Photo Dawn.com

The founder of Genocide Watch, Dr Gregory Stanton, who had predicted a genocide in Rwanda years before it took place in 1994 has warned of an impending genocide of Muslims in India, comparing the situation of the country under the Narendra Modi government to events in Myanmar and Rwanda.

Formed in 1999, Genocide Watch is a global organisation dedicated to the prevention of genocide. Dr Stanton is a former research professor in genocide studies and prevention at the George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United States.

Dr Stanton made these remarks during a congressional briefing titled 'Call For Genocide of Indian Muslims', organised by the Indian American Muslim Council. He was part of a five-member panel invited to speak at the session.

In his video address, Dr Stanton began with highlighting that Genocide Watch had been warning of a genocide in India since 2002, "when riots and massacres in Gujarat occurred that killed over a thousand Muslims".

"At that time, the chief minister of Gujarat was Narendra Modi, and he did nothing. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that he actually encouraged those massacres," he said, adding that Modi, now the prime minister of India, had used "anti-Muslim, Islamophobic rhetoric" to build his political base.

Dr Stanton said the two ways Modi went about this was by revoking the special autonomous status of Indian- occupied Kashmir in 2019 and passing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act the same year.

He explained that the revocation of the of occupied Kashmir's special autonomy was "largely aimed at restoring Hindu domination" in the valley, which had Muslim majority. Moreover, he added, the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act was especially "aimed at Muslims".

"It gave [a] specific favourable status to refugees who had come from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who were of certain religious groups. But the one group that was excluded was Muslims," he said. "This act was specifically ... aimed at the Muslims who had fled Bangladesh during the Bangladesh genocide and civil war in 1971 and had settled in Assam," he continued.

Dr Stanton said there were around three million such people, mostly Muslims, who had fled to India and "has settled down" as "regular citizens of India".

But the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, he said, required people to prove through documentation that they had been the citizens of India before 1971 as part of a census that was to be overseen by the Indian supreme court.

"Now a lot of people don't have that kind of documentation, of course," he pointed out, adding that "the idea [behind the Act] is to essentially declare them (people who had fled to India from Bangladesh in 1971) foreigners, and therefore, to allow their deportation."

He said this was "exactly was the Myanmar government did to the Rohingya Muslims" in 2017. The Myanmar government, he said, first declared Rohingya non-citizens through a legislation and and then expelled them through violence and genocide.

In this regard, he also highlighted that the UN Genocide Convention — an international treaty that criminalises genocide — not just "covers genocides in whole. It also covers genocides in part".

"It is specifically aimed at the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and that is exactly what the Myanmar government did in Myanmar against Rohingya," he said. "What we are now facing is a very similar kind of a plot, if you will," he added, referring to India.

Dr Stanton said the Indian government's aim was to extend the census under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act across the country and the "victims will be 200 milion Muslims in India".

He further said that the "idea of India as a Hindu nation, which is the Hindutva movement, is contrary to the history of India and the Indian constitution".

The Indian constitution, he said, was devised "to make India a secular country", and that the secularity it promised was secured in the first years of India's existence under the Congress party.

"What we have now though, an actual member of the RSS ( Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) — this extremist, Hindutva-oriented group — Mr Modi as [the] prime minister of India. So what we have here is an extremist who has taken over the government," he continued.

Dr Stanton then went on to explain that genocide was not an event but a process, and that there were early "signs and processes" of genocide in the Indian state of Assam and occupied Kashmir.

He referred to a conclave held by Hindutva leader Yati Narsinghanand from December 17 to 19 in Uttarakhand's pilgrimage city of Haridwar, where multiple calls to kill minorities and attack their religious spaces were made, saying that the event was aimed at inciting genocide.

He said there were laws in India that could be enforced against such practices, "but Mr Modi has not spoken out against that violence".

Dr Stanton said Modi, as the prime minister of India, had a moral obligation to denounce this kind of hatred and hate-speech, that specifically calls for the killing of Muslims.

