Blog Posts

COP21: Conquering climate change?

12/20/2015

François Hollande and John Kerry admire how Al Gore really is a lot taller than them // Ph: US State Department

Analysis Last week's climate agreement in Paris was hailed as a success by the media. But from Manchester to New York, climate campaigners worldwide are still sceptical about it. Why they are right to be concerned

Kirstine Rysbjerg Munk

When COP15, The United Nations’ World Climate conference, was hosted in Copenhagen in 2009, environmentalists from all around the world gathered in a substantial protest. The addressed message was unavoidable: “There Is No Planet B", “It is now or never”. A movement was shaped, buzzing with hope and expectation. There was hope for the rise of a better and more united world, and the expectation that COP15 would respond seriously to climate change. But despite of 50,000 protesters and the assembly of over 100 countries a consensus around a world climate agreement was far from reached.

Three days ago, on December 12 at COP21 in Paris, 196 countries finally met the aspiration of an agreement on climate change. World leaders such as American President Obama and United Nations’ Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and climate specialists such as the European Union climate chief Miguel Arias Cañete have subsequently celebrated the results of COP21 as historic and ambitious. So far this characterisation has equally dominated the media.

Nonetheless, this is not necessarily the view of all world leaders, academics or those within the climate change movement, many of whom rightly argue that this agreement might be a good start, but most significantly, that it is also not enough.

Jamie Peters, an anti-fracking campaigner from Friends of the Earth, a non-governmental organisation, described the notion of a successful COP21 as “ludicrous”. Speaking to The Manchester Magazine, he said: “This agreement is not enough to stop runaway climate change. The outcome of COP21 takes us on the road to a 3 or 4-degree warmer world. The best part [of the agreement] is the inclusion of 1.5 degrees as a target to limit warming but it is not strong and is an aspirational target rather than a binding one.
“Historically responsible countries should be clearly mandated to respond to their historical carbon debt by leading on emissions reductions and making financial transfers to aid the developing world to respond to climate change.”

Joel Smith, Activities and Development Officer at the University of Manchester Students’ Union, and who has been widely involved with local environmental campaigning, has similar points of critique towards the outcome of COP21. In an email to The Manchester Magazine, he wrote: “The worst outcome is for climate justice in that the proposed funds for mitigation – made available by the worst historic polluters – are drastically lower than required by developing countries.
“This [agreement] is a glimmer of hope. In the meantime it's down to people to keep pushing governments and industry to create the change we need for the planet to survive.”

If we aspire to conquer climate change, more serious commitment is needed.

James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and now an academic at Columbia University, told the Guardian: “It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Internationally, nationally and on a community level the climate change movement seems to agree. COP21 proved that a world agreement was feasible. But suggesting COP21 solely as a victory is not only risky but also wrong.

The agreement mostly depends on whether or not each country decides to act with respect to the world agreement. The past has shown that even binding international agreements on carbon emission cuts such as the Kyoto Protocol 1997 can fail. Thus, the fact that most of the COP21 agreement is not legally binding but instead voluntary effectively weakens the strength of the agreement.

While the results of COP 21 are promising, the ideal agreement should have included clear, binding penalties for those countries not fulfilling their quotas. Furthermore, incentives that would ensure the diminishing value of fossil fuels should be implemented on an international legally binding level.

If we aspire to conquer climate change, more serious commitment is needed. Unless this commitment becomes evident in the near future, COP21 in Paris this year risks becoming just another failed climate agreement in the line of Kyoto 1997 and Copenhagen 2009. And such a scenario is unacceptable. TMM

0 Comments

The rebel who kept Manchester safe

12/11/2015

1 Comment

Sir Peter Fahy was in charge of Greater Manchester Police for almost eight years // Ph: Antonio Rolo Duarte/ The Manchester Magazine

Exclusive In his first major interview since retiring from Greater Manchester Police, chief constable Sir Peter Fahy speaks to The Manchester Magazine about his time as a student and his 34 years fighting crime

Jeanmiguel Uva
Deputy Editor-in-chief
António Rolo Duarte
Editor-in-Chief

In the space of less than a week, Sir Peter Fahy retired from being Britain’s longest serving chief constable, was appointed CEO of the charity Retrak and became an honorary professor of criminal justice at the University of Manchester. That comes after a 34-year career in policing, in which he was knighted by the queen, changed the lives of thousands of vulnerable people around the country and influenced security policy worldwide.

