𝐎𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐣𝐢 𝐒𝐚𝐤𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐚 (1874-1936)

 

MARC WADSWORTH salutes the remarkable talents of Labour’s first Indian MP, a communist who rocked the Commons with savage takedowns of the empire and the monarchy'

 

ONE hundred years ago, on November 15 1922, an Indian freedom fighter and communist was elected to the British Parliament as the Battersea Trades Council and Labour Party MP.

Shapurji Saklatvala was a member of India’s industrially wealthy Tata family, yet he bridged class and cultural barriers with his powerful commitment to the revolutionary cause.

Much of what Saklatvala spoke about a century ago still has relevance. He was forthright in support of the many, among the international working class, and not the world’s elite few. He opposed capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, racism and monarchism.

In a celebrated speech in support of the 1926 general strike, he said: “I am out for a revolution and am quite willing to be shot down.” He was put in jail for three months as a result of what he said.

Saklatvala also suffered police raids on his home. He was banned by the British government from entry to countries such as Egypt, the United States, Belgium — and even from his native India.

Despite a heart condition — he died aged just 61 in 1936 — as the Daily Worker wrote: “Night after night, year after year, in all parts of Britain he carried out his task of working-class agitation, education and organisation. No comrade ever did more of his work so uncomplainingly as comrade Saklatvala. No call was ever made to which he did not respond.”

He travelled to Ireland, giving his speeches in support of trade unionists, fellow socialists and backing Indian and Irish independence. In Battersea, he worked closely with many comrades, including leading pan-Africanist John Archer, who was elected London’s first black mayor in 1913.

Fellow communist Tom Bell observed: “There is no doubt Saklatvala wore himself out before his time in an unselfish devotion to the cause of the colonial peoples and of communism.”

Commentators described Saklatvala as one of the most gifted orators of his generation. While serving as an MP, he wrote a ferocious article ridiculing the House of Commons — but at the same time, he revelled in being a parliamentarian, putting himself forward as a candidate at a time when few fellow communists thought it was a good idea.

From Saklatvala’s first days in the Commons, his biting wit and irreverence were unleashed. The Times in 1923 reported: “As to the Indian Civil Service, Saklatvala said, it was not Indian, it was not civil, and it was a domination and a usurpation. Barring those three great defects, the service was all right.”

Referring to a debate in 1928, the Manchester Guardian wrote: “No contribution to the debate had such a stirring and stimulating effect as Mr Saklatvala’s, and for some hours afterwards the enquiry was everywhere made when two persons met within the walls of Parliament, ‘Did you hear Saklatvala’?”

He scored a parliamentary first when he addressed the speaker as “comrade” and his rejection of the ruling class and its institutions, particularly the monarchy, was evident when he lampooned them.

“A few families supply monarchs to Europe just as a few biscuit factories supply biscuits all over Europe,” he told the Commons.

In a debate about whether or not to allocate the prince of Wales a £2,000 grant (more than £30,000 in today’s money) for a trip to Africa and South America, Saklatvala mocked the muted Labour criticism of the proposal. “If they want an empire and a ‘royal nob’ at the head of it,” (eliciting loud cries of “order” and “withdraw”) Saklatvala, quipped: “The royal head, I mean.”

He added, in the same spirited fashion, that he opposed any grant to the prince on the grounds that it was “the usual trickery of the minority, who were helping themselves at the expense of the majority.”

Sometime earlier, the Commons was told the prince of Wales had received a “cordial invitation” to visit India. Saklatvala protested: “The people of India said they did not want his royal highness there, and the government of India had to empty out the jails and pay money to spectators.”

He made almost 500 speeches and other parliamentary interventions during 1922-23 and 1924-29.

They covered foreign, colonial and domestic issues, from world revolution to cases of hardship and injustice faced by British and Indian workers.

For Saklatvala, the battle against imperialist subjugation was just as important whether it was being fought in India, Palestine, Ireland or Africa.

Saklatvala was uncompromising in arguing that the exploitation of the global South damaged African, Asian and Caribbean workers and white workers in the Western hemisphere alike.

He said that private enterprise, which was so lauded in Britain, had spread to India, with the result that its big dividends, low wages, and long hours were depriving thousands of workers in the cotton industry in this country of their livelihood.

Marc Wadsworth is the author of the political biography Comrade Sak.

 

Source: The Morning Star 

 

 https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/out-revolution-shapurji-saklatvala?fbclid=IwAR3uWSIfegrcGFomrLm-nlonaK020g67qW4-ORhKfgaTl2_ORxJUx8mA-EI

 

𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧?

