And the last laugh is with him

Lester James Peries

2018-05-11

When icons die, there is hysteria and there is adulation. To the same degree, there is also censure. After Rukmani Devi’s death, for instance, that wave of hysteria did not preclude critics like Regi Siriwardena on passing judgment. Regi identified, correctly I believe, that Rukmani’s overwhelming tragedy was the fact that her legacy was sealed by her reputation as a songstress of musical numbers which were “not only third rate, but also second hand”. While this would not have been palatable to her fans (and there were many of them, including my grandparents, who wept the day she died), it was the harsh truth. We saw the same kind of praise and censure greeting the deaths of Khemadasa (whose forays into opera were criticised as being elitist) and, closer to the Sinhala Buddhist homeland, Amaradeva (whose forays into the raghadari sampradaya and sarala geeya were assessed rather critically as well by various writers). Now that Lester James Peries has passed away, I thought it was an apt time to understand how icons, particularly from our cultural sphere, can divide opinion and sustain confusions when they pass away. 

 Lester James Peries

Days after Lester’s death, I happened to come across an article written by the inimitable Nalin de Silva, arguing, from what I could make of it, that the man effectively aborted the (at the outset Sinhala Buddhist) project of fusing tradition and modernity together, instead displacing tradition by a modernist cultural renaissance which depended for its enduring popularity the diffusion of certain Western paradigms. This is the kind of argument that was brought against Amaradeva and Sarachchandra, and also by de Silva. What NdeS (as I shall abbreviate him from here on wards) lays down is that the likes of Sarachchandra, Siri Gunasinghe and Lester James Peries brought about a cultural sphere which portrayed a false picture of our culture to our own people. This explains his preference for Piyadasa Sirisena over Martin Wickramasinghe.   

Criticism against Lester James Peries isn’t the preserve of the Jathika Chinthanaya (JC) only, in fact no less a figure than Gunadasa Amarasekara in a review written in the eighties praised Lester’s adaptation of Kaliyugaya, which to me is one of Wickramasinghe’s novels which explicitly dwells on the kind of conflict between modernism and tradition that the JC is preoccupied with. Such disparate figures as Regi Siriwardena, Dr W. Dahanayake, H. L. D. Mahindapala, and Jayawilal Wilegoda did lambast him over certain works which were felt to be weakly plotted or structured, even if the criteria of values these writers based their criticisms on themselves didn’t hold much water. But NdeS’ arguments against Lester are more philosophical than critical; they depend on the rhetoric of nationalism, not the rabble-rousing sort, but the virulently indigenous and majoritarian sort. 

Praise and censure

The truth is that Lester was perhaps the only director from here who has attracted praise and censure, sometimes by the same writers, from every corner of our critical fraternity: the Marxists, the feminists, and of course, the Sinhala Buddhist intellectuals from the JC.   

Here’s an extract from NdeS’s piece:   

ඉංගිරිසි පාසල්වල ඉගෙන ගත් අය නූතනත්වය මුළුමනින් ම අනුකරණය කළා’ එහෙත් ඒ එක් අයකුටවත් එහි ඉහළට ම යන්න බැරි වුණා’ ලෙස්ටර්ටත් බැරි වුණා’ මගේ වාසනාවකට මට වැඩිකල් යන්න ඉස්සර තේරුම් ගියා බටහිර විද්යාටඥයකු වීමට බැරි බව’ ඉංගිරිසින් අර ස්වභාෂා පාසල්වල ඉගෙන ගත් අයටත් නූතනත්වය අනුකරණය කරන්න ඉගැන්නුවා’ සිංහල ගුරුවරු” වෙදමහත්වරු” නොතාරිස් රාළහාමිලා” ගම්මුලාදෑනිවරු ආදීන් බිහිවුණේ මේ පාසල්වලින්’ .

The allegation, of course, is that even though Lester imitated and in some ways mastered the sort of cultural modernity which was dependent on Westernisation, and that through the cinema, he was unable (as were Martin Wickramasinghe and other artistes, thinkers, and scientists) to transcend his own identity and win over the country. In other words, he was a modernist, but without the anchorage to his country that was needed if he was to transcend the limits of his roots and become an artistes of his nation. I leave the contentious debate this necessitates for a later week, since I’m quite unaware of the dynamics that go into the making and resolution of such debates, but for the moment I am concerned with NdeS’s central claim: that the lack of Sinhala-ness in Lester’s movies proves the cultural experiment in 1956 did not bring popular audiences to the purveyors of that experiment. Piyadasa Sirisena, long before Martin Wickramasinghe, could do that. So could Sirisena Wimalaweera, the playwright and the filmmaker. But not Lester and Amaradeva.   

