Sorry, Obama, the System Is Rigged

Trump is right: Elections favor the rich and powerful

By Michael Sainato • 08/10/16

During a press conference last week, President Barack Obama called Donald Trump’s recent claims that the general election will be rigged, “ridiculous.” The retort is the latest attack on Trump from Obama, who has emerged as the Clintoncampaign’s spokesperson while Hillary Clinton herself makes low key campaign stops in swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida.

In January, Obama touched upon what Trump was trying to get at when he said the general election will be rigged. But to Obama, this critique is merely about Americans’ interpretations, not the facts.

“Democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter, that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest,” Obama said during his final State of the Union speech. “Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency—that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.”

Denigrating these suspicions as “ridiculous,” despite who said them, isn’t going to do anything but exacerbate these attitudes. And mocking Trump for connecting on one of the biggest issues he can attribute his popularity to will only increase his support.

Although Trump failed miserably to articulate what exactly he meant by “rigged,” he still touched upon an attitude with which millions of Americans widely agree. The sentiment that elections and the system that runs them is rigged has emerged as the issue with the most bipartisan support this election year. A 2015 Gallup poll found trust in the media is at a historic low. A 2015 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found trust in the government is similarly bottoming out.

The political reality and the ideals of everyday Americans are at such odds because of the influence big money has on democracy. This political polarization directlycorrelates to broadening income inequality. The growing animosity toward the political system has popularized anti-establishment sentiments across the ideological spectrum. Since the 2008 economic recession, nearly 99 percent of all new income has gone to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Middle and working class Americans have seen their wages remain stagnant while the wealthy have grown richer.

The 2011 Citizens United Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for wealthy donors to provide their candidates of choice with unlimited campaign contributions. The power and influence every American citizen is provided in the right to vote has been stripped of its inherent bargaining power.

Clinton has profited off of this rigged system more than any other candidate this election. She managed to raise more money than Sen. Bernie Sanders’ grassroots campaign with the use of SuperPACs, including a controversial joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which laundered money to the Clinton campaign. The Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 releases revealed that the DNC strategized and actively worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign while working against Sanders.

The Democratic National Convention was privately funded for the first time, while the donors are still hidden in anonymity by Democratic Party leaders. Despite accusations of favoritism and corruption over former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s leadership as early as September 2015 from Sanders supporters, no remedy was provided until after Clinton secured the nomination. As soon as Wasserman Schultz resigned, Clinton hired her, sending a message to establishment loyalists that they will be taken care of as long as their actions help maintain the status quo..

Trump’s presidential campaign has been fueled by the media sensationalism surrounding his uncensored mouth. The disdain and resentment for Trump within the Republican Party establishment is based less on his policies, and more on his inability to adhere to what the Republican Party establishment wants him to do. His recent drop in the polls has been driven by the mainstream media’s full court presson his campaign, while Clinton also happens to be running for president, but is rarely placed under a critical eye.

Regardless of the flaws Trump has as a presidential candidate, Clinton has received a free pass from any criticism. She has won endorsements from billionaires Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban and Michael Bloomberg while still claiming to be a fighter for the middle class. Her retort to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” epitomizes her out-of-touch elitism that “America is already great.” For millions of Americans who live under or near the poverty line, things continue to spiral on a downward trajectory, with neither Trump or Clinton capable of doing anything but making things worse.

The idea that the elections are rigged isn’t ridiculous, as Obama claims. His attempt to dignify the allegations with a soothing response confirms that he knows the anti-establishment sentiment in the American public is worsening. Instead of admitting that there is some truth to Trump’s clunky claim, Obama felt compelled to pacify those sentiments as hysterical. But they aren’t. The elections are rigged, because the voice of the average American is silenced, and millions of voters are disenfranchised. Along with the mainstream media, the establishment in both political parties will continually fail to restore Americans’ trust in a system overtly rigged to work against them by endlessly preserving the status quo.

