Category: Uncategorized

by B. R. GOWANI

Pakistani poet Munir Niazi (1923 – 2006), equally loved and respected in India as in Pakistan, used to write in his mother tongue Punjabi as well as, in Hindi/Urdu, national languages of India/Pakistan respectively. He also wrote film songs such as:

jA apni hasratoN per ANsooN bahA ke sau ja / kahin sun na le zamAnA ae dil khamosh ho jA

cry your heart out over all your unfulfilled desires and go to sleep / the heart should remain silent lest the world comes to know your weep

Film: Susral. Playback singer: Noor Jehan. Music: Hassan Latif Lilak. Actress (on whom the song is picturized): Nighat Sultana.

kaise kaise log hamAre jee ko jalAne Aa jate haiN / apne apne gham ke fasAne humeiN sunAne Aa jAte haiN

to make my life miserable, strange sort of people come to me / to tell me their own tales of sorrows, they come to me

Film: Tere Shehr Men. Playback singer: Mehdi Hassan. Music: Hassan Latif Lilak.

(The above video doesn’t have the entire poem, for that visit Rekhta.)

us bevafA kA shahr hai aur hum hain dosto / ashq-e-ravAN ki nahr hai aur hum haiN dosto

this is my betrayer’s town and here I am, friends / a stream of flowing tears and here I am, friends

Film: Shaheed. Singer: Naseem Begum. Music: Rashid Attre.

(The above video doesn’t have the entire poem, for that visit Rekhta.)

Here is a translation of one of Niazi’s beautiful poems:

Original Urdu version:

hameshA der kar detA hoon meiN …

hameshA der kar detA hooN meiN har kAm karne meN

zaruri bAt kehni ho koi vAdA nibhAnA ho
usey AvAz deni ho usey wApas bulAnA ho

hameshA der kar detA hooN meiN

madad karni ho uski yAr ki DhAras bandhanA ho
bahot derinA rAstoN par kisi se milne jAnA ho

hameshA der kar detA hooN meiN

badalte mausamoN ki sair meiN dil ko lagAnA ho
kisi ko yAad rakhnA ho kisi ko bhool jAnA ho

hameshA der kar detA hooN meiN

kisi ko maut se pehle kisi gham se bachAnA ho
Haqiqat aur thi kuchh us ko jA ke ye batAnA ho

hameshA der kar detA hooN meiN har kAm karne meNO

Translation:

I always am late …

I always am late — in everything I do

in saying an important thing, in keeping a promise
in calling her, in asking her to return back

I always am late

when wanting to help a friend, when wanting to lift her spirit
when wanting to meet someone at a faraway location

I always am late

getting immersed strolling through changing seasons
wanting to remember someone, wanting to forget someone

I always am late

wanting to save someone from sadness before their death
wanting to inform her that reality was different than what she believed

I always am late — in everything I do

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

by HOSSAM EL-HAMALAWY

The Columbia professor’s new book argues that Gaza is the measure by which any moral framework must be judged

Hamid Dabashi’sAfter Savagery: Gaza, Genocide, and the Illusion of Western Civilization is a book that does not nudge; it wallops. 

Written in the long shadow of Gaza’s devastation, it refuses euphemism, demolishes the polite fictions that anaesthetise Western consciences, and insists on a simple thesis: Gaza is the ethical ground zero of our time.

What we call “the West” has been revealed, not as a civilisational high point, but as a system of domination that dresses barbarism in moral drag. 

Read it if you’re ready to stop pretending. Read it if you want language equal to the horror, and a map for thinking, and acting, beyond it.

Published by Haymarket Books, it opens not with hedging but with the unvarnished vocabulary of genocide. 

Dabashi peppers the book with quotes from Conrad to Ayelet Shaked, showing how the injunction to “exterminate all the brutes” is not a relic of empire but a living operating system, retooled for a besieged strip of land that has become the world’s moral mirror. 

The result is a searing, scandalously explicit indictment and a celebratory defence of Palestinian life and culture as a generative, life-making force.

Gaza as the new categorical imperative

Dabashi’s most provocative move is philosophical: he rewrites Kant from the rubble. The book argues that Gaza has overturned the “metaphysics of morals” and exposed a metaphysics of barbarism at the heart of the West. 

If a universal law permits mass death so long as it is rationalised by security, then the universal law is rotten. 

Gaza, he insists, is the test: either we orient our ethics from there, or our ethics are counterfeit. 

If a universal law permits mass death so long as it is rationalised by security, then the universal law is rotten 

This isn’t ivory-tower wordplay; it’s a demand for a total reframing of moral philosophy in the wake of livestreamed atrocity.