He said the language used against Muslim in the Haridwar meeting, which was also used by the Indian government, was actually "polarisation", which led to genocide.

"So we are warning that genocide could very well happening in India."

He also likened the circumstances in India to the events in Rwanda, where a genocide had taken place in 1994.

Dr Stanton said he had predicted the genocide in Rwanda, keeping in view the situation in the country at the time.

He said he had warned the then-Rwandan president that "if you don't do something to prevent genocide in your country, there is going to be a genocide here within five years. That was in 1989. The genocide developed, the hate-speech developed, all the early warning signs developed. And as we know, 800,000 Tutsis and other Rwandans were murdered in 1994".

"We cannot let that happen in India," he concluded. - Dawn.com

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and President of the Republic of Rwanda Paul Kagame at the Cape Town International Convention Centre in the Western Cape, South Africa, ahead of the Young Presidents' Organisation dinner on 6 March 2019. Photo GCIS

The failure of southern African and Rwanda to coordinate their military interventions against Islamist insurgents in northern Mozambique could jeopardise the overall mission.

This week, Mozambique’s President, Filipe Nyusi, met separately with Rwandan President Paul Kagame in Kigali and with the leaders of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in Lilongwe, Malawi, to discuss the war against the Al-Sunnah-wa-Jama’ah insurgents, who are affiliated to the Islamic State.

In Kigali, Kagame and Nyusi signed a formal cooperation agreement which included terms for the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) providing training to Mozambique forces. 

In Lilongwe, the SADC leaders agreed to extend the deployment of the SADC Mission in Mozambique (Samim). Both the RDF and Samim have been in Mozambique since July last year. 

The communiqué from the SADC summit did not say how long Samim’s mission had been extended for, but officials present said Samim would stay for another three months in its current form. This consists of mainly special forces from South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania and Lesotho conducting search-and-destroy missions against the insurgents. After that, the mission would be expanded to include infantry to consolidate territory seized from the insurgents and to reestablish civil infrastructure. Then the mission would be reassessed in July.

But, surprisingly to many observers, Rwanda and the SADC were not represented at each other’s meetings. This has raised concerns not only about dangers to the military mission but also to human rights and transparency of governance of the efforts to restore peace to the war zone, which is mainly in Mozambique’s northernmost province of Cabo Delgado.

Adriano Nuvunga, executive director of the Centre for Democracy and Development in Mozambique’s capital, Maputo, asked on Thursday why Kagame had not been invited to the SADC summit in Lilongwe “so they could have one meeting instead of two”.

Speaking at a webinar organised by the Southern African Liaison Office and the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, Nuvunga noted that Rwanda had neither been mentioned at this week’s SADC summit, nor at the last one, held in October last year, when SADC leaders decided to extend Samim’s deployment for three months, until January 15.

“Rwanda seems the… elephant in the room,” he said. “They don’t talk about it.”

Nuvunga said the failure of the SADC to engage Kagame and of Mozambique to reveal the terms of its agreement with Rwanda was raising concerns by Mozambicans about what Rwanda’s responsibilities were. It was also raising concerns about human rights accountability. 

An official confirmed that Rwanda’s deployment had not been discussed at the Lilongwe summit. “It’s very unlikely that will ever come up,” he added, saying that the Samim and Rwandan militaries were coordinating in the field, so it was not necessary for the political leaders to cooperate. 

However, Liesl Louw-Vaudran, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies, said it still did not make sense that Kagame and Rwanda were not being included in the SADC discussions about overall strategy. 

“I think if [South African President Cyril] Ramaphosa invites Kagame to the next event, he can better control the narrative and make clear this is an SADC issue,” she said.

Louw-Vaudran added that she thought the lack of communication between the SADC and Rwanda was related to bad blood between Rwanda and South Africa over Pretoria’s belief that Kagame has targeted Rwandan dissidents in South Africa. This includes the murder in a Sandton hotel in 2013 of former Rwandan intelligence chief Patrick Karegeya.