(Courtesy: Observer Media)

COME WHAT MAY, I'M READY!
The final hearing of my house demolition case which has entered the 19th year will come up in the Sikkim High Court on July 19, 2016. I have been fair, patient and law-abiding for nearly two decades. I am ready for talks but there will be no compromise on the basic issues of Sikkim and the Sikkimese. 
I am innocent and the gist of the case, placed below, has already been placed before the authorities, including the High Court and the Sikkim Chief Minister:
GIST OF JIGME N. KAZI’S OBSERVER BUILDING, NAM NANG SITE CASE
Jigme N. Kazi’s Observer Building site dispute at Nam Nang, Gangtok, which began in 1998, has been going on for 18 years. The case has been built on an allegation against Jigme N. Kazi levelled by Urban Development and Housing Department (UD&HD) and upheld by Buildings & Housing Department (B&HD) and various authorities, including courts. A section of the encroached portion of the building was demolished by the Sikkim Government on March 23, 24, 2015.
The gist of the case is as follows:
1. In 1996 a site measuring 1089 sq. ft. was allotted to Jigme N. Kazi’s Hill Media Publications, publishers of Sikkim Observer, an independent English weekly established in 1986.
2. Due to various reasons Kazi encroached some portion of the land/space on all four sides of his building. The space – and not land – encroached on first and second storeys of the building is around 1,400 to 1,600 sq. ft. On the ground floor the encroached area is less than 300 sq. ft.
3. On 20.12.2000 UD&HD alleged that Kazi had encroached 1,628 sq. ft. of land at the back side of the building which was to be used for Chintan Bhawan’s banquet-cum-conference hall. (Annexure – I)
4. In his letter to the East District Collector, dated 05.04.2001, Principal Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary, B&HD, alleged Kazi had encroached an area of land measuring 1,628 sq. ft. “at the back side his building which falls under the Assembly complex.” (Annexure – II)
5. In his show cause notice to Kazi, dated 07.06.2001, Principal Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary, B&HD, alleged: “...you have encroached upon an area measuring 1628 sft. of land beside the allotted site.” (Annexure – III)
6. While sketch map on site encroachment provided by UD&HD and accepted by B&HD show that area encroached is on all four sides of the building, the two departments alleged that the encroached area (1,628 sq. ft.) of land falls at the back side of the building. UD&HD map shows that the encroached area at the back side of the building and outside the retaining wall and boundary fencing of Chintan Bhawan is only 834.75 sq. ft. and not 1,628 sq. ft. as alleged. (Annexure – IV)
7. The contradictory and misleading information provided by UD&HD and B&HD and upheld by the courts is false, baseless and mischievous.
8. When the case came up in East DC court (Prescribed Authority) in 2005 Kazi asked for re-inspection of the site to show the encroached portion. The Commission formed by the DC undertook a joint inspection of the site. The report of the Commission pointed out that an area of 1,449 sq. ft. and not 1, 628 sq. ft., had been encroached on all four sides. However, DC’s order did not take note of the Commission’s report and ordered for demolition of the encroached area. Commission’s report and sketch map is annexed as Annexure – V.
9. In 2003 Kazi’s Review Petition in the Sikkim High Court pointed out that only 834.75 sq. ft. and not 1,628 sq. ft. had been encroached at the back side of the building. But the court failed to take note of this plea and upheld its order of 2003 that the area measuring 1,628 sq. ft. of land at the back side of the building should be vacated and handed over to government for construction of banquet hall. Such a huge area of land at the back side of Kazi’s building is non-existent.
10. Though the same facts of the actual area of encroachment was presented to the Law Department’s Appellate Authority it did not take note of them and upheld the earlier orders of the courts and dismissed the petition in June 2014. Kazi came to know of the order only on March 6, 2015.
11. When the encroached portion of the building was demolished on March 23, 24, 2015 the authorities failed to find 1,628 sq. ft. of encroached land at the back side of Kazi’s building. Sketch maps and photographs show areas demolished on all three sides of the building. (Annexure – VI)
12. The Sikkim High Court, while staying further demolition of the building, called for all records of the disputed site. The records show that Kazi had not encroached 1,628 sq. ft. of land at the back side of the building. The encroached area of a few feet wide which is on all sides of the building is of no use to the government. As per law the encroached portion may be regularised as done in similar cases.
13. There have been many judgements in the case but justice has been denied.

