The British economy will not “prosper mightily” outside the EU, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised, but it won’t collapse either. Photo / AP
OPINION
Blaming the victims is never a good look. As Britain finally leaves the European Union, 1651 days after the Brexit referendum of 2016, we should try to remember that 48 per cent of the turkeys didn’t vote for Christmas.
Brexit was not exactly a national act of self-harm; it was really an attack by the nostalgic and nationalist old on the young. Sixty per cent of British over-65s voted to leave the EU, but 61 per cent of the under-35s voted to remain. Having had four years to think it over, most British now think it was a mistake – by a 48-39 majority, according to a YouGov poll in October.
Too late. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister and he dares not anger the English ultra-nationalists on the right of his own Conservative party. After months of the amateur dramatics that accompany any Johnson decision, on Christmas Day the United Kingdom concluded a pathetically thin “free trade” deal that reflects the real balance of power between the EU and the UK.
Johnson will smear lipstick all over this pig of a deal and declare it a triumph. Those who want to believe it will do so and the only early evidence of the huge defeat that it really is will be some delays at the ports as customs officers learn their new jobs. The real bill will come in later and almost invisibly, in lost trade, investment and opportunities.
The last official British government estimate was that 15 years from now, the British economy will be between 5 per cent and 7 per cent smaller than it would have been as an EU member (but still a bit bigger than it is now).
That’s not the raw material for a counter-revolution – and besides, any projection about the economic situation in 2035 is really pure guesstimate. One Covid more or less could make just as much difference as Brexit.
All one can say is that the British economy will not “prosper mightily” outside the EU, as Johnson promised but it won’t collapse either. And then, in due course, the younger, pro-EU Brits will become the majority, thanks to the magic of generational turnover. But until then, if Britain comes knocking at the EU’s door asking to be allowed back in, Brussels should say “no”.
What really happened on December 31 is that the European Union was finally freed to develop in the way that its other major members clearly want. The goal of “ever closer union”, anathema to English exceptionalists, is back on the agenda.
There is ambivalence in every member country about the idea of creating a semi-federal European super-state but, in a world where democracy and the rule of law are under siege, most people can see the need to strengthen the European Union. Last July the EU’s leaders took a huge step in that direction: for the first time they agreed to borrow collectively on the financial markets.
France and Germany were all for it and Italy and Spain needed the money to finance a trillion-euro aid programme to help them through the coronavirus crisis. Those four countries now contain more than half the EU’s population and they outvoted the “frugal four” (the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark) that opposed taking on debt to support “feckless” Mediterranean members.
If Britain had still been a member, it would have vetoed the measure because it infringed on the UK’s sacred “sovereignty’. French President Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed British membership applications twice in the 1960s, was right: England does not have a “European vocation” and it should not be allowed in.
The financial precedent that was set in July opens the door to a future EU that acts much more like a state. Even a common defence budget is now within reach – not something vital in military terms but a European army would be a hugely important symbol of unity.
The United States may be back soon but the world could certainly use a second powerful advocate for democracy and the rule of law. Brexit may be giving us just that by freeing the EU to move on – and we should be grateful.
• Freelance journalist Gwynne Dyer is author of Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work).
The new rules put in place following the split from the European Union has posed problems for the relegation-threatened side
Sam Allardyce says West Brom‘s transfer plans have been disrupted by the new regulations following the United Kingdon’s exit from the European Union.
Following the split, a points system has been introduced that will mean clubs need a Governing Body Endorsement (GBE) to sign players from the EU.
A GBE will be awarded on the basis of senior and youth international appearances, the quality of the selling club and the players’ club appearances.
The new rules have already hindered West Brom’s attempts to strengthen their squad in the January transfer window.
“The new regulations are a problem. I have found three players already who were capable of coming here and they’re not allowed. It’s a shame,” Allardyce told reporters.
“Due to the new regulations in terms of the permit they were unable to come to this country, whereas [previously] they would have done. I have to look at that and think ‘can he qualify?’
“That has made life a bit more difficult. It’s not so much the pandemic, it’s the change of rules because of the Brexit deal.
“We will do what we can and finding a player in this pandemic is going to be the hardest window I have ever worked in.
“No disrespect to my players here because they are all working as hard as they can but I do have to find better to lift the squad.
“Whatever player comes in they have to be better than what we have and capable of going into the team almost immediately.”
Allardyce says his side’s preparations for matches have also been disrupted in recent weeks, damaging their attempts to end their current seven-game winless streak in the Premier League.
“Training sessions have been almost zero, because of the load of the games, and the recovery periods the players need, and because of the weather on some occasions,” he added.
“We’ve had zero chance to be on the training ground as often as we’d have liked.
“It means that practices we’d normally do haven’t been able to take place – we’ve tried to do that via our analysis room and screen, but that’s obviously an area you go to on top of your training – your training session is backed up by analysis and videos that follow.
