Goanet Digest, Vol 21, Issue 109

Send Goanet mailing list submissions to
	[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Goanet digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Read: "No Empire. No Kings." (Vivek Pinto)
   2. Read: "Chhattisgarh: As Supreme Court Backs Posters Banning
      Entry of 'Converted Christians', Where Are the Gram Sabha
      Orders?" (Vivek Pinto)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:18:58 +0900
From: Vivek Pinto <[email protected]>
To: Goanet <[email protected]>
Subject: [Goanet] Read: "No Empire. No Kings."
Message-ID:
	<CAH3OY9wwoq5hUMdv9Xk9Mf3ayGZFwuj5+UukwsqJXHamGNHO7g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

By: Peter Beinart - Mr. Beinart is a contributing Opinion writer at The
Times.
Published in: *The New York Times*
Date: March 3, 2026

President Trump has offered various explanations
<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack>
 for attacking Iran: the regime?s nuclear program, its proxies? history of
attacks on U.S. troops, its repression of its people. He offered a
different set of explanations for attacking Venezuela: its suspected role
in drug smuggling
<https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4370431/trump-announces-us-militarys-capture-of-maduro/>,
and what he called its theft
<https://www.factcheck.org/2026/01/explaining-trumps-claim-that-venezuela-stole-u-s-oil/>
 of ?our? oil. He?s also provided justifications for wanting to acquire
Greenland, reassert influence over the Panama Canal and even annex Canada.

These rationales share a theme: The United States should be free to remove
foreign leaders and dominate foreign lands without regard to national
sovereignty and the conventions of international law. ?My own morality. My
own mind. It?s the only thing that can stop me,? Mr. Trump told
<https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html>
 The Times.

In other words, Donald Trump?s foreign policy vision is imperialism. It?s a
global outlook that closely resembles Mr. Trump?s governing style at home ?
both feature spectacular violence and contempt for the restraints of law.

Leading Democrats once understood the link between imperialism abroad and
despotism at home. At the end of the 19th century, one of Mr. Trump?s heroes
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/>
, President William McKinley, set out to establish an American empire in
the Caribbean and the Pacific. William Jennings Bryan, McKinley?s
Democratic opponent in the presidential election of 1900, argued that these
conquests didn?t only trample the rights of those outside America?s
borders. They also endangered liberty in the United States. ?Imperialism
might expand the nation?s territory,? he said, ?but it would contract the
nation?s purpose. It is not a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is
a step backward, toward the narrow views of kings and emperors.?

Bryan?s theme was nearly as old as the United States. In the 19th century,
even as the United States spilled across the continent, stealing Native
land, massacring native populations and expanding slavery, prominent
Americans still contrasted their supposedly republican, liberty-loving
nation with imperial, despotic Europe. In 1821, John Quincy Adams warned
<https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-4-1821-speech-us-house-representatives-foreign-policy>
 that if the United States imposed its will on people in foreign lands,
?the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty
to force.? A generation later, during the Mexican-American War, Ralph Waldo
Emerson argued that domestic liberty and foreign conquest were
incompatible. ?The United States will conquer Mexico,? he wrote
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.95497/page/n235/mode/2up?q=mexico>,
?but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic, which brings him down in
turn.?

Anti-imperialism brought together Americans across the ideological
spectrum. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass
<https://jameskpolk.com/history/frederick-douglass/> and Henry David Thoreau
<https://historyofmassachusetts.org/henry-david-thoreau-arrested-for-nonpayment-of-poll-tax/>
 also opposed President James Polk?s invasion of Mexico. So did John C.
Calhoun, among the Senate?s foremost defenders of slavery. Similarly,
McKinley?s attempt to build an empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific met
opposition from both W.E.B. Du Bois
<https://academic.oup.com/book/48809/chapter-abstract/422786739?redirectedFrom=fulltext>,
a founder of the N.A.A.C.P., and the racist South Carolina senator John
Lowndes McLaurin
<http://www.ghhsapush.com/uploads/8/0/6/2/80629020/imperialism_scored_discussion_documents.pdf>
.

When America became a global superpower after World War II, presidents
largely ceased trying to incorporate territory into the country. But in the
name of fighting communism and later terrorism, they still used America?s
military to control foreign lands. In response, new generations of
anti-imperialists ? like Senator Wayne Morse
<https://waynemorsecenter.uoregon.edu/wayne-morse-and-vietnam-war>, who
opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964, and Representative Barbara Lee
<https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbaraleeagainstinvasion.htm>,
who refused to vote for the authorization of military force three days
after 9/11 ? warned that such conquests would corrupt the United States.