We had the honour of having coffee with Sir Peter at Christies Bistro on a blustery morning a few weeks ago, while just up the road the Manchester Christmas Markets were being evacuated due to a terrorist threat. Surrounded by Gothic-style architecture of the Whitworth Building and the Old Quadrangle, and with one of the university’s Nobel Prize winners sitting just a few tables away, we felt there could be no better setting to be inspired by the words of the man who for so many years kept our city safe.

You have just retired from one of the most admirable policing careers ever. Still, many years ago you were also a student, just like us. What kind of student were you?
Well, I did a lot of volunteering but I was also on the edge of fairly extreme politics. The big thing then was South Africa and the Apartheid, and the University of Hull [where Sir Peter studied Spanish and French] had shares in Barclays bank, who were big in South Africa. So one of the things we did was we had a big campaign to try and get them to disinvest from South Africa. We actually occupied one of the university buildings and I got carried out by the police.

You got carried out by the police... So how does one go from there to a life fighting crime?
After leaving university, I worked for about three months for Arthur Andersen, a big accountancy company. And one day in London I walked down the street at lunch time and there was a newspaper that was closing that day. All the staff were standing around because they were going to be made redundant. And I looked and thought: “I’ve lost my contact with you.” So I went back to the office, put in my resignation and joined the police. I wanted to do something where I was more in contact with the community.

Was that motivation important for your work in the police later on?
Definitely. People think that a policing career is all about studying the law. It is not, really. You can go on the internet to learn about law. The big thing is to be able to relate to people, to be able to talk to people. And certainly here, when I first became chief constable of Greater Manchester, it was a very traditional force. The change I tried to drive through was a far greater commitment to neighbourhood policing, building relationships with local people and trying to make long term change by engaging with the communities.

People think that a policing career is all about studying the law. It is not, really. You can go on the internet to learn about law. The big thing is to be able to relate to people.

The police has changed quite a lot since you first joined. Now there are more regulations, more oversight as well. Do you feel that these changes have undermined in any way the effectiveness of the police?
No, I would actually say the opposite. I think greater transparency enables us, and makes policing better. Every single development I have seen in policing which has brought in more transparency, oversight and independence, has helped improve policing.

Why?
Because it forces you to be more professional. It forces you to be more accountable, it forces you to think more carefully about what you are doing. It forces you to think about your justification because you have to explain it. And by having more oversight and more independence, you get more people coming in, who will then challenge you with new ideas. And the other thing is that for police to be effective, you have to have legitimacy.

Speaking of legitimacy, the UK is the country with the highest level of CCTV cameras per capita in the world. Is this a good thing?
In my entire police career I cannot ever remember anyone complaining about CCTV cameras, if anything it was always the opposite. For me, the strength of the oversight is very important. There should be no problem whatsoever for anybody to walk into the control room at Manchester City Council to see all the CCTV cameras, how are they are operated and what are the safeguards. You know, let’s be completely open.

More cameras have not made the student population less concerned about crime, especially crime towards women. Every year a number of rape cases are reported in student areas like Fallowfield. Has the police in Manchester failed us students in dealing with rape?
No, I do not think so. One of the changes we brought through in Greater Manchester Police was a huge commitment to dealing with vulnerable people, particularly with sexual offences. What you always have to remember within the offence of rape, is that sadly most rapes are between people known to one another. The impression always is that this is about a stranger being attacked in the street. Those cases are actually pretty rare. And it can just be “I met this lad in a bar and we had quite a lot to drink together and we were getting on pretty well and I went back to his flat and I never wanted this to happen” but that is sadly what most of the rapes are, cases between people who are known to one another. And that does actually make it harder to investigate.

What is the solution then?
We must never get across to women that in any way you are to blame for rape. But sadly we have to say that you need to use common sense. If one of your friends goes off with a complete stranger, be concerned about it. We also have to try and find a way of students organizing themselves, of students being able to take a stand about this themselves.

Another concern of the community is the one of drugs, not only the consumption but also the dealing.
Because we have given much higher priority to protecting vulnerable people, then it is quite clear that things like drugs are taking less of a priority. Our approach to drugs has largely been about trying to prevent harm. If people complain about a drug dealer in a given area, or drug use in an area causing problems, then the police will try and address it. But it is more about education, more about trying to keep people safe.

