Podcast with Stuti Roy on The Burning Forest for the New Books Network

 https://newbooksnetwork.com/the-burning-forest

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/nandini-sundar-the-burning-forest-indias-war-in/id427197319?i=1000676615790

Terrance “Terry” Michael Maccagno

Terry was my dearly loved brother-in-law. I am reproducing the obituary notice

Terrance “Terry” Michael Maccagno

June 9, 1962 – August 25, 2024

It is with deep sadness that we announce the death of Terrence “Terry” Michael Maccagno. Terry was only 62 years old when he left us on August 25, 2024, in Lac la Biche, Alberta.
Terry was born in Edmonton on June 9, 1962, to Tom and Annette. He was the elder brother of Morris, Michelle, and Marc. He died where he spent his childhood summers, at the family cabin in Lac la Biche. Like his father Tom, who predeceased him in 2012, Terry loved swimming, canoeing and water-skiing in the lake, fishing, and capturing the beauty of nature through the lens of his camera.

Terry was a brilliant student, graduating as a metallurgical engineer from the University of Alberta in 1984 with a gold medal. He received the Edmonton Churchill Scholarship and several other awards to complete a PhD at Cambridge University. It was there that he met Aparna Sundar, who would become his beloved wife. After receiving his doctorate in 1988, he returned to Canada to take up a position with the National Research Council in Ottawa. He moved to the Department of Mining and Metallurgical Sciences at McGill University when Aparna came to McGill to do her master’s, and lived in Montreal for several years. In 1997, he moved to the University of Alberta to become an Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering and NSERC / TCPL Junior Industrial Research Chair in Pipeline Materials. It was there that he decided he did not enjoy the stressful and competitive nature of academia and transitioned into his new career in IT infrastructure. In 1998, he joined Compugen Systems Inc, and remained with them until his death.

Terry and Aparna were married in May 2000 in Toronto. Their daughter Rosa was born in 2001 and their son Ilan in 2005. Terry lived in Toronto for the rest of his life, except for the two years the family spent in Bangalore, India, where he worked with Tata Consultancy Services. Those were memorable years – spending time with Aparna’s parents and relatives, travelling to the Himalayas and the coasts, car trips to the hills, forests, and historic sites in the south, bird watching in Bangalore’s parks and lakes, and making new friends.

In Toronto, Terry was a steady part of a close group of friends, taking interest in his friends’ children along with his own. He enjoyed his neighbourhood of Parkdale-High Park, where he could go walking or cycling in the park or along the lake. In the last few years, he loved to be out with his canoe, on the Humber River or exploring shorelines along the lake. From March 2020 on, he worked entirely from home, and became the most reliable companion to the family’s cat Kaju, who is still waiting for him to return. He read widely and kept up the appreciation for good films developed at Cambridge. He had an excellent memory and could hold a conversation on all kinds of things, from science, history and politics, to films, but was always happiest listening when others spoke. Terry was a wonderful father, husband, son, brother, son- and brother-in-law, and friend. He was a kind man and was never judgmental or critical of others. He was always even tempered and sweet. His warmth and generosity were remarked upon by all whose paths crossed his. He had a great sense of humour and fun, and an equally strong work ethic and sense of responsibility. We are so grateful that the last weeks of his life were spent travelling with his kids and enjoying time on the water.

Terry did not enjoy being the centre of attention and never wanted big celebrations for himself, even for landmark birthdays. But we who love him, and there are many of us, want to celebrate his life and what he meant for us.

When Victors Claim Victimhood: Majoritarian Resentment and the Inversion of Reparations Claims

 From the mid-20th century onwards, diverse groups – whether formerly enslaved populations or victims of mass atrocities – have demanded reparations as part of a wider struggle for justice. In the current global climate of right-wing resurgence, however, both the recognition of victimhood and demands for justice are in danger of being subverted and hijacked. These developments create additional obstacles in the way of genuine reparation demands. This happens in at least three ways. First, there is a new and selective application of victimhood status and recognition, often along old fault lines of race or religion, such that the oppression of some groups is no longer recognized as a legitimate object of reparations; indeed their demands for justice are seen as unfair claims against dominant groups. Second, we see the naked continuation of the very practices which the reparations movement has sought to establish as wrongs. Third, not content with negating existing demands for reparations from below, powerful groups are going a step further and claiming reparations for themselves as part of a supremacist project. In doing this, they use the language and moral claims of reparations and decolonization that have emerged through the global reparations movement. This essay seeks to illustrate this through the examples of India and Israel, including the demand for ‘restoration’ of sacred sites to Hindus and Jews. 