The chapter-length meditations hammer the point: from official language that brands Palestinians “human animals”, to policy choices that starve and bomb civilians with impunity, the book refuses to let philosophy float above the blood. 

A categorical imperative, Dabashi says, now lives or dies under the dust of collapsed apartment blocks. That’s not melodrama; that’s accountability.

Israel is not merely backed by “the West”, it is “the West”.

The book’s core political claim is blunt: Israel is the condensed, weaponised expression of western imperial history, a garrison state projecting imperial interests, not a normal country gone astray. 

From witness to martyr

This is more than the familiar settler-colonial framing; it’s an argument that Gaza exposes the DNA of the West’s self-exculpating myth, linking Indigenous erasure in the Americas, the transatlantic slave trade, and European fascism to the ongoing Palestinian catastrophe.

Dabashi leans on Cesaire’s cold insight: the West only truly recognised “the crime” when the methods of empire were used on Europe itself. That recognition never translated into universal empathy; Gaza proves it.

The author is not asking to swap one victimhood for another. He marks the Holocaust’s specificity while rejecting the move that isolates it from the larger architecture of European genocidal practice.

In this telling, Zionism is not a prophylactic against antisemitism but a colonial project that keeps the region and Jews living within a militarised enclave that is permanently unsafe. 

Middle East Eye for more

by LETICIA GARCIA & PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ

Runways, influencers, and fast fashion are embracing an image that discreetly evokes a reactionary feminine ideal — and the look is proving seductive to younger generations

“Quiet luxury hinted at fatigue of the loud, anything-goes culture of the previous decade. Many women were simply tired of being told ‘sex sells’ or that empowerment means ever-shrinking hemlines. Quality over quantity, tradition, subtlety — these were back in vogue.”

The passage could have appeared in an old book about the perfect woman, but it actually comes from an April article titled How Fashion Predicted A Trump Triumph in the magazine Evie, a fashion and lifestyle publication that embraces and espouses conservative values. The influence of Evie in the United States has led even The New York Times to dedicate an extensive profile to its founder, Brittany Martinez.

The magazine is not the only one to have explored the links between fashion and reactionary shifts. A quick search on the subject pulls up dozens of articles in publications that are hardly MAGA. “If anyone says I didn’t know our country was going down a conservative path, I would ask you, have you been on the internet in the past four years at all?” joked TikToker Lindsey Louise in a viral video posted after the last presidential election.

@officialnancydrew

looking at trends, it has be obvious our climate was moving conservative for years, i wrote about this on my substack and i honestly could talk about this forever lol. from everything wellness to trad wife content to old money aesthetic to the constant need to be “edgy” we have seen the shift in culture online. also i note that some of these concepts have been taken from indigenous cultures and were constructed into ytness and “ luxury “ rebrand.

ffashiontrendsffashiontiktokssocialmediap#politics?

original sound – lindsey louise

Fashion is not just about clothes, as sociologist Diana Crane points out in her 2000 book Fashion and its Social Agenda. Rather, she says, it is a reflection of our norms and cultural values. As such, it has the potential to influence social attitudes towards body image and beauty standards.

The idea is perfectly applicable a quarter-century after her book’s publication. In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of aesthetics inspired either by nostalgia or by the archetype of the billionaires have taken hold. From floral dresses meant to evoke a bucolic shepherdess, to beige suits that could be worn by Siobhan Roy in Succession, or the flawless (and highly desirable, like a donut) face with a slicked-back bun of Hailey Bieber and her followers.

At first glance, these elements might seem unrelated, if not for the fact that a deeper reading of these macro-trends reveals a kind of pursuit of perfectionism and discretion that fits like a glove with more conservative values.

“If we want to understand current trends, we can observe what is happening in the world in political terms,” reflects Daphné B., cultural journalist and author of Made-Up: A True Story of Beauty Culture Under Late Capitalism. “There has been an obvious rise of the ultra-right, in Europe as well as the United States. In consequence, the values and aesthetic of conservative movements are appreciated, because they are those closest to power.”

Tags like #coquette, #cleangirl and #oldmoney now belong to the general slang of young people; so do words like Ozempic, tradwife and the lamentable “classic chic.”

El Pais for more

by PETER SCHWARZ

Nearly two years of carpet bombing, mass murder and a starvation blockade of the Gaza Strip have turned Israel into a pariah state, despised and hated throughout the world. Nevertheless, the German government stands steadfastly behind the Israeli government, surpassed in this only by the Trump administration.