Opinion of Sinhala journalists 

The fact is that while NdeS was making this claim from one side of the political spectrum (which applies, by the way, to the cultural, just as it does to the political), from the other side another intellectual was making the opposite claim. Consider the following:   

Many Sinhala journalists have praised and even said that the late Dr Lester James Peries [is] the greatest cinema maker in Sri Lanka, and surely one of the best in the world... I stand to disagree with those claims. Lester was a great cine narrator no doubt. Yet his cinema use was essentially an urban middle class anxiety that soothed the postcolonial Sinhala nationalist insecurity. Like Pundit Amaradeva, Lester never could be considered as a transformative social artist who provided a trajectory for a deconstructive social mobility. But [he] rather reconfirmed the hegemony of the state-centric (in fact Sinhala urban) ideology in almost all his work. My complaint is not because he made something like Rekava but [because] he refused to move from that neo-colonial “Sarala Rekava.”

The allegation, of course, is that even though Lester imitated and in some ways mastered the sort of cultural modernity which was dependent on Westernisation, and that through the cinema, he was unable to transcend his own identity and win over the country

Here’s the deal; when NdeS and the so-called “intellectual protectionists” of the JC claim that Amaradeva and Lester et al were not Sinhalese and Buddhist enough to transcend their universality, the likes of the writer of this comment, posted on Facebook hours after Lester’s death, contend that far from being uprooted from that Sinhalese Buddhist culture, these artists actually strengthened the worldview of that particular milieu, and in doing so strengthened the cultural and political hegemony present therein at the cost of the Other.  

Now which side are we to believe? The side that says the revolutionists were renegades, or the side that says the renegades were revolutionists? Did Lester and Amaradeva go back on their mission to bring Sri Lanka together through the arts, or were they removed from the heartbeat of the people, I for one can’t tell, but in the philosophical conundrum this compels, I can sense irony and some humour too. And in the end, I suppose that has a lot to do with how we view things; the problem at the heart of the leading preachers of the JC has been their inability to bridge their praise for cultural relativism over their inability to view the world through the prism of that kind of relativism. They hold certain facts sacred, objective, and when they talk about the world in those terms, they believe that the world cannot be talked about in any other terms. How else would someone like Lester, Amaradeva and Wickramasinghe, who had their faults and flaws, be at the receiving end of their vitriol the moment the critics of the JC allege that these artists perpetuated the political and cultural hegemonies which were propped up and supported by the JC?   

Perhaps it’s time we took a breather and looked back. Somewhere out there, Peries and the revolutionists of 1956 are laughing. At us. And at those who are muddling up their notions of hegemonies and traditions in a bid to lambast those artists.

Sewage destroys a Gaza sanctuary

Birds migrate to polluted Wadi Gaza where housing is rapidly being constructed.Anne PaqActiveStills

Sarah Algherbawi-10 May 2018

Visitors need to hold their noses on approaching Wadi Gaza. Yet it is not the strong smell – resulting from pollution – and the sight of trash that cause the biggest surprises. It is that the area is densely populated.

Wadi Gaza has been recognized by the United Nations as one of the most important coastal wetlands in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. The valley and its surrounding area have hosted a rich variety of ducks, herons, storks, raptors and flamingos.

More recently, it has become one of the few areas in Gaza where people with modest incomes can afford to buy property.

Suheil Mattar, a blacksmith, lived in eight different houses over a seven-year period, all of which he rented. After looking for a house to buy, he eventually found one in Wadi Gaza.

Mattar bought his four-bedroom house in Wadi Gaza for $13,500, moving to the area last year. He is paying the sum in installments.

An equivalently sized house or apartment – about 120 square meters – would cost $40,000 or more in central Gaza.

“Everyone thought the idea of buying a house in Wadi Gaza to be crazy,” he said. “But it is better than the hell of renting in a more crowded area. The living conditions here are bad, but we have got used to them.”

“Catastrophic”

Coping with the odors from sewage is nonetheless a constant challenge. By buying air fresheners from local spice dealers, Mattar can sometimes block out the bad smells. Overcoming them completely has not been possible.

Snakes present an even bigger problem. During his first few months living in Wadi Gaza, a snake made its way into the living room of his house, terrifying his wife and children.

After that incident, Mattar built a concrete barrier outside the house. “Since then, no snakes have entered the house,” he said.

Some of the estimated 16,500 residents in Wadi Gaza have to endure considerably worse conditions.
For the past four years Eman al-Horany, her unemployed husband and four daughters have lived in a caravan approximately 50 meters from the valley. Aged 44, al-Horany is a Palestinian refugee who fled Syria’s civil war.

Al-Horany describes Wadi Gaza as a “dirty place,” but she has not been able to find accommodation elsewhere.

“We’re always sick and having health problems,” she said. “I lost my voice because of pneumonia and I struggled to find the medicine that would bring my voice back. Every night I wake up to hear my girls cough because of the bad smell.”

The housing situation in Gaza has entered a “catastrophic stage,” according to Maher al-Tabaa, who heads the Gaza Chamber of Commerce.