Some would say arresting the drug dealers could keep people safe.
We can arrest dealers and they can be sent to prison, but what then happens is you disrupt the market. Because now there are other dealers who are trying to get that position so you often get violence and shootings as somebody tries to take the spot. Also, if you have taken drugs off the market the price will go up. That means some of the addicts will have to steal more things to fund their drugs. So as a police chief it does cause you quite a lot of agony about what is the right thing to do, I certainly don’t think legalization is an answer…

Sorry, why not?
Because I cannot see that that will actually solve the problem of the violence and the crime that drug dealing generates. The people who are dealing the drugs are not suddenly going and operate a soup shop or open a supermarket. All that will happen is that they will try and gain different substances, they will try to undercut the official price and they will go more into some of the other substances. And also I do not think as a society we can give a green light to people putting dangerous things into their body.

Antonio Rolo Duarte, Jeanmiguel Uva and Sir Peter Fahy // Ph: TMM

Sir Peter Fahy lecturing at the University of Manchester // Ph: TMM

70,000 police jobs were eliminated in the last coalition government. Nevertheless crime is still relatively low overall. Does this mean austerity is working?
No, I think what it shows and what research has shown for quite a long time is that the number of police have little impact on the level of crime. And some of that is clearly about better technology and the fact that a lot of things people used to steal are now very cheap. But I personally think that it is because people are more civilized. And I do actually think that your generation is more civilized than my generation was.

More civilized?
I am highly optimistic about your generation. Your generation takes fewer drugs, drinks less, commits less crime and is not involved in so many dodgy relationships. I think you are a lot better at communication and relationships and I think that, strangely, social media has enabled that to happen. You are also growing up in a more diverse world and you do not have all the prejudices that my generation had. Every generation will say: “it is young people who are the problem”. But actually all the evidence shows that your generation is actually a lot better than my generation.

After the Paris attacks, some American politicians argued that if the attacks had taken place in US soil the outcomes would have been very different. Due to different gun control laws, the Americans could more easily protect themselves. What do you think of that?
Nonsense, absolutely nonsense! Look at all the mass shootings they have in America. And we only hear about the more serious ones. They have mass shootings every single day. You can get very upset about Paris, but look at the number of people being killed every single day in America. No, the problem they have in America is the availability of weapons. And unfortunately the problem they have in mainland Europe, particularly in France, is the availability of military level weapons.

If a situation like the Paris attacks happened in Manchester, would the police here be prepared to respond?
I do not think we would be any better prepared to respond than the French police were.

Talking about terrorism in an interview to the Manchester Evening News, you said that “people should be realistic but not scared”. You said this before the Paris attacks. Now, after the Paris attacks, people are, understandably, scared. So does the police role change? Is it more about informing rather than preventing or reacting?
You do try and inform, you do try and calm things down. You do say to people: “be vigilant but don’t be scared”. Unfortunately terrorism produces a huge emotional reaction and some of that reaction can be pretty irrational. For instance, people will say: “it is not safe to go to Paris”. And you try to get across to them saying that actually the most dangerous thing you can do is drive a car. For women in Manchester, sadly, you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know than by a terrorist. So the most important thing is to get across that it is not essential for a police officer to have a machine gun in order for you to be safe, the most important thing is that people in a mosque or in a school are aware of what to look out for and will be prepared to tell the police if necessary.

It all goes back to the links with the community then.
Yes, you always have to be realistic that just having more and more guns will not protect you. Because it sadly did not protect people in Paris. It is about your relationship with local people, your relationships with schools and communities and places of worship. The big question about Paris is: why did nobody see it? Why did nobody say these people were planning this? The big question must be why this was being planned and nobody saw anything or said anything or felt they should tell the police.

You have to be realistic that having more and more guns will not protect you. Because it sadly did not protect people in Paris.

You retired from the police little more than a month ago. Were you happy to leave the police at this point?
I was happy certainly about leaving the police, but that was more a feeling of satisfaction that I had achieved all I wanted to achieve. Part of that is that I won some battles but there are some other battles that I did not win and did not want to keep fighting them. I am not going to succeed. I have tried, but now somebody else can try to do it.