In the face of growing outrage, Berlin’s official position has shifted slightly. In mid-June, Chancellor Friedrich Merz had attested that the Zionist state was “doing the dirty work for all of us;” now he urges greater humanitarian consideration and will no longer approve weapons for use in Gaza. Yet, in practical terms, nothing has changed. Germany continues to support Israel politically and militarily, opposes all sanctions, and prosecutes opponents of the genocide as alleged “antisemites.”

This is supposedly justified by Germany’s special responsibility for the Holocaust. In 2008, Chancellor Angela Merkel declared Israel’s security to be a German “Staatsräson” (matter of state policy), the same formulation found in the current government’s coalition agreement. Three months ago, in a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier celebrated the “miracle of reconciliation after the civilizational rupture of the Shoah.” At that time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had long been sought on an international arrest warrant for crimes against humanity.

To justify the Israeli army’s war crimes by citing reparations for the Shoah is disgusting and repulsive. Responsibility for the genocide of the Jews does not obligate Germany to support another genocide. Historically, this justification is based on a myth devoid of any factual basis.

The close collaboration between Germany and Israel never had anything to do with “reparations,” atonement for the Shoah, or anything comparable. It was a reciprocal deal: Germany supplied the beleaguered Zionist state with weapons, economic aid and financial assistance; in return, the Israeli government turned a blind eye to the continued presence of Nazi elites in the state and economy of the Federal Republic of Germany and helped it gain international standing.

WSWS for more

by RAYMOND GEUSS

Ancient Roman historians often told the story of how a small, rather undistinguished city-state in central Italy became a huge empire exclusively by fighting defensive wars. At school everyone used to read of how Caesar conquered all of Gallia (Gaul) by doing nothing more than responding with moderation to intolerable provocations by tribelets in what we now call France, Switzerland, Germany and the Low Countries. But for his heroic intervention, Caesar claimed, those tribesmen would soon have been howling and screaming for blood around the sacred pomerium of the City of Rome, 1,500 kilometres away and on the other side of the Alps. Plutarch claims that Caesar killed a million Gauls and enslaved a further million. Even if this is an exaggeration, it is agreed that the scale of the destruction was enormous. How odd that the other side always initiated the war, that they usually suffered the most casualties, and that the conflict usually ended with Rome snipping off another piece of someone else’s territory.

Every pupil used also to read, in Virgil’s Aeneid, the story of a band of defeated wanderers from the ruined city of Troy, who were driven into exile ‘by fate’, but were also promised great things by the god Jupiter: that they would one day become a mighty nation if they returned to their ‘ancient mother’, the homeland from which their ancestors sprang, namely Italy. Virgil recounts the enormous difficulties the exiled Trojans had in establishing themselves in Italy, including the long and bloody war they had to fight against the tribes who were already there.

Is there a contemporary parallel to any of this? Does one come spontaneously to mind?

Since 1948, Israel has conducted wars and military operations against virtually all of its neighbours (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Qatar; have I left any out?), while pursuing a relentless, murderous campaign against the Palestinians. In the midst of all this, those Zionists who also wish to be thought of as liberals are perennially fervent in their calls for a peaceful resolution. Peacefully resolving conflict, through negotiation and discussion, is indeed a laudable liberal virtue, provided, of course, that it is not a Tacitean peace: ‘they devastate the place and call that peace’ (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant), Tacitus writes, referring to the Romans’ conduct in Britain. Making peace can be very difficult, especially when one side insists on assassinating or imprisoning the adversary’s potential negotiators (see yesterday’s airstrike on the Hamas negotiating team in Qatar, to cite only the most recent instance).

In view of Israel’s track record – and daily conduct – its protestations of peaceful intent and promises to negotiate in good faith ring hollow. Netanyahu and his supporters claim that they want a peace which could be immediately realised if Hamas released its hostages, but also state that they fully intend to fight on even if the hostages are released. Netanyahu and the other hardline Zionists in his cabinet argue: ‘They attacked us first, so we have a right to do whatever we want. We propose to take as much land as we can by force, and just you try to stop us.’ On the softer end of the Zionist spectrum, liberal Zionists reiterate the usual claims that Israel is concerned only with peace and security in the region: ‘Why do they always threaten us? Why won’t they ever give us the peace and security which is all we really want?’ The ‘security’ which former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored last week, said he wants Israelis to enjoy means in the first instance unchallenged occupation of land, most of which was appropriated, mostly very violently, from Palestinians within human memory, and which he, naturally, proposes to keep. Bennett went on to appeal to Hamas to surrender and disarm voluntarily, and to place its trust in Israel to end the war. Imagine Lucius Gellius or Marcus Crassus making a similar offer to Spartacus. Can we imagine Spartacus accepting it?

