Saturday, August 1, 2020

Russia celebrates 75 years of Soviet Victory over Nazi Germany

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Russia celebrates 75 years of Soviet Victory over Nazi Germany

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 1, 2020

URL

2020 Moscow Victory Day Parade

2020 Moscow Victory Day Parade : Source: The Presidential Press and Information Office via Wikimedia

On June 24, 1945, Joseph Stalin, former Soviet Union leader stood on top of Vladimir Lenin's tomb and watched Marshal Georgy Zhukov review the ground armored force that defeated Nazi Germany in the World War-II. That was the first Victory Day Parade to celebrate the most glorious moment in the Soviet history.

Exactly 75 year later, on June 24, 2020, the 75th anniversary of that great victory was celebrated with a lot of fanfare during another grand parade which was reviewed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, war veterans and guests. Leaders form many countries also joined as guests during the event.

2020 Moscow Victory Day Parade : Source: The Presidential Press and Information Office via Wikimedia

Troops from 13 foreign armies including India, China, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia march through the iconic Red Square along with nearly 14,000 members of Russian Armed Forces. About 300 military assets including T34 , legendary tank of Soviet Union era and T-14 Armata, Russian military’s most advanced battle tank were present.

2020 Moscow Victory Day Parade : Source: The Presidential Press and Information Office via Wikimedia

A host of aircrafts including Su-57, the secretive stealth fighter jet which is set to join the Russian air force in future was also on display. Iconic aircrafts like the Tu-95 and the Tu-160 also flew over the Red Square.

2020 Moscow Victory Day Parade : Source: The Presidential Press and Information Office via Wikimedia

While addressing the attendees and the guests at the event, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed how important the role of the Soviet Union had been in fighting Nazism. "It is impossible even to imagine what would have become of the world if the Red Army had not come to its defense. Its soldiers needed neither the war nor other countries, nor glory, nor honors. They strove to crush the enemy, achieve the victory and return home. And they paid an irretrievable price for the freedom of Europe." The Russian President had earlier urged the West to acknowledge the Soviet Union’s role in the fight against Nazism.

The Soviet-era and the events of WW2 still play a pivotal role in the lives of Russians. As per a poll by the independent Levada Centre in Moscow, 75% Russians believe that the Soviet era was the best time in the country’s history.

Putin harnesses this Soviet-era influence amongst Russians and employs Victory Day celebrations to arouse patriotism and support amongst the Russians. This year due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, he went to great lengths to ensure smooth organization of the annual parade.

The Western countries remain critical of the event, reminding us of the competing narratives of Russia and the West regarding World War 2 politics.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More