 

--Nasir Khan

The whole history of mankind shows when Religion and State were united, the world saw only political and social oppression, injustice and disasters. The same thing is happening in many countries now where some people are killing others in the name of their religion and for imposing their brand of religion on others by terror and coercion to take political power. But they reject the other course, a humane and sensible course, which allows a peaceful existence of all people in a democratic way, which leads to the well-being of all, respect for all religions and their followers, such as, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha'is, Buddhists, animists, all sorts of believers or non-religious people. 

 

Under such a democratic and humane system all people have equal social and political rights. There is no discrimination against anyone because of their religion or oppression of any religion under any pretext. All people have freedom to follow their religions according to their customs and traditions freely. Religion becomes a matter of personal choice over which no other authority, social or political, can intervene.

The question before all of us is: which is the better way? I think the people who have not been fully brainwashed and indoctrinated will accept the democratic path. But those who want to kill and terrorise to impose their only misguided convictions and dogmas will continue to kill and terrorise. If they gain power, they will impose their unjust laws, discriminate against other faiths and sects and make the life of minorities intolerable and brutish.

The Dangers of a Nuclear War

What if such a big investment in the war leads not only to a modern conventional war but to a nuclear war, then who will be the big winners? Will a nuclear war remain confined to Europe and Russia only, or will it have the potential to reach other distant countries, such as the United States of America? No power will be safe. It will be total destruction on an unpredictable and unimaginable scale.

Still, there is time to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine and seek a negotiated settlement that takes into account the legitimate geopolitical interests of Ukraine and Russia. 

 

 -- Nasir Khan

White House Asks Congress for $14 Billion To Fund Its War Against Russia

It would bring the total funds authorized for the war in Ukraine to $67 billion if approved

by Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com,  September 2, 2022

The Joe Biden administration requested another massive infusion of cash for its war against Russia. The latest short-term spending proposal seeks nearly $14 billion for weapons and economic assistance for Ukraine. Since Russia invaded Ukraine six months ago, the US has sent Kiev tens of billions in weapons and direct economic assistance.

On Friday, the White House asked Congress to approve $13.7 billion in funds to confront Russia in Ukraine as part of a short-term spending package. The Biden administration’s total request is $47.1 billion for a wide array of issues, including Covid, Monkeypox, disaster relief, and the war in Ukraine.

The White House largely supported Kiev’s war effort by transferring arms owned by the Department of Defense to Ukraine’s military. Within the $14 billion for Ukraine, over half will go to buy weapons. $4.5 billion will go towards the Department of Defense replenishing American stockpiles.

The Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) allows the president to make the transfers without Congressional oversight. However, Congress authorized additional funds for the PDA in the $40 billion Ukraine aid bill passed earlier this year. Now, sources in the Pentagon are reporting that Biden’s prolific use of the PDA to arm Ukraine has started to deplete American stockpiles.

The latest spending proposal asks for an additional $2.7 billion in military and intelligence support for Ukraine and $4.5 billion in direct economic support for the government in Kiev. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion, Congress has authorized $53 billion in funding for the war in Ukraine. If passed, the latest aid package will bring the total to about $67 billion.

In addition to the $11.7 billion to support Ukraine’s war effort, the proposal includes $2 billion to fund the White House’s economic war against Russia. $1.5 billion will be spent on uranium to be used as nuclear fuel. $500 million will go towards upgrading the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Washington says it is in the middle of an energy war with Moscow. In Europe, gas prices are ten times the average, while the Ruble has strengthened against the dollar.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.

 

.

 Click on the link to read the article: 

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/09/02/white-house-asks-congress-for-14-billion-to-fund-its-war-against-russia/?fbclid=IwAR1LUZnJMHq7b_sXXPzQvXMUdRdE9PgoXsfa5E2pYkabaNyE012WRKOJYuo

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫

 --- Nasir Khan

The message of Jesus of Nazareth (c. 7-2 BC – c. 30-33 AD) was viewed as a challenge to the Roman Empire and a threat to the Jewish religious establishment. Jesus was a great teacher and revolutionary of those times. Even though our knowledge of this unique person is limited due to the lack of original sources, according to a critical analysis of the contents of the Christian Bible, we see him on the side of the poor, the sick and the marginalized people. For his activities he was branded as a criminal, a subversive rebel and then eradicated.

Even after the lapse of two thousand years, his message of hope and the possibility of creating a just and righteous world order (the Kingdom of Heaven) is still alive.

In my view, that message will never die, no matter how difficult the problems confronting the human race. There will always be some courageous people to pick up the message and carry on the struggle against the exploitation of humans by humans, against oppression, ignorance, injustice and poverty.