As far as the prospects for the future are concerned, hardline Zionists want a Greater Israel (maximally from the Nile to the Euphrates), while many liberal Zionists still nominally support a two-state solution. Thus the Israeli historian Fania Oz-Salzberger, a commentator with impeccable liberal Zionist credentials, wrote in the Financial Times recently, ‘We need Israel and Palestine to share the land, either by partition or by a creative confederate structure enabling sovereignty and self-rule for both nations. Israel must be democratic, peaceful and secure; Palestine at the very least stable and unsupportive of terror.’

SideC Car – New Left Review for more

by JAWED NAQVI

By habit, the choreographed Indian crowd began to chant “Modi Modi” at an event for the Indian prime minister’s two-day visit to China. The Chinese hosts, on the other hand, greeted him with a knowledgeable display of Indian classical music, something Indians would struggle to reciprocate if it ever came to that. There’s a trade deficit, and there’s evidently a cultural deficit too. Three sari-clad Chinese women performed Vande Mataram, an Indian nationalist favourite, in Rag Desh on the sitar and santoor as the third kept rhythm on the tabla. But there are more urgent reasons than China’s showcasing its soft power to woo a pro-America Narendra Modi, on an emotional rebound, to make a compelling case for BRICS. Dumping the Western capitalist model that has spawned wars and exploitative sanctions is a need that preceded the dismantling of the USSR.

Western perfidy targets friend and foe alike if business interests clash. The malaise is older than Donald Trump. Among my early observations in this regard was the West’s betrayal of Kuwait before Saddam Hussein was hustled into completing the job. The story goes back to the 1987 stock market crash when the Thatcher government was in the process of selling its remaining 31.5 per cent stake in BP. The crash threatened to derail this massive sale, potentially costing the treasury billions. The Kuwait Investment Office, the investment arm of the Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund, stepped in to bail out the UK. It began purchasing BP shares on the open market. Initially, the UK government was pleased. The KIO’s buying provided crucial support to the BP share price, helping to ensure the success of the government’s own share sale. In a short time, the KIO had acquired a 21.6pc stake in BP, making it by far the largest shareholder. The UK government’s stake was now zero.

Suddenly, Margaret Thatcher’s government was uncomfortable with a controlling stake being held by a foreign government, even a friendly one. A 21.6pc stake gave Kuwait significant power and the idea of a major British icon falling under effective control of an OPEC member state was politically toxic, even for a pro-market government like Thatcher’s.

India has 800m on food dole, signalling the contradiction between its right-wing government shored up by big money and people’s priorities.

Thatcher formally instructed the KIO to reduce its holding. They were ordered to sell down their stake to no more than 9.9pc. The government made it clear that if Kuwait did not comply voluntarily, it would use its legal and regulatory powers to force the issue, potentially damaging diplomatic relations and Kuwait’s other investments in the UK. Kuwait, a close ally that relied on Western protection, ultimately complied to maintain good relations.

Dawn for more

by LILI YAN ING

The protests currently sweeping Indonesia are not fleeting outbursts, but rather the culmination of long-suppressed grievances over abuses of power.

Less than 11 months into his term, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto faces a stark choice. He can be remembered either as a leader whose presidency was defined by public anger and discontent, or as one who recognised the challenges facing his country and acted in the national interest.

The anti-government protests sweeping Indonesia over the past two weeks are not fleeting outbursts but the culmination of long-suppressed grievances against abuses of power, the erosion of constitutional norms, and the violation of basic human rights. The protesters are not seeking an apology or even sympathy from the president; they demand the chance to live a decent life in which their dignity and human rights are respected and upheld.

Prabowo’s administration has set its sights on making the country the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2045 – a goal that would require sustained annual growth of 8%. But with 68% of Indonesia’s population living below the poverty line for upper-middle-income countries, such ambitions mean little if millions of citizens remain trapped in poverty and hardship.

Indonesians have experienced rapid growth before, most notably during the long dictatorship of Suharto (1967-98), Prabowo’s former father-in-law. Given that history, they know that lasting and inclusive development gains depend on political and social reform, not strongman rule.

New Arab for more

by JACOB SILVERMAN

Last month, on the Daily Beast podcast, journalists Joanna Coles and Michael Wolff took turns reeling off a list of famous people who Wolff met while visiting Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan home. The recited names were a who’s who of rich, powerful, and perverted men, many of them recognized Friends of Jeffrey. But one name stood out as unusual: the Dalai Lama. (The list of names starts at about the 18:25 timestamp on the full recording.)

