Iraq: Rocket attacks hit central Baghdad and air base housing US troops

A series of rockets have targeted the highly fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, as well as an air base housing US troops. The explosions come on the heels of a US airstrike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

Several rockets fell in and around Baghdad on Saturday evening, including an attack targeting an air base housing US troops, the Iraqi military said in the wake of the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

The rockets fell in the city's Jadriya neighborhood as well as the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses government buildings and several foreign missions including the US Embassy.

The US-led military coalition fighting "Islamic State" in the region confirmed that two rockets struck near Iraqi bases hosting US troops in Baghdad and Balad, around 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of the capital. It said no soldiers were injured, but added that civilians may have been harmed.

The Iraqi military said in a statement that there was "no loss of life."

Security sources told news agency Agence France-Presse that surveillance drones were sent out above the base to locate the source of the rockets.

Police sources told Reuters news agency that five people were injured during mortar fire in the Jadriya neighborhood, which is close to the Green Zone.

Tensions soar after killing of Iranian general

The rocket attacks come after a US airstrike on Friday that killed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who headed Iran's elite Quds Force.

Iraq's Kataib Hezbollah militia warned Iraqi security forces to stay away from US bases in Iraq starting on Sunday evening, al-Mayadeen television reported.

Iran has vowed a harsh retribution for the targeted killing of Soleimani, bringing Washington and Tehran to the brink of a major conflict that could soon play out across the Middle East.

The killing has caused regional tensions to soar and sparked concerns from the US of a possible backlash against its embassy and bases where US troops are stationed in Iraq. US President Donald Trump has threatened to hit 52 Iranian sites "very hard" if the Islamic republic attacks Americans or US assets.

In the aftermath of Soleimani's death, NATO has suspended its training mission for soldiers in the Iraqi army, saying security concerns for its personnel were "paramount."




Iraqi mourners take to the streets of Baghdad 04.01.2020

DW RECOMMENDS

Thousands in Baghdad mourn top Iranian general

Iraq's prime minister and pro-Iran figures were in attendance at the procession, where mourners chanted "death to America." Tehran has vowed to retaliate over the US airstrike in Baghdad that killed Qassem Soleimani. (04.01.2020)

Germany seeks talks with Iran to ease tensions

European leaders have called for calm after the US airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Anti-war protests have broken out across the globe, most notably in Washington and London. (05.01.2020)

US to send more troops to Middle East as Iran vows 'retaliation' after killing of top general — as it happened

Tehran vowed to "retaliate" over a US airstrike in Baghdad that killed Qassem Soleimani. At least 3,000 more US troops will be deployed to the Middle East after the killing of a top Iranian commander. (03.01.2020)

US, Iran on precipice of unpredictable Middle East war

The US killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani could be seen as an act of war with untold consequences. The question is how, when and where Iran will strike back — and whether that triggers a wider conflagration. (03.01.2020)

From consolidating Iranian influence in Iraq to waging war against the "Islamic State" in Syria, General Qassem Soleimani was an instrumental figure for Iranian aspirations in the region. DW examines his life. (03.01.2020)

Trump: US targeting 52 Iranian sites if Tehran attacks Americans

Donald Trump has said Iran will be hit "very fast and very hard" if it carries out its threats against the US. The president said the US had "targeted 52 sites," including some "important to Iran & the Iranian culture." (05.01.2020)

General Qassem Soleimani: the key to Iranian influence in the Middle East

Issued on: 03/01/2020

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Qassem Soleimani (L) stands 

at the frontline during offensive operations against Islamic State militants 

in the town of Tal Ksaiba in Salahuddin province March 8, 2015. 

Picture taken March 8, 2015. Stringer, REUTERS
Text by:NEWS WIRES

Revolutionary Guards commander Qassem Soleimani, who was killed Friday in a US strike, was one of the most popular figures in Iran and seen as a deadly adversary by America and its allies.

General Soleimani, who headed the external operations Quds Force for the Guards, had wielded his regional clout publicly since 2018 when it was revealed that he had direct involvement in top-level talks over the formation of Iraq’s government.

It was no surprise at the time for a man who has been at the centre of power-broking in the region for two decades.

Soleimani has been in and out of Baghdad ever since, most recently last month as parties sought to form a new government.

Where once he kept to the shadows, Soleimani has in recent years become an unlikely celebrity in Iran—replete with a huge following on Instagram.

His profile rose suddenly when he was pushed forward as the public face of Iran’s intervention in the Syrian conflict from 2013, appearing in battlefield photos, documentaries - and even being featured in a music video and animated film.

In a rare interview aired on Iranian state television in October, he said he was in Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war to oversee the conflict.


To his fans and enemies alike, Soleimani was the key architect of Iran’s regional influence, leading the fight against jihadist forces and extending Iran’s diplomatic heft in Iraq, Syria and beyond.

“To Middle Eastern Shiites, he is James Bond, Erwin Rommel and Lady Gaga rolled into one,” wrote former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack in a profile for Time’s 100 most influential people in 2017.

“To the West, he is... responsible for exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution, supporting terrorists, subverting pro-Western governments and waging Iran’s foreign wars,” Pollack added.

With Iran roiled by protests and economic problems at home, and the US once again mounting pressure from the outside, some Iranians had even called for Soleimani to enter domestic politics.

While he has dismissed rumours he might one day run for president, the general has played a decisive role in the politics of Iran’s neighbour, Iraq.

As well as talks on forming a government, he was pivotal in pressuring Iraq’s Kurds to abandon their plans for independence after an ill-judged referendum last September.

Decision-maker

His influence has deep roots, since Soleimani was already leading the Quds Force when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

“My Iranian interlocutors on Afghanistan made clear that while they kept the foreign ministry informed, ultimately it was General Soleimani that would make the decisions,” former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told the BBC in 2013.


His firm but quiet presence play perfectly to the Iranian penchant for dignified humility.

“He sits over there on the other side of room, by himself, in a very quiet way. Doesn’t speak, doesn’t comment, just sits and listens. And so of course everyone is thinking only about him,” a senior Iraqi official told the New Yorker for a long profile of Soleimani.