Keywords: Reparations, Majoritarianism, Victimhood, India, Israel, Sacred Sites

Published in Development and Change, 17 April 2024

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12822

In conversation with Ashraf Engineer on the state of India's Supreme Court

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3bJMToFInqW3i1on83g658?si=w9itQlH4QVqkkqoAy_rlFw

https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/all-indians-matter/id1527740349?i=1000645245455

Website: https://www.allindiansmatter.in/supreme-courts-flawed-reasoning-when-ruling-in-favour-of-govt-is-worrying/

Why the Places of Worship Act Must Be Preserved

The Allahabad High Court judgement dismissing a PIL asking for the removal of the Shahi Idgah in Mathura is a relief, even though it is on the technical ground that similar petitions are pending before it.  Given the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain an archaeological survey of the Gyan Vapi Mosque in Benaras and a challenge to the Places of Worship Act 1991, both the Gyan Vapi mosque and Shahi Idgah may go the way of the Babri Masjid. The template is set– a local dispute elevated to a national issue, a self-appointed next friend of the idol, a court mandated archaeological survey, and a judiciary which values faiths differentially. 

When Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that ascertaining the religious character of a place was not barred under the Places of Worship Act, and agreed to examine the Act itself, he reneged directly on a commitment the Supreme Court had made barely a few years ago. In an otherwise disappointing judgement, handing over the site of the Babri Masjid to the very people who vandalised it, a five-judge bench of the Court reiterated the importance of the Places of Worship Act of 1991: 

In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered. The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A and are hence positive mandates to every citizen as well. The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalized its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values (para 82 of the 2019 Ayodhya judgement, M Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das and ors, emphasis mine)

 

Umar Khalid, the Historian

Muslims in India, somewhat like Adivasis, are always being told to ‘integrate’ and to join the ‘mainstream’. The difference with Muslims and Adivasis is that the former are seen as unwilling to be ‘mainstreamed’ and the latter as incapable of it. The assumption is always that the ‘main-stream’ is an upper-caste Hindu river, singularly flowing without any input from minority streams.  At the same time, when Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis fill the jails disproportionately and are denied bail when others get it for the same offence, then there is no admission of how the mainstream has excluded them. 

When a Muslim like Umar Khalid crosses boundaries, there is a further panic attack. A young articulate Muslim man who does not wear a skull cap, who is an atheist, who did his Phd from JNU in history on Adivasis in Singbhum is seen as an anomaly in the segregated world the RSS wants to create. The attempt is then to reduce him to just one aspect of his identity – so that whatever else he does or says or writes, in the end he must be seen merely as a Muslim, and by extension, violent, anti-national and a threat to the “Indian mainstream.” So dangerous that he has been in jail for three years without bail. It is not surprising that so many of the young people who were arrested for the anti-CAA protests were Muslim students at India’s leading universities. 

The Supreme Court in Modi's India

In what is globally called ‘autocratic legalism’, current authoritarian regimes maintain a semblance of legality and constitutionalism while in practice attempting to remake the judiciary in their own image. In this article, published in the new Journal of Right-Wing Studies, published out of Berkeley University,  I look at how the Indian Supreme Court (SC) has responded to executive incursions under the Narendra Modi regime since 2014. Even today, the court continues to deliver important democracy-enhancing judgments, breaking away from India’s colonial inheritance in matters like criminalizing same-sex relationships and adultery. However, the last decade is strongly marked by two features: first, an unwillingness to hear major constitutional issues that might challenge the regime; and second, judgments that serve as an advertorial for the regime, reinforcing an antiminority ideological orientation, justifying the government’s actions, and promoting Modi’s personality cult. By outsourcing several political decisions to a seemingly disinterested and neutral judiciary, the Modi government has been far more successful than it would have been if it had imposed those decisions purely by legislative majority. In turn, by addressing a variety of political issues as purely procedural matters and not addressing them as constitutional questions, the courts have collaborated in the delegitimization of dissent and reinforced the claims of the Modi regime.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/313700c7