“We’ve been on the analysis side of it more than on the training pitch which has left me very frustrated, but the more I can get on the training ground, the more organised we’ll become – particularly defensively.
“I can’t knock the players for trying their best – every player is shattered in there. They’ve run and I can’t knock them for that – they’re just falling short against this opposition.”
Despite that the world is not on track to meet climate objectives and achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) for universal access to clean, affordable and reliable energy, Marcel Alers, UNDP Head of Energy, said that “clean energy solutions exist that can get us there”.
“There is growing momentum to make them political and investment priorities”, he added.
Fossil fuels used to be less expensive than clean energy but that is changing, according to Mr. Alers.
Renewables are becoming more affordable every year, and “some options are now cheaper than fossil fuels”, he said, pointing out that since 2010, the price of solar had decreased by 89 per cent.
Moreover, amidst an exceptionally challenging year, and despite suffering setbacks, the renewables sector has shown resilience.
“This fall in price, coupled with technological progress and the introduction of innovative business models, means we are now at a tipping point”, he said, urging for a large-scale clean energy investments from the public and private sectors.
Translating pledges to action
Throughout 2020, countries have pledged to build back better, greener and fairer.
“With support from UNDP’s Climate Promise, 115 countries committed to submitting enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions”, Mr. Alers said.
Among other things, he noted that high-emitting economies, such as China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the European Union, had made net-zero commitments and that United States President-elect Joe Biden had vowed to rejoin the Paris Agreement.
“These pledges now need to be translated into action”, said the UNDP official. “Ambitious commitments are a strong signal and a necessary first step towards reaching net-zero emissions. We now need to build on them”.
Green recovery
Clean energy is also a win-win solution to recover from COVID-19 as it can improve healthcare for the world’s poorest while providing a reliable electricity supply – imperative for health centres to function.
“As COVID-19 vaccines – some needing to be stored at -70°C – get rolled out, powering a sustainable and reliable cold chain will be critical”, Mr. Alers reminded.
Furthermore, investing in renewables could create nearly three times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels.
“As the world is rapidly urbanizing, energy efficiency in buildings, sustainable cooling and heating, smart urban planning and sustainable transport options…are key for the future of cities”, he maintained.
Looking to September
In September, for the first time in 40 years, the UN will host a High Level Dialogue on Energy for countries, businesses, civil society and international institutions to step up action on sustainable energy.
UN-Energy and UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner recently called for a reinforcement of global energy governance, saying “we know clean energy can both deliver universal energy access and contribute to tackling the climate crisis”.
Although phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to green economies is a monumental task, Mr. Alers assured that “we are ready to rise to the challenge”.
Given the need to get this page ready for readers to read on Sunday morning, January 3, 2021, the draft of whatever gets on this page on Sunday, needs to reach my editor by 1p.m. on the preceding Friday for editing. Hence, today’s article was written on December 31 when the topic it now discusses was at its most exciting period; the moment of suspense, when it was not clear whether the position of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Ondo State on Crossover Service for the outgoing year would prevail over that of the state government. Time will tell.
But the avoidable controversy between Ondo State Government and the Ondo State Branch of CAN is one public debate that needs to be examined by public affairs observers and commenters, regardless of what takes place on Thursday night in Ondo State and other states where some CAN members have chosen to flex muscles with people elected to govern the state. The threats of CAN’s representatives in Ondo State over the position of the government on mitigating or even avoiding spread of coronavirus in its second wave in the state hints at aspects of the 1999 Constitution that requires rethinking.
A short summary of developments on federal government’s efforts to save Nigeria from the second wave of the pandemic, as it has succeeded in doing with the first wave. The Presidential Task Force on Covid-19 advised religious leaders against church services in the late hours of December 31, insisting on adherence to the regulation against mass gathering of people. Some of the main Christian denominations, such as Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), the Winners Chapel, and Daystar announced their agreement with the federal government’s advice on Crossover Service for 2020. The chairman of the national body of Christian Association of Nigeria, Rev. Samuel Ayokunle, advised it state chapters to abide by the federal government’s directives on mass gathering in the night of December 31, pleading with Christians, “There is no sacrifice that is too much to put an end to the Coronavirus pandemic in the interest of all and sundry,” a reference to the citizenry, primary owners of the country’s social contract and sovereignty to which this page will return to later in this piece.
It was also reported as the eve of Dec 31 got nearer that some states still quietly insisted on lobbying governors to allow Crossover services to hold. But the state Chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria in Ondo State has been reported to have kicked against the directive of the government, saying “the association was not consulted before the decision was taken.” It was immediately after Oladapo’s release of the preceding statement that the writing of today’s piece got written. And it is in the juxtaposition of the statement by the national body of CAN, “There is no sacrifice that is too much to put an end to the Coronavirus pandemic in the interest of all and sundry” and the statement of the Ondo branch of the same association, “Services hold as the normal tradition demands. We were not consulted. We are not aware of that” that the thesis of today’s page, the need to avoid needless disagreement capable of creating avoidable confusion in a democracy was formed.