A survey published in 2018 by IranPoll and the University of Maryland—one of the few considered reliable by analysts—found Soleimani had a popularity rating of 83 percent, beating President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Western leaders saw him as central to Iran’s ties with militia groups including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas.

Part of his appeal was the suggestion he might bridge Iran’s bitter social divides on issues such as its strict ‘hijab’ clothing rules.

“If we constantly use terms such as ‘bad hijab’ and ‘good hijab’, reformist or conservative... then who is left?” Soleimani said in a speech to mark World Mosque Day in 2017.

“They are all people. Are all your children religious? Is everybody the same? No, but the father attracts all of them.”

(AFP)

VIDEO

US, Iran on precipice of unpredictable Middle East war
The US killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani could be seen as an act of war with untold consequences. The question is how, when and where Iran will strike back — and whether that triggers a wider conflagration.


The US killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, near Baghdad's airport is a seminal event that brings Washington and Tehran to the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East.

A spymaster, military operative and diplomat wrapped into one, he was one of the Islamic Republic's most powerful men — and according to one poll, the most popular public figure — responsible for regional policy in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and beyond.

Read more: Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's Quds Force leader?

Trump: 'We caught him in the act and terminated him'

His killing creates further impetus for a vicious circle following a series of escalations since the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, imposed crushing sanctions and declared economic warfare under its "maximum pressure" campaign without providing a diplomatic off-ramp to deescalate.

Viewed from Tehran, Soleimani's heroic "martyrdom" is an act of war building on other "criminal" acts committed by the United States.

"This doesn't mean war, it will not lead to war, and it doesn't risk war. None of that. It is war," Andrew Exum, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy, wrote in The Atlantic.

Read more: The US and Iran: Decades of enmity

Who was Qassem Soleimani?

Hamidreza Azizi, an assistant professor at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, said that if Iran doesn't act on threats to retaliate it will lose face both domestically and externally.

"The Islamic Republic has produced a narrative of strength inside the country and the weakness of enemies. This will be broken if Iran stands idly," he said. "Not responding will send a message to US and Israel to double down on targeting Iranian interests. Iran is facing a very hard choice."

It's unclear how, when and where Iran will retaliate, but it will be forced to respond directly or indirectly at a time and place of its choosing, raising questions as to whether that will pull the US deeper into a military conflict. Any reprisal against the US military, interests or allies will be viewed by Washington as a reason to escalate further after the Trump administration justified the killing as an act of "deterrence" and preemption against alleged attacks being planned against the United States.

"The so-called 'rules of engagement' have been broken. This means that increasingly preemptive attacks will replace the condition of deterrence which offered a measure of stability," said Max Abrahms, a professor at Northeastern University and fellow at the Quincy Institute think tank.

"The killing of Soleimani will definitely not deter the Revolutionary Guard," he said. "We should expect a variety of asymmetric responses from Iran."

Activating the 'axis of resistance'

Last year, Iran threatened "to set fire to the interests of America and its allies" in the region if it were attacked. It has already proven willing to test the United States and regional states, raiding ships in the Persian Gulf, allegedly attacking SaudiAramco oil facilities with missiles and drones and shooting down a US drone. But the Islamic Republic also knows that a full-blown war with the US could threaten the regime's survival.

Iran has ample regional allies and proxies under its "axis of resistance" to wage asymmetric warfare and a ballistic missile capability to impose costs on the United States in Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. They could also strike further afield, attacking American embassies across the globe or activate operatives in the United States or elsewhere.

Lebanon - A country held hostage

Read more: Iran's military power: What you need to know

Blowback in Iraq

The easiest and least risky place for Iran to respond would be in Iraq, where the Revolutionary Guard has developed a web of Iranian-backed proxy forces and political allies that makes it a kingmaker in the country's politics.

It is also in Iraq, where the US drone strike killed eight others and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy leader of the state-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Units formed to battle the "Islamic State," that the United States is particularly vulnerable and finds itself in an increasingly untenable position.

One consequence for the United States is that Iran's allies in the Iraqi parliament and government have been boosted by US "violations of sovereignty" to hasten calls for some 5,000 US troops to be evicted from the country.

Such an event would effectively cede to Tehran primacy in Iraq at a time when the country is politically unstable following nearly three months of deadly anti-government protests, which have also been directed at Iranian meddling. Meanwhile, US forces and diplomats remain vulnerable to attack from pro-Iranian militia that are officially part of the Iraqi security forces.

Multiple pressure points

If it chose to ratchet up escalation in a wider war scenario, Iran could strike further afield by directly or indirectly targeting US military assets in the Persian Gulf, or it could bring the world economy to a standstill by blocking oil running through the Strait of Hormuz to global markets. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia could also find themselves in the crosshairs in a proxy response or larger conflagration.

US ally Israel, which has carried out hundreds of attacks on Syrian government forces and pro-Iran groups in Syria in a shadow war against its Iranian nemesis, is bracing itself for fallout from Iran-backed militants in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran-linked forces in Syria.

Read more: Israel-Iran conflict to be major Middle East issue in 2020

Fog of war

Iran's irregular tactics across the region, known as "forward defense," are designed to surprise and stretch enemy resources in a bid to keep fighting away from its soil.

"In some respects it follows an old analogy of it being easier to fight a bear than a dozen rattlesnakes, some hidden from view," retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper told DW last year, summarizing some of the dynamics of a potential conflict.

"Few wars turn out to be quick and decisive," he said. "The real problem is that every war has its own dynamics and the ability of any government to forecast with certainty how things will turn out is nil."

DW RECOMMENDS

Opinion: Trump risking war in the Middle East

By killing Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, US President Donald Trump risks sparking an uncontrollable wave of violence. He is also weakening pro-democracy forces in Iran and the wider region, says DW's Rainer Sollich. (03.01.2020)

US to send more troops to Middle East as Iran vows 'retaliation' after killing of top general — live updates

At least 3,000 more US troops will be deployed to the Middle East after the killing of a top Iranian commander. Tehran vowed to "retaliate" over a US airstrike in Baghdad that killed Qassem Soleimani. (03.01.2020)

Iraq protests: Assassinations and kidnappings haunting activists

Outgoing Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has stressed Iraq's committment to protect human rights and the right to peaceful protest, however, activists continue to face threats, kidnappings and assassinations. (11.12.2019)

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's Quds Force leader?