Pradip Singhania Jigme my heart breaks to see what you are going through. Wish you and family all the best during these trying times.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Althea Cole All the best ...............keep at it

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Jigme N Kazi Let all the hypocrites in India see what is happening in Sikkim. India is a great country and the Indians are great people but they are ruled by petty politicians and corrupt bureaucrats. Let the national media see what is happening in Sikkim and suffer in silence. That is the real face of India and Sikkim. I'm a simple person and my greed is limited. So I can take the heat. Cheers!

Like · Reply · 58 mins

Jigme N Kazi “I am confident that I will fulfill my task as a writer under all circumstances…No one can bar the way to truth and to advance its cause I am ready to accept even death.”
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

HISTORY REVISITED

With Brexit a reality, a look back at six Indian referendums (and one that never happened)

India, unlike Europe, doesn’t take chances. Referendums were called only when the result was known.

Jun 24, 2016 · 06:35 pm  Updated Jun 24, 2016 · 07:11 pm

Shoaib Daniyal

Image credit:  Alice Kandell

Brexit – or the British exit from the European Union – has become a reality. In a referendum conducted on Thursday, 52% of voters opted to leave the EU. One of the the most significant referendum in Europe's history, it’s also one in a long line of such exercises. Since 1973, the continent has seen 54 instances where citizens have decided policy – mostly related to the European Union – via a vote.

The rest of the world, however, isn’t too keen on them. Most Indians, for example, wouldn’t even know what to make of it without maybe a quick peek at Wikipedia. But it isn't like they haven’t happened. The Indian subcontinent has actually seen six of them, with one pending referendum in Kashmir being the cause of great friction between India and Pakistan.

Three of the six – Sylhet, Junagadh and North Western Frontier Province – were held in 1947 as British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. Referendums have also been held in Sikkim and Pondicherry to decide if they wanted to be a part of India. In 1967, Goa voted to not be included in Maharashtra, establishing their Konkani identity as distinct from Marathi. And if Arvind Kejriwal has his way, there might be another on its way: a referendum to decide if Delhi wants full statehood.

Unlike the Brexit, however, all but one – the Goa referendum – had what one could call managed outcomes: their results were mostly known even before the first vote was cast. Nevertheless, each referendum was a result of a fascinating series of historical events and bears recounting.

North-Western Frontier Province and Sylhet
Though Britain has just exited the European Union after an orderly referendum, Indians were not given such democratic options as the former colonial power exited its empire 1947. After plans for a United India fell through, a partition scheme was drawn up by a Malayali civil servant VP Menon who served as the Constitutional Adviser to the Viceroy and had Vallabhbhai Patel's confidence. This came to be known as the June 3 plan (which is when it was announced) or the Mountbatten Plan, after India’s last viceroy.

Ordinary Indians had little choice in the matter. Congressmen and Leaguers, themselves elected by a very narrow franchise at the time, simply decided the matter amongst themselves, electing to partition Bengal and Punjab. People like the Tamils and Sindhis weren’t even asked their opinion and were simply bundled wholesale from the Raj to either India or Pakistan.

However, there were two exceptions: Sylhet and the North-West Frontier Province, currently on the Pakistan-Afghan border, both of saw referendums. One of these, the one in the NWFP, was a farce, since the Congress boycotted it. If they had participated, the Congress would have had a good chance of winning ‒ it was the only Muslim province where they had a ministry in 1947. But the Congress did not want an East Pakistan-style situation where India had a distant satellite province. This led NWPF leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to dolefully declare, “You have thrown us to the dogs.”

The case of Sylhet in 1947 was even curiouser. Then in Assam and now in Bangladesh, it was the only district which got its own vote, out of the blue, even as British India’s largest province Bengal was simply slashed with so much as a by your leave. How then did Sylhet get such special treatment?

