying with us. As you follow the U.N., Professor Prashad, Modi just spoke. Talk about the significance of what he said and who he is.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, Narendra Modi is very much like the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in that he wants to be the strong man of his country, doesn’t want to get himself tied down with the minutiae of government, which is why he has been essentially on the road for most of his prime ministership. He has been traveling in East Asia to Australia. This is his second major trip to the United States. He has been to China. And everywhere he goes, he sort of tries to stand above the fray.
This is very smart politics, because meanwhile in India his Cabinet is running a very different kind of government. It has been pushing against civil libertarians. It has been trying to stuff its own very narrow agenda kind of people into the various cultural and educational institutions. It’s been going after people who are trying to raise issues of Modi’s tenure in Gujarat during the pogrom of 2002, particularly the campaigner Teesta Setalvad. So, while his government has been vicious and, you know, has been, in a sense, trying to shut down dissent, Mr. Modi has given himself an air of royalty. He comes to these very large events. He has a certain charisma. And at the U.N., as well, you know, he talks as if he is the most beloved person on Earth. Obviously, he makes, you know, a great impact. People are excited to see an Indian prime minister with a certain kind of charisma. But this is a rather meaning—this is very misleading, because at the same time, as I said, a very different agenda is being pursued by his government inside India.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Ruth Manorama, you are here, as well, at the United Nations. The significance of this trip that the prime minister has taken, not only addressing the United Nations, but also taking this seven-day trip where he addressed tech leaders in California? Explain your view of Modi in India.
RUTH MANORAMA: Modi, our prime minister, comes from Gujarat. That talks about a lot. There is severe human rights violation has been done in 2002 against Muslim minorities. And he gets elected and come over there.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain for people in the United States. I don’t think they’re very familiar with the massacres of 2002 in Gujarat.
RUTH MANORAMA: Yes, yes. Being a women’s rights activist, I’ve been called by many groups, particularly the nongovernmental organization, to study particularly the situation what happened to the Muslim women in Gujarat—terrible things. It’s a terrible genocide on these people has occurred, butchering them, burning them, putting the children into fire. And I have seen by myself 2,000 to 3,000 people have been murdered, you know, attacked by the Hindutva forces there. And it’s a serious human rights violation.
AMY GOODMAN: And what was Modi’s role?
RUTH MANORAMA: Modi, he was, you know—
AMY GOODMAN: He was the equivalent—
RUTH MANORAMA: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —of the governor of Gujarat at this time?
RUTH MANORAMA: No, he was the chief minister of—chief minister at that time. Like he said that, you know, "I don’t—I didn’t have any hands into that." But he was very silent, and silent spectator on one side, and yet he encouraged people to do this violence, create this violence, create this massacre, create this pogrom. And, you know, people been not given social justice even today. Still people are living in fear. And some people said, "OK, OK, like, you know, since the BJP is ruling at the center, there’s no voice. Everything is all right."
There are few human rights activists still pursuing this issue at the Supreme Court level, at the different courts level, and they’ve been called, you know, terrorists, the anti-nationals. People who are working for the human rights are named anti-nationals. I think it’s a very piteous situation. India is being a biggest democracy and a secular country. We view this as not in a—you know, in a good spirit. I think it goes against the spirit of democracy and secularism. That is the kind of conditions. The civil liberties of people are curbed. The CSOs, the NGOs, who are doing—or people’s movements, who are doing human rights work, are not viewed very friendly by the government. We are looked at as if, no, we are anti-nationals. So, the human rights situation, per se, is not in its glory. India is shining on one side, but on the other side, like there is a severe—you know, a severe curtailment of human rights is happening.
And I think, you know, this is what I would say about Mr. Modi’s government. The government is always very busy in preparing his foreign trips, when there are so much domestic problems, such as poverty, tech poverty, inequality, you know, that has been so much increased over the years. And, you know, they have assured a better governance, but I think that governance needs to be definitely improved within the context of human rights.
AMY GOODMAN: Before you go, Professor Vijay Prashad, can you talk about Modi’s plan, Digital India, to get a billion more Indians on the Internet, and why you signed, co-signed, that letter by a hundred academics expressing concern that it’s a front line for mass surveillance?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, one of the things that Modi said when he sat with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, he said that India is a series of Ds, one of which is democracy, another of which is deregulation. One of the principal themes of this government has been to push for a business agenda in the name of the poor. I think that’s a very clever strategy they’ve used, but it’s also a very dangerous one. So, for instance, the Modi government has opened 170 million bank accounts for Indians who didn’t have bank accounts. But, of course, these bank accounts are empty. So you can open a bank account, but there’s no money in it. Inflation is running high in India. People joked, when he goes to Facebook headquarters, somebody should tell Modi to bring back a bag of onions when he returns to India, because onions have become basically priced out.