“Many areas are no longer desirable,” he said. Such areas include some of those where Israel has caused devastation during the three major offensives it has undertaken against Gaza over the past decade, as well as areas near the boundary separating Gaza from Israel.

An additional problem, according to al-Tabaa, is that the refugee camps in Gaza are generally too full for major construction projects to be undertaken within them.

Predictions by the UN that Gaza may not be a “livable place” by 2020 have been widely quoted. Yet many people living in Gaza already have to cope with conditions that would be viewed as intolerable in much of the world.

The sewage treatment plant in Wadi Gaza has not been running properly in the past few years. The large fans that are required during the first phase of sewage treatment have been prevented from operating normally due to electricity shortages.

These shortages have been imposed by Israel and, during 2017, were exacerbated when the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank declined to pay bills for Gaza’s energy amid a row with its rival Hamas.

With treatment made impossible, raw sewage has been flowing through Wadi Gaza towards the sea.

Deterioration

In the past, Wadi Gaza was a natural open body of water coming from Hebron in the occupied West Bank and the Naqab (Negev) region of historic Palestine. Israel has mostly blocked that water, however, by constructingdiversion dams that redirect the water before it reaches Gaza. The result has been that Palestinians have been deprived of water that is instead diverted to Israel.

Under international law, states are forbidden from acting unilaterally to change the flow of water crossing a national border or boundary.

“In the 1970s, the valley was one of the most beautiful places for tourists in Gaza,” said Abdel Rahim al-Yaqoubi, a 56-year-old shepherd who has spent more than three decades in the area. “It had white sand and fresh air.”

Al-Yaqoubi is saddened by the deterioration that has occurred. “Now at the beginning of summer, the bad smell never leaves the place,” he said. “The mosquitoes and the other insects are also here all the time.”

Sarah Algherbawi is a freelance writer and translator from Gaza.

Iraq will 'pay the price' for war between Iran and the US, warns leftist leader

Iraqi Communist Party secretary says new conflict threatens fight against sectarianism in Iraq

Sairoun Alliance posters, including those showing Raid Jahed Fahmi, outside the Iraqi Communist Party's headquarters in Baghdad. (MEE/Alex MacDonald)

Alex MacDonald-Thursday 10 May 2018 

BAGHDAD - Iraq will "pay the price" for any war between the United States and Iran, warned the head of the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) on Thursday, as tensions continue to escalate following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal.

Raid Jahed Fahmi, a former government minister and parliamentary candidate for the Communist-backed Sairoun Alliance, told Middle East Eye that any war between the two countries would risk stirring up sectarian tensions in the country again - tensions which he suggested had started to dissipate in recent years.

"Iraq should be not be involved in any military conflict on one side or another," Fahmi said, speaking at the ICP's Baghdad headquarters.

"Rather, we have an interest to maintain peace. All political groups [in Iraq] recognise the need to maintain peace, because we know that the first country to pay the price is Iraq. 

"Iraqis will pay the price in terms of stability, in terms of terrorism, in terms of destruction and so on."

We cannot accept these new measures against Iran, it is not realistic, it is dangerous

- Raid Jahed Fahmi, ICP General Secretary

US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that his country would be withdrawing from the 2015 deal limiting the nuclear capabilities of Iran, claiming that it had "shortcomings" and that Tehran was not holding up its end of the agreement.

The move, which was welcomed by Tel Aviv and Riyadh - and criticised by European leaders - has led to renewed fears of direct conflict between the US, Israel and Iran.

On Thursday, Israeli forces claimed to have wiped out almost all of Iran's military infrastructure in Syria following what were described as heavy exchanges of fire during the night, starting over the Golan Heights.

After the first direct clashes over the Israeli-occupied Syrian territory since 1974, Israel said its barrage on sites throughout Syria was a response to around 20 missiles fired at Israeli forces, which it blamed on Iran's Quds Force. Iran has denied any involvement. 

"We hit nearly all the Iranian infrastructure in Syria," said Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman at a security conference near Tel Aviv.

'Dangerous' measures

Fahmi said that America risked plunging the region into chaos again because of its actions, and warned that any sanctions reimposed on Iran would have a dramatic impact on Iraq, which is diplomatically and economically close to both countries.

"We cannot accept these new measures against Iran, it is not realistic, it is dangerous," he said.

Iraq is currently only two days away from parliamentary elections, the first held after the defeat of the Islamic State group (IS), and there are already fears that the new rise in tensions could impact the outcome of the vote.

Raid Jahed Fahmi, General Secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party (MEE/Alex MacDonald)

At least two of the major political coalitions - the State of Law coalition headed by former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Fatah Alliance headed by Badr Organisation leader Hadi al-Amiri - have direct political ties with Iran, and US diplomats are already warning that the new situation could embolden pro-Iranian elements in Iraq.

Baghdad's streets are lined with posters for different parliamentary candidates, including many who are veterans of the fight against IS.