Sylhet was a Muslim-majority district within a Hindu-majority Assam. Apart from the religious divide, there was also a linguistic one. Muslims in Sylhet either spoke the Sylheti language or were Bengalis from eastern Bengal. Given this, the Congress in Assam, controlled by upper caste Axomiya Hindus of Upper Assam, were in many ways keen to see Sylhet be shunted out of the province, helping make their political position stronger in a more homogenous province. In discussions with the British Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, therefore, Assam’s Prime Minister Gopinath Bordoloi said that it was his desire to “hand over Sylhet to East Bengal”.

As a result, during the referendum, the Congress, which otherwise had an excellent network in Assam, didn’t really support the “in” side, which mostly consisted of local Sylheti Hindus. In the end, Sylhet voted to break away from Assam and join what was then East Pakistan.

However, the politics over language and religion didn’t die out with the exit of Sylhet. In fact, the recent Bharatiya Janata Party win in Assam announced on May 19, 2016, was driven by the exact same xenophobic fears of Muslim Bengalis as those that pushed the Congress to welcome the Sylhet plebiscite in 1947.

Junagadh and Kashmir
The British might have been the paramount power in the subcontinent since 1757 but come the Brexit of 1947, it dawned on everyone that they directly only controlled three-fifths of the subcontinent’s land area. Even as India and Pakistan achieved independence, so did a massive 562 princely states from British rule. Here, the last Viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten, who had close links with the Congress and a personal friendship with Nehru, stepped in.

On July 25, 1947, he called a special session of the Chamber of the Princes and, in his capacity as the Crown’s representative, urged them to merge with India – a successful move, as most states, awed by an appeal from a man who was both Viceroy and cousin to the King of England, signed the instrument of accession with India. Travancore and Jodhpur caused some trouble but negotiations led by Mountbatten eventually won them over.

Three states, however, still held out: Hyderabad, Kashmir and the tiny principality of Junagadh. On November 1, 1947, Mountbatten offered to Jinnah, with Congress backing, an option of a plebiscite in all three states. Jinnah refused, arguing legally that the Independence of India Act gave the ruler and not the people the option to decide – a curious position given that Pakistan’s weak military strength meant that this was an offer Jinnah should have jumped on.

Mountbatten handled the negotiations with Hyderabad but failed to convince the Nizam, leading to the Indian Army invading and annexing the state to India in September 1948.

In Junagadh, the Muslim nawab, a man whose only love, it seems, were animals (he had hundreds of dogs and preserved the Asiatic lion at Gir) opted for Pakistan. In return, Pakistan till this day recognises his claim to Junagadh – a fairly hopeless campaign whose only mark now seems to be thiswebsite.

The nawab's accession might have been technically legal but given that Junagadh was in the middle of Gujarat, with no border with Pakistan, this went squarely against India’s interests. Supported by India, on October 24, 1947, volunteers rose up against the nawab and captured the tiny state. On February 20, 1948, India conducted a plebiscite in which a little more than 2 lakh people voted. India won the vote, with a grand total of 91 people opting for Pakistan.

It wasn’t over though. In many ways, this suited Pakistan. Junagadh was a tiny principality. The real prize was Kashmir. Would the referendum in Junagadh set a precedent for Kashmir – a mirror image of the Gujarati state, with a Hindu king and a Muslim-majority populace? On September 22, 1947, Pakistan’s prime minister asked a Mountbatten aide, “Why, if it was suggested that a referendum should be held in Junagadh one should not be held in Kashmir?”

Kashmir, meanwhile, saw large-scale insurrections against its maharaja in August 1947. Taking advantage of this, Pathan tribesmen, supported and armed by Pakistan, streamed into Kashmir. The Maharaja panicked and acceded to India, which accepted his decision provisionally, subject to the caveat that a plebiscite would take place later, after the invaders had been drive out. The invaders were never driven out – the western half of Jammu and Kashmir is still under Pakistani control.

While Jawaharlal Nehru did make promises of a plebiscite, given that most commentators assumed India would lose, he didn’t pursue it with any real heart. In 1953, all hopes for a referendum were snuffed out as Nehru ousted Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir’s tallest leaders, from the post of prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir and proceeded to imprisonhim for 11 years.