This pro-business agenda is very much in display in his Digital India idea. You know, he’s tied up with—you know, he sat down there with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, who has created a web portal called Internet.org, linked up with a major Indian multinational called Reliance. The idea is to get the poor with the ability to get onto the Internet, in the same way as the poor were merely given bank accounts. So they will have access to the Internet. The problem is that both Facebook and Reliance are constraining the kind of Internet that people are able to reach. In other words, the principle of net neutrality, which is that when you enter the Internet, you should be able to go anywhere you like, is being constrained by what Facebook and Reliance are producing in this phenomena called Internet.org. So, that’s one of the major problems with the Modi attempt to do deregulation and development in the name of the poor. It’s actually merely in the interest of the rich.
On the other side, there is no guarantee in India that there is no surveillance of the population through these mechanisms. You can give people various apps to access the Internet on their smartphone, but there’s no protection against surveillance. And that’s the main reason why I signed that letter, was I feel like it’s erroneous to believe Modi’s populist rhetoric that he’s doing these things for the poor, when the very protections that are necessary are not in place and where the interests of the poor are not necessarily to be served.
AMY GOODMAN: Vijay Prashad, I want to thank you for being with us, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Connecticut, columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline, author of a number of books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll continue with Ruth Manorama, talking about what Dalit activism is. What are Dalit women doing throughout India? A term no longer used, "untouchable," replaced by that term "Dalit," what does it mean? Stay with us.
A Voice for Dalit Women in India: Ruth Manorama Speaks Out Against Caste-Based Discrimination
There are 200 million Dalits, who were previously called "untouchables," in India. According to the country’s National Crime Records Bureau, four Dalit women are raped, two Dalits are murdered, and two Dalit homes are torched every day. Now the Dalit Women’s Self-Respect Movement, a new national campaign to end caste-based sexual violence, is underway in India. The movement is the subject of the upcoming documentary, “#Dalitwomenfight!” We speak with Ruth Manorama, a well-known Dalit activist, who was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006 for "her commitment over decades to achieving equality for Dalit women, building effective and committed women’s organizations and working for their rights at national and international levels."
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As we continue our coverage of India, on the heels of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to the U.S., we turn to look at Dalits. There are 200 million Dalits, who were previously called "untouchables," in India. According to the country’s National Crime Records Bureau, four Dalit women are raped, two Dalits are murdered, two Dalit homes are torched every day. Well, in India, a new national campaign to end caste-based sexual violence is underway. It’s called the Dalit Women’s Self-Respect Movement. This is a clip from a documentary film that is following the movement’s rise. It’s called #Dalitwomenfight!
NARRATOR: There comes a point when you can’t take one more headline, when you are sick of the violence, and you are tired of being afraid.
DALIT WOMAN 1: [translated] We are already living like animals. And they use us like animals, as well.
DALIT WOMAN 2: [translated] Because I’m poor, I have no one to support me. He cursed me, and I yelled at him to leave. He whipped out his pistol, and I knew I could die then. He cocked his gun, and it was definitely full of bullets.
DALIT WOMAN 3: Dalit women’s bodies are used as the battleground for the caste war. The attacks on our bodies are used to teach a lesson to the larger community.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s a clip from the forthcoming documentary called #Dalitwomenfight! Well, still with us, Ruth Manorama, well-known Dalit leader in India. In 2006, she was awarded the Right Livelihood Award. Ruth Manorama, explain who Dalits are.
RUTH MANORAMA: Actually, the new name, Dalits, for the former untouchables. Dalits is like, you know, the—Dalit is really like the parallel name as the blacks, like blacks were named as before, you know, the Negroes and all that. But the Black Panther movement gave them the name "blacks." Similarly, the untouchables, the origins—you know, the Dalit activists rejected this name and gave a name, Dalit. Dalit is really—is someone who revolt against the oppression and wanted to free themselves and, you know, really look for emancipation. Dalit word, as its inner meaning, that they fight on one side, revolt against a system, the caste system, revolt against all kinds of inequality and then work towards emancipation. That is what Dalit means. Today we are 260 million Dalits, not only in India, in South Asia. So, we are really the—we are called in India the scheduled caste. It’s a—
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what this caste system is.