The largely Iran-backed Hashd al-Shaabi groups, militias who played a key role in fighting IS and now make up the bulk of the Fatah Alliance, have long resented American involvement in the fight against the Islamic State and in Iraq as a whole, and already wholeheartedly support Iranian forces fighting Sunni groups in Syria.

Also visible are advertisements for candidates from the Muttahidoon coalition, a largely Sunni group led by Osama al-Nujeifi, seen as heavily backed by Turkey - another country with ambitions in Iraq.

Fahmi warned that it would be difficult for Iraq to maintain a "politically independent" and "balanced" position between so many different foreign powers if fighting breaks out.

"It did not become a clear issue for the election because it came late, but it will have an impact," he said. "And certainly an impact on the constitution of the government later on. This issue will be there, in the back of their mind."

End to 'confessionalism'

The offices of the ICP in Baghdad are nondescript, although posters of the parliamentary candidates for the Sairoun Alliance are strategically placed outside the building. The interior of the building favours martyred Iraqi communists and modern art rather than Shia or Sunni religious figures, as is the case for many parties in Iraq.

A controversial coalition, the Sairoun Alliance links the ICP with the much bigger Integrity party, which is backed by the influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. 

The combination of the ultra-secular communists with the Islamist Sadrist movement has provoked anger and surprise on both sides of the divide, but for Fahmi there is a natural social base deriving from the poor, the working class and those angry at the corruption and unemployment currently afflicting the country.

In addition, recent moves by Sadr to reach out to Sunni voters and condemn sectarianism in favour of a national approach have been warmly welcomed by a party that has long boasted of being the lone non-sectarian party in Iraq.

Fahmi, who won't be drawn on his sectarian or ethnic background, said there was a real sense that politics in Iraq was turning away from "confessionalism" and focusing on genuine bread-and-butter issues, such as unemployment, poverty and corruption. A new conflict with Iran would damage a lot of the progress made.

A mural of ICP founder Yusuf Salman Yusuf (MEE/Alex MacDonald)

"More and more people are starting to recognise their problems do not lie in their differences with the other communities. Rather, their problems lie with the government's mismanagement and corruption, bad economic policies and so on," he explained.

"We have even seen over the last two or three years the representatives of these different communities have lost their credibility. And this applies to the Sunni leaders, the Shia leaders, etc."

He added: "So you see there is an improvement in the consciousness of the people - certain things they used to accept they will not accept any more."

While previous elections have proved hazardous for campaigners, Fahmi said that he had so far not faced negative reactions during election rallies. Despite a longstanding suspicion among many Muslims of "atheist" communism, Fahmi said there was always an audience ready to listen this time.

With Iraq’s elections taking place a week after the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, Fahmi is confident that an ideological shift is coming in Iraq, more in line with the kind of analysis and predictions made by the party's political forebear.

"I think many of [Marx's] ideas are up to date, particularly with regards to globalisation. His ideas are still fresh - they apply now more than they applied 200 years ago," he said.

"We as a party are still inspired by Marx's approach. In our policies, we use this, in terms of analysing Iraqi society, in analysing our priorities, in determining the nature of contradiction - we cannot analyse these properly without using Marxian tools."

Fears grow as Israel and Iran edge closer to conflict

Most intense Israeli incursion since 1973 follows Iran’s alleged attack on Golan Heights

Syrian military video shows air defences trying to intercept Israeli missiles

Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem and Saeed Kamali Dehghan-Thu 10 May 2018

Israel and Iran have been urged to step back from the brink after their most serious direct confrontation, with Israeli missiles being fired over war-torn Syria in a “wide-scale” retaliatory attack many fear could drag the foes into a spiralling war.

Hostilities erupted after Donald Trump’s announcement on Tuesday that the US was pulling out of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, a move that infuriated Tehran and raised tensions across the Middle East.
Already roiling from civil wars in Syria and Yemen, in recent months the region has seen Israel and Iran increasingly warn of an impending conflict.

Both the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini appealed for restraint.

“The Secretary-General urges for an immediate halt to all hostile acts and any provocative actions to avoid a new conflagration in the region already embroiled in terrible conflicts with immense suffering of civilians,” a spokesman for Guterres said.

In a phone call to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Theresa May condemned the Iranian rocket attacks, but called for “calm on all sides.”

On Thursday, Israel claimed it hit nearly all key Iranian military targets in Syria during strikes launched in response to a rocket attack on its troops in the occupied Golan Heights it blamed on Iran.
The alleged Iranian barrage just after midnight, which Israel said failed to hit its targets, and the latter’s extensive response appeared to be the most significant encounter between the enemies.

It would be the first time, if confirmed, that Iran has fired rockets directly at Israeli forces in a conflict that for years has been fought through proxies, such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Israel’s response was the biggest strike in Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The confrontation follows a months-long shadow war campaign during which Israel has been accused of repeated air assaults in Syria, the latest of which was reported on Tuesday night.