Sikkim and Pondicherry
The most contentious referendum in the subcontinent took place not, paradoxically, during the bitter 1947 partition but in the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim in 1975. In 1947, a popular vote in Sikkim actually rejected merger with India and relations continued with Delhi much as they had under the British Raj. Sikkim was a protectorate of India, with Delhi handling Gangtok’s defence and foreign affairs – an arrangement quite similar to Bhutan today.

After the 1962 Indo-China war, though, things changed – made worse in the 1970s by the Sikkimese king, the Chogyal making moves to free his country from Indian control. Indira Gandhi, though, was having none of that. In April, 1975, with intrigue lashing the tiny kingdom, the Indian Army took control of the Chogyal’s palace. A highly controversial referendum was then held on the question of the abolishment of the monarchy and, practically, merger with India. A whopping 98% opted for India. So clouded was this move that no less than an Indian Prime Minister, Morarji Desai, admitted that India’s annexation of Sikkim was “not a desirable step”.

In contrast, Pondicherry, a tiny French colony on India’s south-east coast was the least contentious and most democratic of India’s referendums. The will of the people to merge with India was clear. On October 18, 1954, of 178 legislators, 170 voted to accede with India

Goa
In 1967, six years after the Indian Army had expelled the Portuguese from their Indian colonies, Goa voted to decide whether it would remain a Union territory or be merged with Maharashtra.

Much of the Goan question centered around the the linguistic issue of whether Konkani should be considered a dialect of Marathi. Given the consensus around linguistic states in India, classifying it as a dialect meant merger. Of course, like all issues of socio-lingusitics, the language question also hid a social schism – in Goa this divide was between Hindus and Christians. The former were seen to be more keen on a merger.

In the end, Goans stuck to their Konkani identity and decided by a majority of 54% to not merge their homeland with Maharashtra.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

In Praise of Salmons

Tashi Wangdi

Sometimes I am grateful to the many benefits and opportunities I take for granted. Nobody wants to know or investigate how and when we were fortunate to be beneficiaries. It is always owed to a few people, unsung and yet unmindful, who had the moral uprightness to stand up for what they believed as unjust, unwarranted such that it changed the course of our lives for better. These people lead their lives without the pomp and ceremony only to speak when the equilibrium of their scales get upset.

   I like to refer to this tribe of people as salmons, the fish that swims upstream to spawn after travelling across oceans. What feat of nature or madness of flesh that salmons must endure thousands of miles of journey and predators along the way only to swim against the current and give birth where its own life once began. Thus continuing a natural heritage and imprinting the future generations with the same genes.

   Most of us are happy in a herd and go where others go. Our direction is bereft of independent action and limited to that of the herd. We take the softer option, pluck the low hanging fruit and walk the much-traversed path. Our souls are anemic, irreverence is not our creed, stubbornness of heart not an ideal and perseverance not cheered upon.

   Unbeknownst to most of us it is this very irreverence, stubbornness and perseverance of these salmons so adept in swimming up current that ironically ensures that people like you and I continue to live in our cushioned world without exertion or need to invoke our rights. To have a meaningful progressive society it is therefore imperative to have the naysayers, to ponder on an alternative view and champion an incorruptible voice of courage.

   One such salmon I know swims everyday upstream in the streets of Gangtok and our well being as Sikkimese people, however immediate or remote is somehow somewhere connected to his very existence and his name is Jigme N. Kazi. He is the holder of our conscience and keeper of our stories. There could not have been a more apt tribute than Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, the author of “Smash and Grab – Annexation of Sikkim”, a Bible for Sikkimese students in those days, when he anointed  him as a true and loyal son of Sikkim.

(Courtesy: TALK SIKKIM, The People’s Magazine, Vol. 6. No. 5, September 2013)

LET US RENEW OUR BONDING: 
Over the years and since its formal formation in 1984 the Sikkim Hermonites Association has been a nucleus for the fulfilment of our motto: 'closeness for life' for all Hermonites. 
Those of us who are aware Sikkim Hermonites played a crucial and leading role in the successful celebrations of the school's 100th anniversary in November 1995.