The 1999 Constitution, despite its many flaws, is clear on the right of citizens to practice his or her faith without fetters. Correspondingly, conventional wisdom is a given in democracies that that nobody would ordinarily practice such faith at the expense of the security of others, in other words, at the risk of life and property of fellow members of the same physical and political territory. Even though citizens do not generally discuss the danger that can come from an irresponsible practice of religion, except as we often do in Nigeria when we choose to list fault lines at the instance of politicians. What makes human rights meaningful to citizens is recognition of the importance of each citizen protecting his right without disrupting national security and the security of individuals.
Should any religious group have the right to frustrate the government of any state from protecting citizens from physical or psychological danger? The main concern today is the danger posed by any attempt of groups of people—be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, or Animists—for the security of citizens other areas including health matters such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Should the Ondo State branch of CAN succeed in holding this year’s Crossover service despite the insistence of the state government on the obligation of all citizens and residents in the state to refrain from holding mass gatherings that can add management of the pandemic to the country’s list of threats to the security of the land.
ADVERTISEMENT
Is the insistence of Ondo State Christian body a right thing to do in a situation of national health emergency such as the second wave of the pandemic represents across the globe? Does any religious organization require a special consultation other than the consultation with the most important stakeholders, the citizenry? Does any country struggling with such a deadly virus be further encumbered by a section of one of the country’s faith communities? If the federal government needs to consult every faith community specially about the logic of discouraging mass gatherings during a second wave of the pandemic outside the consultation with citizens as collective owners of the polity and the territory, how feasible would this be, given the uncontrollable speed of the virus?
As this column prays that this current pandemic is the last in the country’s history, democracy and constitution watchers should start thinking anew about the 1999 Constitution that avoids identifying itself as a secular State while proclaiming that Nigeria is a multireligious society. Given the fierceness of Ondo State branch of CAN on its right to special consultation from the state government before enforcing the federal government’s protocol of no Crossover service while the second wave of Covid-19 lasts, the danger remains real that the country may be put at the risk of subjecting policies made in the name and for the interest of all citizens to the whims of special religious groups in a multireligious society.
It should be possible to have a multireligious society that is also a secular polity. The United States is one such example. What may be confusing is what Nigeria has at present, a multireligious society that is unwilling to become a secular polity. Democracy is given its chance through an executive and legislative system that enables citizens or special interest groups to lobby those in government, but it frowns on encouraging special interest groups or individuals to insist that it requires to give its consent before government can carry out its regulations. Those who are clamoring for constitution amendments ought to consider making Nigerian constitution overtly secular, rather than hiding under the canopy of multireligious society.
This column plans to return to the confusion about which level of government has the authority to plan strategies and methods to prevent spread of Covid-19 infections after the true picture of the extent of adherence to protocols surrounding Crossover service in all states become clear after January 1 from reports of professional journalists.
… to a controversial law on religion that has been sharply criticized … the Law on Freedom of Religion in a vote on December … them.
Under Montenegro’s religion law adopted a year ago …
The analysis highlights benefits of re-joining EU.
The analysis lays out the challenges presented in mitigating the wide ranging impact of the deal, and underlines why the Scottish Government believes the best future for Scotland is as an independent country within the EU.
“The comparison between the benefits of being a full member of the European Union (EU) and the position after the end of the transition period shows no corner of Scotland’s life and work will be untouched,” says a statement by the Scottish government.
The UK deal, which has been denied consent by the Scottish Parliament, means Scotland will be taken out of the Single Market and the Customs Union on the last day of 2020, hitting jobs and living standards hard.
This initial analysis lays out what Scotland has lost by leaving the EU with this deal – and what it would regain by re-joining – highlighting the impact on Scotland’s economy, trade in services, fisheries, participation in EU programmes, internal security, free movement of people and the environment.
It includes detail on various sectors, including food, for example, where the UK Government has not secured any legally binding protection within the EU of existing UK Geographical Indicators (GIs) – nor any preferential arrangements for the recognition in the EU of potential future UK GIs.
“This analysis is sobering reading for anyone with Scotland’s best interests at heart,” said Scotland’s Constitution Secretary Michael Russell. “Post-Brexit relationships with the EU could have taken many different forms and the damaging outcome with which we are now faced is the result of a political choice by the UK Government, and firmly against the wishes of Scotland.”
“As a responsible government we are doing everything we can to mitigate against the consequences of the UK Government’s actions, but we cannot avert every negative outcome.”
“We know that businesses are already struggling under the burden of COVID-19, and are now faced with the need to prepare for the economic shock of this hard Brexit,” Russell added.
“Our position is clearer than ever – Scotland now has the right to choose its own future, as an independent country and seek to regain the benefits of EU membership.”
“This analysis demonstrates the substantial benefits that we would regain by becoming an independent member state in our own right.”