The Israeli military said it had hit the logistics headquarters of the Iranian Quds forces and military compounds south, north and east of Damascus, including a munition warehouse at the capital’s international airport.

Observation and military posts near the occupied Golan Heights were also hit, while Syrian air defence engaged its anti-air batteries to intercept Israeli missiles.

The Israeli defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told a security conference: “We hit nearly all the Iranian infrastructure in Syria … They need to remember the saying that if it rains on us, it’ll storm on them. I hope we’ve finished this episode and everyone understood.

“We don’t want an escalation, but won’t let anyone attack us or build an infrastructure to attack us in the future.” Hesaid Iran had also been attempting to bring anti-aircraft systems close to the Israeli border.

The occupied Golan Heights has been on high alert since Trump announced he would withdraw from the Iran deal.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict through a network of sources, said the Israeli strikes had killed at least 23 fighters, including government troops and allied forces. It did not say if Iranians were among the dead.

“The rules of the game are worked out by trial and error, by push and shove. The pushing and shoving has become more intense,” said Heiko Wimmen, of the International Crisis Group. “We are getting closer to the brink.”

A White House statement condemned Iran’s “provocative rocket attacks” and said the US supported Israel’s right to defend itself. It said Iran’s Revolutionary Guards bore “full responsibility for the consequences of its reckless actions.”

Russia said the Israeli strikes marked a dangerous escalation and urged both Israel and Iran to avoid provoking each other.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, discussed the Middle East in a meeting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who called for “level-headedness”.

“We know that we face an extremely complicated situation here. The escalation of the last few hours shows it is truly a matter of war and peace, and I can only call on all involved to exercise restraint,” she said.

Moscow, which supports the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, said 28 Israeli warplanes took part in the raid and 70 missiles were fired. Israel said it had notified Russia before the strikes began.

Trump is no longer the worst person in government

Vice President Pence sometimes seems to agree with President Trump just by looking at him. Here are some of the ways he does it. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By George F. Will Opinion writer May 9 at 7:39 PM Email the author

Donald Trump, with his feral cunning, knew. The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure. And Pence, who has reached this pinnacle by dethroning his benefactor, is augmenting the public stock of useful knowledge. Because his is the authentic voice of today’s lickspittle Republican Party, he clarifies this year’s elections: Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing.

Last June, a Trump Cabinet meeting featured testimonials offered to Dear Leader by his forelock-tugging colleagues. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus, caught the spirit of the worship service by thanking Trump for the “blessing” of being allowed to serve him. The hosannas poured forth from around the table, unredeemed by even a scintilla of insincerity. Priebus was soon deprived of his blessing, as was Tom Price. Before Price’s ecstasy of public service was truncated because of his incontinent enthusiasm for charter flights, he was the secretary of health and human services who at the Cabinet meeting said, “I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me.” The vice president chimed in but saved his best riff for a December Cabinet meeting when, as The Post’s Aaron Blake calculated, Pence praised Trump once every 12 seconds for three minutes: “I’m deeply humbled. . . . ” Judging by the number of times Pence announces himself “humbled,” he might seem proud of his humility, but that is impossible because he is conspicuously devout and pride is a sin.

Between those two Cabinet meetings, Pence and his retinue flew to Indiana for the purpose of walking out of an Indianapolis Colts football game, thereby demonstrating that football players kneeling during the national anthem are intolerable to someone of Pence’s refined sense of right and wrong. Which brings us to his Arizona salute last week to Joe Arpaio, who was sheriff of Maricopa County until in 2016 voters wearied of his act.

[Jennifer Rubin: This is why Pence’s sickening embrace of Arpaio is so important]

Noting that Arpaio was in his Tempe audience, Pence, oozing unctuousness from every pore, called Arpaio “another favorite,” professed himself “honored” by Arpaio’s presence, and praised him as “a tireless champion of . . . the rule of law.” Arpaio, a grandstanding, camera-chasing bully and darling of the thuggish right, is also a criminal, convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a federal judge’s order to desist from certain illegal law enforcement practices. Pence’s performance occurred eight miles from the home of Sen. John McCain, who could teach Pence — or perhaps not — something about honor.

(Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

Henry Adams said that “practical politics consists in ignoring facts,” but what was the practicality in Pence’s disregard of the facts about Arpaio? His pandering had no purpose beyond serving Pence’s vocation, which is to ingratiate himself with his audience of the moment. The audience for his praise of Arpaio was given to chanting “Build that wall!” and applauded Arpaio, who wears Trump’s pardon like a boutonniere.