The then defence minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, made it very clear in July last year that SA was unhappy about Rwanda deploying its military in Cabo Delgado before the SADC did. 

Louw-Vaudran said, though, that regardless of such tension, Kagame should have been at the SADC summit, as coordination of the troops was vitally important and Rwandan forces were playing a very important role in the fight against the insurgents. 

The SADC summit communiqué also failed to provide details about the financing of Samim. However, some sources have said it was agreed that an extra $29.5-million would be budgeted for. This appears inadequate to most observers, particularly as the special forces that have been fighting for six months complain that they are wholly underequipped. For example, two South African Oryx utility helicopters are transporting the special forces of four different countries. - Peter Fabricius, Daily Maverick

Prince Andrew has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen after a US judge ruled his trial for sex offences could go ahead.

The Palace said in a statement: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

“The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”

According to ITV News, the 95-year-old Queen told Andrew in person on Thursday he would be stripped of his titles. 

The move by the palace comes ahead of the hugely embarrassing proposition of Andrew facing a civil trial over the sex assault allegations from Virginia Giuffre, which he denies. On Thursday, a source close to the duke said he would “continue to defend himself” against Ms Giuffre’s allegations.

Watch: Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations

A Manhattan federal court judge has ruled that a sexual assault civil lawsuit brought against British Royal Family member Prince Andrew can move forward.

Giuffre claims she was trafficked to have sex with the Queen’s second son when she was 17 and a minor under US law. A judge ruled on Wednesday the case could go ahead.

The Duke of York will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity, something he has used since birth, and represents the duke’s complete removal from official royal life permanently.

A royal source told the PA News Agency the issue had been widely discussed with the royal family, making it likely that the Prince of Wales, as well as Andrew, was involved in crisis talks over the matter.

The source said the military posts would be redistributed to other members of the royal family, meaning Andrew's removal from public life is a permanent one.

Reacting to the news the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, welcomed the news, telling the BBC's Newscast podcast. 

"Prince Andrew already had stepped back from many of his public duties - I think all of them, as well - so I think this was anticipated, indeed it was expected, from this perspective, so I'm actually not surprised."

The move to remove his titles comes after calls from veterans to strip him of his honorary military roles.

In an open letter to the Queen, more than 150 former members of Royal Navy, RAF and British Army described their “upset and anger” at Andrew retaining the titles, saying his position was “untenable”.

The letter said: “Please do not leave it any longer.”

A former commanding officer of one of Andrew's former regiments made similar calls last week.

Colonel Tim Collins, an Iraq War veteran, said at the time Andrew should "jump before he is pushed".

He said the publicity around the Giuffre lawsuits was "embarrassing" for everyone.

The Queen is head of the armed forces, and honorary military appointments are in her gift.

The duke had held the title of Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, one of the oldest and most emblematic regiments in the British Army.

His other British honorary military titles were: Honorary Air Commodore of RAF Lossiemouth; Colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment; Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps; Commodore-in-Chief of the Fleet Air Arm; Royal Colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers; Deputy Colonel-in-chief of The Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeths’ Own); and Royal Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

On Wednesday, Judge Lewis A Kaplan dismissed a motion by the duke’s lawyers to have the civil case thrown, out after they argued Giuffre had waived her right to pursue Andrew by signing a confidential settlement with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

A source close to the duke said he was unsurprised by the judge's ruling: “Given the robustness with which Judge Kaplan greeted our arguments, we are unsurprised by the ruling.

“However, it was not a judgement on the merits of Ms Giuffre’s allegations. This is a marathon not a sprint and the duke will continue to defend himself against these claims.”

Andrew remains in the line of succession to the throne and as such is still a Counsellor of State.

In the event that the Queen cannot undertake her official duties as sovereign on a temporary basis due to illness or absence abroad, two or more Counsellors of State are appointed by Letters Patent to act in her place.

The role of Counsellor of State is undertaken by any spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in the line of succession, currently the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York. By Matilda Long, Yahoo News