Critics of modern imperialism often did not carry the day. Their logic,
however, could prove potent today, as no other president in modern history
has so brazenly showcased the connection between lawlessness abroad and
lawlessness at home, as has Mr. Trump. Last September, Mr. Trump told
<https://www.rev.com/transcripts/hegseth-and-trump-address-to-military> an
audience of top military officials, ?We?re under invasion from within. No
different than a foreign enemy.? Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has said that
in January when he questioned the federal government?s actions in his
state, Mr. Trump told
<https://www.ms.now/news/walz-says-trump-compared-minneapolis-surge-to-venezuela-mission>
 him, ?it was successful in Venezuela? (the White House later denied that
Mr. Trump had made that comparison).

Anti-imperialism also enjoys broad appeal in this moment because Americans
are less afraid of external threats than they once were. When President
George W. Bush launched his war on terror, smoldering embers still burned
in Lower Manhattan. By contrast, Mr. Trump had to lard his case by reaching
back to 1979, 1983 and 2000 to find examples of Iran and its proxies
targeting Americans. Surveys suggest
<https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_DDIQ8jz.pdf#page=5>
 that Americans today are less worried about national security than they
are about civil liberties.

Imperial conquests have generally proved most popular when the U.S.
government is flush with cash. The United States went to war with Spain
during the economic boom that followed the panic of 1893. Lyndon Johnson
could pour money and troops into Vietnam because the postwar decades had
created what John Kenneth Galbraith famously called the Affluent Society, a
country with the funds to simultaneously battle communism in Southeast Asia
and poverty in the United States. When Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the
United States boasted a budget surplus
<https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/>.

Today, by contrast, the federal budget deficit is about $2 trillion, and
most Americans b
<https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/research/2026/01/what-americans-think-about-american-power-today>
elieve
<https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/research/2026/01/what-americans-think-about-american-power-today>
 that American power is in decline.

Even as his advisers reportedly urge
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-pushes-us-toward-war-with-iran-advisers-urge-focus-economy-2026-02-21/>
 Mr. Trump to focus on economic concerns at home, he?s grown infatuated
with the spectacle of American military might. As a result, he?s pursuing
wars that most Americans reject. A Reuters/Ipsos poll
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/just-one-four-americans-support-us-strikes-iran-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-03-01/>
 taken the day after the United States attacked Iran found that 56 percent
of Americans ? including 23 percent of Republicans ? think Mr. Trump relies
too heavily on force.

A revived anti-imperialist movement can rally a diverse group of Americans
? progressives who oppose attacking Iran because it violates international
law as well as America Firsters who oppose the war because they think
America?s moral obligations end at the country?s borders.

While Mr. Trump peddles a fantasy of omnipotence in which the United States
assassinates foreign leaders and bombs fishermen, anti-imperialists can
help Americans adapt to an era in which they have less power. They can
embrace a multipolar world because they don?t want America to be imperial
Rome.

As an authoritarian president launches another war, it?s time for a new
generation to raise William Jennings Bryan?s historic banner: No empire, no
kings.
Peter Beinart is a contributing Opinion writer at The Times. He is also a
professor at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New
York and an editor at large at Jewish Currents, and he writes The Beinart
Notebook, a weekly newsletter. His latest book is ?Being Jewish After the
Destruction of Gaza.?


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 21:15:10 +0900
From: Vivek Pinto <[email protected]>
To: Goanet <[email protected]>
Subject: [Goanet] Read: "Chhattisgarh: As Supreme Court Backs Posters
	Banning Entry of 'Converted Christians', Where Are the Gram Sabha
	Orders?"
Message-ID:
	<CAH3OY9whGn9qZFNSUaWNMPTnZg=JGNOXZcrwZP6vAYhZ0-CJBA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

By: Shruti Sharma
Published in: *T**he Wire*
Date: March 3, 2026
Source:
https://thewire.in/communalism/chhattisgarh-as-supreme-court-backs-posters-banning-entry-of-converted-christians-where-are-the-gram-sabha-orders
In June 2025, billboards prohibiting the entry of Christian priests and
"converted Christians" were put up in several villages in tribal areas of
Kanker district, Chhattisgarh, citing a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha.

*New Delhi:* On February 16, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition that
challenged an October 2025 ruling of the Chhattisgarh high court. The
ruling had stated
<https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chhattisgarh-hc-upholds-validity-of-banners-against-pastors-101762026037718.html>
 that billboards banning the entry of priests and ?converted Christians? in
eight villages of Kanker district of the state were ?not unconstitutional.?

In mid-June 2025, posters and hoardings were put up in various tribal
regions of Kanker district, Chhattisgarh, prohibiting the entry of
Christian priests and ?converted Christians?.

According to the petition submitted to the high court, Gram Sabha meetings
took place in Kudal village on June 25, 2025, and in Parvi village on June
26, 2025. It was claimed in the petition that resolutions were passed to
prohibit the entry of Christian priests into the villages after the
meetings.