Hoosiers, of whom Pence is one, sometimes say that although Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky and flourished in Illinois, he spent his formative years — December 1816 to March 1830 — in Indiana, which he left at age 21. Be that as it may, on Jan. 27, 1838, Lincoln, then 28, delivered his first great speech, to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield. Less than three months earlier, Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist newspaper editor in Alton, Ill., 67 miles from Springfield, was murdered by a pro-slavery mob. Without mentioning Lovejoy — it would have been unnecessary — Lincoln lamented that throughout America, “so lately famed for love of law and order,” there was a “mobocratic spirit” among “the vicious portion of [the] population.” So, “let reverence for the laws . . . become the political religion of the nation.” Pence, one of evangelical Christians’ favorite pin-ups, genuflects at various altars, as the mobocratic spirit and the vicious portion require.

[Dana Milbank: The week that proved God exists — and has a wicked sense of humor]

It is said that one cannot blame people who applaud Arpaio and support his rehabilitators (Trump, Pence, et al.), because, well, globalization or health-care costs or something. Actually, one must either blame them or condescend to them as lacking moral agency. Republicans silent about Pence have no such excuse.

There will be negligible legislating by the next Congress, so ballots cast this November will be most important as validations or repudiations of the harmonizing voices of Trump, Pence, Arpaio and the like. Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic. Pence is what he has chosen to be, which is horrifying.

Read more from George F. Will’s archive or follow him on Facebook.

Walmart Go Back! Some Indian trader, farmer groups decry Flipkart deal

Activists from Swadeshi Jagran Manch, a wing of Hindu nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), scuffle with police during a protest against U.S. retailer REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Aditi Shah, Manoj Kumar-MAY 10, 2018

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A day after U.S. retail giant Walmart (WMT.N) struck its largest deal with a big ticket investment in Indian online marketplace Flipkart, a right-wing Hindu group that fears small traders will suffer staged a protest in New Delhi calling for the deal to be scrapped.

Walmart said on Wednesday it would pay some $16 billion for a roughly 77 percent stake in the Indian e-commerce firm, stepping up competition with rival Amazon.com (AMZN.O) in a major growth market.

While Thursday’s protest was small and unlikely to affect the deal, such sentiments pose a challenge for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as it prepares to fight an election next year.

For Modi, appeasing small traders and farmers, who are part of the BJP’s core constituency, is as important as upholding India’s image as a place that welcomes foreign investment.

Officials have been advised not to comment on the Walmart-Flipkart deal, a senior government official said. The ruling party has previously opposed foreign direct investment in the multi-brand retail sector.

 

“Politically, the government may find it difficult to digest the deal,” the official said.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) also taunted the Modi government, noting the BJP had decried such investments when it was in the opposition and accusing it of betraying promises.

Officials in the Prime Minister’s office did not respond to calls by Reuters for comment.

According to the deal, Walmart’s investment is in Flipkart’s online marketplace platform, where foreign investment is allowed. The U.S. company cannot open physical stores in India, according to rules governing the multi-brand retail sector.

However, Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon told media in New Delhi on Thursday that it was open to the idea of setting up stores via a franchise model in the future. It already operates wholesale stores in the country.

“We can be very flexible. I think as a company not just in India, but around the world, the concept of franchising isn’t out of bounds,” said McMillon, adding Walmart was not yet ready to make any such announcements.

That could fan fears of some trader and farmer groups, who contend the U.S. company is using the deal as a back-door entry into India’s bricks and mortar retail market, and that it could squeeze out small corner shops that dominate Indian retail.

 

Slideshow (4 Images)

FRINGE PROTESTS

Some 80 people gathered outside a Delhi hotel holding placards reading “Walmart Go Back!” and shouting slogans asking people to ditch imported products for Indian-made goods. Inside the hotel, McMillon was talking to a dozen journalists about the deal.

“Whoever is protesting also has a story to tell. If you look at our history as a country, there was a history of colonialism. And there is always a fear that you start with trade and then it becomes control,” said Devangshu Dutta, head of retail consultancy firm Third Eyesight.

The protesters were from the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), a nationalist group linked to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of Modi’s party. The group has said the deal is against “national interests” and will hurt Modi’s “Make in India” drive.

It has also written to Modi asking the government to intervene.

Separately, a traders’ union, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) said that it may consider taking legal action against the two companies or lodging a complaint with the country’s competition watchdog, depending on how the deal was structured.



Traders say they are most concerned about predatory pricing and steep discounting by e-commerce firms with deep pockets thanks to foreign funding that could edge out smaller rivals.

“Already offline trade is deeply hurt by e-commerce as there is no policy or regulatory mechanism to govern those companies,” said Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general of CAIT. “It is a free-for-all game and ultimately it is the offline trade which is feeling the pinch.”

Additional reporting by Adnan Abidi and Euan Rocha in New Delhi and Sankalp Phartiyal in Mumbai; Editing by Alex Richardson

The Making of a Kurdish Mandela

By keeping a key challenger in jail, Turkey’s government risks making Selahattin Demirtas an even more popular and formidable opponent.