From consolidating Iranian influence in Iraq to waging war against the "Islamic State" in Syria, General Qassem Soleimani was an instrumental figure for Iranian aspirations in the region. DW examines his life. (03.01.2020)

Iran's military power: What you need to know

Iran may suffer from military disadvantages, but that doesn't stop it from being a major military player in the Middle East. DW breaks down Iran's military strengths and three parts of its asymmetric defense strategy. (06.08.2018)

Israel-Iran conflict to be major Middle East issue in 2020

Neither Iran or Israel may seek war. But a diplomatic breakdown after the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, strategic errors and a military buildup make a direct conflict — even an inadvertent one — more likely. (02.01.2020)

US 'locked and loaded' after blaming Iran for Saudi oil attack

US officials have suggested that Iran was behind the Saudi oil attacks, saying satellite images show it is unlikely that Houthis carried them out. Germany said it is working with partners to determine who is responsible. (16.09.2019)

Strait of Hormuz: The world's most important oil choke point

Following a number of oil tanker blasts in the Gulf of Oman, tensions between the United States and Iran are rising further. DW takes a closer look at what role the Strait of Hormuz plays for global oil supplies. (14.06.2019)

US kills top Iranian General Soleimani in Baghdad airstrike

The United States has killed Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, in an airstrike in Baghdad, the Pentagon has confirmed. The move is a potential turning point in the Middle East. (03.01.2020)

The US and Iran: Decades of enmity

The targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by the US is the latest episode in a troubled relationship. DW examines the tensions between the two nations dating back decades. (03.01.2020)

Iraq slams US airstrikes, warns of consequences

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has denounced US attacks on an Iranian-backed militia in his country. The airstrikes in response to the killing of a US citizen come amid high tensions between Tehran and Washington. (30.12.2019)
WWW LINKS


Iranian Public Opinion under "Maximum Pressure"

Iranian Public Opinion under "Maximum Pressure"
AUDIOS AND VIDEOS ON THE TOPIC


Iran promises 'harsh retaliation'

Lebanon - A country held hostage

Who was Qassem Soleimani?

Trump: 'We caught him in the act and terminated him'

Date 03.01.2020
Author Chase Winter
Related Subjects Iraq, White House, Iran

How Soleimani assassination was reported in Germany

The US assassinated Iran's top army general Qassem Soleimani by drone strike on Friday. DW takes a look at how Germany's domestic press reported the news.

On Friday US President Donald Trump gave the go-ahead for the US military to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Iran Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force. World leaders and officials have voiced their opinions, covering everything from restraint and reservation to praise. Here is where the German press stand on the incident:

Die Welt

Die Welt took a congratulatory tone after the US took the decision to shoot and kill the top general saying: "One thing is clear: The world is a better place without Qassem Soleimani. Iran is ultimately the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism, and Soleimani was Iran's top terrorist." The newspaper added that Soleimani had been responsible for attacks against civilians across the world, including Europe.

The publication disputes that the act would lead to war, writing "the mullahs know that they could not win a real war against the US. Soleimani's death is a significant turning point."

Süddeutsche Zeitung

Süddeutsche Zeitung agrees that the Soleimani was "without doubt the author of untold pain and suffering in the Middle East" but cautions that "above all his death will be the beginning of new violence and instability. This will sweep across Iraq and from Yemen to Syria in places that Soleimani placed his marionettes. It is not only an experience unique to the US in the region: A power vacuum in the Middle East will always be filled with violence."

Frankfurter Allgemeine

Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine drew comparisons between the recent attempted embassy storming in Baghdad and the 1979 US embassy occupation in Tehran, saying "these images awake an American trauma that has lost little of its potency" and suggests this could have influenced Trump's decision to act.

FAZ said the incident had created a "storm of domestic politics" in the US, and that the Democrats "saw the act infringe upon Congress' prerogative to declare war," before adding that Trump was not likely to take guidance from a system that was "intended to separate power." FAZ ends its assessment by saying: "Perhaps he (Trump) really believes the opponents will give in because the US military might makes them tremble."

Zeit

Zeit focused on Trump's broken campaign promise, writing that he will no longer go down as "a hero" who withdrew from "endless war." The newspaper argues that "should Iran hit back, targeting the world's oil supply or against the American military, Trump will remain the reason behind a campaign launched against a land of 80 million people. In comparison, the Iraq war started by George W. Bush will seem like a walk in the park."

TAZ

Finally, the TAZ also highlights Trump reneging on his campaign promise and adds that "the US makes the same mistake once again, it thinks only about playing the next immediate move, and in doing so loses the overall view of the entire chess match." The article argues that Iran now has the upper hand in many ways: not only with its ability to fight an asymmetric war, but also because Trump has used up all his options after canceling the 2018 nuclear agreement with Iran and had already imposed harsh sanctions.

The Mainstream Media Is a Cheerleader for War With Iran
BY BELÉN FERNÁNDEZ
When it comes to war, we shouldn't expect balance from mainstream news outlets: the corporate media has never met a war it didn't like.

President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event on January 3, 

2020 in Miami, Florida. (Joe Raedle / Getty Images)

In the aftermath of the United States’ latest war crime — the assassination-by-drone strike in Baghdad of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Fox News decided to educate its audience on the proper takeaway from the episode.

The upshot was not, of course, that the illegal killing was kind of a big deal or that the person who authorized it — Donald Trump — had potentially set the stage for calamity and bloodshed of untold proportions. Rather, the crucial point to focus on was the “polarized reaction by American news outlets.”

Trotted out to confirm the severity of the situation was one William A. Jacobson of Cornell Law School, who bemoaned the sad state of the “liberal media”: “Take any topic and they portray Trump as irresponsible and ignorant. This time those portrayals are on steroids, with Trump being portrayed as a warmonger surrounded by sycophants isolated from reality.”

Well, yeah.