Starting from the second week of August 2025, large boards and hoardings
began to be put up in several villages in Kanker district. These posters
stated that the villages in question fall under the Fifth Schedule and,
therefore, under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
(PESA), and so the Gram Sabhas of these villages have the right to
safeguard their culture, traditions, and identity. In light of this, the
posters proclaimed that Christian priests and ?converted tribal Christians?
were barred from entering the villages.

Interestingly, no copy of the resolution referencing this hasty action is
available in the district panchayat records.

According to the petition, hoardings were put up in at least eight
villages: Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Ghotia, Havenchur, Musurputta, and
Sulangi. Some posters also stated that tribal people were being converted
through various inducements, thus jeopardizing the traditional culture and
social framework of the village. In response to this perceived threat,
priests and ?converted Christians? from neighbouring villages were barred
from entering the village.

The petition further stated that these directives affected not only
outsiders but also Christian families residing in the same villages, who
experienced social ostracism and pressure.

?Fear among the Christian community?

Petitioner Digbal Tandi made serious allegations regarding the impact of
these posters on the ground. Tandi, a resident of Kanker district, filed a
public interest litigation in the Chhattisgarh high court on September 10,
2025. He asserted that following the installation of the posters, priests
were not only restricted from visiting other villages, but in many cases,
were even barred from entering their own villages.

The petition states that these restrictions have directly impacted the
religious activities of the Christian community. In numerous villages,
prayer meetings were disrupted, and Christian families faced social
pressure, fear, and ostracism.

The petitioner informed the court that these posters fostered an atmosphere
of fear within the Christian community, leading them to refrain from
visiting villages they previously frequented due to concerns over untoward
incidents or violence.

The petition further stated that these hoardings violated the freedom of
religion of Christian citizens and their right to move freely within the
country. The petitioner contended that this is not only a matter of
religious freedom, but also of civil dignity and security.

The petitioner also argued that the Gram Sabha possesses the right to
safeguard matters and traditions related to water, forests, and land under
the PESA Act. However, this right does not supersede a citizen?s
fundamental rights. The petition clearly explicitly stated that barring a
person from entering the village solely on the basis of their religion
violates Article 14 (equality), Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), and
Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.

The relief sought from the high court in the petition are as follows:

(i) All relevant records related to the case should be summoned.ii) The
hoardings put up in the villages be declared unconstitutional, illegal and
violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and
19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

(iii) The respondent parties be directed to remove the above-mentioned
illegal hoardings.

(iv) The respondent authorities, particularly the Collector and
Superintendent of Police of Kanker District, be directed to visit the
villages where the above-mentioned hoardings have been put up and hold
meetings with villagers/stakeholders to restore peace and harmony among
various communities, so as to instill a sense of security among the
Christian community in Kanker District.

Gram Sabha process, memorandum to the administration, and RTI

Digbal Tandi also alleged in the petition that the Gram Sabha resolutions
cited in the posters in several villages were passed without following the
prescribed legal process. On Havenchur village, the petition stated that no
announcement was made on the Gram Sabha meeting there, and local residents
were unaware that such a meeting had taken place.

The petitioner asserted that in certain instances, decisions were enforced
in the name of the Gram Sabha, which were later implemented as decisions of
the entire village.

Following these incidents, on August 11, 2025, Digbal Tandi, along with
other citizens, submitted a written memorandum to the District Collector,
Superintendent of Police, and Sub-Divisional Officer of Kanker. The
memorandum demanded action against the resolutions purportedly passed by
the Gram Sabhas and the posters put up based on them.

It stated that these resolutions were arbitrary, discriminatory, against
democratic values, and an abuse of the powers granted to Gram Sabhas under
the PESA Act.

The petition further alleged that the government machinery might be
involved in the placement of these hoardings. To substantiate this
argument, the petitioner cited a circular issued by the Director of
Panchayats on August 14, 2025, which directed the Chief Executive Officers
of District Panchayats in districts where PESA was in force to administer
an oath in Gram Sabhas regarding the protection of ?water, forest, land,?
and cultural heritage.

As stated in the petition, before this circular was issued, some
individuals associated with the ruling party instigated tribal villagers to
put up such posters and used the PESA Act to spread religious hatred
against the Christian community.

Gram Sabha order cited untraceable

On August 27, 2025, Digbal Tandi sought information from the District
Panchayat, Kanker, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, whether any
Gram Sabha had officially passed a resolution banning the entry of
Christian priests or Christians.

The response received on October 13, 2025, stated that no such resolution
was recorded in the District Panchayat?s documents. The petition stated
that despite this, posters continue to be displayed in the villages and
restrictions are being imposed based on them.

The petitioner tried to acquire copies of the Gram Sabha resolutions from
the Gram Panchayat. However, the request for copies was denied.