Running from the 1 January until the end of the month across radio, print, digital and social channels, the campaign signposts the public to mygov.scot/euexit for further information.
The Scottish Government has also published analysis of the deal on fishing which shows for some key Scottish stocks the UK deal is worse for the industry than the EU Common Fisheries Policy.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has prophesied the demise of the European Union within the next 10 years on the heels of the UK’s departure from the European Union.
In an interview with LBC Britain, the staunchly pro-Brexit leader proclaimed that, “I don’t think there will be a European Union in 10 years’ time.”
Mr Farage went on to say that the UK has “set the standard” and that in “a year or two” we will see the same sentiment that fuelled Brexit in “a lot more mainstream opinion across European politics.”
“What people will come to understand including the younger generation is that the point about being independent is that democracy is vibrant and becomes real. We will really be in charge when we vote in general elections of laws that directly effect us. I really do not see that being reversed, at least I hope not,” Mr Farage said.
The Brexit campaign veteran pointed to Italy, Poland and Hungary as being among the prime Eurosceptic nations that may bring about the downfall of Brussels’ unionist project.
“The bitterness, division the agony of the last four and a half years of much of our establishment trying to overturn the democratic will of the people, that is over. Just look at what is happening in Brussels, the Polish and the Hungarians vetoed the budget. You have got a Eurozone that is driving the south into deeper and deeper poverty. I think at some point Italy will just have to leave that Eurozone.”
While he declared that in the case of the UK, “the Brexit wars are over,” Mr Farage also stressed that he had wished the UK pursued the option of a no-deal Brexit.
“I would have much rather gone for no deal, accepted the short-term pain and been freed in every way from everything from these dreadful people in the European Commission. But I knew in practical terms that was never going to happen because it would have reopened the split within the Conservative Party … So the good thing about this deal is number one it is not an EU treaty, that is great news. Number two it actually ends the Brexit wars.”
The UK ceased following EU rules at 23:00 GMT on December 31, following the coming into force of new travel, trade, immigration and security arrangements as part of the country’s departure from the EU. Just after, Prime Minister Boris Johnson triumphantly declared that the UK had “freedom in our hands” and the ability to do things “differently and better” now the long Brexit process was over.
Early in December a debate began to simmer on social media over the resemblance of two popular women’s empowerment books released in 2020: Chidera Eggerue’s How to Get Over a Boy (published in February by Quadrille Publishing) and Florence Given’s Women Don’t Owe You Pretty (published in July by Cassell Illustrated).
Comparisons between the two have circulated for some time. Given and Eggerue, who is also known as The Slumflower, are both influencers (people with large followings and marketing influence on social media) and both promote a message of self-love, acceptance, and body positivity.
Earlier this month, Eggerue and some of her followers accused Given of copying two of her books: How to Get Over a Boy and her debut, What a Time to be Alone. This sparked fresh questions over similarities between their works in terms of style and content.
Both of the women’s books are eye-catching, with vibrant covers, large text, and colourful illustrations throughout. Eggerue claims her books sparked a new wave of self-help literature “that had never been seen before”.
While at first glance it could appear as though we’re looking at a copycat case, we shouldn’t forget that publishers like trends and will try to cash in on what’s popular. The cover style of both Given and Eggerue’s books chime with design trends from 2019, from their plain large fonts to their use of colour and illustration. Searching for either book on platforms such as Google and Amazon often brings up the other, and the latter even bundles the two author’s books together.
Popular feminist books targeted at a mainstream audience are nothing new. Over the last 15 years there have been dozens of light, easy-to-read feminist texts, often with the aim of making feminism “fun”, “cool”, and even “sexy”. Laura Bates’ Girl Up (2016) in particular bears the most resemblance to these newer self-help books in the way it challenges sexist expectations through humour and quirky illustrations.
(Chidera Eggerue/Instagram)
But there are countless examples: from Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism (2007) to Holly Baxter and Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett’s The Vagenda (2015), books like Ellie Levenson’s The Noughtie Girl’s Guide to Feminism (2009), Caitlin Moran’s How to be a Woman (2011), or Polly Vernon’s Hot Feminist (2015). While these books can vary in approach and style, a number put forward similar messages – personal empowerment, self-love, and the right to choose.
Independent Culture Newsletter
The best in film, music TV & radio straight to your inbox every week
Independent Culture Newsletter
The best in film, music TV & radio straight to your inbox every week
Some of these books have been criticised for selling self-help as a solution to injustice, rather than working with others for political and social change. In academia, feminists argue that popular feminism is at best a diluted form of feminism that treats it simply as a form of self-help focused on “what’s right for me” – a brand which can be packaged and sold.
What all these books have in common is their desire to make feminism accessible to their readers, which isn’t a bad thing in itself. It has long been argued that feminism has an “image problem”, and that it is no longer needed in the west. It has also has been declared unappealing and irrelevant to young women by newspapers and in polls run by OnePoll and the online community Netmums.