Supporters of the Pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) shout slogans and hold pictures of HDP's imprisoned presidential candidate Selahattin Demirtas at an election rally on May 4, 2018 in Istanbul. (CHRIS MCGRATH/GETTY IMAGES)

BY HENRI J. BARKEY-

MAY 10, 2018, 10:43 AM

The Turkish government has just called snap presidential and parliamentary elections, which will be held on June 24. Most analysts are predicting that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) will sail to victory primarily because of the weakness of the main opposition parties and his complete control of the press. He also appears to have developed the institutional capabilities to cheat if it becomes necessary.

Yet if he wins the election, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. First and foremost, the election’s legitimacy will be questioned. There is a pervading sense of unfairness that stems from the fact that the elections will be conducted under emergency rule — an electoral law tailored to favor Erdogan heavily — and in the shadow of the 2017 constitutional referendum, which was decided at the last minute with the inclusion of unstamped illegal ballots. More problematic for Erdogan is the distinct possibility that a backlash against his authoritarian rule and harsh methods would elevate the stature of Selahattin Demirtas, the former leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP), as the country’s most formidable politician and a potential Kurdish Nelson Mandela.

Demirtas, who made his candidacy public last Friday, suffers from one disadvantage: He is currently in prison. He was detained on Nov. 4, 2016, on spurious charges of aiding and abetting terrorism that could result in a maximum 142-year jail sentence. He has the right to mount a campaign from his jail cell because he has not yet been convicted. To be sure, his communications with his campaign staff will be restricted by the government.

The case against Demirtas is part of a larger effort to decapitate the leadership of Turkey’s Kurdish movement and halt the rise of a reasonable, popular, and moderate leader.

Erdogan’s government has imprisoned and dismissed numerous HDP deputies on trumped-up charges, making use of any excuse to strip them of their parliamentary immunity. Kurdish media and nongovernmental organizations have been severely weakened by arrests and closures. As of early March, almost 12,000, or a third of HDP members, had been detained and sent to jail.

Kurds comprise 18 to 20 percent of Turkey’s population and also reside in three other neighboring countries: Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Since the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Kurds have been subjected to continuous harassment and denial of basic rights. Demirtas is the first Kurdish politician to have made inroads among non-Kurdish voters, including some on the left of the political spectrum, as well as students and middle-class voters. He is a young, telegenic, hard-nosed politician who, at his trial, succeeded in turning the tables and putting the government in the dock. Like Mandela, who in his famous 1964 Rivonia trial speech drew on his extensive legal training to directly refute several of the prosecution’s key allegations, Demirtas, ever the lawyer, has also sought to systematically deconstruct the state’s case against him. His command of the law together with a detailed defense is designed to undermine the Turkish government’s mantra on the independence of the judiciary. The Erdogan-controlled press, which today comprises almost all television, radio, and newspaper outlets in Turkey, has of course ignored Demirtas or mentioned him only to hurl insults at him. The daily Yeni Safakcalled him a murderer and a showman; on a regular television program, two pro-AKP columnists argued that he would be jailed for having killed 53 people.

Demirtas succeeded in breathing life into Kurdish politics by professionalizing his party, appealing to broader constituencies beyond the Kurdish population, and articulating a message of Turkish-Kurdish coexistence.

 He has emerged as a challenger to both Erdogan and Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which since the mid-1980s has been engaged in a violent campaign against the Turkish state. While those Kurds who are sympathetic to the PKK constitute a natural base for Demirtas and his HDP, he has worked hard to make inroads among the more conservative and pious Kurds who have tended to vote for the AKP.

He has already demonstrated his prowess. Thanks to Demirtas, the HDP won more than 6 million votes (13.1 percent of the total) in the June 2015 parliamentary elections and managed for the first time to cross the 10 percent barrier needed to get into parliament. HDP gains caused the ruling AKP to lose its parliamentary majority. Erdogan then forced another election that November, which was conducted against a backdrop of war, as he launched a full-blown counterinsurgency campaign against the PKK and abrogated peace talks he had been conducting with the Kurds through intermediaries including Demirtas. In these elections, the HDP did not fare quite as well though the party still managed to win the 10 percent needed to remain in parliament.

Today’s conditions are different; following a failed July 2016 coup attempt, Erdogan has unleashed a scorched-earth campaign against all his enemies — real and imaginary. Purges of educational institutions, the judiciary, the military, and the press have deprived Turkey of independent voices. The upcoming June 24 elections are the last step of Turkey’s transition from a democratic parliamentary system to a full-fledged electoral authoritarian regime

 with almost no checks and balances to restrain the power of the presidency.

It is quite possible that the spectacle of Demirtas campaigning for the presidency from jail could strike a chord with various different opposition constituencies. Erdogan’s hostility toward the Kurds at home and abroad in Syria and Iraq has alienated the conservative Kurds who used to vote for him.