So what is your biggest dream for the future?
My biggest dream would be that people of different faiths live peacefully together. Because unfortunately this is the root of quite a lot of dissention in the world and one of the great things about being a chief constable in a place like Manchester, is that you meet people from all sorts of religions and races, and you see the richness of them. So I think one of my biggest dreams is that people in the world from different backgrounds realize that what unites us is far stronger than what divides us.

And that links to your new job as CEO of a charity, Retrak.
Yes, Retrak is a charity which works with street children mainly in African countries. What it does is to rescue street children that want to live life on the streets, find out the reason why they left home and then hopefully reintegrate them back into their families and communities. And also trying to get them to understand that running away is not a solution to anything. When the chance came to do some work in Africa I absolutely loved it, I love Africa, I love the show of humanity and the vibrancy of the place.

Will we still see you influencing the criminal justice system though, perhaps in your new role as honorary professor at the University of Manchester?
I hope so, I believe that is one of the reasons why I wanted to get involved with the university, to see whether we can use a lot of the power of academic research and thinking to influence the criminal justice system.

As a final note, in your life you have been interviewed hundreds of times and asked many different questions. Is there a question you wish people asked you more often?
I think the difficult ones are always about your personal dilemmas, and what would you resign over.

So what would you resign over?
I hope I would resign over a political initiative that I felt would do harm to vulnerable people or where a short-term political initiative was overriding my professional judgment about the liberty of individuals. I do think that is always a difficult question. And an almost more difficult question is: what you think you should have resigned over? But I am not sure I have an answer for that one. TMM

Sir Peter Fahy is now an honorary professor of Criminal Justice at The University of Manchester.
He is also Chief Executive of Retrak, and you can find more about that at www.retrak.org

1 Comment

Syria strikes a majority

12/6/2015

0 Comments

Each air mission will cost £1 million, according to a Sky News estimate // Ph: SAC Sally Raimondo/ RAF

Analysis As British parliament sanctions air strikes on Syria with 397 votes in favour and only 223 votes against, we ask whether the gains will outweigh the losses in yet another long shot at peace in the Middle East

Richard Bolton

Fire blazes in the skies above the scorched Syrian desert. Another hospital fire bombed by Russian bombers. Innocent civilians, the collateral damage ligament to the Western bombing campaign to scourge Syrian and Iraqi fundamentalist strongholds. As the decision to launch air strikes was appealed in Parliament, what does the future hold for this region in disarray? Will our intervention make a significant difference to counteract the rise in Islamic radicalisation?

Understanding the context to the unrest in the region is key before engaging the complex interrelations in the Middle East. Dwindling economic growth and the concurrent Arab Spring uprisings engaged and inspired populations disenfranchised with the incumbent plutocratic regimes to up roots and take to the streets in the name of 'democratisation'.

It is worth noting the case of a dominant regime intervening as the exception to the successful uprisings. The Bahraini principality managed to preserve the original Monarchist state and power structures by means of outside support. When facing uprisings, Bahrain was propped up by Western neo-conservatism through a Saudi Arabian Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) proxy allied war. The allegiances preserved the authoritarian structures, preventing the power vacuums we see today in Syria.

The principle interest of western states in the Middle East seemed, at least superficially, to lie within those countries who could provide favourable contribution to their national securities. The pre-eminent factor in preserving Western energy security in Bahrain was its abundant natural resource stocks. Unfortunately for Syrian stability, Assad did not share the common features or association with other Arab states. Instead, he chose to partner with Russia and China in allegiances and so was left to the whims of revolutionary overhaul and turmoil.

We elect the representative body in the House of Commons for the very reason they make the difficult decisions others are not prepared to

The stance adopted by America toward Russia in the wake of Turkey shooting down the fighter jet emphasises the Western power assertions by the US as the world's focal hegemonic state. The distrust and antagonism paint a bleak picture of flagrant disregard for states outside of their own, caught up in selfish foreign policy agendas. Icy tensions and proxy wars reminiscent of defunct Cold War ideologies, epitomise the current distrust between the hegemonic nation states, begging the question: are the interventions really in Syria's best interest?