This lack of visibility for other texts means a rich wealth of ideas and thoughts are not being heard outside niche spaces
Academic feminist literature meanwhile has been criticised for tending to be theory-heavy and filled with impenetrable jargon. Matters are not helped by such texts being inaccessible to the general public, often being placed behind paywalls or published as costly hardbacks. This leaves a gap which popular feminism fills whether through blogs, social media posts, or affordable paperbacks.
However, this is where the world of marketing tends to step in to “save feminism” through rebranding exercises. It’s a process which often involves mainstream women’s magazines such as ELLE, Stylist, Grazia, or Cosmopolitan hiring advertising agencies to make feminism fashionable and challenge negative stereotypes of angry, un-girly feminists. As with popular feminism books, these attempts have varied in quality.
Since the 1990s, young feminists’ writing has been criticised for being focused on personal anecdotes at the expense of theory and now is no different. Popular feminism is often skewered by critics of being superficial, fluffy, apolitical, individualised, and consumer-driven.
(Florence Given/Instagram)
Reading around the subject, you’ll find different labels used to describe this brand of feminism, including: “popular feminism”, “new feminism”, “young feminism”, “consumer feminism”, “choice feminism”, “neoliberal feminism”, and “mainstream feminism”. Whatever the label, the objection is the same: that feminist ideology is being commodified, de-fanged, and made attractive to a general audience.
Popular feminist books are often designed to appeal to younger readers, rather than those well versed in feminist theory. Eggerue makes it clear that she used an easy-to-read writing style because she didn’t want her book to intimidate readers.
Why feminist books look similar
These books all look and sound the same because they are meant to be starting platforms for those who are new and curious about sexism, inequality, and feminism. They click with younger readers and I’m sure there will be more to come aimed at future generations.
What’s more difficult though, is bridging the gap between these “starter” 101 books and more challenging, critical texts. While the former are more readily marketable and appealing to publishers, the latter still tends to occupy less visible spaces. This lack of visibility for other feminist texts means a rich wealth of ideas and thoughts are not being heard outside niche spaces like academia and activist circles.
On the flip side, feminist voices dominating mainstream spaces are selling women the idea that social and political inequalities can be simply overcome through self-will and self-improvement: “You go girl!”
Rebecca Wray is a critical psychologist and specialist mental health mentor at Leeds Beckett University. This article first appeared on The Conversation
As we step into a new decade, Hinduism, and its interpretation and practice, will play an increasingly pivotal role. We have seen the manifestation of ‘hard’ political Hindutva, wedded to the goal of a Hindu Rashtra. It stands discredited not for its evangelism, but for its lack of knowledge of the basics of Hinduism. Another label bandied about is ‘soft’ Hindutva, but with no real clarity about what it means. Since India is a deeply religious country, such notions need to be investigated before they distort the role religion plays in politics and, indeed, in our lives.
Uday Deb
The pejorative phrase ‘soft Hindutva’ is an outcome of a curious – if unintended – collusion between the ultra-Hindu right and the ultra-liberal left. The supporters of political Hindutva believe that they have a monopoly over public display of religion (PDR). They are overt in their passionate – and sometimes fanatical – belief in the need to project, promote and impose their warped view of Hinduism. Thus, they view PDR by any other section of the political class, as an attempt to usurp their ordained public space through a weak imitation, ‘soft’ as against their ‘hard’ religious commitment.
The ultra-liberal left is dismissive about religion per se, and believes that any public show of personal religious fealty by politicians is a betrayal of secularism. For its votaries, political Hindutva can be countered not by a saner practice of religion, but by not practising religion at all, least of all publicly.
I wonder what Mahatma Gandhi would have thought of these unseemly definitional shenanigans. He was, as Nehru said, ‘a Hindu to the innermost depth of his being’. During his first jail term in South Africa (January 1908), he read Rajayoga, commentaries on the Gita. During his second incarceration (October-December 1908) he read the Bhagwad Gita almost every day.
During his third imprisonment (February-May 1909) he read the Veda-Shabda-Sangana, the Upanishads, the Manusmriti, Patanjali’s Yoga Shastra, and re-read the Gita. One of the first books published by his International Press in Phoenix, Natal, was an abridged version of Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, which, as he wrote in his autobiography, was ‘the greatest book in all devotional literature’.
He did not, therefore, see anything wrong in espousing the utopia of Ram Rajya. But – and this is critically important – he combined his staunch belief in Hinduism with the fullest respect for all religions.
Let us take another example. Madan Mohan Malviya (1861-1946) was four times the president of the Indian National Congress, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, and like him a devout Hindu. When, as a member of the Congress, he founded the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha, for the welfare of Hindus and Hinduism, was he practising soft Hindutva or merely following his personal faith? He is credited for having begun the aarti puja at Har-ki-Pauri in Haridwar – which continues to this day – and the setting up of organisations for the protection of the cow, and for a cleaner Ganga.