In reality, the oft-invoked allegation of “polarization” in the media and the broader political establishment hardly holds water; it’s like arguing that 21 degrees Fahrenheit and 22 degrees Fahrenheit are polar opposites. Just recall, for example, that time Trump fired cruise missiles at Syria and the liberal media thought it was pretty much the most exciting thing to have ever happened.

A glance at media coverage of the Soleimani assassination also fails to produce much evidence of a fanatical anti-Trump campaign. The lead paragraph of a New York Times article about the “Master of Iran’s Intrigue” is devoted to establishing how Soleimani was “behind hundreds of American deaths in Iraq and waves of militia attacks against Israel.” The second paragraph reiterates that he was a “powerful and shadowy . . . spymaster at the head of Iran’s security machinery.”


In other words: he deserved it. And never mind that the United States has been behind countless thousands of Iraqi deaths in Iraq or that — as the article later reveals — the “waves of militia attacks” took place during the brutal twenty-two-year military occupation of south Lebanon by Israel, which also boasts the distinction of having slaughtered tens of thousands of people in that country.

When you’re not actually in the business of speaking truth to power, some things are better left unsaid.

The New York Times article also mentions that Soleimani and other Iranian officials were “designated as terrorists by the United States and Israel in 2011, accused of a plot to kill the ambassador of Saudi Arabia . . . in Washington.” Although that whole alleged plot has been soundly debunked, it bears raising the question: if the United States assassinated an Iranian official on foreign soil, doesn’t that qualify as terrorism?

The Washington Post opinion section, meanwhile, offered the analysis that, in killing Soleimani, Trump competently “enforce[d] the red line he drew on Iran” — i.e., everything is Iran’s fault, and if the country “miscalculates again, then the regime has been warned: Next time, the target will likely be Iran.”

This is not to say there has been no media criticism — there has been — but the problem is that the concern over the fallout of Trump’s bellicose act has to do primarily with the possibility of Iranian retaliation against the US military, US “assets,” and US “interests.” Yet these three components of US empire are precisely what have helped made life hell for Iranians, from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh — which enabled a lengthy reign of terror by the torture-happy shah, an overzealous purchaser of US weaponry — to the current crippling sanctions regime, a form of warfare in its own right.

Furthermore, seeing as the media has devoted much time lately to cheerleading for war with Iran — perpetuating the nuclear weapons myth and engaging in a general vilification of all things Iranian, much like in the run-up to the Iraq War — it’s not clear why anyone should be particularly shocked by the assassination.

And while Fox News may prefer to despair over toxic media polarization and the allegedly vast ideological chasm between Republicans and Democrats, let’s not forget that years before John Bolton advocated — on the pages of the New York Times — to “bomb Iran,” Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” the country.

The Democratic reaction to Trump’s latest stunt has been disingenuous at best. As Sarah Lazare and Michael Arria point out over at In These Times, Democratic ruckus over the manner in which the president has chosen to go to battle with Iran — without congressional approval — “belie[s] Democrats’ role in helping lay the groundwork for the growing confrontation” in the first place. The $738 billion defense bill for 2020, for instance, was passed with Democratic support after being purged of two amendments: one “to block funding for a war with Iran barring congressional approval,” and one to repeal the existing “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists,” which Trump administration officials have “suggested . . . may give them authority to go to war with Iran.”

Democrats like Joe Biden have made sure to qualify their objections to Trump’s supposed recklessness with an affirmation of Soleimani’s diabolical, terroristic nature and the justice that was supposedly achieved by eradicating him from the face of the earth.

As Trump and his accomplices — including his de facto allies in the Democratic Party — pursue isolation from reality to the lethal detriment of the rest of the world, who knows when they’ll finally cross a red line of their own.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Belén Fernández is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, Marytrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon, and, most recently, Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Front-line activists 'Primera Linea' protect Chile's protesters, but some criticize their methods

La Primera Linea protests on Plaza Italia in Santiago. (Photo: @Chile_Despert0)

CHILE / DEMONSTRATIONS - 01/03/2020

People have been talking about the Primera Linea since the very start of the popular uprising in Chile back in October. The young people who make up this group regularly clash with police during protests, often dressed up as superheroes from the Marvel universe. They say their aim is to protect the protesters, but some say their methods are too violent.

The Primera Linea are easy to identify amongst Chile’s protesters with their protective helmets, coloured scarves and handmade shields. They appear in many photos taken in Santiago’s Plaza Italia, which the protesters rebaptized Plaza de la Dignidad (Dignity Square).

The group doesn't have a leader and has come together throughout the course of the protests. Members of Primera Linea call themselves "revolutionary" and say their aim is to protect the protesters from police violence and allow them to exercise their right to protest safely. This is a real concern. More than 2,000 people have been injured by police since the start of the protests. Indeed, two weeks after the demonstrations began, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera declared that his country was "at war against a powerful, relentless enemy that doesn’t respect anyone or anything."

Videos of clashes between the Chilean police, nicknamed les carabineros, and Primera Linea have circulated online.

Épico #PrimeraLinea rescata a uno de los suyos! Como pataleaba el paco wn jajaja pic.twitter.com/qhhLKlonAK Leo Vieyra (@LeonardoAndrsA2) December 23, 2019

"Epic! Primera Linea rush to the aid of one of their members. He sure gives him a kick haha"

Viva la #PrimeraLinea
Viva Chile, mierda! https://t.co/TbXHakMcFE Piedra Roja (@PiedraRoja5) December 23, 2019

"Long live Primera Linea! Long live Chile!"

As the name, which means "front line" indicates, members of Primera Linea construct barricades out of rocks, pieces of sheet metal and tyres to prevent the police from reaching the protesters. Both men and women participate; the young men often go shirtless.

During confrontations with the police, they arm themselves with slingshots and batons and rip up bits of tarmac to throw. Sometimes they lob homemade molotov cocktails at the police. Some members, paradoxically known as "bombers", are tasked with defusing the tear gas canisters thrown the carabineros with a mixture of water and baking soda.