The fundamental agenda for much of Parliament lay with the legality of intervention in a post Iraq war environment. The establishing of a United Nations resolution underpinned the legitimacy of intervention in the region for the undecided cohorts. While the proviso for legality lies with the creation of government structures in the power vacuum void left post-Islamic State, and prior to, the Assad regime.

Given the motion 'to bomb' was passed in hast without resolute establishment of no-bombing zones for civilians, a condition Russia has violated in indiscriminate attacks on ISIL held Deir-ez-Zor amounting to civilian casualties. When juxtaposed with the lack of a credible strategy for diplomatic Syrian settlement, this only served to perpetuate the cyclical disarray we impose on the region.

These outcomes are mere repercussions and ramifications of failures to address the refugee crisis, civilian casualties, the impact of the terrorist threat, or lending enough pressure on Gulf states to become involved in resolving the issue and investigating jihadi funding, all with greater gumption than we are currently seeing. The populist voice renders it better to take action rather than pursue a course of inaction.

Jeremy Corbyn criticised the government's 'knee-jerk' reaction and objected profusely to the labelling of himself a 'terrorist sympathiser', claiming it not only undermined the severity of deliberations but demeaned the office of the Prime Minister. Corbyn desired lucid and unequivocal resolution by the United Nations to sanction military intervention in the region as precursor to any interference. The lack of apologies by Cameron exemplified the out of touch accountability and contempt his inner circle display toward lives in these regions compared with their own backyard.

Austerity measures in tandem with a engaging in war against ISIL marks a noteworthy contradiction. The claim that we cannot spend outside of our means and need to balance the budget becomes the justification for not being able to afford a public NHS, nor welfare support for the lower income classes or disabled. This is reflected in the £12 billion cuts to tax credits in the Autumn statement and reduction in public services, impacting lower income earners more likely to utilise and need them. While simultaneously, according to Sky News, each RAF mission will cost in the region of £1 million, with the allowance for differing payload operations. The disparity was emphasised by a minority from Labour and other subsidiary opposition, and in acknowledgement are labelled as 'unpatriotic' and as 'terrorist sympathisers'. The ambivalence between the dichotomies is self-evident of the untruth that 'We are all in it together'.

David Cameron with British troops in Afghanistan, 2012 // Ph: Corporal Steve Blake RLC

Lunch-time // Ph: Cpl Jamie Peters RLC / Royal Navy

The viable prospective for progress in the region appears to lie with splitting the states according to their cultural distinctions, namely Kurds to the North, a Sunni centrality and Shia to the western provinces. While, as undesirable as it may be, Bashar Al-Assad may be the only viable candidate, under Russian jurisdiction, to unify the state of Syria. Whether a unified state is the best outcome is another matter altogether. France, in the aftermath of the Parisian bombings, softened its hard line approach to Russian belligerence, and may well concede in sanctioning Assad back in as the figurehead.

Placating Russia appears the only viable alternative to all out rising tensions between the western states, although the distorted media frenzy may well blow the discrepancies out of proportion. This extends to the degree that Cameron sought to push and 'whip' the motion through Parliament to further his poise as a 'strong and active' leader of Britain, brought to bear as a member of NATO, even if this comes at the expense of his morality. Time shall tell.

The current state of affairs in the region where ISIL has been allowed to grow and establish to such an extent is the real tyranny in this situation. That is what renders divergent options of peace promoting ideals, democracy and intervention without use of force unviable in light of the context today.

While media outlets and closet politicians spring out of the woodwork, quick to judge and belittle the constitutional processes, real debate was held in Westminster for ten hours. This led to sweeping indecision and discrepancy. Contradictions were voiced amongst members of the same parties, leading to apparent splits within Labour, posing the question of two distinct Labour offshoot parties in future.

We elect the representative body in the House of Commons for the very reason they make the difficult decisions others are not prepared to. While they have to live with their choices, we can continue as if nothing significant has happened in our lives in the run up to Christmas, consciences clear in the assuring belief, we had not passed judgement over someone's life or death.

Democracy is messy, no one pretends it is not. TMM

0 Comments

The Teacup

11/26/2015

0 Comments

Illustration by Taylor Rose Evans for The Manchester Magazine

A poem by
Corina Motofeanu

The Teacup

I’d like to let it fall, see it plunging, see it smashing

shattering all over the white floor tiles

scattered all around in lumpish fragments

or minute bits which could easily hide

tiny tiny bits that I could never recover

and never glue back together.

