The drives of white nationalism in the US and Hindu nationalism in India are found to be significantly similar in aim and methods. Witnessed in two large nations that are alike too in diversity and in constitutions, the two drives violate statutory norms as also the norms of democracy and equality acknowledged by the world. Contrasting these drives with Gandhi’s vision of partnership and mutual respect among communities and races is illuminating. It may be seen, in addition, that both white (...) nationalism and Hindu nationalism rest on a falsification of history. Stirring up and employing a sentiment of majority victimhood, and another sentiment of dislike for the minority “other,” the two drives present a challenge to all who regard humanity as one and human beings as equal. (shrink)

Animals and War: Confronting the Military-Animal Industrial Complex is the first book to examine how nonhuman animals are used in war and the military. Animals and War contributes significantly to the fields of social justice, animal rights, and anti-war/peace activist communities. This book also will be read by peace, conflict, social justice, and critical animal studies scholars, students, and practitioners.

Research ethics committees (RECs) have played a crucial role in expediting the review of research protocols amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic. To improve their performance and identify areas of enhancement, a multicentric study was conducted in India by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP). The study aimed to evaluate the preparedness of Indian RECs during the COVID‐19 outbreak while conducting protocol reviews and comprehend the challenges they encountered. After obtaining ethics committee approval, a (...) cross‐sectional observational study was conducted using two validated questionnaires, one for REC member secretaries/chairpersons and another for REC members. The questionnaires consisted of 13 multiple‐choice questions, 10 yes or no questions, and 2 open‐ended questions each. The study was distributed to multiple RECs. A total of 109/200 participants, including 13 REC member secretaries, 12 chairpersons and 84 REC members from a total of 34 REC's, consented to participate in the study. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, 23/25 (92%) of the RECs conducted online meetings. The most common challenges faced by RECs included risk‐benefit analysis (12/25 RECs), review of informed consent (12/25 RECs), and protocols involving vulnerable populations (10/25 RECs). 65% of the REC members reported the need for ethics review training, and 66/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that RECs require training in COVID‐19 protocol review. Additionally, 62/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that central/joint RECs should review multicenter COVID‐19 protocols. RECs in India encountered difficulties while reviewing risk‐benefit analyses, informed consent documents (ICDs), and COVID‐19 protocols and they suggested providing training on these topics. (shrink)