Cuando pensabas que en Chile no quedaban héroes. Los ladrones de cuello y corbata hacían lo que querían. Robaban hasta el agua. Y ponían a uno de los suyos en La Moneda. Pero los héroes estaban. Aparecieron cuándo más los necesitamos. Los héroes siempre están en la #PrimeraLinea pic.twitter.com/LeAnzKaf9M Andrés (@andres20ad) December 25, 2019

"When you thought there were no more heroes in Chile. The criminals in suits get away with whatever they want. They’d steal everything, right down to the water we drink. They managed to place one of their own in La Moneda [Editor’s note: The presidential palace]. But there are still heroes. They appear just when we need them most. Heroes are always on the front line."

Other photos show members of Primera Linea with green lasers, trying to temporarily blind members of the security forces a technique borrowed from Hong Kong protesters.

Tengo un TOC
No puedo evitar ponerle esta música a este tipo de videos con las espadas laser verdes de los JEDI de la primera línea#LaMarchaMasGrandeDeTodas pic.twitter.com/4t2BDuaUDt Gato Matapacos (@GatoDelPueblo) November 23, 2019

"I can’t stop myself from playing this song when I see videos like this showing the light sabres carried by the jedis who are members of Primera Linea."

On social media, some people refer to Primera Linea as superheroes, a concept reinforced by the tendency of group members to wear clothing or symbols referencing Captain America, Iron Man or Spider Man. On December 24, a video game featuring Primera Linea was launched.

Para tomar cafecito honrando a los grandes!! #PrimeraLinea pic.twitter.com/3Qe2Ss7i55 Pamela (@Pamela98583358) December 24, 2019

"Drink your coffee in honour of these guys!"
"When I grow up, I’ll be a member of Primera Linea," this poster reads.

Grandes #PrimeraLinea pic.twitter.com/MQtroNDNmQ DonCapi (@capitngeneral73) December 19, 2019

"They allow us to protest safely"

Leo Vieyra, age 43, regularly takes part in protests. His says that Primera Linea knew what to do to get people’s support:

At first, people were very influenced by the image of Primera Linea in traditional media outlets, which often have close ties to the government. So they thought they were all hooligans. But when they participated in protests, people started to realise that Primera Linea helped everyone else protest safely. They block the police from advancing and protect us from repression.

From what I observed during the protests, they showed immense courage and were very organized. Sadly, many of these young people are among those who were injured, some severely.

Since the start of the protests, severe human rights violations have occurred in Chile, according to reports by several organisations. For example, a total of 347 people have sustained serious eye injuries with some losing vision permanently, according to the most recent report, published on December 23 by the National Institute of Human Rights (INDH).

A report by the United Nations has denounced the "indiscriminate and inappropriate" use of pellet guns during protests that are, for the most part, peaceful. The UN report said that lead pellets were fired in numerous cases in the immediate vicinity of protesters.

"This reminds many people of repression under the military dictatorship of Pinochet"

María Fernanda Barrera Rodríguez, who is originally from Chile, is a researcher in sociology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. She says that many people appreciate the Primera Linea because the memory of life under the military dictatorship is still fresh in their minds.

The accounts that people have given of being tortured and the violation of human rights that is ongoing reminds many people of the repression under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). The memories of this era still haunt Chileans and they came flooding back when a curfew was imposed at the start of the movement and the army was deployed. In Chile, those are very symbolic gestures.

This isn’t the first time in Chilean history that a group has tried to protect protesters, though they have never before worn superhero costumes. Ale Bórquez Bravo used to lead student protests. He took part in a series of protests at Chilean universities in 2015 and has also been a part of the most recent wave of protests. He says that the popularity of Primera Linea is a direct result of the increase in police violence.
There’s always been a kind of front line that protects protesters in Chile. It was necessary because, over the past few years, all of the protest movements have been repressed in an attempt to uphold an illusion of democracy. Faced with that reality, there have always been people on the front lines who come face to face wth the security forces and do their best to keep the protests peaceful. Without them, we wouldn’t have achieved any gains in the past and we wouldn’t have been able to mobilise such large numbers of people. Institutional brutality didn’t just appear over the past few months, it was just less visible before. These days, there are more of us in the streets so the violence has become more widespread.

"We are talking about bullets on one side and wooden spoons on the other"

However, not everyone agrees with what Primera Linea is doing. Some supporters of the current regime as well as people who consider themselves non-partisan criticise the group virulently on social media. They say Primera Linea's methods are too aggressive and call them hooligans. They accuse them of being behind looting that occurred right at the beginning of the movement.

Ésta señores es la verdadera #PrimeraLinea los otros sólo son pobre caricatura de un show tercermundista. https://t.co/d7fxan4n8k Carlos (@cherrerafe) December 25, 2019

"These men are the real front line. The others are just a caricature of a third-world show"

Magdalena Ortega, the director of training and public service for IdeaPaís research centre,is not a fan of the Primera Linea. She has been calling for an end to what she says is a "normalisation of violence". She advocates for working within the system.

We need to put a stop to these romantic notions that Primera Linea are heroes that fight for the people. In reality, these young people are victims of the violence that has become normalised in Chile. I think that there are other solutions. The police need reforms and we should do that by working through the appropriate channels.

IdeaPaís researcher Marí­a Fernanda Barrera Rodríguez says that it is impossible to compare police violence with the actions of Primera Linea.

I think it is a mistake to compare police violence with the actions carried out by Primera Linea. The police are supposedly armed with non-lethal weapons but they have mutilated more than 300 people and killed protesters. We are talking about bullets on one side and wooden spoons and pots on the other. I think it is more important to question why people are willing to lose their eyes or even their lives by protesting.

According to the Chilean prosecutor’s office, 26 protesters were killed on November 20 and, in a least four cases, officers of the law were directly implicated in the deaths.

During a protest held on December 27, a member of Primera Linea died after falling and being electrocuted. The circumstances surrounding the death are still unknown. As for the police, 94 officers were injured that same day.

#PrimeraLinea Personas se reúnen en el lugar donde anoche un #PrimeraLinea falleció. pic.twitter.com/kwQ4r2L613 Claudia Vitacurie (@ClaudiaRodHoz) December 28, 2019

"Members of Primera Linea gather where one of their members fell the night before"
In another case, legal proceedings were launched on December 21 against a police officer who was driving and hit a 20-year-old protester. There are photos of the incident below.