Coles thought so too, asking Wolff, “Did you actually meet the Dalai Lama at Jeffrey Epstein’s?”

“Indeed,” said Wolff.

Asked why the Dalai Lama was there, Wolff said that a lot of people hung out with Epstein to try to wheedle money out of him. And there was something compelling about the upscale salon-like scene: “It was always extraordinary,” said Wolff.

Wolff said that he started spending time at Epstein’s house in 2014, six years after the infamous pedophile was given an extremely favorable plea deal for sex crimes charges because, former U.S. district attorney Alex Acosta once said, “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” Wolff was working on a potential book about Epstein and was given access to the now-deceased sex offender’s wealthy social milieu. Epstein later became an important source for Wolff’s best-selling books about President Donald Trump.

Any writing about Michael Wolff seems to require the proviso that his reliability has been questioned by assorted enemies and media critics. Wolff is a gossip hound, practicing the art at a very high level, and he hangs out with unsavory politicians and oligarchs who might like the idea of having a famous journalist around — until he publishes a book about them. Wolff gets into marble-floored rooms that many journalists don’t, so his comments are worth considering.

With that throat-clearing aside, let’s consider why His Holiness the Dalai Lama may have been at now-deceased sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s house. People generally hung out with Epstein for two reasons: sex and money. Wolff suggested that, in this case, it was the latter. Did the Dalai Lama, or an organization with which he’s associated, receive a donation from Epstein?

The Dalai Lama’s press office did not respond to an emailed list of questions. I was unable to reach Michael Wolff for comment about the Dalai Lama’s visit to Epstein’s home.

It wouldn’t be the first time the Dalai Lama had received money from a sex trafficker. In 2009, the Tibetan spiritual leader spoke at an event for NXIVM, the abusive sex cult whose leader, Keith Raniere, was convicted in 2019 on seven criminal charges and sentenced to 120 years in prison. During the 2009 appearance, the Dalai Lama gave a speech and placed a ceremonial Tibetan scarf on Reniere’s shoulders. For his efforts, the Dalai Lama reportedly received $1 million. The deal was made by billionaire heiress Sara Bronfman, who, along with her sister Clare, gave Raniere and NXIVM at least $150 million. Sara Bronfman was alleged to be having an affair with the Lama’s personal peace emissary Lama Tenzin Dhonden, who was later removed from his post for corruption.

Counterpunch for more

by HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

It used to be that the annual Conservative Political Action Conference was the gathering where all the right-wing activists and conservative intellectuals would meet to compare notes and get on the same page. A raucous affair with lots of snarky panels and right-wing celebrities, CPAC also featured serious speeches and presentations by conservative politicians, writers and thinkers. While the conference still exists, it’s no longer the only game in town.

Turning Point USA, founded by the late Charlie Kirk, has attracted the entertaining activist types, while the more staid National Conservatism Conference brings together the more serious thinkers. Held last week in Washington, D.C., NatCon featured speakers and panels that plotted an even more conservative future that was downright chilling.

“Overturn Obergefell” was one featured panel, the AP’s Joey Cappelletti reported. “The Bible and American Renewal” was another. The conference, he wrote, “underscored the movement’s vision of an America rooted in limited immigration, Christian identity and the preservation of what speakers called the nation’s traditional culture” — which is putting it very mildly. It certainly doesn’t seem there was much talk of individual freedom, free markets or liberty of any kind, and that is a big change from the conservative movement that has dominated Republican politics since the Reagan administration.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Director Office of Management and Budget (and lead Project 2025 author) Russell Vought, border czar Tom Homan and disbarred attorney John Eastman — who helped to plot a radical strategy to keep President Donald Trump in office after the 2020 election —  were among those in attendance, representing some of MAGA’s most extreme policy leaders.

As Congress wakes up from its self-imposed slumber to face the prospect of yet another government shutdown showdown, what Vought said has particular salience. He “declared that the Government Accountability Office ‘shouldn’t exist’ after it said his latest effort to claw back funds already approved by Congress is illegal,” according to Cappelletti. “On the broader push for the rollback of appropriated funds, or rescissions, he said, ‘If Congress has given us authority that is too broad, then we’re going to use that authority aggressively to protect the American people.’”

There’s lots of paternalistic Daddy talk these days that centers on the need to “protect the American people.” (Some corners of MAGA have even taken to calling Trump “Daddy.”) But Vought’s underlying message showcased a more aggressive Daddy. According to most reports, his underlying message was reflected in a reckless refrain heard throughout the conference: “You can just do things!”

Salon for more