It deserves this! I’d like to hear it crashing

with a harsh and deafening shriek

that will wander across the air

lost in the limbo of time

vanishing into the surroundings

revealing the fragility lying deep inside.

I cradle it completely with both my hands

within its structure it must be wondering

it believes itself to be protected

and inaccessible to the outside world

but my hold slackens, I can feel it

slightly slipping out of my hands.

Should I stop it now?

Who am I to intervene?

Who will fathom this collapse?

For I am fearful of the repercussions

the explanations, the blame and reproach,

the stigmatizing look of the gravity oblivious.

I will draw attention to myself. Should I risk it?

For now I have put the teacup where it belonged. TMM

0 Comments

Wembley Modi-fied

11/26/2015

1 Comment

He is considering visiting the Curry Mile next time around // Ph: Wikimedia Commons

India’s rockstar Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, attracted the love and ire of British Indians when he visited Wembley Stadium last week. We report on what happened at Wembley and what it all means

Jyotsna Mehra
in London

The Wembley Stadium in London is no stranger to enthusiastic shouts, extravaganza and incredible energy of the crowd. November 13, 2015 was no different, with the stadium packed with 60,000 desperate and excited onlookers, and glittering with a massive firework show and the pinprick lights of thousands of camera phones.

This time however, general announcements were made in Hindi and Gujarati, besides English. There were no football players, but Bollywood and Hollywood stars, including Jay Sean performing in a stadium specially lit with the colours of the Union Jack and the Indian Tiranga. The evening was chilly, but the atmosphere in Wembley was electric and resounding with loud collective chants of “Modi! Modi! Modi! ”. After a rockstar welcome in the United States, Canada, Australia and the Emirates, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi received a big and warming reception in London.

Prime Minister David Cameron, greeting the massive crowd with “Namaste Wembley”, heralded a new relationship with the BRIC nation. He recognized the contribution of British Indians to the British economy, adding that “it won’t be long before there is a British Indian Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street”. In his speech, punctuated with Hindi phrases, he extended British support for India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council and under a massive round of roaring applause told the crowd that under Mr Modi’s leadership, India’s “acche din” (quoting Mr Modi’s famous election slogan, meaning good days) are definitely coming.

Many identify with Mr Modi, the 65 year old who was once a poor vendor selling chai in a railway station but now leads the world’s largest democracy

Mr Modi delivered a historic speech to an exuberant crowd, which was emotionally charged to see the man who many believe is synonymous to hope, with numerous people dancing ecstatically wearing Modi masks. Beginning his speech in strongly accented English, Mr Modi heralded the winning combo of “Team India and Team Britain”, moving then to addressing the British Indian Diaspora in his signature oratory style, in Hindi, promising a clean, connected, strong India, and more foreign direct investment.

Inside the stadium, one could easily perceive that many see Modi as the saviour of 1.2 billion people. However, outside the stadium there was a small yet outspoken group of Sikh, Muslim, Kashmiri and Nepalese protesters, who called the highly controversial PM a “Hindu fascist”, a “terrorist” and even the Indian “Hitler”. Modi has been blamed for the 2002 Gujarat Massacre, recent violence in Punjab and growing cases of rape and religious intolerance across the country.

No country comes without its set of problems and specifically in highly diverse India, the “communal card” has always been played by supposedly secular political parties for petty political gains – leading to even greater levels of polarisation and communalism .The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) massive victory in the 2014 general election has irked traditional dynastic rulers of India’s Congress Party, which have left no stone unturned to defame the BJP government.

As we saw at Wembley last Friday, most of those abroad are happy with the BJP and they identify with Mr Modi, the 65 year old who was once a poor vendor selling chai in a railway station but now leads the world’s largest democracy. “British Indians put the ‘Great’ in Great Britain,” said Mr Cameron. Many of them moved decades ago from a poor, newly independent India and made it big for themselves in the UK. They see hope in this man, who they believe will rid the country of a long history of corruption and lead India to the place it deserves on the global platform. TMM

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Search the site...

COP21: Conquering climate change?

The rebel who kept Manchester safe

Syria strikes a majority

The Teacup

Wembley Modi-fied

features by

The manchester magazine