High court order and comments on conversion

After hearing the case, the Chhattisgarh high court, on October 28, 2025,
did not issue any order to remove the posters or declare them
unconstitutional. In its ruling, the High Court stated that the hoardings
erected to deter forced conversions through inducement or fraud cannot be
termed unconstitutional and appear to have been put up by the respective
Gram Sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of tribal
communities and the local cultural heritage.

The court also stated that the petitioners have alternative legal remedies
available under the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022.

According to the court, the petitioners can approach the Gram Sabha under
Rule 14(1) and, if they are still not satisfied, can appeal to the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Rule 14(2). The court also stated
that if the petitioners fear being prevented from entering the village or
face any threat, they can seek police protection.

During the hearing and in its order, the high court made detailed
observations regarding conversion. The court stated that religious
conversion has long been a sensitive social and political issue in India,
especially among poor, uneducated tribal and rural populations.

According to the court, when conversion becomes a matter of allurement,
pressure, or exploitation rather than a matter of personal faith, it poses
a threat to social harmony and the cultural identity of tribal communities.
The court stated that such situations can lead to tensions, social
exclusion, and sometimes even violent confrontations in villages.

?Posters are against fundamental rights?

Shalini Gera, a lawyer at the Chhattisgarh high court and a member of the
PUCL, Chhattisgarh, stated that the posters put up in villages are a direct
violation of fundamental rights.

She told *The Wire Hindi*, ?Those posters are against fundamental rights.
The PESA Act does not allow the Gram Sabha to pass any resolution that
violates fundamental rights.?

She stated that the manner in which these posters are being executed in
practice is not merely theoretical. Violence against the Christian
community is steadily on the rise.

Connecting this to a previously observed pattern, Gera said, ?We?ve seen
violence against Christians in the past. This is part of that trend.
Therefore, it?s highly regrettable that the high court ignored the social
context surrounding these events.?

Questioning the high court?s characterisation of the posters as a
?precautionary measure,? she remarked, ?The high court has said that it is
merely a precautionary measure. But I fail to comprehend what it means to
prevent. What precisely are they trying to prevent? The current situation
is such that people attending church are literally being expelled from
their homes.?

She clearly asserted that fundamental rights must not be infringed upon
under the pretext of safeguarding culture and tradition.

Petition filed in the Supreme Court and the current scenario

Challenging this high court order, the petitioner approached the Supreme
Court. However, the Supreme Court also dismissed this special leave
petition.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with
the High Court order, stating that the High Court had given the petitioners
the freedom to approach the statutory authority under the PESA Rules.

According to a *LiveLaw* report
<https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-plea-against-chhattisgarh-hc-judgment-upholding-gram-sabha-hoardings-barring-entry-of-pastors-converts-in-tribal-villages-dismissed-523293>,
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, argued that the
scope of the petition filed before the High Court was limited. However,
several new facts and aspects have been added during the Supreme Court
petition, and therefore, the High Court can be approached again.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, stated that
the high court?s comments regarding missionary activities in tribal areas
were based on no concrete evidence. He also questioned why the petitioners
were being asked to approach the Gram Sabha or any other authority.

Gonsalves also drew the court?s attention to other pending cases, including
those related to nearly 700 alleged attacks on pastors
<https://amp.scroll.in/latest/1090782/sc-dismisses-plea-against-posters-barring-entry-of-christian-pastors-in-chhattisgarh-villages>
 during prayer meetings and disputes over the funeral rites of tribal
people who converted to Christianity. He also claimed that there has not been
a single conviction in any conversion case
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFw0OGpkWqc> in Chhattisgarh in the last
10 years.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, ?You should have approached the appropriate
authority as per the rules, where the matter would have been investigated
based on affidavits, materials, and evidence.?

However, despite orders from both the Supreme Court and the high court, the
case remains open to a fundamental question: whether the religious and
constitutional rights of a citizen or community can be limited in the name
of ?protecting culture? under the PESA Act and the Fifth Schedule.

According to the allegations in the petition, these posters on the ground
are still impacting the daily lives, religious activities, and social
security of the Christian community.

Regarding the Supreme Court?s advice to the petitioners to appeal under
PESA, Shalini Gera pointed to the ground reality, stating that minority
Christians in rural areas are already under pressure. Therefore, expecting
them to appeal before the Gram Sabha is impractical.

?In the entire village, there are only one or two households that attend
church, while the rest of the village is dominated by majoritarianism,? she
said. ?We have seen that the villagers do not even allow them to attend the
Gram Sabha.?

?In such a situation, asking them to file a petition means that the court
is issuing such orders without taking into account the ground realities,?
she added.

*Translated from the Hindi original, which first appeared on The Wire Hindi
<https://thewirehindi.com/323046/chhattisgarh-villages-ban-on-entry-of-converted-christians-pastors-court/>,
by Naushin Rehman.*


End of Goanet Digest, Vol 21, Issue 109
***************************************