He is also the iconic founder of the Banaras Hindu University, from where, as its vice-chancellor, he published a magazine called Sanatan Dharma to promote religious and dharmic interests. The national slogan – Satyameva Jayate – taken from the Mundaka Upanishad, was also his contribution. Did all of this make him a proud Hindu immersed in his faith, or just a practitioner of soft Hindutva, uncritically emulating Savarkar and the RSS?
Our assessments need to get away from such knee-jerk categorisations and aspire to a more reflective inquiry. The truth is that when Hinduism is reduced to cynical tokenism for short-term political dividends, it is soft Hindutva. When it is devalued to illiterate aggression for long-term political gain, it is political Hindutva. Both these extremes are a deliberate ploy to make genuine Hindus lose agency of the way they wish to practice their religion in conformity with republican values, democratic principles and constitutional secularism.
Swami Vivekananda, the towering symbol of Hindu renaissance, would have been impatient of such categorisations of ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. His mission was to espouse an enlightened and inclusive form of Hinduism sans hatred, intolerance and violence. Once, when he was berated by conservative Hindu critics for staying with a Muslim lawyer in Mount Abu, he expostulated: ‘Sir, what do you mean? I am a sanyasin. I am above all your social conventions … I am not afraid of God because he sanctions it. I am not afraid of the scriptures, because they allow it. But I am afraid of you people and your society. You know nothing of God and the scriptures. I see Brahman everywhere manifested through even the meanest creature. For me there is nothing high or low. Shiva, Shiva!’
Hinduism deserves a true renaissance based on its great wisdoms. But this will require its followers to study their religious legacy, and prevent its distortion by ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Hindutva-vadis.
Lord Ram in the Ramayana says: ‘Janani Janambhoomischa Swargadapi Gariyasi’ – Mother and motherland are superior to heaven. Today, our motherland requires social harmony and stability to realise her destiny of becoming one of the great nations of the world. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call, ‘Sabka saath, sabka vikas, sabka vishwas’, is not to become just an expedient slogan, it must be based on Swami Vivekananda’s vision and on Mahatma Gandhi’s inclusiveness.
<div class="for-mobile-wrap2" readability="6">
<div class="sociables3">
<amp-social-share class="facebook i-amphtml-layout-fixed i-amphtml-layout-size-defined" type="facebook" data-param-app_id="898459706886386" width="103" height="27" data-param-href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/warping-a-great-faith-both-hard-and-soft-hindutva-are-expedient-uses-of-religion-for-political-gains/" i-amphtml-layout="fixed">Facebook</amp-social-share>
<amp-social-share class="twitter i-amphtml-layout-fixed i-amphtml-layout-size-defined" aria-label="twitter" type="twitter" width="103" height="27" data-param-url="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/warping-a-great-faith-both-hard-and-soft-hindutva-are-expedient-uses-of-religion-for-political-gains/" data-param-text="TOI Edit Page : Warping a great faith: Both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Hindutva are expedient uses of religion for political gains" i-amphtml-layout="fixed">Twitter</amp-social-share>
<amp-social-share class="linked-in i-amphtml-layout-fixed i-amphtml-layout-size-defined" aria-label="linkedin" type="linkedin" width="103" height="27" data-param-url="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/warping-a-great-faith-both-hard-and-soft-hindutva-are-expedient-uses-of-religion-for-political-gains/" i-amphtml-layout="fixed">Linkedin</amp-social-share>
<amp-social-share class="email i-amphtml-layout-fixed i-amphtml-layout-size-defined" aria-label="email" type="email" width="103" height="27" data-param-subject="TOI%20Edit%20Page%20%3A%20Warping%20a%20great%20faith%3A%20Both%20%E2%80%98hard%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98soft%E2%80%99%20Hindutva%20are%20expedient%20uses%20of%20religion%20for%20political%20gains" data-param-body="Read%20complete%20article%20here%20-%20https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/warping-a-great-faith-both-hard-and-soft-hindutva-are-expedient-uses-of-religion-for-political-gains/%0D%0AExcerpt : As%20we%20step%20into%20a%20new%20decade%2C%20Hinduism%2C%20and%20its%20interpretation%20and%20practice%2C%20will%20play%20an%20increasingly%20pivotal%20role.%20We%20have%20seen%20the%20manifestation%20of%20%E2%80%98hard%E2%80%99%20political%20Hindutva%2C%20wedded%20to%20the%20goal%20of%20a%20Hindu..." i-amphtml-layout="fixed">Email</amp-social-share>
</div>
<!-- Top Comment -->
<!-- /Top Comment -->
<!-- Disclaimer -->
<div class="disclaimer" readability="7"> <h6>Disclaimer</h6> Views expressed above are the author's own.</p> </div> </div>
<h6><span>END OF ARTICLE</span></h6>
<!-- Blog End -->
The day after the UK left the European Union, we spoke to some of the people working in industries that will be most affected by the historic national departure
We talked to six people on how Brexit could change their lives…
Mick Graham, 51, car worker for 32 years, Unite convenor, Jaguar Land Rover, Solihull: “It is good that we are not going to have tariffs at the borders.