Even as we continue our cherished tradition of preserving our closeness, friendship and camaraderie we meet again on March 14, 2014, just three days after our beloved alma mater's 121st Birthday, to welcome Lucinda Gibbs (Cindy is St. Paul's former Rector Mr. Gibbs' daughter), Pradip Verma (SC 1971) and Mr. Mapley's daughter, Margaret Mapley. They now live in Ireland and UK. The venue is our favourite haunt - Hotel Tashi Delek, located in the heart of the town.

During the reunion we would like to nominate Uttam Pradhan as the next President of Sikkim Hermonites. Uttam has been ably assisting our President Karma Bhutia for a long time and many of us feel that Karma needs a break and Uttam needs a 'promotion'! Both have recently retired from government service.

Karma has done a lot for the Hermonites in general and Sikkim Hermonites in particular. He has provided us sound and effective leadership over the years and we are thankful to him and his family.
Hopefully, the younger Hermonites will combine their strength with the older lot and take us to greater heights. We would like to urge all of them to join us at the reunion dinner on March 14.
You may brings your own booze and there will be some singing session as well!
Cheers!!

Birthday message for MH: ‘RIDE THROUGH THE STORM’

In his last message to me and my situation, Rev. David G. Stewart, our beloved Principal who passed away in December 2014, advised me:  “Ride Through The Storm.”

I believe that his advice is not only applicable to me but also to our beloved alma mater, which is passing through perhaps the worst period ever since its birth on March 11, 1895.

So, my fellow Hermonites, and to our beloved MH:  no matter what you are facing and the situation you are in just remember what Mr. Stewart said, “Ride through the storm.”

Mrs. Welthy Honsinger Fisher, wife of one of our Founders, Bishop Frederick Bohn Fisher, during her Speech Day address in MH in mid-’60s reminded us: “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”

MH’s history right from the very beginning was a tough one. Just a few years after it began in a cottage near Chowrasta in Darjeeling on March 11, 1895 a number of its students died when the school building collapsed in the 1898’s disastrous earthquake. The school was then called ‘Arcadia’.

But our Founder Miss Emma Knowles did not give up. With God on her side and with a firm determination to continue her mission she began the Queen’s Hill School just above the railway station in Darjeeling.

By 1920s the school was growing and expanding and needed a bigger place. Miss Knowles, assisted by Miss CJ Stahl, shifted the school to the present location. In 1929 the school was renamed Mount Hermon School.

Mt. Hermon went through a difficult phase after the 1935 earthquake and during the IInd World War. But somehow MH pulled through and it was Rev. Stewart (Principal 1953-1963), who made MH one of the top boarding schools in India.

Mr. GA Murray, Rev. JA Johnston and later Mr. Jeff Gardner, assisted by loyal, able and dedicated staff, kept MH’s flag flying high.

Hermonites all over the world know that our school is passing through a tough time. When the going gets tough the tough gets going. MH was born tough. On its 121^st birthday let us all wish her the very best and remind her to “Ride through the storm.”

Hail Mt. Hermon!

March 11, 2016

"ULTIMATELY TRUTH WILL PREVAIL," said Union Minister Harsh Vardhan while speaking at a function of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ) in New Delhi recently. 
I took the opportunity to present my book, "The Lone Warrior: Exiled In My Homeland", to the Minister and Union Minister Dr. Mahesh Sharma. 
The Federation has sought Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh's "personal intervention" on the issue regarding demolition of my press-cum-residential building in Gangtok.
In a letter to the Home Minister, the Federation said,"We..appeal to the Union Government to give justice" and ensure "speedy resolution" on the matter.
"Mr. Kazi is well known for his fight for Press Freedom" and "independent stand" in "his career spanning 33 years in the Press," the letter said.
In my appeal to the Sikkim Government, I had said, "There have been many judgements in the case but justice has been denied."