⚠️ OJO

Manifestante chileno es aplastado por dos vehículos blindados de los carabineros.
Os lo dejo por aquí porque no lo vas a ver en el telediario.pic.twitter.com/6plJbjx0I6 ???? Andaluz Indignado (@Andaluz_Jarto) December 22, 2019

The people protesting in Chile are frustrated by the inequalities in this country, where 1% posses a third of the country’s wealth. They want better access to education and healthcare and are angry about the increased cost of living in the country. The movement was sparked by the increase in metro tickets in Santiago.Article by Syrine Attia (@Syrine_Attia)


CHILE / DEMONSTRATIONS / POLICE BRUTALITY

To Crush Chile’s Popular Uprising, Its Government Is Taking a Page from the Fascist Playbook
BY
CAMILA VERGARA

In the wake of Chile’s popular uprising, the country’s right-wing government is carrying out a ruthless legal crackdown against all forms of protest. Some call it “law-and-order populism” but there’s nothing populist about it — it’s inspired by the penal practices of twentieth-century fascism.

 
Chilean riot police officers chase protesters on 

December 27, 2019 in Santiago, Chile. 

Marcelo Hernandez / Getty


The temptation of representative governments to repress social protest instead of yielding to the demands of a mobilized citizenry is strong. Why would a president satisfy grievances voiced in the street instead of fulfilling his own government program? Why cave to popular pressures instead of allowing ordinary channels of political negotiation and consensus to deliver change? The answer is necessarily contextual: it depends on the degree of legitimacy enjoyed by political leaders and representative institutions. After almost two months of massive mobilizations and brutal repression, polls show 82 percent of Chileans disapprove of President Piñera’s administration, with a whopping 94 percent condemning the government’s actions in dealing with disturbances of public order. Nevertheless, Piñera’s repressive “security agenda” is making steady progress in Congress — which currently enjoys a dismal approval rating of only 4.7 percent — seeking to establish new crimes, increase penalties, and give judges more discretionary power to punish.

The government’s objective in prioritizing security over social demands seems clear: to subdue the popular uprising and prevent future outbreaks of social discontent. New laws would impose mandatory minimums for blocking streets (where mass mobilizations take place), occupying land (which has been central to indigenous territorial struggles), and any type of face covering while engaging in protests. These provisions are not sui generis but build on a legal tradition that finds its roots in fascism and its legal doctrine centered on the internal defense of the state. 

Penal Fascism vs. Penal Populism

The government’s security agenda has stirred strong controversy. Some in the opposition have criticized it as “penal populism.” This is of course not the first time that the populist label has been used in a derogatory manner, but in this particular instance the mislabeling obscures the otherwise obvious fascist overtones of the government’s strategy to “pacify” the mobilized citizenry in an attempt to impose an already lost status quo ante.

From its origins in nineteenth-century Russia and the Unites States, to Latin America and Southern Europe, populist movements and leaders have appealed to a class-based conception of the people as a plebeian subject constructed against oligarchy. Attempting to represent the popular sectors, populism strives to satisfy the people’s immediate material demands and visit punishment on corrupt elites. Laws against looting, barricades, blocking traffic, labor strikes, and the use of face masks during protests against neoliberal policies are therefore clearly not “penal populism.” The criminalization of protest is not a demand emanating from the people — the top three are better pensions, wages, and health care— so it would be more accurate to understand these laws that disproportionately punish public disorder as fascistic legal adaptations that build on the doctrine of internal defense of the state to increase the repressive capacity of law enforcement against a mobilized citizenry demanding social change.

While the objective of penal fascism is to impose a legal, moral, and economic order through disproportionately harsh laws against internal enemies, thus undermining the protection of individual rights and due process, the objective of penal populism is to impose disproportionately harsh penalties on corrupt oligarchs through popular forms of justice — such as characterizing political corruption as a crime of treason with life imprisonment or death, and prosecuting cases of political corruption in popular courts to allow for the “venting” of indignation and resentment. According to Machiavelli, political trials in which corrupt oligarchs were tried by the people were the secret to the longevity of the Roman popular republic. While penal populism is today merely symbolic spectacle —a mannequin of the president was recently guillotined in the square— and frauds and collusion are lightly penalized with fines and ethics classes instead of prison time, legal fascism and oligarchic impunity appear to be taking root. 

Fascism and the Internal Defense of the State

One of the most decisive legal innovations that allowed for the hegemony of fascism during the first half of the twentieth century was the establishment of a set of laws for the internal defense of the State against individuals with ‘“subversive” ideologies — mainly communists but also trade union leaders, socialists, and anarchists. The first law of this kind, promoting an “idealistic doctrine of the authoritarian state,” was passed in Italy in 1926 after an assassination attempt against Mussolini. As his Minister of Justice, fascist jurist Alfredo Rocco wrote, given that tradition embodies truths that must be preserved to prevent the destruction of the state, the penal code must reflect this new defensive doctrine and create strong protections for the “State, family, morality and the economy” against individual actions that could cause social change. The law punished as enemies of the state those who “committed or manifested the deliberate intention of committing subversive acts of the social, economic or national order” with exile, long prison sentences, and even capital punishment. Of the thousands of political prisoners in fascist Italy, perhaps the most famous was the communist Antonio Gramsci.

Chile adopted this fascist legal legacy first in the 1937 “Law for the Defense of the State” establishing severe punishments for disruptions to the social order, and then with the infamous “Law for the Permanent Defense of Democracy” passed in 1948, which outlawed the Communist Party, disenfranchised thousands of militants and community organizers, and limited the rights to assemble and strike. While the latter law was repealed in the late 1950s, the former was preserved, then perfected in 1958, and finally broadened during the Pinochet dictatorship when the number of crimes and penalties attached to them increased to target resistance to the regime and its neoliberal model.