The appeal of the message lies in the universality of human values for a worthy life. History has seen the oppressive religious rulers of the Middle Ages, the autocratic monarchs of the bygone ages, the great dictators of the twentieth century and the fall of great empires. The present global imperial world order headed by the US military-industrial complex will also come to an end in the future. But the message of hope and justice will live on.

Incidentally, I am not discussing any theological beliefs or views around Jesus in whose name a world religion arose and now has over 2 billion followers. We know how the vast array of his followers around the world see him. However, many ignore the revolutionary content of his message.

It is important for us to see the universal and revolutionary content of his message. Human values existed long before him, and they still do. Moreover, history bears the testimony that some of the most gruesome crimes have been committed in his name and in the name of Christianity. For all of that, he bears no responsibility. Instead, I point to the positive side of his message for humanity in general.

-

The following figure of Jesus is imaginary. It should not be taken as a real image of him.

𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭

 Israel is the new Golden Calf of Western political establishments. It is eulogised, worshipped and commonly seen as sacrosanct. The 'Holocaust' industry is also its big stick with which Israel has subdued the West and many others regions of the world. 

 

No one who holds or aspires to hold any high political or official position in the West can dare to say a word about the way the Zionists have manipulated the event of the Holocaust to justify the colonisation of Palestine and silence any criticism of their brutal occupation, rampant killings and illegal expansion in the occupied territories.

---Nasir Khan

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐟𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧

 -- Nasir Khan

Religion is one thing; followers of a religion are another thing. The difference between the two is important; and they should not be equated as one and the same in this age, when much harm is still being done in the name and under the cover of religion.

 

What some (not all) followers of a religion do or may do in the name of their religion can be much different from the teachings of that religion. They are the people who transform their religions.

Sensible people make something good and noble out of the basic teachings of their religions; but brainwashed and indoctrinated fanatics concentrate only on the negative and destructive sides they create in disfiguring their religions. For their nefarious activities, both religions and their good followers also get a bad name.

 

However, I am not discussing how religions arise or what roles they play in class societies. What I say has more to do with some practical aspects of religions that we face in different parts of the world. Whether religions have/had an independent base in society or not is a theoretical and academic issue, which is not the theme of this short article.

 

There are billions of people who believe in and practise organized religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, etc. etc. without harming each other or causing harm to others. They follow the rites and rituals of their respective religions and follow the age-old traditions attached to their religions.

 

In the multi-religious and multi-ethnic world we live in, we have to accept other people's right to their faith, religion and world outlook, including the views of the non-religious people. We cannot force others to believe what we believe as being the only Truth. In reality, to persist in doing so as some do, is a crime against human beings, a violation of the rule of law and all norms of civilized behaviour. We have to stand against all barbarian fanatics and reject what they do or stand for.

 

At the same time we should bear in mind that only a small number of people from some religions, and I emphasise their small numbers, who resort to violence in the name of religions and thus misuse their religions. For instance, in a country like Pakistan, which has a population of about 190 million people, of whom 97% are Muslims, how many Muslims resort to religious violence and kill people in the name of Islam? Their numbers are small, but they are able to terrorize the whole country and its peaceful people.

 

So is the case with some militant Burmese Buddhists who have targeted Muslims, especially the Rohingya, and also in Sri Lanka, where some Buddhists have used violence against Muslims. As a humanist and a student of the history of religions, I find the malpractices of religious violence also as a grave infringement of basic religious consciousness, which largely seeks the welfare and improvement of human beings, not their destruction.

Some hard thoughts about post Ukraine

by Graham E. Fuller (grahamefuller. com)

18 June 2022

 The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:

 

1. Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war.  Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.

2) secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia.  This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.

As the war grinds to a close, where will things go?

Contrary to Washington’s triumphalist pronouncements, Russia is winning the war, Ukraine has lost the war.  Any longer-term damage to Russia is open to debate.

American sanctions against Russia  have turned out to be far more devastating to Europe than to Russia. The global economy has slowed and many developing nations face serious food shortages and risk of broad starvation.

There are already deep cracks in the European façade of so-called “NATO unity.” Western Europe will increasingly rue the day that it blindly followed the American Pied Piper to war against Russia. Indeed, this is not a Ukrainian-Russian war but an American-Russian war fought by proxy to the last Ukrainian.

Contrary to optimistic declarations, NATO may  in fact ultimately emerge weakened. Western Europeans will think long and hard about the wisdom and deep costs of provoking deeper long term confrontations with Russia or other “competitors”of the US.