RUTH MANORAMA: Oh, caste system is really—it’s an ingrained inequality based on hierarchical forms. No Indians are equal. Indians are always put on hierarchy, Brahmins at the top, you know, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas, Shudras. At the end is the Dalit untouchables. Like in the social hierarchy, that—in the social hierarchy, the Dalits are put, you know, underneath, that they are crumpled, they are trash, you know, they are violated. They still face violences of unyielding violence, of violence and crimes against them. And you see women still do manual scavenging. Women are pushed into prostitution because of, you know, poverty situation. In India, if you really look at the poverty situation in India, 49 percent of the Dalit, much experiencing the poverty in India, and crimes against them, atrocity against them, social inequality. By all social indicators today, they are the lowest of the low. So, the Dalits, one is—one side, they face inequality of caste, that they experience, that you are an untouchable. You are always reminded. Even if you are educated and come up, they’ll think, "Where is this girl from? Where is this woman from?"
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Asha Kowtal, She just came to our studio a few days ago. She’s the general secretary of the All India Dalit Women’s Rights Forum.
RUTH MANORAMA: Yes, yes, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: I asked her about the Prime Minister Modi, his administration’s treatment of Dalits.
ASHA KOWTAL: It has not been different in the earlier regime and not been like super different in this regime. But what we can say is that the brazenness of the impunity, the way in which perpetrators are getting away scot-free, the way in which spaces for civil society is shrinking, the way in which every day we are reading about a ban on what kind of food we should eat, we are reading about a ban on, you know, whom we should fall in love with—all these kind of very right-wing, fascist policies and small, small tinkering that’s happening within the institutions is very dangerous for us. And it’s just not a good time for those of us who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and organizing and demanding for justice. It is definitely not a good time in India.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Asha Kowtal, general secretary of the All India Dalit Women’s Rights Forum, traveling across the United States, of course, from India. Ruth Manorama, as we begin to wrap up, what do you think needs to be done?
RUTH MANORAMA: Today, the sustainable development goal has been—you know, have 17 goals, starting from poverty, inequality, inclusion. I think these three important norms is very suitable to the life of Dalits. What we are really looking for, that is parity is essential, free from discrimination, enjoying of human rights. You know, it’s very necessary that we are treated equal with others, enjoying the wealth of the nation. You know, if you really look at the conditions of Dalits, it is so precarious existence. Like Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze, in one of his books called The Uncertain, Uncertainty [An Uncertain Glory], they say that in India—every country faces inequality, but India it’s like cocktails of inequality. One side is disparity, inequality of economic inequality; the other side is social discrimination. I think the Dalits today really want to be free from all this kind of torture, humiliation, undignified manner in which we are treated. When it comes to women, you know, sexual abuses, rape, it’s really multiple in its form. You can’t explain, you know, how they really suffer. But they have to keep quiet. Even if they go to the police station or to the court of law, everybody says, "It’s all right. Like, you know, this is happening everywhere in India." So the impunity in which the human rights violations are continuing, we are against. So we really look for a purposeful and a dignified existence free from inequality. You know, when I say "inequality," it’s not that big term—inequality in all sense, in education parity, economic parity, employment parity. I think, in all sectors, in all walks of life, we people really want freedom. We want inclusion. We want equality really exercised. This is what we are looking for.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to continue this discussion on another show, but of course we will. Ruth Manorama, Dalit activist from India who also works on women’s rights, awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006, here working at the United Nations on the U.N. development goals.
Headlines:
Obama and Putin Hold Formal Meeting to Discuss Syrian Conflict
SHARED
President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held their first formal meeting in two years last night in New York. During the 90-minute meeting, the presidents agreed that their armed forces should hold talks to avoid coming into conflict in Syria, where fighting has killed over 200,000 people and displaced millions. In recent weeks Russia has reached a new intelligence-sharing agreement with Iraq, Iran and Syria in the fight against ISIL and built up forces inside Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad. The United States, meanwhile, has called for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. We’ll have more on the meeting with professor and author Vijay Prashad after headlines.
Donate today:
Follow:
SPEAKING EVENTS
9/30 New York, NY
10/7 New York, NY
10/21 New York, NY
12/2 New York, NY
WEB EXCLUSIVE
2015 MacArthur "Genius" Award Winner Ta-Nehisi Coates on Democracy Now!
WEB EXCLUSIVE
The Missing 43: Mexico Marks One Year Since Disappearance of Students
__________________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
