Some years ago, Narendra Jadhav whom I interviewed soon after he was appointed to the Planning Commission of India, presented me with a family biography called Untouchables which had become a bestseller internationally. The opening chapter is a searing account of how Jadhav’s father Damu flees to Bombay to escape the brutal abuse he faces as a Mahar, a Dalit caste whose duty it was to sweep village roads and remove the carcasses of dead cattle in Maharashtra. In return, Mahars were ‘entitled’ to some grain and the meat and skin of dead cattle. Thanks to Damu’s act of defiance, his son was able to free himself from the caste system and become the success story he is. Jadhav, who has been unabashed about his political ambitions, is a rare Dalit success story, an economist who was given plum posts after three decades with the Reserve Bank of India by former prime minister Manmohan Singh. Three months ago, he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament, by BJP Prime Minister Narendra Modi. As the country erupts in Dalit anger in several states after four Dalits were stripped, thrashed mercilessly and paraded in Una town of Gujarat for skinning a dead cow by self-styled gau rakshaks (cow protectors), who falsely claimed they had killed it, it is clear that 86 years after Damu ran to freedom very little has changed. Jadhav implied in his speech to parliament the horrific incident was symptomatic of a deeper malady that has plagued India for a very long time. Under Modi’s watch, the brazenness of the savagery against the long persecuted Dalits is unprecedented. He is right. Dalits were lynched in 2002 for skinning dead cattle. Yet, something fundamental seems to have changed now. Seldom before has the Dalit rattled the government in such a marked way. The 201 million people belonging to various scheduled castes — these fall outside the recognised four Hindu castes — account for nearly 17 per cent of the population but they have seldom been on the...

Relations between Turkey and Israel have continued with many ups and downs since 1950. At the beginning of the 1990s, a golden period of stability started in relations between the two sides, which continued until 2009 and 2010. During those two years, first a verbal brawl between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and then Israeli President, Shimon Peres, during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss city of Davos, followed by storming of a Turkish aid ship, called the Mavi Marmara, which was taking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, by Israel commandos, drew a deep wedge between the two sides. As a result, good relations, which existed between Tel Aviv and Ankara for about two decades and which caused Turkey and Israel to be considered as strategic allies, were practically cut. It must be noted that part of this period – that is, from 2002 onward – is related to the Islamist conservative government of the Justice and Development Party (known as AKP by its Turkish name). What happened in 2009 and 2010, caused the government of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey to be known as an anti-Israeli government both inside the country and within the Islamic world, and this issue not only bolstered the social base of the party inside the country, but also caused positive inclination of the regional people toward this party. Despite this issue, some forms of collaboration, including military and economic cooperation, were never cut between Turkey and Israel. The Justice and Development Party has already made the most of tensions between Turkey and Israel as a trump card both inside and outside the country, and  under present circumstances, when Turkey has not good relations with other neighbors, normalization of relations with Israel may reduce pressure on the government from the elite. Now that the two sides are on track to restoration of full diplomatic relations, this trend will not only help the Turkish government meet its political goals, but will help it...

In addition to improvement in Turkey’s relations with Israel and Russia during recent weeks, changes have been made at Turkey’s Foreign Ministry as well. On the other hand, the power of Syrian Kurds in areas under their control along Turkey’s southern borders has undergone developments and as a result of these developments and changes, many analysts have been speculating that Turkey’s policy toward Syria is going to change and argue that such changes can have a great effect on the future outlook of the war in Syria. From my viewpoint, following points should be considered in this regard: 1. Following resignation of the country’s former prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey is trying to adapt itself to tangible realities in the region, including the fact that despite all measures aimed at his downfall, Syrian President Bashar Assad is still in power. The rise of Daesh has also caused Turkey’s allies to shift their focus from trying to change the Syrian government. Therefore, by following up on its old plan to bring about regime change in Syria, Turkey has been moving toward increasing isolation while its plan has been rendered futile through unbridled support offered to Syrian government by Moscow and Tehran. On the other hand, as time goes by, management of the Kurdish issue inside Syria has turned into a vital matter for the Turkish government. The Syrian Kurds and their representative, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), have been successful in attracting the attention and support of international community through their successful fight against Daesh. PYD has increased its power and influence by expanding regions under its control in northern part of Syria. From the viewpoint of the government of Turkey, however, the PYD is a branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is currently in the midst of a violent fight against the government in Ankara. Therefore, foreign policy equations of Ankara have changed and its priority has shifted from changing the...