“That was the big issue for car production.
“But there are still real concerns around the custom checks and any delays that may be caused in our supply chain.
Europe.
“And there are not just about big suppliers to consider. They in turn will be taking parts from second and third tier suppliers.
“You may be looking at a tiny part like a grommet for a harness; that is just one example, but without it, the harness will not work.
“That fact that we have a deal is a relief; I think that even a bad deal would be better than no deal.”
The fisherman
Andrew Locker has 20 years of experience at sea(Image: Daily Mirror)
Fisherman say they are facing increasing hostility in UK waters with angry Spanish rivals blocking their way.
Andrew Locker, 43, who has 20 years experience at sea, says they are desperate to reclaim the UK waters which are the most “profitable in the world”.
But competitors, who until recently have been amiable, have allegedly been carrying out some dirty tricks as the Brexit deadline looms.
Andrew, who runs Lockers Trawlers Limited in Whitby, reveals how they are facing increasing “conflict” from Spanish long liners.
“The main grievance of fishermen of my generation is that we do not govern our own waters,” he said.
“The UK waters are the most profitable in the world.
“When Brexit was first put on the cards…we were told it would be so easy to reclaim our own sovereign waters for the benefit of the UK fishermen.
“Automatically overnight, we would be better off and no longer have to go cap in hand to the EU for quotas to be able to fish in our own waters.
“Every single fisherman in the UK, well 99 per cent voted for Brexit. We were told it was the easiest deal ever, to get our waters back.
“But it was never going to be that easy.
He says in recent months there has been a lot more “conflict” at sea.
“We do see Spanish longliners shooting lots and lots of lines of up to 40 miles of baited hooks across profitable fishing grounds,” he said.
Since 1974 the UK has been bound by the EU’s rules, including its Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
That means the fishing fleets of every country have to share.
They all have full access to each other’s waters, apart from the first 12 nautical miles (14 miles) out from the coast.
EU ministers gather for marathon talks every December to haggle over the volume of fish that can be caught from each species.
National quotas are then divided up which UK fishermen claim leaves them missing out.
But despite the bounty in UK waters, they do not supply many fish and chip shops back home because they lose out to cheaper imports.
“This is what Brexit will bring us hopefully, the chance to supply our own fish and chip shops again,” he added.
In 2018 there were 12,000 fishermen in the UK and 2,400 working part time.
The haulier
Mike Ponsonby owns a haulage firm based in Lichfield
Mike Ponsonby owns a haulage firm based in Lichfield, Staffs, which operates 14 trucks and employs 15 drivers.
The company, called MA Ponsonby, which was founded by his grandfather, has already lost out on an application for international road haulage permits to travel through European countries.
Mike explains that demand outstripped supply by more than ten to one.
While Britain was in the single market, these permits, called ECMTs, were not needed.
“We cross borders on a daily basis, sometimes on a twice daily basis,” says Mike.
“The impact on MA Ponsonby will be considerable.
“At this stage, we have no permits available to us for cross-border transportation.
“Apart from that there are other considerable changes, the delivery driver now has to carry all official original MOT and insurance documents with him.
“The driver is also required to carry an international driving permit, which is only available from the Post Office.
The implications for the haulage industry are “enormous”(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
“The implications are enormous. As a result of all that we have declined two loads to go to Paris in the first week of January, and that has cost us a four-figure sum.
“It was a delivery for a company in Bromsgrove which manufactures cold rooms for supermarkets.
“We just don’t know what the situation is going to be and we don’t want to get caught up in the massive congestion problem in Kent. We are extremely cautious.”
Mike says he and other hauliers were repeatedly asked for their opinions as part of the Brexit consultation process, but these views were “ignored” by the Government.
“We said right from the very beginning that if the Government re-introduces cross-border documents, which we haven’t seen since 1991, then it will lead to long delays at all ports, especially Dover and Calais, with Dover being the pinch-point because there are so many trucks every day.
“We were consulted but they ignored pretty much every point we made. We were warning of these matters for years.
“The great advantage of the single market, which Margaret Thatcher approved, was frictionless trade, you could drive from Bradford to Bremen and not have to stop at all except for toilet breaks and fuel.
“I’m optimistic that we can maintain 100% utilisation of the fleet despite the fact that there will be severe inhibitions caused by cross-border documentation. But we just don’t know what will happen.”
The sheep farmer
Wyn Evans’ family have been farming in the Ystwyth Valley for over 500 years.(Image: Adrian White Photography)
Sheep farmers breathed a sigh of relief at Boris Johnson ’s deal but are still bracing themselves for the long term impacts of Brexit.