Since Chile’s transition to democracy in 1990, the current Law for the Internal Security of the State (LES) has been applied more than a dozen times against Mapuche leaders struggling to reclaim indigenous lands and autonomy in the Araucanía region; a journalist who wrote on corruption in the judicial system; bus drivers and prison guards going on strike; protestors denouncing the increase of natural gas prices in Magallanes; and drivers of shared taxi services mobilizing in Santiago. More recently, the law was invoked to prosecute those involved in the uprising that began on October 18 in subway stations in Santiago. Professor Roberto Campos, accused of destroying a subway turnstile, was held in preventive detention in the High Security Prison while awaiting trial. He risk five years in prison.

The LES penalizes with prison time not only those who “destroy or disable” means of transportation but also those who “incite or induce subversion of public order or revolt,” punishing those who “meet, arrange or facilitate meetings” that conspire against the stability of the government, and those who propagate “in word or in writing” doctrines that “tend to destroy or alter the social order through violence.” Because any idea that promotes social change could be considered an incitement to the subversion of order, such laws in other countries —many of them passed in times of external war— have ceased to be applied or directly repealed. The Sedition Act in the United States, for example, passed in 1918 during World War I, penalized “disloyal language” against the government with up to twenty years in jail. Although the criminalization of political expressions was repealed two years later, the prohibition of any political agitation considered seditious remains in force under the Espionage Act. The jurisprudence emanating from the application of this law demonstrates that the violation of the right to free expression is inevitable when arbitrary power is given to the government to censor internal criticism. Those accused of crimes under the Espionage Act have been mostly union leaders, socialists, communist,s and anarchists — among the most famous are the union leader and candidate of the Socialist Party of America, Eugene Debs, and anarchist Emma Goldman.

The most dangerous article of the LES for protesters in Chile is the one that penalizes people who “incite, promote or encourage or in fact and by any means, destroy, disable or prevent free access to bridges, streets, roads or other similar public use goods.” The law is so broad that it could be applied to students who incite the evasion of the subway fare and to all protesters who mobilize peacefully every day on the streets, blocking traffic. The most disturbing thing is that the government coalition has been pushing to incorporate similar provisions into ordinary criminal law, seeking to further normalize these “exceptional” rules.

As part of the security agenda, the Senate’s Public Security Commission approved in general a bill that incorporates the crime of “public disorder” into the Criminal Code, imposing penalties of up to three years in prison for those who, “using a demonstration or public meeting,” paralyze or interrupt a public service of prime necessity, such as the subway, or throw stones, build barricades, or occupy private or public property. If these modifications are approved, high school students who participate in mass fare-evasion protests at subway stations, “frontline” protesters who make barricades and throw tear-gas bombs back to police to protect those who demonstrate peacefully from being repressed, and those who occupy a shopping mall as a form of protest, would risk prison sentences without the need for the invocation of the LES.

In addition to the criminalization of civil disobedience and mass mobilizations, the new law would also penalize looting in the context of social unrest with five to fifteen years in prison, make disregarding curfews (currently a misdemeanor) a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison, and allow for judges to suspend benefits to welfare recipients as soon as they are charged with “public disorder.” These new legal provisions would impose not only disproportionate punishments but also target the poor by giving judges the arbitrary power to suspend social benefits at the beginning of the investigation process. A recent decision by the Prosecutor’s office not to pursue prison sentences for people with clean records who were arrested while looting supermarkets on October 18 seems an indication that, this time, the Public Ministry is not willing to apply the LES, even if the government demands it. 

Hooded Class Resistance

Only six weeks before the popular uprising of October 18, senators of the government coalition along with members of the opposition presented the so-called anti-hood law that seeks to penalize anyone who “intentionally covers their face in order to hide their identity, using hoods, scarves or other similar elements” while participating in actions that “seriously disturb public tranquility.” Since illegal detentions have been commonplace and the use of masks to avoid breathing toxic tear gas is absolutely necessary, this anti-hood law would legalize the arrest of peaceful protesters and ensure their conviction.

The first Anti-Mask Law in 1845 was used in New York against small tenant farmers protesting extractive feudal contracts and the complicity of the state in the prosecution of debtors. After decades of legislative inaction, the tenants organized to resist the sheriffs who tried to collect debts and evict them. Disguising themselves as “calico Indians,” farmers successfully resisted for five years the oligarchy’s efforts to throw them out of the lands they had occupied for generations. Anti-rent associations sprung up throughout the state and in 1844 an Anti-Rent Equal Rights Party was created to support candidates who favored land reform. Instead of yielding to popular demands, Governor William Seward doubled down by supporting a law making it a felony to appear in disguise, which unleashed violent clashes between masked tenant farmers and law enforcement officials. Brutal repression and controversial trials prompted New Yorkers ultimately to vote for a constituent convention to resolve the social struggle. The resulting 1846 Constitution abolished feudal tenure, eliminating the most oppressive contracts, but did not address the central issue of land reform. While anti-mask laws have been used in many states to suppress hooded KKK members from marching — and thus to protect African Americans from public intimidation by white supremacists — the more recent use of the law against Occupy Wall Street protestors reaffirms the norm’s oligarchic origins aimed at criminalizing protest to preserve the existing socioeconomic order.

The repression of class-based politics was also the basis of the 1922 Emergency Regulations Ordinance that banned the use of face masks in Hong Kong. The British colonial government applied it to repress a protracted labor strike in the ports in which Chinese seamen and port workers paralyzed shipping and docking activities to protest poverty wages and a racist pay scale. The Ordinance was used again in 1967 to suppress labor strikes and pro-Communist riots, and more recently this past October against pro-democracy protests. The revamped ban penalizes the use of masks in the context of protest — except for professional, religious, or health reasons — with up to one year in prison and a fine of $3,200. Since then the courts have declared it unconstitutional and the police has vowed not to enforce it.

Not only in authoritarian China have illiberal anti-mask laws been passed. After more than three months of protests by the gilets jaunes, this past February France passed a ban on face covering for anyone participating in demonstrations. This new repressive law also has the clear aim to criminalize protest since full-face veils in public areas have been banned since 2011 — France is a pioneer on targeted legislation against Muslim minorities in the European Union. With the new politically motivated anti-mask law that seeks to suppress the uprising of the popular classes against austerity measures promoted by the Macron government, protesters risk one year in prison and a $17,000 fine. 