The killing of more than 80 people celebrating Bastille Day in Nice last week followed multiple deadly terrorist attacks around the world at the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. These incidents highlight the continued threat of the Islamic State (ISIS), which has either claimed responsibility or been suspected of complicity in all. ISIS has continued to display a particular effectiveness in dividing the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, even as its numbers and the territory under its control dwindle. World leaders and policymakers must closely study the lessons from the recent violence and work across religious, ideological, and other divides if they hope to minimize the future threat. The Nice violence followed a June 28 attack on Istanbul’s airport that killed 45 people and injured hundreds more, with Turkish investigations pointing to ISIS as likely perpetrators. Less than a week later, six attackers swearing allegiance to ISIS stormed a bakery in an upscale area of Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 20 hostages and exposing shortcomings in the country’s security. A day later, a truck bomb in Baghdad killed more than 281 people, marking the single deadliest attack in Iraq since the 2003 United States-led invasion. The following day, a bombing near the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, Saudi Arabia, which followed blasts in Jeddah and Qatif, produced shock from the Muslim community around the world. Earlier, the US had suffered a high-profile “lone wolf” attack in Orlando that killed 49. Symbolism continues to feature heavily in ISIS operations. The Nice attack struck at celebrations of cherished French and, by association, Western values such as secularism and democracy. The Ramadan attacks, meanwhile, were in line with a radical interpretation of the month as one of conquest and jihad, thereby holding a special reward of martyrdom. Indeed,an infographic recently released by ISIS celebrated its “Ramadan victory” of having killed and injured 5,200 people during the holy...

Last week, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague ruled that China had violated the sovereign rights of The Philippines by staking its claim to the South China Sea. A decision three years in the making, it a setback for China, however small, and it sets the stage for potential conflict between China and the various other nations that stake their claim on the South China Sea. The South China Sea, as the name suggests, is located off of the shore of southern China’s Hainan, and is encircled by The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia. All countries claim various levels of sovereignty over the region. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows for a 200 mile line from the coast as the sovereign territory of a nation, though this is not universal and alternate maritime marking mechanisms exist. China claims the lion’s share of the sea, in an area marked by the “Nine-Dash Line”, which is literally an area marked by nine red dashes stretching hundreds of miles south of its coastline. The basis of the claim is in a map issued by China in 1947, though maritime experts claim that it is loosely defined. Vietnam claims sovereignty over the oceanic region, and the two island chains in it, since the 17th century. The Philippines maintains its right to the South China Sea based on proximity, whereas Malaysia and Brunei stick to the UNCLOS convention for maritime borders. The region is a cause of concern for the US The region is also a cause of concern for the US, especially since its pivot to South East Asia under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which allows for American goods to have better access to markets bordering the Pacific. Despite claiming that it has a policy of non-interference, the US has conducted the so-called freedom of navigation operations, ostensibly to ensure access to key shipping and aerial routes is intact, but Beijing only sees it as an irritation and provocation. The South China Sea is a major shipping...

It is ping-pong season in Afghanistan. Within 48 hours of an assertion on the status of hostilities by US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford, Taliban delivered a snub through coordinated attacks in several districts in northern, northeastern and southern Afghan provinces.  On July 19, Afghan officials acknowledged the insurgents have made territorial gains in some areas. The renewed insurgent hostilities came a day after Dunford concluded a three-day visit to Kabul as part of the overall assessment of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. He attributed recent lower level of violence than anticipated to Afghan forces’ significantly increased capabilities, notably air power. But Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid offered a contrasting claim and attributed the slow-down in attacks to the “unusually hot month of Ramadan.”  In messages to media, Mujahid said simultaneous and coordinated attacks in several provinces, including Kunduz, Baghlan, Badakhshan and Helmand starting Sunday are a proof of the plans the Taliban devised during Ramadan and the activity is going to intensify. These conflicting views mean continued hostilities and an enormous financial bleeding for the US-led Resolute Support Mission, a sequel to the Operation Enduring Freedom, which ended in December 2014 with the bulk drawdown of US-NATO troops from Afghanistan, following a 13-year massive infusion of money (over $700 billion) and manpower in the war that peaked in 2010/11 with 133,000 men. Additionally, this cost several billion dollars in the name of Afghan-military related support missions, infrastructure projects, and social service centres. It has been a bizarre spending spree sans accountability. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction office, headed by John Sopko since 2012, has looked at hundreds of projects to check how the approximately $113.1 billion spent on Afghanistan relief and reconstruction since 2002 were spent. These audits also...