Europe will sooner or later return to the purchase of inexpensive Russian energy. Russia lies on the doorstep and a natural economic relationship with Russia will possess overwhelming logic in the end. 

Europe already perceives the US as a declining power with an erratic and hypocritical foreign policy “vision” premised upon the  desperate need to preserve “American leadership” in the world. America’s willingness to go to war to this end is increasingly dangerous to others.

Washington has also made it clear that Europe must sign on to an “ideological” struggle against China as well in some kind  of protean struggle of “democracy against authoritarianism”. Yet, if anything this is a classic struggle for power across the globe. And Europe can even less afford to blunder into confrontation with China–a “threat” perceived primarily by Washington yet unconvincing to many European states and much of the world..

China’s Belt and Road initiative is perhaps the most ambitious economic and geopolitical project in world history. It is already linking China with Europe by rail and sea. European exclusion from the Belt and Road project will cost it dearly. Note that the Belt and Road runs right through Russia. It is impossible for Europe to close its doors to Russia while maintaining access to this Eurasian mega project. Thus a Europe that perceives the US already in decline has a little incentive to join the bandwagon against China. The end of the Ukraine war will bring serious reconsideration in Europe about the benefits of propping up Washington’s desperate bid to maintain its global hegemony.

Europe will undergo increasing identity crisis in determining its future global role. Western Europeans will tire of subservience to the 75 year American domination of European foreign policy. Right now NATO is  European foreign policy  and Europe remains inexplicably timid in asserting  any independent voice.How long will that prevail?

We now see how massive US sanctions against Russia, including confiscation of Russian funds in western banks, is causing most of the world to reconsider the wisdom of banking entirely on the US dollar into the future. Diversification of international economic instruments is already in the cards and willl only act to weaken Washington’s once dominant economic position and its unilateral weaponisation of the dollar.

One of the most disturbing features of this US-Russian struggle in Ukraine has been the utter corruption of independent media. Indeed Washington has won the information and propaganda war hands down, orchestrating all Western media to sing from the same hymnbook in characterizing the Ukraine war.  The West has never before witnessed such a blanket imposition by one country’s ideologically-driven geopolitical perspective at home. Nor, of course, is the Russian press to be trusted either. In the midst of  a virulent anti-Russian propaganda barrage whose likes I have never seen during my Cold Warrior days, serious analysts must dig deep these days to gain some objective understanding of what is actually taking place in Ukraine.

Would that this  American media dominance that denies nearly all alternative voices were merely a blip occasioned by Ukraine events. But European elites are perhaps slowly coming to the realization that they have been stampeded into this position of total “unanimity”; cracks are already beginning to appear in the façade of “EU and NATO unity.” But the more dangerous implication is that as we head into future global crises, a genuine independent free press is largely disappearing, falling into the hands of corporate-dominated media close to policy circles , and now bolstered by electronic social media, all manipulating the narrative to its own ends. As we move into a predictably greater and more dangerous crises of instability through global warming, refugee flows, natural disasters, and likely new pandemics, rigorous  state and corporate domination of the  western media becomes very dangerous indeed to the future of democracy. We no longer hear alternative voices on Ukraine today.

Finally, Russia’s geopolitical character has very likely now decisively tilted towards Eurasia. Russians have sought for centuries to be accepted within Europe but have been consistently held at arms length. The West will not discuss a new strategic and security architecture. Ukraine has simply intensified this trend. Russian elites now no longer possess an  alternative to accepting that its economic future lies in the Pacific where Vladivostok lies only one or two hours away by air from the vast economies of Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul. China and Russia have now been decisively pushed ever more closely together specifically out of common concern to block unfettered US freedom of unilateral military and economic intervention around the world. That the US can split US-induced Russian and Chinese cooperation is a fantasy. Russia has scientific brilliance, abundant energy, rich rare minerals and metals, while global warming will increase the agricultural potential of Siberia. China has the capital, the markets, and the manpower to contribute to what becomes a natural partnership across Eurasia.

Sadly for Washington, nearly every single one of its expectations about this war are turning out to be incorrect. Indeed the West may come to look back at this moment as the final argument against following Washington’s quest for global dominance into ever newer and more dangerous and damaging confrontations with Eurasia. And most of the rest of the world–Latin America, India, the Middle East and Africa– find few national interests in this fundamentally American war against Russia.

==================

Graham E. Fuller is a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA with responsibility for global intelligence estimates.

 

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-thoughts-about-post-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR0g262plai_6gd5VhMIReKAEx4tiEHeJZ_TvKACoX6fJBRzVBI3rs52tUc