Wyn Evans, the NFU Wales livestock board chairman, who farms sheep and beef himself in Ceredigion, explained the entire industry is gearing up for the challenge ahead.
He told The Mirror: “I am totally and utterly relieved that we have got this deal. I am breathing a huge sigh of relief.
“Of course the best deal we could have had would have been the relationship we had before but this deal will give us continuation of tariff free trade which is vitally important.,
“There will be a friction though, we understand that, there will be more costs in trading with the EU than there were before but on the whole it’s very good news indeed and we can concrete our future trading relationship with our nearest trading partners now.”
Brexit signals big changes for UK companies(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
The trade with France is crucial for Welsh sheep farmers in particular, of the 40 per cent of lamb exported from Wales, 90 per cent is sold to Europe.
But Mr Evans explained that even a deal with Europe could still create problems.
He said: “I think we might have some problems going forward in terms of multiple drop-offs of livestock.”
However Mr Evans added that despite any short term problems the sheep farming industry is determined to adapt and continue trading with their long term partners in Europe.
He said: “This is what the country voted for and this deal is better than a no deal and we will just make the best of it from now on.
“I don’t want to come across as a negative Remoaner, I was a remainer, I voted to remain because I knew how much my industry traded with Europe.
“But I do accept the result totally and utterly, but what we wanted and we needed as an industry is a deal with Europe and for us to have an amicable relationship with them moving forward.
“We cannot forget they are out nearest trading partners, a customer base of 500m people on our doorstep and they take 96 per cent of our exported lamb overall.
“I was out in Rungis market in Paris last year where they handle 12,000 UK lamb carcasses a week and they assured me there would still be demand for our product post-Brexit.
“But in a no deal scenario we just wouldn’t have been able to pay the tariff so it would have made us uncompetitive within the EU.”
The small business
Will Fugard’s business exports a lot of goods to the continent(Image: DAILY MIRROR)
Will Fugard is chief executive and co-founder of Gusto Organic.
The firm imports raw ingredients from Holland, Italy, Spain and Mexico for its premium, ethical and fair-trade drinks which it produces in Devon.
It has already been hit with the problems at the ports with ingredients stuck in transit in Europe and containers of drinks headed for Singapore for Christmas stuck this side of the channel.
More than a third of the firm’s business is export to Europe and beyond.
Will, 50, says while he is relieved the potential deadlock on flow of goods from the UK to Europe has been lifted he is still wary of the broader implications of this deal on trade for food and beverage businesses such as his.
He said: “We may still be stepping into a bureaucratic nightmare with added paperwork around certification and details such as country of origin – in short what appears to be free trade may actually not quite deliver on that.
“We would hope that trade would be tariff free and goods could pass into Europe without needing additional label information for compliance – this will become clearer over the coming weeks.
“My position is cautious optimism that we can move forward, tempered with a wariness that the deal might not deliver free and frictionless trade in an effective way. Having to change packaging is a massive headache for any business.”
Will says the uncertainty around deal or no deal has meant a large chunk of his business has disappeared, with around 30% of export business to Europe on hold.
He added: “Our European buyers are wary of making a commitment because of the continued uncertainty around tariffs and labelling.
“I’ve also got the impression from conversations that the perception of UK businesses from abroad has been damaged during the Brexit negotiations and we will need to do a lot of work to repair that.
“The turmoil at the ports pre-Christmas has brought home just how critical that bit of water between us and France is. It feels very much like we are a small island again.”
The cleaner
Ania Gracz plans to stay in the UK
For Polish cleaner Ania Gracz, 43, of Lewisham, South London, the Brexit vote has not changed her affection for her adopted country.
After ensuring she can stay through the Government’s Settled Status scheme, she has every intention of staying in the capital, where she lives in a rented flat.
“I came here in 2005 from Poland,” says Ania.
“In Poland at that time it wasn’t a very good money situation, so I thought I would come to England just for two years and then I would go back.
“When I went back to Poland I didn’t like it, so I came back here!
“I was much happier here. Of course I miss my family but there are many differences between Britain and Poland.
“I much prefer the mentality here than in my country.
“I had to apply for settled status about a year ago. There are differences now but I think it’s more to do with the pandemic than Brexit.
“It has become hard to get a job, but I have never had a problem with work. I don’t think it’s about Brexit.”
Asked whether the referendum has changed people’s attitudes towards Polish people, Ania replied: “For me it’s still the same.
“Most British people are still nice. I always feel welcome and have not suffered any racism.
“I’m always welcomed with a smile.
“Of course there are bad people but I never had this situation. That’s why I’m here.
“Believe me, if I didn’t like people here I would not be here. I do not stay anywhere if I don’t like it.
“In Poland I feel like an alien. My English friends tell me sometimes that I am more British than they are!”
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/F3MV7QOPV4S4XUX6Q27MYIYTPI.jpg?w=696&resize=696,0&ssl=1 "The European Union is free at last!")