These Kurds may never have been sympathetic to the HDP in the past. However, the sheer magnitude of injustices committed against Kurds; the deliberate disparaging of all things Kurdish, including the elimination of municipal and road signs in Kurdish; and the desecration of Kurdish symbols in the Syrian town of Afrin, where Turkish troops and their jihadi allies waged a campaign against Syrian Kurds, have alienated even the most conservative Kurdish voters.

The conditions that made Demirtas a viable candidate in June 2015 are back. Disillusionment with the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), runs rampant among many non-Kurdish opposition voters; Demirtas is perceived as the only principled leader who in the past forcefully resisted Erdogan’s imperious ambitions.

 It is possible that voters who deserted the HDP after June 2015 and new ones who know that the traditional opposition parties cannot defeat Erdogan will cast their votes for Demirtas as the most effective method of registering their anger at the country’s autocratic leader.

A strong showing by Demirtas in the upcoming elections, perhaps winning as many as 7.5 million votes or approximately 15 percent of the total, would elevate his stature. In advance of his formal candidacy, one poll put him at 13.4 percent, and another pollster suggestedthat a 15 percent share was achievable as he might benefit from sympathy votes. He and the Kurds could even emerge as the kingmakers in the second round of the presidential poll in the event that no candidate receives more than 50 percent. This is increasingly likely as a new right-wing nationalist party, the Iyi Party, led by Meral Aksener, has emerged as a contender, further diluting the presidential vote. In a second-round toss-up between Erdogan and the main opposition leader — in all likelihood the newly minted CHP candidate Muharrem Ince, who to his credit bucked his own party and Erdogan by refusing to vote to lift the immunities of HDP parliamentarians — Kurdish votes or abstentions could make the difference. This may explain why in the past two weeks, Erdogan, his press outlets, and his allies have toned down their typically belligerent anti-Kurdish rhetoric.

Still, Erdogan faces an unpleasant long-term dilemma: His complete control of the judiciary means he can decide whether Demirtas will never again see the light of day or be freed. Either way, this is a lose-lose proposition for Erdogan. Releasing him will mean that his most effective and skillful opponent with a dedicated base will have a free hand to organize and cause him trouble.

Keeping him behind bars and denying him the right to run will galvanize not just his domestic supporters but also foreign governments and international NGOs. In addition, the mobilization of large diaspora communities, especially in Europe, will help spread the word and develop into a public relations nightmare. A prolonged jail sentence on discredited charges with time will quite conceivably turn him into a cause célèbre — and possibly into a new Mandela.

Cambodia: Court upholds ‘insurrection’ convictions of 11 jailed opposition supporters

 10th May 2018

Members of the dissolved opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) Meach Sovannara (R) and Ouk Pich Samnang react inside a police vehicle on their way to attend a verdict announcement at the appeal court in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, May 10, 2018. Source: Reuters/Samrang Pring

A CAMBODIAN court upheld convictions of 11 members and supporters of Cambodia’s now-defunct opposition party, amid growing concerns for the state of democracy in the country in the lead up to July’s general election.

“The Appeal Court decides to uphold the Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s decision…and continues to detain the 11 individuals,” Judge Plang Samnang said, without giving a reason.

The “insurrection” convictions were handed down to the 11 members and supporters of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) who were jailed for terms ranging from seven to 20 years in 2014, after they forcibly tried to reopen the country’s only designated protest venue, “Freedom Park,” in July that year.

SEE ALSO: Cambodian newspaper sold to PR firm linked to Hun Sen

Their arrest and subsequent imprisonment was part of a larger scale crackdown on opposition from Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia for 33 years.

Hun Sen stepped up his campaign against dissent and freedom of speech after the 2013 general election saw his ruling Cambodian People’s Party claim only a very narrow margin over CNRP.

The CNRP has since been dissolved, following a judgment from the Supreme Court, that saw its members banned from politics and its leader, Kem Sokha, jailed on charges of treason.

Fresh fears of authoritarian rule resurfaced this week after the takeover of Cambodia’s last remaining independent newspaper, The Phnom Penh Post.

SEE ALSO: Cambodian free press ‘in ruins’, says Reporters Without Borders

Staff were left shell-shocked after new owner, Sivakumar S Ganapthy who has ties to both the Malaysian and Cambodian government, fired the editor in chief and two reporters. His decision was followed by a mass exodus of staff that saw the resignation of as many as 13 foreign journalists from the 26-year-old paper.

Dozens of radio stations have been forced off the air and an English-language newspaper, the Cambodia Daily, was forced to close last year after the government gave it a month’s deadline to settle a US$6.3-million tax bill.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said the case against the opposition aimed to silence government critics ahead of the election.

“Prime Minister Hun Sen and the ruling Cambodian People’s Party apparently decided to lock up political opponents to stave off defeat at the ballot-box,” Brad Adams, the group’s Asia director, said in a statement on Monday

Additional reporting by Reuters.