Legalizing Repression

The Chilean government’s agenda to ensure the protection of the prevailing neoliberal order incorporates fascist-style laws to deter future popular uprisings and give law enforcement the legal tools to legitimize their brutal repression. The latest bill sent by President Piñera — which seeks to exempt police from criminal liability if they shoot protestors in self-defense — is particularly revealing of this trend. If approved, police could violently repress a peaceful protest, as it regularly does, wait for protesters to defend themselves and then shoot to kill with impunity in self-defense, violating individual freedoms and due process.

Despite the “fundamentally repressive way” in which the government has handled the peaceful protest and the grave human rights violations reported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN, fascist legal adaptations that seek to criminalize protest continue to progress in Congress. The government’s attempt to subdue the mobilizations in which Chileans “woke up” from the slumber of elite domination and went to the streets en masse to claim dignity and perform their own emancipation, must be resisted. If moves toward fascism are not properly denounced and the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code end up being approved, arbitrary detentions and human rights violations could become a new normal in Chilean society.

---30--- 

Camila Vergara is a postdoctoral research scholar at Columbia Law School.

Hong Kong police decline to name officer linked to case of blinded Indonesian journalist

By Coconuts Hong Kong Jan 3, 2020 | 

Veby Mega Indah, the associate editor for Suara Hong Kong News receives first aid after getting shot in the eye during a September protest. Screengrab via Youtube.

A Hong Kong police representative told the High Court today that the force had identified an officer who fired a less-lethal round around the time and place where an Indonesian journalist was blinded in one eye by a police projectile. However, he added that the force was reluctant to disclose the officer’s identity for fear of prejudicing any future proceedings stemming from the incident.

Journalist Veby Mega Indah, an associate editor for the Indonesian-language Suara Hong Kong News, was shot in the right eye with what was believed to be a rubber bullet while livestreaming a protest in Wan Chai on Sept. 29.

She filed a criminal complaint against the unnamed officer, and subsequently sought a court order demanding the police disclose information about the officer who fired the shot, including his identity and any documentary evidence related to the incident, in order to pursue a private case against the officer, HK01 reports.

But a lawyer for the police force said in today’s hearing that although they have identified an officer who fired a shot at the time and location of the incident, police cannot determine whether his shot was the one that caused Indah’s injury.

Judge Russell Coleman, however, noted that the issue of liability was not the subject of the day’s hearing, which solely revolved around securing the officer’s name, according to RTHK. He went on to set a date for another hearing on Feb. 17, suggesting he would make a ruling at that time.

Videos of the incident posted online — including Indah’s own livestream — show officers retreating from a footbridge packed with journalists as protesters advance.

As a literal parting shot, one officer stops on the stairs going down from the footbridge, aims his shotgun into the press pack, and fires a round at a distance of just a few meters. A rubber bullet can be seen bouncing to the ground, and Indah collapses.

Indah, 39, permanently lost vision in her right eye as a result of the injury.

Outside the High Court today, Indah said she was pleased with the judge’s recognition of the case’s urgency in setting the hearing for next month. Due to a six-month time limit on such prosecutions, any potential case against the individual officer would need to be filed by late March.

Can economics be of the people, for the people and by the people?

Sound theories are essential as they provide stable base for policymaking, but the process is too long-drawn and takes away objectivity

Joydeep Ghosh Last Updated at October 17, 2019 14:47 IST

Photo: Shutterstock

• ALSO READ

  The Abhijit Banerjee I knew, and the geometry problem he gave me

  In economics of helping the poor, Abhijit Banerjee gives clear answers

  Why Banerjee, Duflo, Kremer were chosen for 2019 Economics Nobel

  A prize for evidence-based policy

  Top headlines: 3 win 2019 Nobel Economics Prize, IRCTC makes stellar debut

Abhijeet Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer’s Nobel Prize for ‘randomised control trials’ or RCTs brought back fond memories of our Masters in Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. Professor P Venkatramaiah, who was teaching development economics and had done seminal work on input output economics, started with: “I don’t know what to teach you. My theories on development economics stand challenged.” He went on to teach us ‘game theory’ for which Nash, Selten and Harsanyi had won the Nobel Prize in 1994. A sidelight: He would prompt us to negotiate when we disagreed with our marks given in our weekly exams. Mostly, we lost.

But the interesting thing after the announcement of the Nobel Prize 2019, there was a lot of replugging of articles written by people who disagreed with the RCT and the results it produced. As the saying goes, if you put two economists in a room, you will get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you would get three opinions.

Disagreeing is fine. But it is good that economics and economists are being viewed from a practical angle. Sure, some subjects need vast canvases, many don’t. For example, privatisation of hospitals could require a broader analysis in the context of the implementation of Ayushman Bharat, but providing vegetarian or non-vegetarian food to students is more likely to be area-specific – small and manageable problems, as they are called.

In that context, Banerjee’s role in ideating the Nyay programme – giving 72,000 a year to the poorest (Rs 6,000 a month) – was a prominent election plank for the Congress. All and sundry criticised that it will mean higher taxes for corporates and high networth individuals. Well, the latter has already happened, and the corporate sector got relief only after the economic growth rate started faltering.

While the government has taken some baby steps towards tackling consumption demand such as increasing the dearness allowance for 11 million central government officials by 5 per cent, would something like a Nyay have boosted consumption demand, especially in rural areas? We don’t know that.

What we know is that Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao’s Rythu Bandhu scheme, which provides Rs 5,000 per acre per season has been a huge success. It has boosted consumption, and the state is one of the top ones in goods and services tax collections and needs minor or no compensation from the centre. So, money at the hands of the people is working. And KCR is a winner, politically.

If Congress really wants to show to people that it was serious about Banerjee’s proposal on Nyay, it should implement it in the five states – Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and Puducherry - in which it is in power. Yes, resource is a question. But state government can raise money through bonds, and if consumption is revived, tax collections follow. It can also be targeted and done in phases.

This would strengthen the view that like democracy, economics can be of the people, for the people and by the people.

---30---